Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/16/2019May 16, 2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 16, 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 Absent: Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Gil Martinez, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 91 May 16, 2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, May 16th 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: (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMMK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSI0NERDEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We have a quorum of seven, Chair. CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And let the record note that I was contacted by Mr. Eastman. He had another commitment that he had to be at this morning and couldn't make it here, so... With that, addenda to the agenda. We have a long agenda. Now, there's only four items on it, but if it follows where it started, it could take most of the day, and we may not get through those four items. When it was set up, I talked with staff about the potential of having to continue the LDC amendments. I'm going to try to accommodate the public that's here today the best we can. I know it's hard to sit in this room and then never get to where you want to go. So I'd like to ask how many -- by raise of hands, how many people today are here for the generator Land Development Code issue? Okay. And how many people are here for the Baumgarten PUD? Oh, it's about the same amount. Well, I don't know how to accommodate one group for another, unfortunately. What I'd like to do is move forward with the -- try to finish. We started the Baumgarten PUD. It's first up on the agenda, and generally all of our continued items are first up on the next meeting, which is how this one's been arranged. Since there's about an even amount of people for each one, I don't see the -- it wouldn't be right to slight one group for another. We'll move forward with the Baumgarten PUD first, but instead of going to the Ave Maria SRA second, we'll go to the generator item on the LDC second. How many people here are for the Ave Maria SRA? Good. And I'd like to ask the applicant for Ave Maria if they have any objection to that arrangement. MR. YOVANOVICH: Excuse me. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. As Long as we get to it today, we'll have no objection to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good -- that's a good point. What we'll have to do is, I'm going to quiz the -- I don't think the Ave Maria one, especially without any people here, is going to take longer than one hour. So what we would do is wrap up as far as we can get with the discussion on just the generator LDC amendment, and then at 3 o'clock, if we decide to leave at 3 (sic), at 3 o'clock we will move into the SRA, and we'll finish it before we leave today. So I don't expect it to take that long, Richard. Page 2 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we should get through the generator one even with the public speakers. It's a single item. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully it will go faster. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as the calendar today goes, what time frames do we have, most of us, being able to stay? Stan, I would think you have to leave early. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About what time? COMMISSIONERCFIRZANOWSKI: About noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You okay, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I start getting tired at 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And 4 works for me. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As long as you need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have to leave as well, but I'll make phone calls during the lunch break if I need to if we have a quorum, to make sure we have a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a quorum. We have at least five of us here. We'll be good. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tentatively I want to be here for the whole day, but I may have to leave in the afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll try to leave around 4 o'clock. We'll see how things are shaping up at that time and go from there. That takes us to the Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is June 6th. Ray, do we have anything scheduled for June 6th? I know we may continue items from today. I just didn't know if we had a long agenda that day or not. While he's checking that out, does anybody know if they can't make the June 6th meeting? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, we'll have a quorum anyway. MR. BELLOWS: We will have items: Eagle Redi, a conditional use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MIR. BELLOWS: -- is one of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So June 6th we have a quorum. We're good for that. And approval for the minutes. We were sent electronically two sections or two dates. I will read those separately, and then if there's any changes, then we'll motion. April 4th, 2019, minutes, is there any changes or corrections? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Recommended by Ned. Seconded by --who made the second; Patrick? Second by Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 3 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Same action for April 18th. Anybody have any issues with April 18th minutes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval by Ned. Seconded by Joe. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Ray, the BCC report -- oh, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. If we do not have a meeting -- you said the next meeting was -- well, June 6th, and then the 20th. But, obviously, we're not going to meet July 4th, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Why wouldn't we meet July 4th? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can. But I show that on the calendar and I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would have -- we wouldn't have a meeting on -- you're right. The first meeting in July then would be not existing. You know what, we'll go to the second meeting in July with anything we have. Ray, is that consistent with what you thought? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Ray, are you ready for BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board met last Tuesday. There were no zoning section land -use items. There was an LDC amendment that was heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report: I have nothing new to report, and we will move right into our regular public advertised hearing, which is -- we have no consent items either. ***So we'll start with 9A. This item's been continued from the April 18th CCPC meeting. It's for the Baumgarten MPUD on the southwest quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak on this item today, please stand up to be sworn in. This is for the first item up, which is a planned unit development where the Pelican Nursery used to be. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last meeting we left off with -- we actually accelerated or changed our process to accommodate the speakers that were there. And we had a lot of people speak in the meeting. We didn't finish all the public speakers at that time. Since then the applicant has made some changes to the documents. We've got a new, what, another -- I think is 110 pages of documents. Some are just backup material. Page 4 of 91 May 16, 2019 So we will have public speakers, but we will go through the day as we normally would. We'll have a presentation from the applicant, the Planning Commission will ask their questions of the applicant. We will then have presentation by staff; same situation with staff and questions. After that we will finish with the public speakers for that item, and then the applicant will have an opportunity for rebuttal. Then we will go on to the second item today, which will be the generator issue. So with that in mind, Richard, it's -- oh, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission since our last meeting. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does my wife count? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think she counts. She takes care of you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just the usual emails from everybody else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are these only new disclosures, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since last time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Last time. Just a brief conversation with Chris Thornton, who's an attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No new communications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had met with the applicant and their people, especially their traffic guy. We're going to be talking about some of that today. And the only other -- I don't believe -- I think there's been some correspondence, but every bit of it has been sent to Nancy. She's distributed it to this Planning Commission, so it's all on record. I can't remember all the numbers of them that I had. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Emails from Nancy, the forwarding the correspondence, as you discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sarre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did have one phone call from a gentleman, I think, up in The Quarry or Heritage Bay. With that, I'll turn it over to you, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me is David Genson, the owner's representative; Dan Waters, the engineer for the project; Wayne Arnold, the professional planner for the project; and Norm Trebilcock, our traffic expert. We -- since the last meeting, we met with representatives of the Tuscany Cove community, which is the community just to the south. As you probably will recall, I had mentioned that we had made certain commitments to change our development standards in response to their letter from their planner. We had a subsequent meeting with them, and we did make some changes to the PUD document that I'd like to go through with you since they were changes from what was in your packet before. It shouldn't take me long to take you through those changes, and then we can open it up to any questions that you may have. The first change really relates to the setback from both the south boundary, which is Tuscany Cove, and the east boundary, which is Bent Creek, and we committed to 105 -foot setback from wherever residential is next to residential, and that occurs in two places; one in the Development Standards Table and one on the master plan. So I`ll take you through those two. You'll be able to see that the minimum setback from the PUD boundary is now 105 feet instead of what was previously 50 feet. And the one exception is we can have kind of a walkway and pathways Page 5 of 91 May 16, 2019 within that 105 feet but no actual physical structures, and that's both in the Development Standards Table and then again on the master plan we could depict that setback. So we show that 105 -foot setback where we anticipate having residential development adjacent to those properties. We also agreed to some special conditions that are in your packet as Page 19 of 19. I'll put this up in a second, but I won't be able to read it if I don't read it from here. The first is we agree to no amplified sound after 10 p.m. and no lighted recreational facilities other than low -illumination ground -mounted lighting after 10 p.m. We also agreed to both a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection to Tuscany Cove that will include a chain-link fence on both sides of that interconnect that extends a distance of about 100 feet -- or 100 feet, and we also agree to 100 -foot lineal chain-link fence on the southwest portion of the site also shown on the master plan. So you can see -- oh, that's right. You can't. We have a chain-link fence in this location that I just referred to, southwest corner, and then chain-link fences on both sides of the interconnection, and those are both -- all those three conditions I just read to you are on Page 19 of 19 of the PUD. And those are the changes we've made as a result of our meetings with representatives and previously committed to on the record the last hearing. Those are the changes we've made. You asked for some additional information to be provided, which was what was the actual master plan that was shown at the neighborhood information meeting. That's in your backup, and it's consistent with what you put up on the visualizer at the last hearing. And then you have, l think, some permitting information that was provided as part of the backup materials. With that, those are the changes that we've made to the PUD document since the last meeting. And I would -- again, we would request that you follow your staffs recommendation of approval. And with that, we'll open it up to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start with, of course, the Planning Commission. Anybody have any questions? And I know, Ned, you and I do, so let's see if the others have got something they want to get on record first. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I pretty much asked my questions last time. I'll wait to see what you guys ask, and I may follow up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: Likewise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Ned, do you want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, Mr. Yovanovich, you mentioned, I think you said 105 feet both on the east subdivision border into the south. There's a water feature also mentioned on the south. Is there going to be something in the nature of that on the east? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, partially. You can -- Mr. Fryer, you can look up on the -- well, it's probably -- you have a visual -- up on the visualizer you'll see that we have a meandering lake on the south, and then we have a lake on the east on our master plan. So those are the water features that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it also 100 feet average width? MR. YOVANOVICH: On the south it is. Well, and -- yeah, wherever we have a water feature, the average width is 100 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thankyou. The concept of an activity center, I have a few questions about this, and it's really not in an argumentative way. It's just to clear up some uncertainties that I have about what it's reasonable for the public to expect when they purchase property that is planned and it is publicly known to be planned for an activity center. The time of the Tuscany development, which is the earlier of the two, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Earlier of which two? Page 6 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Tuscany and Bent Creek. Tuscany's earlier? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, I believe it did predate Bent Creek. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Okay. So when Tuscany -- when the developers of Tuscany were selling those properties to the owners, the first owners, what was publicly known about the county plans for an activity center? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can only -- well, the Growth Management Plan had identified an activity center at this corner. It was slightly different configuration from what is there today, but it's in a master planned activity center that allows for the boundaries of the activity center to move as long as it stays within the 40 -acre quadrant that's generally described in the activity center. That was all public record at the time both of those projects went through the approval process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And what -- and I realize that it would depend upon the individual PUDs that would apply to the property in the activity center and it would vary, but what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In your experience, what would it be reasonable for the public to assume or to expect in an activity center as far as building height is concerned and density and the mixing of uses? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, activity centers, as the Growth Management Plan says, is where the most intense development is supposed to occur in Collier County. Activity centers is where commercial, since 1989, was intended to go, and that included all C 1 through C5 uses from an intensity standpoint as well as from a height standpoint. 1989 the C4 -- height for C4 was 100 feet. It got reduced sometime after the Fifth Third Bank building got built down to 75 feet. So since -- you know, since 1989 and that other change, you could have expected 75 -foot -tall buildings on this piece of property based upon the Growth Management Plan, and you could have expected commercial uses from C1 through C5. You could have expected residential density at 16 units per acre. You could have expected -- I'll use the term double dipping in activity centers, and that means you don't take out the acreage that you dedicate to commercial when you're calculating your residential density. So this is where you're supposed to have the most intense mixed-use projects within Collier County. And they were originally intended to be a mixture of residential and commercial. Up until recently, most activity centers had been commercial. If you look at the major quadrants, you usually find them at the corners of major roads, like Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. You'll note that those four quadrants developed all as commercial. The goal was to have that be a mixture. And now you're seeing -- as commercial's changing in the world, you're seeing people come back and amend commercial PVDs to go to what was originally intended with a mixture of residential and commercial in those activity centers. So we're actually -- that's what was intended since 1989, and 1 think that everybody who owns property in Collier County since then should have expected high-intensity commercial, high-intensity residential with a height expectation of up to now 75 feet because C4 is an allowed use under activity centers. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. We saw some recent correspondence to indicate that an accord of sorts has been reached with the governing -- or not the governing body, but the neighborhood association in Tuscany. Have there also been conversations with the folks in Bent Creek? MR. YOVANOVICH: We've had -- the only conversations we've had with Bent Creek, and correct me if I'm wrong, is you heard Mr. Caldwell who -- he spoke at the meeting the last time. He's with the developer of Bent Creek. And, basically, he just -- I think he said he was okay with what was being proposed as long as the setback that we provide to Tuscany Cove was consistent, and he wanted to make sure that the interconnection was a private interconnection, so we've had those conversations with the developer. We have not had -- we've obviously seen correspondence from individual residents, and I spoke Page 7 of 91 May 16, 2019 to a few of those residents at the last meeting. But that's the extent of the conversations with Bent Creek. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to ask if there are any representatives from Bent Creek today who plan on speaking? Could I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I mean -- you want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Show of hands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just would like to have public speakers later. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to see -- would those of you who are from Bent Creek and plan to speak today, would you mind raising your hands. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I haven't signed in yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You plan to speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't have conversation from the audience. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do I need to fill something out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not necessary, sir. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Let's see. Then those are the extent of the questions I have about the activity center and even, I think, compatibility except for the fact of compatibility issues that arise with regard to traffic, and I remain very concerned about that. And I'm not sure there's much of anything that can be done about it under the circumstances, but it is very troublesome to me even with accords that have been reached that the traffic that is expected on this segment -- I believe it's 43.2. And I understand that that's a one-way number of 188 peak hour trips. It's going to be almost completely eaten up by this project. And traffic there, as everyone knows, is burdensome already, and it's going to get worse. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it remains a very troublesome thing to me. Now, I understand about flyovers and other points, but I'd be remiss in not expressing my remaining concerns. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I address the concern? And, obviously, I have a feeling that Mr. Trebilcock will get up here and speak a little bit about traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we'll all do, though, is go through everything but traffic first, then when Norm comes up -- because I, too, have a lot of traffic questions. We can get them all done at one segment. We can be here for three or four hours talking about traffic. Just kidding, Norm. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Fryer, I think what is important to remember is we're getting to where Collier County ultimately was going to be from a growth standpoint, and the Comprehensive Plan was identified and set up to have these commercial nodes to serve people who were on the roads. And, in fact, I believe, and I'm sure Mr. Trebilcock will say this, is that this commercial project will actually capture trips that are already on the road'and are really not generators of traffic. They capture traffic that's already on the road going somewhere for these services. So -- and this is what was intended to happen through the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not laying any blame for this on your client. MR. YOVANOVICH: But if I can, we have become -- and I've lived here almost 30 years. We got very spoiled when we all -- a lot of us first got here. The road system, we didn't have as many people, and you could get from Point A to Point B very quickly. We have an adopted level of service in our Comprehensive Plan, and that's what things are measured by, understanding that eventually people are going to come to Collier County, and we're going to fill up, and the roads are going to operate at the adopted level of service, and that's where we are getting to that point. So the Growth Management Plan has, in fact, come to fruition. And, yes, it takes a little bit longer to get from Point A to Point B, but that was understood when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and we knew people were going to come to Collier County. Page 8 of 91 May 16, 2019 We are not causing any failures to the transportation system through this project. I'm not telling you we won't have traffic, and I'm not telling you it already takes time to get from Point A to Point B out east, but these types of developments will actually shorten trips. And if the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program ever gets to come to fruition like it was originally designed, it would actually change some of the transportation patterns. But right now we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that's -- and your Land Development Code and concurrency, and that's the measure. And, yes, it takes longer to get from Point A to Point B, no question, but we meet the rules and regulations that are in effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. I think we're all relying hopefully that the concept of reducing net traffic as a result of interconnected activity centers will come to pass, but I don't think we know that. I think we're at the hopeful point. Chairman, should I reserve my remaining traffic questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some, too, and we'll have that as a separate segment. And during that questioning on traffic, I think there is opportunities, based on prior consistency issues that we've done before you got on the Planning Commission and most of the others, for phasing projects that have difficult traffic issues. We might want to consider that discussion when the traffic comes up, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll reserve those questions. I still have a few more on other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. In the NIM, is the gentleman's name pronounced Genson, Mr. Genson? MR, YOVANOVICH: It is Genson. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Genson, Thank you. Mr. Genson referred to the project as a long-term hold Class A development. He cited Creekside Corners as an example of what it will likely resemble in some respects. He then said that they had gone above and beyond what Collier County requires from a code perspective, I guess, in the case of Creekside. Could you or could your client identify some specifics of how you went above and beyond the county requirements on Creekside and, most particularly, how you might be going above and beyond the requirements for Baumgarten. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know where Mr. Genson went. He was here a moment ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are other questions, and maybe we can move -- and I know if he's the one who made the statement -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He made the statement, so I'd like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine he's just out in the hall. You know, we talk about him, and he comes in. I don't know if he heard Ned's -- you may have to repeat the question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be glad to, sure. Mr. Genson, I was reading the transcript of the NIM, and I noticed some comments that you made that I wanted to ask a little bit about. You referred to this project as a long-term hold Class A development, which, of course, is encouraging to hear. You also cited Creekside Corners as an example of what this will likely resemble, I think, in some respects. I guess Creekside is not residential, though. It's all commercial, correct? MR. GENSON: For the record, David Genson with Bannon Collier Companies. No, Creekside is primarily commercial and industrial. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay, okay. But it's not residential? MR. GENSON: It's not residential. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood, thank you. All right. Then you went on to say that in Page 9 of 91 May 16, 2019 the case of Creekside, your company went above and beyond what Collier County requires from a code perspective. And I'd like to ask you in what specific respects that happened in Creekside and then, most particularly, most importantly, how you would be going above and beyond the county requirements in the Baumgarten project. MR. GENSON: Well, we -- Barron Collier's been here for over a hundred years, and we intend to be here for another hundred.years and longer. We pride ours on quality jobs that we do, and we go above and beyond on most of our projects with respect to the construction, the quality of the construction, just because that's who we are, and that's who we've always been. And so the county has their own requirements through the LDC, and we make sure that we meet those, and then we go above and beyond because we -- that's our method to keeping this county as beautiful as it should be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand the general concept. You're to be commended for it. But my question is, could you be a little more specific about how you went above and beyond on Creekside and whether in those same particular ways you're going to go above and beyond with this project. MR. GENSON: Well, I can't testify to exactly how that is, but we're going to maintain controls on anything that gets built out there to make sure that it's up to our standards. So I don't have specific items at this point in time that we can say, how that's going to happen, but I commit to you that this will be a top-quality development; that both Barron Collier and our partner, Metro Commercial, who's here, have committed to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to know if you were prepared to offer any more -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can, Mr. Fryer, for example, on this particular project, a setback of 105 feet residential to residential I guarantee you is above and beyond probably any project that I've been involved in, but I know it's well above what the code requires, as I pointed out at the last meeting what the minimum setback would be if we followed the Land Development Code straight zoning to straight zoning. That's an example. We've worked with our -- we've worked with our neighbors to make sure that the site plan, or the master plan, if you will, is comparable and first-rate quality. We did the same thing at Creekside. We spent a lot of time in that Creekside process working with both representatives, and I think Mr. Pritt was involved in that one as well. We worked with our neighbors to talk about uses that could be on the property, height, setbacks; things like that we did both at Creekside and we've done here, and those are both projects that, you know, Barron Collier was involved in. So those are examples of going above and beyond the minimum required by the LDC that we did there and that we're doing here as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do take your point on the 105 feet, and I think that is very helpful. I guess I was looking for whether the developer would be in a position to make some more specific comments about building materials and the like. If not, I can move on. I just wanted to see if that was the case. MR. YOVANOVICH: Building materials? I'm confused. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you know, when expressions are used like "first rate" or, you know, "A level," I'd like to know if there are any specifics that could be added to that. And if not, it's not essential that you do. I was just asking. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It's the quality of the tenants and the occupants of the property, the quality of the apartment developer, things like that that I would say are, you know, first rate. That's what we intended. Your code doesn't dictate that. We just meet that level of standard in what we do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When the time comes -- and I realize this is not the time -- will the developer be willing to make commitments about, for instance, length of leases and the level of vetting Page 10 of 91 May 16, 2019 that will be put into any rentals? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we talk about those -- we can talk about that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. And it's my understanding that these will be four-story buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And what about Creekside? Are they four-story there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Creekside has no residential. That's where Arthrex is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm slightly taller than four stories for the Arthrex building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Yeah, I understand. Okay. Also in the NIM it was mentioned -- a question was asked about whether there was a specific plan to put in a parking garage, and I don't think there was any -- well, Mr. Arnold said, "I don't think there's anything that would exclude us from doing it." I was wondering, have plans evolved on a parking garage? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have -- at this point there are no plans for a parking garage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One way or the other? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, but we don't have -- we're not leaning towards putting a parking garage there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And those are all the questions I have except for traffic, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I lrnow some of you are waiting for Ned and Ito finish our questions. Does anybody have any questions they'd like to interject at this time? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to clarify. And Dave Week's not here. From a standpoint of activity centers, Mr. Yovanovich explained it. But from my experience with the county, the purpose of the activity centers was to make sure that we consolidated commercial development to avoid the development of strip malls all long the streets, and that was the purpose of the reason for -- the Comp Plan identified activity centers so that they would become the focal point of development. And I don't know if the staff wants to reiterate on that, but that was the whole genesis behind -- Dave Weeks is here. I didn't see him. Dave, I think for the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody questioning that, though? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ned did. I don't know -- did you get your answer on activity centers? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe I did, yeah. Just to reiterate, I don't think we know for sure that the concept applies, but I do understand what the planning goals were, and we all hope that they are achieved, that it does result in a net reduction. So that's -- my questions were satisfactory. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I just -- Mr. Fryer, I also listed at our last meeting all of the -- and I get, they're above -and -beyond commitments we make related to transportation on this project. I just want that to be part of the answer to what are we doing above and beyond. Like we're accepting water management from the road system, we're dedicating right-of-way related to the road system. I know that goes to probably transportation -related questions, but it also it relevant to the above -and -beyond comment related to the code. And I spoke about it at the last meeting. I won't reiterate them, but I just want that to be part of the answer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. And it's fair for you to bring those up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The chain-link fence, I see one in the videos that's already there. Is that your -- Page 11 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: It's on our property, and that ultimately will go away. So the entire length of the chain-link fence will go away. It will be replaced with certain strategically placed lengths of chain-link fence. And don't forget that there's going to be the enhanced buffer along that south property line together with the, you know, average 100 -foot -wide lakes on the south boundary as well as on the east boundary. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And what about the Bent Creek side? There's nothing? No wall. They're closer to the property -- the homes are closer to the property than Tuscany Cove's homes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's nothing there? No wall? No fence? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what they have on their side to be honest with you. I'll have to check with Mr. Genson on that, but... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And you're going to have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We have not been asked by the developer of Tuscany Cove to provide any additional walls or fences along that boundary. I don't know what they have planned as part of their development, but we've not been asked for that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And there will be a specific dedication for them to interconnect? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, both -- if you look on the master plan -- and this is confusing -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I see that's potential arrows. MR. YOVANOVICH: We clearly -- Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek both have the opportunity to interconnect. I'm fairly certain Tuscany Cove is going to take advantage of that interconnection. I don't know if Bent Creek will or will not. We've made that available to them if they want to do that, and we hope that they will. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It sounded like they were looking forward to it at our last meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's there. It's absolutely there for them to do it. I, unfortunately, know through past experience, there's some people in communities that like the interconnection and some that don't, and that community itself will ultimately have to decide whether it wants to make that physical connection. I thought the only hang-up for Bent Creek was making sure it was gated, and they can clearly do that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hey, Rich. A couple issues that were brought up last meeting. I'm not sure that the answers were explained or perhaps 1 missed them, so I wanted to revisit them. There was question whether the interconnection to Bent Creek actually aligned up with the stub -out that they had created. Could you clarify that, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think people got confused. Everybody keeps seeing this highlighted roadway, and you'll note it doesn't go all the way to their property line. That really just brings internal access to that last outparcel. The actual connection will be down here where my finger is. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe someone from Bent Creek spoke to the effect that their interconnection stub -out was actually intersecting your lake below. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just above the lake. It's right where my finger is. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it does line up? MR. YOVANOVICH: It does line up. I think, again, people were so focused on that other road thinking that that was the interconnection, but it does line up with where they have open area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Another question was that the boundary of the activity center originally was more of a square in the corner, and it was redistributed and re -drawn as part of this process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was the answer to how that -- what was the process to actually redraw Page 12 of 91 May 16, 2019 that activity center boundary? MR. YOVANOVICH: The Growth Management Plan specifically refers to the ability to redraw those lines, and the way you do that is through this PUD process. The same process was used for Mercato. So you go through the PUD process to do the reconfiguration. You do not do a Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So that's all part of this process what we're reviewing today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now. COMMISSIONER FRY: This may be a question for staff. The intersection of hnmokalee and Livingston, is that an activity center comer? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is not. COMMISSIONER FRY: It is not, okay. I brought that up because that would be, I think, a great concern to all of us if we could imagine those four -- we have with the Oakes market, but other than that, you have a development on the one corner but I think two empty lots for the most part on the other corners would potentially add a lot of traffic to that corridor, which we know is already pressed. So I wanted to clarify that for everyone. Thatilc you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, on that northwest side, you've got the new and future parking lot for Seed to Table, which will hold about 200 -plus cars, Seed to Table on the northeast, and then on the southeast you've got that apartment complex. So that leaves the southwest, I think, still available, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER FRY: But it's not classified as an activity center -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for the same density of development. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a lot of areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I have. Thank you. CHAI MAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with the 102 -page supplemental report, then we'll go back to the one from last week that was 583 pages. If we go to the table that we started talking about on Page 11 of that report, you have a minimum PUD boundary setback, and you've changed from 50 to 105 feet, and that goes to the benefit of both Bent Creek and Tuscany. But if you look to the south, the bottom of that page, you'll see accessory structures, and it is an Asterisk 6, and it says, minimum PUD boundary setback 15 feet. So that means the elements in Asterisk 6 or any other unlisted potential accessory structure could be 15 feet off those two property lines; at least that's how I'm seeing it reads. And No. 6 includes community structures such as guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape, passive parks, and access control structures. They all have no required setback except as listed below and are permitted throughout the R designated areas of the PUD. So they would be 15 feet from the PUD boundary, no setbacks from other lines. But that's -- that doesn't -- I'm not sure that's in concert with what the Tuscany and Bent Creek people expected when they were told they had 105 -foot setback. So maybe we can clarify that a bit so we know what everybody's doing with those accessory structures. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. I do believe that this footnote is consistent because, obviously, access gates and things like that are going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about dumpsters? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that -- I don't see that as a structure, but we can certainly clarify that, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's an accessory. I mean -- and maybe Ray can clarify that, too. Is dumpster enclosures and dumpsters accessories to -- or are they stand-alone uses? MR. BELLOWS: Those are accessory uses. Page 13 of 91 May 16, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the kind of stuff I was worried about. And I don't see it listed there, and it's kind of like a blank, and I thought we'd catch it while we were discussing this. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, we're fine with that. Obviously, we didn't intend to put a dumpster within 105 feet of that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think before the meeting's over, I know Wayne's your planner. Maybe he could figure out some language that would address how accessory structures would be handled in that 105 square (sic) feet prior to the public speaking. That way the Tuscany's representatives know what's going on with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go to the master plan, I note that you -- and could you put the -- you had a plan up there a minute ago, a master plan with some green coloring in the corner, okay. Now, that is the platted layout of the Bent Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the residential units up to where the southern part of that road stops have got the 105 setback. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But north of that road you have an MU tract which contains uses including residential of anything from C 1 through C5, and they can go up to whatever heights you have. How far is the setback for the MU tract, that one MU tract, from the boundary line to the east to Bent Creek? Because you've got some unit lots on that radius that are not set back the full depth of the green area. They're set back on the narrower part of it, and I'm just trying to understand how those people will be covered by what you're proposing. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is 50 feet -- I'm looking right now. I found it. It's on the -- its on the table, and it's 50 feet for principal and 15 feet for accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's if you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's if it's developed as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As residential. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- actually commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commercial. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then when you go -- yes, that's the MU tract. The MU tract is -- that's the development standard for the MU tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your accessory structures there could go 15 feet, and if it's a commercial tract, a commercial structure, it would be 50 feet. But at 15 feet, you, again, have got the issue with the noise -- the dumpsters wake people up at 6 o'clock in the morning, and I'm just -- those are some of the issues that become problematic. Also, you have a restriction on noise limitations. Well, the project across the street from you is Heritage Bay, and there is a -- I don't know if it's a cafe, nightclub. I don't know what it's called. I think it's called Pelican Larry's, but I don't know what it does. When it first opened up, there was a lot of concerns over noise from that. And this MU tract could have those kind of uses on it. Would you be willing to consider a reduction in the type of uses that would go in that MU tract so we don't -- or extending the noise provisions up to that particular tract so the people -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking --I just want to make sure I understand. So you're talking about the MU tract immediately adjacent to the green? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we can work through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, before this meeting's over, those are things we need to work out. Page 14 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let me make a note of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're talking about restrictions like to outdoor amplified music on that tract, because that's the issue with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the biggest issue, yeah, and then your setbacks for accessory on that tract. Then on that same master -- and the master plan over on the left-hand side. And I'm not sure why. I thought -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Go back to this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, the most latest one. You see where it says "conceptual stormwater outfall location to Collier Boulevard canal"? That same notation was put on the previous master plan, but it was up to where the first R is to the right on another lake location. And its no problem moving those. They don't make noise. They're quiet. But that location's going to have to be reviewed and dedicated by our Stormwater Management Department and, most likely, South Florida Water Management. We don't typically put these in master plans. Did you guys require this on there? MR. YOVANOVICH: We were requested to put that on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a good idea, because just the change you just made, you'd be back in for a minor change to a master plan which was silly because it's an agency requirement. So let's just take off and not include conceptual stormwater outfall locations. Those are by regulation. It doesn't really matter where they go as long as they meet regulations. Coinciding with that, Footnote 3 on the following page, again, it refers to PUD will outfall stormwater to the Collier drainage canal. It doesn't matter where it goes as long as it meets the regulations. And you may find there's a better location than that or however else you want to do it. So, again, I would suggest that for staffs future use -- we had this issue come up a while back. I guess it got forgotten. But let's just keep the stormwater stuff off the master plans. They're for Site Development Plans. MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry. I missed the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't a question. It was a statement. Nancy heard it. Now, if we go to the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, can I go backwards for a moment on the noise issue or the sound issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Genson reminded me, we already have a provision in the special conditions regarding that. I just want to know if it's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know there is one in the new special conditions. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was actually an old Special Condition B for commercial uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got to get to it. What page is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nineteen of 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know under your fancy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I get every -- we have three different ways of distributing these documents. Mine comes in a 102 -page PDF. I've found it now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So if you see Special Condition B it talks about -- we can't even have outdoor music and televisions within 500 feet of either the southern or eastern PUD boundaries. So I'm hopeful that that addresses that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you go one step further and just simply agree not to put an eating or drinking establishment in that particular MU site? That would keep it away from the neighbors, and we won't run into the same problem we've had in other projects with outdoor seating, noise. Page 15 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll put that on the list of things to talk about, and before the public speakers, we'll come back and tell you yes or no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would set everything back so that Bent Creek's not disturbed by any of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Sorry to go backwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I go backwards every single day of my life anymore. Now let's go back to the regular -- the document that was presented to us last time, 583 pages, and I'm going to start with Page 7 of the staff report. This isn't really a traffic issue. It's a question on how we're supposed to handle it. The traffic was conditioned -- the traffic review was conditioned on the following: The companion developer agreement is required to be approved with this rezoning request. And I know the Board actually finalizes any rezoning, and I'm just wondering between us and the Board, is there proposed language that would tell us what this agreement's basic outlines are so we can include that as a stipulation? We need to know what they're going to see, and usually those are -- they are supposed to come to us. I don't know how, again, this goes forward and gets processed and that's not included in the packet when it says it should be. So somehow that's another issue I wish was resolved before today. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have talked to Ms. Scott about the business points of a developer agreement which I had gone through at the last meeting regarding giving right-of-way to the county: Traffic signal on 951, accepting the water runoff from the future overpass. Those were the things we talked about. Those were the business points that I know Mr. Klatzkow is working with Ms. Scott to get that on so that both items are heard, both the PUD and the developer agreement are heard on the same Board of County Commissioners' agenda. The reason we do this through the developer agreement instead of putting them in the PUD, because if there becomes a reason to tweak some of those conditions, you can amend an agreement much easier than going through the process of amending a PUD. So that's why you do them separate from the PUD. It was always my understanding that they would catch up at the Board level since, in our opinion, we don't need to do any of these things to meet the code requirements. They're the above -and -beyond things I talked about last time, and we are hopeful that we could just have a condition that those items be in a DCA and that they get approved by the Board at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and all I'm suggesting is that we ought to be told what they are. They could be conceptual stipulations based on final Board acceptance, and at least then we've reviewed them. And we can bring that up during the traffic point, but in order of the way these things were presented in our package, I wanted to make you aware of my concern on that issue. And also I'm not sure there's any necessarily difference in the way it could have been processed whether it was a developer agreement or in the PUD, but that's another argument for another day. MR. KLATZKOW: No, these things should be in a developer agreement. The developer agreement has nothing to do with the zoning on this property. As Richard stated, a lot of it has to do with water retention, getting the water off the overpass. I'm looking at the draft now. Access points. They're all non -zoning issues. And the problem is, we learned a hard lesson years ago; when you put these things in a PUD, when you need to make a minor change, you've got to go through an entire amended PUD process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can go through a PDI or -- MR. KLATZKOW: And its a process rather than simply amending the developer agreement and going right to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Things like changes to traffic access points, though, are considered substantial changes in the code and my -- and that's the only thing I'd like to at least know -- Page 16 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. KLATZKOW: You can condition your approval on seeing -- that's up to you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm simply asking for at least an idea today when we get to Trinity's part of this, which is not now, we get a listing of what those are and we understand them to a point we can include them as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I can read them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just wait. I'm just bringing stuff up. And when we get to the transportation section, we'll try to get into it. Unfortunately, everything was given to me in an order of 583 pages, and that's the only way I know how to follow it, so... I've got some questions of staff, so I'm going to sort those out -- we're not onto staff yet -- and just take a minute. In some of the uses you have -- and I understand you're allowed already by right by the code to go in with Cl through C5 subject to compatibility and consistency issues. And I've read through them all, and they stay within that range. I would like a cleanup on No. 107. They -- if you're going to do a self -storage, it's going to have to be indoor air conditioned. Do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the Page 7 of the PUD document -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The new one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, it's the old one, but I think -- you didn't change this section of it, so I'm still going by the old one. I can't retype everything every time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I just want to get the right document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys change things. Under the residential section, you talk about the amenity area. Now, you didn't locate the amenity area, so it's going to be within a residential -- could be within a residential building. Is that what you're most likely going to do because -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than the swimming pool. Yeah, the swimming pool's not going to be within a building. But the current plan is, now, that your typical clubhouse, if you will, will be within one of the residential buildings. But we've accommodated the location with that 105 -foot setback requirement for -- so, basically, you're not going to have an amenity area other than a walking path within 105 feet of either boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the -- and I'm now going back to the new document so I can understand the two tables. In the old table you had -- well, you made some -- in the old table you had, from the southern project boundary, your principal and accessory uses that would be mixed use, that's -- well, that's the mixed use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your amenity area was 50 feet. That's still back at 105 feet now, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be no amenity area structures, which includes the pool, within that 105 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm moving through the pages, just so you know. The questions you've already answered I'm not going to, obviously, re -ask. I'm just trying to get past all those right now. One of the items that was in one of the responses by staff sent to you, it's a traffic item, but it's really a locational piece. Ms. Gundlach said, under Revision 1, provide a development commitment that acknowledges the potential future overpass interchange at the intersection of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard including no harm/future business damages to Collier County. Where is it located in the document? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is something that's being addressed in the developer agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that will be one of the bullet points that we're told -- Page 17 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: That is one of the bullet points that we addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the master plan, if you could pull it back up, you're going to be putting a signal lining up with the Pebblebrooke Plaza across the street with that southern piece. And I -- this is somewhat of a traffic issue, but I found the discussion -- a discussion of it in the NIM. The traffic coming in from the left off Immokalee Road into this project, if they still want to continue west to Immokalee Road, they have two choices. They can go back out the entrance they came in and go down to the Wooderest and Quarry, I think it is, make a U-turn. By the way, traffic engineering is going to talk to us about the timing of that traffic light going in at Wooderest and Quarry. There is one going in there. Alternatively, they can go down to the southern point, and they could go into that right lane to make a right out of your project. The problem is, they've got to cross -- they've got six lanes of traffic coming up there. And I drive that intersection quite often. You have three lanes going left from Collier onto Immokalee, you have a straight -through lane, and you have two right lanes. And I see you scowling, but I do have the aerial that shows that. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm trying to read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering how much stacking you're going to befitting on the project and this will -- I guess it's more of a traffic question then, because your throat length there is -- I don't know how long that is. But you're going to have traffic waiting to get through that intersection because there's stacking going on on the lanes going both north, left, and right. It, many times of the day, is backed up. And I'll ask Norm, then, how he's calculated that. I guess I got off onto what I didn't want to do, is traffic at this point, so... Bent Creek Preserve Homeowners Association, they sent a letter back dated April 5th, 2019. It was in the first packet. They asked about a wall. Have you worked it out as far as the 6 -foot wall goes in your buffers between the two projects? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have not worked out a wall requirement for Bent Creek in our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The code in a Type B buffer does allow a wall. Are you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It does not require a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. How about at the MU site, since you're not going to have the 105 -foot setback? That's a small site but, again, it does protect those houses that are going to be backing up on that green space that I think now is a cell tower or was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It's getting relocated, but that's still going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not going to be a lot of protection there, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we put that on the list of we'll come back and address? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The association concurs with the county staff recommendation that the requirement of 50 -foot setback plus one additional foot for each one -foot increase of building height above 50 feet. Accordingly, a 65 -foot -high building will have a 65 -foot setback. Is that consistent with what you've included now in your table of standards? MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than we don't agree that's what it needed for consistency. We have agreed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that 105. We're more than that. We're 105 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not in the MU, though. This one -- if you look at their letter, it says No. 3, mixed-use commercial land use adjacent to the Bent Creek Preserve. Exhibit B, development standards, shows a minimum yard from eastern project boundary of 50 feet. Association concurs with county staff recommendation, the requirement of 50 -foot setback plus one is what they're looking for. Are you saying -- Page 18 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just -- Mr. Strain, I'm not -- which association? Was this the association -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bent Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: Bent Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only MU adjacent to a neighbor is at Bent Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't know if you were talking about the Tuscany Cove association comment, because they didn't agree that that was enough. So they would like us to be 50 feet plus one foot for everything over 50 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that one MU, small MU site. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not an issue for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My remaining questions will be for traffic. And just so you know, my thoughts on this is that you've got a lot of square footage, all of which, if it hit the road at the same time, would be problematic. I'm looking to consider somehow phasing. As you might recall, you were the representative at the time back when Vanderbilt -- it's now called Vanderbilt Commons. I have no idea. I think it was Carolina Village way back in the day. But we did phase that project, and it had something to do with the six-laning of Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach extension. And I want to talk about that after we hear the traffic responses for having Vanderbilt extension completed out to -- whether its Everglades Boulevard -- I think it's Everglades Boulevard will be the first -- or Wilson, where they hit Wilson, because that will alleviate -- that is supposed to alleviate — and I think Trinity's going to talk about that during the traffic discussion, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: If my memory is correct on that one, there was a phasing for some of the footage, and it had to do with a time -certain as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had a -- it would either be X but not later than Y in case the road improvement wasn't done because there was a challenge to a permit or something like that. Is that the same concept? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it was anticipated at the completion date, I think, at the time that they were using in our Transportation Department, and I would expect a similar situation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that will be where some of the concern's going to go in talking with the traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes me to the end of my issues except for traffic, and I -- if you don't mind, we'll entertain -- Norm will entertain us for a while. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Norm. We see you here often lately. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's going to start with his questions, and we'll go back to the other board members, and then mine. And I know you really like us to understand what you're saying, but we -- sometimes if you can just be as succinct as possible, it would help, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. The trip cap, could you walk us through, again, how that was calculated? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. So what we did is we looked at a couple scenarios, of land -use scenarios, and so we utilize one particular one where we had less total square footage but is more intense uses. And we had the residential hotel uses, and that came up to the 1,159. We had another scenario where we were maxing out the square footage of total uses, and that was Page 19 of 91 May 16, 2019 a bit less. But it's fairly close; it was 1,058. So it was 100 vehicles per hour difference between the two. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the validation of that going forward will be based upon the ITE rather than the actual -- an actual traffic count; is that correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: We utilize the ITE standard as really most all communities in Florida use, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why wouldn't we, though, run an actual traffic count at peak time to see what's really going on rather than rely on a more generic study? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, when you're planning the development, you don't have the development there, you know. So what we're doing when we do developments and we do Site Development Plans, we can't base it on what's there because it hasn't been built yet. Then we rely on the ITE numbers. Now, for the background traffic, to your point, Collier County maintains an annual traffic database of what the peaks are. So that really trues things up in the system, and then they use their trip bank, too. But all traffic professionals, we rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers as the standard for transportation. Every community I've worked in in this area in the last 29 -plus years relies on ITE. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And is it the ITE -- a change to the ITE that brought about a situation where traffic generated by an apartment dweller is deemed to be the same as that generated by a condo owner? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. They did change that approach. And, you're right, whenever we -- about every, say, four to eight years they'll update the trip generation manual, and in that case you're exactly right. And so for this project, too, I kind of questioned it, too, quite frankly. And conservatively in our traffic analysis, I use low-rise, which is a higher trip generator, although this is a mid -rise project, and we also did local trip -- we did a study of a couple of local apartment projects and, in fact, the analysis I used is actually a higher trip generation using the ITE low-rise than, in fact, what our experience is here locally on the projects I analyze. And I believe I provided that information to you -all. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, going back to trip cap, was it 2,259; is that the number? MR. TREBILCOCK: 1,159 peak p.m. trips two-way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And five years from now, how specifically will your compliance with -- or the actual traffic conditions be measured against that trip cap? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay, yes. So as we do Site Development Plans or platting plans, Collier County staff will review those plans and also do an accounting. Each time we do a traffic study for a new development, we'll account for what prior approvals were in place. And, in addition, again we'll use the updated background traffic that the county has to true things up as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The AUIR? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that is based upon actual traffic counts, isn't it? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What continues to be bothersome for me or create concerns is in the Florida Statute 163.3164, Sub 9, defines compatibility, and it's pretty generous in terms of, I think, flexibility for developers, but you may be walking right up to the limits of it here. It says, compatibility is defined as a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another condition. And so ordinarily -- and I think the statute is correct, compatibility is not so much an affirmative test. It is the absence of a negative test. But the more you encroach upon the upper limits of traffic, it seems to me, the more that this definition of compatibility gets called into question. Page 20 of 91 May 16, 2019 And so I find that to be a worrisome point. Do you have any comment to that? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does Mr. Yovanovich want to comment on it? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll let me. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll -- Mr. Fryer, if you'll remember, I took you through all of the statutes dealing with 163 and the requirement that the Land Development Code and the county regulations that you adopt have to assure compatibility. So I would say that you don't have a problem with compatibility until you exceed the adopted standards. So that's the measure, because all the county land development regulations are required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the statutes I took you through, and I could pull back out my binder. We went through that. All of those statutes require that the Land Development Codes assure compatibility. So I would say that you don't cross the line on compatibility, as you just read it, until you exceed the adopted standards. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure I read it the same way, Mr. Yovanovich. It says, a condition that unduly negatively impacts directly or indirectly by another use or condition. And if the use that is being introduced is going to unduly negatively impact the use that exists at present, it seems to me you do raise a compatibility issue. You don't have to wait until conditions have -- well, for instance, that the AUIR shows that the segment is actually impaired. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't read that statute out of the context of the regulatory scheme when you review -- this is all under the Growth Management provisions of the Florida Statutes. And that definition has to be read consistent with the provisions that we went through the last time. And I'll find my binder, and I'll take you through the statute that says all land development regulations that the county adopts are to assure compatibility as defined. MR. KLATZKOW: Except this is -- Richard, stop. This is a PUD, right? So you're not doing straight zoning and developing, straight zoning where, yes, by definition it's going to be compatible. This is a PUD. When a PUD -- the way we've constructed these things, it gives the developer an awful lot of opportunities to go well above and beyond what normal straight zoning would do. So, yes, compatibility is an essential element anytime you're looking at a PUD, because it's not straight zoning. You're not -- this is not C 1 zoning where we know what uses you could do that you purchased, that the county then planned on so that the next door won't be unduly impacted. This is PUD zoning, all right. Now, I'm not entirely sure I understand where you're coming from as far as traffic goes, incompatibility, since this is an activity center, an intersection of two six -lane roads, quite frankly. But, no, compatibility is an issue here, and you can't just say, well, all you have to do is be in compliance with the LDC, and we're automatically compatible. I don't agree with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. You're entitled to have your opinion, just like I'm entitled to have my opinion as to what the law says. MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but you're not testifying as to what this is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking. MR. KLATZKOW: If we could just stick with factual conversations here as to this rather than legal dissertations, I think we'd be better served. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. I was just responding to a lawyer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just move on. Let's just move on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That covers the general points that I had on traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before I start, does anybody have any other questions on traffic? (No response.) Page 21 of 91 May 16, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, in your report on Page 7, first of all, there's -- in my opinion of -- and I've been driving this county for 42 or 43 years -- we have two links that are really stressed, and one is Pine Ridge Road and the other is Immokalee Road. And we have two major east/west links that go all the way out east, and those are the two general ones. So I'm more concerned about anything that happens along Immokalee Road in regards to traffic, and I need a further explanation -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I'm going to be asking you how some of this fits together. And if we turn to Page 7, the third paragraph, you talk about pass -by trips in the last two sentences. And then the pass -by trips are at a 50 percent rate. Is that by ITE? And you're using a 25. Can you tell us how the pass -by trips are generated? For example, I live near here, and whatever services you have here, I may be interested in them, especially if you were to put a hardware store, which I understand you're not. But still, if I were to go there for a Starbucks, which there's one across the street, so I do go to that one a lot, I'm making a destination of that location. Ion not pass -by. So there's got to be a difference between how you can somehow figure that someone passing by is going there or someone like me is going there as a destination. Can you explain a little bit of that, and as briefly as possible. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. So there are ITE standards, and what Collier County does is through our guidelines we adopt local standards. And so to your point, there's certain uses that are considered -- would have a higher pass -by use, and Collier County establishes that. So what you identified was, like, the fast-food restaurants with drive-through, gasoline service stations, are allowed a maximum pass -by of 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Collier County? MR. TREBMCOCK: Yes, by Collier County's standards. And then the TIS guidelines also go on to say for the other uses we have to limit it to, like, a 25 percent -- let me see -- for shopping center, a 25 percent cap. So our standards lower the allowable threshold so it really creates higher external trips than, say, what, say, an ITE standard may be. So I just rely and use the Collier County standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the Collier County standard more conservative than the ITE standards? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes; yes, they are. Yes, they are. I don't have those specific numbers. But typically they'll vary, say, typically, we'll be in the 5, 10, even 15 percent range, and so Collier County is holding it lower by basically expressing that there will be more external trips than, in fact, we really feel they are necessarily through the ITE. But we use the county standards as a result. And then Collier County does have an overall -- like, for the internal capture they have an overall no more than 20 percent, and that's just a standard Collier County uses. Again, because what they want to try to do is make sure that we're conservative that, if anything, we'll err on the side of showing more trips than, in fact, actually happens. And, again, their annual true -up really helps govern, you know, things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you create a project like this that has limited access points, you're forcing people to use alternate movements. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular case you've got a left -in for people going west. They can try to queue up, and this is another -- an issue of concern. They can go down to that south entrance, and they're going to have to sit at that entrance until the light changes and hope the traffic hasn't backed up past it, or they're going to have to sit there until the traffic breaks enough if they want to make a left on Immokalee Road to cross three lanes of active traffic to get there, and that right -turn lane is busy. As far as the queuing goes, I don't know how many lanes -- it looks like you've only got two lanes on that south access point. If you do that, one person making a left lane (sic), which will be probably Page 22 of 91 May 16, 2019 quite a few because I might be one of them at times, to get onto Collier Boulevard would back up all the right -turn people. So your stacking into that project could be to a point where most people now won't want to use it, which then will force them to go out to northern access points on Immokalee Road, and guess what they've got to do? Tbey've got to go down to Woodcrest and add to hazardous situation in making U-turns in front of The Quarry. So can you tell me how you're handling that traffic flow at that southern entrance to make it a place where people want to go as an easier movement than going out and making a U-turn down the road on Immokalee? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So you're saying the signalized access at -- I'm sorry at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pebblebrooke. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, okay, perfect. Yes. So we do make sure we -- especially when we're in the platting development and look to develop that signal, we'll get into more fine-grain detail, exactly what you're saying to make sure we have what we call adequate throat length, and even the southbound turn lanes as well to make sure they're adequate, and that's one of the things they've looked at. We've even provided some preliminary analysis for you on that, but we would make sure that -- and also, as you said, that we have the proper lane calls that we're going to have a right -turn lane, potentially a through lane, and a left -turn lane, and potentially that could be even combined as a dual left to exit the project. So we will look at that in more fine-grain detail. In this report, too, though, I did -- we did analyze, like, on Immokalee Road, to your point, the possibility of U-turn movements, and I did identify those at Bellaire Bay is potentially a left turn, and we did identify that we would foresee needing to extend that turn lane a bit. And that's the normal process, but we'll fine grain that, though, really, when we go to the development stage, and staff will get into that a lot more. But we conceptually have looked at that for everybody, and I believe we have adequate throat depth, but yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not -- it's throat depth and lanes. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you commit to at least two left -turn lanes at that location? And that would help alleviate stacking both -- in both sections. Now, to the south, you've still got room before you get to your setback. The lanes aren't necessarily part of the setback. I think you can do it. I'm concerned about this board being constantly told, well, when the reviewers review it, they'll fix it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not fixed. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The traffic's a mess. So I'd rather if we know some things could be improved here, why don't we look at them. I honestly think that that is important so that you're not forcing too much stacking and blocking of that exit onto Pebblebrooke or onto that Pebblebrooke entrance. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I just want to make sure I'm clear what you're asking, then. It would be — our westbound lefts would be potentially dual lefts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that way people using that to come in, shop, and then scoot back out or, if they're actually using it, to avoid the traffic light that's a mess at Immokalee and Collier. Regardless, you're going to have people using that entrance, and I think that left lane's going to actually be very useful. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. What I'd do, if it's okay -- because I do -- you know, the transportation operations folks really do a good job operating the signal system in the county. I can say that we can accommodate the duals if warranted, okay. But I don't want to overstate it is all. But I know we have enough room in there, and I'll double-check with our civil engineer, too. But we can Page 23 of 91 May 16, 2019 accommodate that. But I want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, your "if warranted" gets into the issue of what we're trying to -- what you're going to hear about right now. It's going to be ITE, which ITE is not set up for the state of Florida. So I'm real concerned about leaving it up to "if warranted." Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm very concerned about getting into site -development level detail at a rezone hearing when we don't have our plat in front of us, we don't have our Site Development Plan in front of us, we don't even know yet which users are or are not coming to the site. To commit to certain improvements that -- what happens if it turns out that we need to modify that because traffic engineers working for the county say what you committed to at the rezone is a bad commitment. Now I've got to come back, and I've got to amend a PUD. We don't do this at a PUD level. We talk about access points, and then we get into the finer details of site planning and platting for what's an appropriate throat, how many lefts do you need in or out of this project. I'm very concerned having to do this at a zoning -level hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to bring the Site Development Plan back to this board for review? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I want to follow -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- county regulations that have worked forever; that we allow a site -plan process that the professional engineers dictate what is the appropriate access improvements that are necessary for what the zoning approved. We don't do public vetting of Site Development Plans for a very good reason, is you have to have professionals with credentials review those materials. And no disrespect to the Board, I'm not sure, but a couple of you have actual engineering backgrounds to get into that level of detail to make those decisions. Your staff is -- they're the ones that have to make those decisions to make sure it works. And I don't want to make a commitment that I may regret because it sounded good today and then we come back and your professional engineers say you shouldn't have done it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned about the fact everything's left in the hands of people as it goes past these boards, and we've got a road system now that is problematic on at least two main east/west roads, and I don't know how to fix it. So I'm trying to put in thoughts that would help it. You're not willing to go there. We'll deal with it before the meeting's over. Norm, if we move to the -- let me see -- the next pages. Let me get down to where -- oh, your trip distribution and assignment. It's on Page 9 of your report. You have Immokalee Road, Logan Boulevard to Collier Boulevard, which is one of the biggest areas of concern as far as capacity goes. I believe there's 188 trips left on there. Your distribution of project traffic came in at 30 percent, and because it came in at 30 percent, your westbound traffic is 175, which happens to be just 13 points lower than 188. That's really useful and convenient, but how did you come up with 30 percent? What guidelines gave you the right to make that as a decision versus 31 or 32 percent that might have kicked the westbound traffic up to close to the 188 or even breaching that threshold? MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. So two years ago when we started this project, we first meet with staff and do a methodology and come up with an estimate of the distribution of the project. And we provide that information, and we use our judgment on what the distribution would be without running all the numbers and stuff like that. And we certainly didn't have the 2018 AUIR in 2017. But we run -- we provide that to your staff, your staff reviews it, they will check it to make that it's a reasonable, rational assumption that had been made and makes sense, and then we'll run our numbers based on that. So that's how we -- the genesis of that, and then we run our analysis after that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's a question of staff. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Yeah, it's in collaboration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said -- so this is based on the 2017 AUIR? Page 24 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. TREBILCOCK: No. The -- well, yeah, the application is based on that. I did update some of my numbers using information from the 2018 AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the 188 westbound 2018 or 2017? MR. TREBILCOCK: 2018. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2018, okay. So the new AUIR, which comes out in a few months, could have already utilized some of that 188 downward, which means what in relationship to what you've got here today? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, understand, too, please, that the AUIR had a trip bank of 992 trips there as well. So what you would see is that being utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's the 188 represent then? I keep hearing that number talked about. MR. TREBILCOCK: That would be the number above and beyond trip bank plus the estimated background traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the trip bank is not your project. The trip bank is other projects. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, but that creates minor 188 available trips available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you would do is your traffic would be now lumped in with the trip bank or not -- MR.. TREBILCOCK: It would be added to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or do you displace the trip bank? Which one do you do? MR. TREBILCOCK: We do, but what your staff does is they'll what I call clean up the trip bank each year when they look at the AUIR, so they're looking at the actual traffic, and they also look at what's been absorbed in the system, and they adjust it accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to dwell on that -- focus a little bit on that with stuff when they come up here. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 1,159 total trips -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- during peak hour; 30 percent of those are leaving during peak going west in this segment? So you've got, really, 348 leaving. Is that -- because on your table on Figure 2 on Page 10, you've got 30 percent traffic going west of Immokalee Road -- west of Collier Boulevard on Immokalee Road. I'm assuming that's the traffic from the project. And if you have 1,159 p.m. peak -hour trips, then wouldn't you be 30 percent of that? How do you calculate that? MR. TREBILCOCK: On Table 3, we show the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Figure 2, I'm sorry. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Table 3 shows the eastbound versus the westbound coming out of the project. And so that would give you on that link, say, for Immokalee Road, the 173 trips is an eastbound volume, and then 175 is the westbound volume that we illustrate there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're taking both directions. So you've got a lot of -- okay. So that's how you figure it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. We have to utilize the peak. That's why I'll make it in bold and underline it, because what we're doing is we're using the volume that gets added to your peak direction. So it, hopefully, would make some sense here. But we focus in on the peak direction of travel for your roadway network. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine. Have you checked out the stacking distances that you've got on Page 14 in regards to Tuscany Cove? You're going to have to have a 340 -foot -long stacking length going south and a 315 -foot -long on the left turn lane. Is that -- is there adequate area in that roadway to accommodate that kind of stacking? Has anybody looked at that? Page 25 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, that has, and what we did do is we were looking to trigger like, say, southbound at that location to actually go to duals even though we don't have the volume warranting. But because there is the length, we want to make sure we -- you know, to the point you made, concerns about the traffic stacking up, we want to make sure we can accommodate it. So we've master planned for that. But these are the kind of fine-grain details that we look at, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, may I follow up on your previous question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- having to do with the trip cap and how it was calculated? 30 percent assigned to Segment 43.2. Was that 30 percent number suggested by you, Mr. Trebilcock, or by staff? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. What we do is we present an initial methodology that I did, again, two years ago for the project, and that's what was provided for them to review and make sure it's reasonable. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it was your recommendation? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And would you tell me again how you arrived at that? Why not 35 percent? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well. Again, we were just looking, using my judgment and experience in the area and just looked at how, you know, we felt the traffic would move and circulate and based on the entrances for the project as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Table 7, Page 16 — and we're probably going to have to break before I finish, but I don't have too many after the break. But on Table 7, there's level -of -service issues with intersections. What level of service is Immokalee and Collier? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So the Immokalee and Collier in the a.m., currently it's a C, and it's a D in the p.m. under 2018 conditions. In the projected project improvements without our project, it would still be a Level of Service D, and then with our project it would continue to be Level of Service D. There's just a range in delay per vehicle, so that would go up a little bit, because we'd still be within a Level of Service D. And that's illustrated on -- Table 8 that we provide has intersection levels of service 2018, and so that hopefully is helpful to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just -- I had gotten a -- I thought I got a different response when I asked that question, but they'll be back up. They'll be up here in a little bit, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm moving through the rest of my pages so I don't have to ask you things that you've already responded to, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully that will be most of it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it -- let's see. We'll take a break, and when you get back, I have just a little bit of time I need to talk with you about some of the ITE issues that 1 found, and then we'll go to staff or other members. We'll wrap it up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll take a break right now, and we'll come back at 10:45. We'll give the court reporter a 15 -minute break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats, we'll resume the meeting. And we left off with talking some traffic issues with Norm. Norm, I have one other issue. Page 26 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me elaborate on it a little bit, and then I'd just like your thought on it. It involves one I previously mentioned to you so you could be prepared. The ITE manual is based on a lot of data collected, and my understanding is it's collected from engineers and developers from projects they do throughout this country and Canada, and we use that as a basis to establish trip generation rates for the state of Florida. And I'm going to go through some examples, and one of these is like -- the simplest one is a mini warehouse. The sites that were surveyed were from 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. The states that were used were California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, and Utah. The last I knew, those states are pretty cold, and they get a lot of snow. There was no Florida; no southern states there. My concern is -- and this is the same situation when we look at multifamily housing. Even in that category it says you ought to be looking at nearby development because it will affect trip generation rates, and then they go through 21 states that they went to and through the same time periods, including British Columbia, and there's only two southern states, Florida and Georgia. I went through and took a look at this for everyone, and then I looked at the times that the counts were done. They weren't consistent with our peak hour a.m. and p.m. times. And I'm wondering how you guys, as traffic engineers and even our county staff, can justify using a manual based on mostly counties and sections of this North American continent that are with snow six months a year or eight months a year. They don't probably have the tourism like we have here. They don't have the seasonal adjustments that we have here. Our -- we have a lot of longer permanent residency staying. And when people come down here for short periods of time, they hit the roads a lot harder because they're trying to see everything. I don't see how the ITE manual is tailored enough to the conditions we have in Collier County. It's not going to necessarily affect things today, but this has come up and come up, and we've looked for an explanation as to why our road system is problematic. And I will constantly now question the ITE manual until we find a solution to this, because it just doesn't seem like it's working for us. How do you justify all this putting -- especially, when the hours that they're using for their trip generations, for the most part, don't coincide with the peak hours that you're using in your analysis? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. So the ITE is a standard that we all rely on as engineers, and it was -- you know, in the case that you said for the mini warehouse, it's not a specific Florida, but there is a reasonable sample size to use. I've done probably a good half dozen mini warehouse projects in Collier County and relied on this data for that, and, you know, I don't see mini warehouses as the evil for our area at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at them all. That was the first one in order. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just reading them. I can read them all to you. They all are similar. MR. TREBILCOCK: And like you said, the multifamily, you know, quite frankly, I had the same question when ITE did the change from having a specific apartment to going to low, medium, and high-rise. And so we did, in fact, do a check of that, because I, similar to you, maybe had questioned it. And it's identified by ITE as a group, because these aren't things that -- you know, there's a 50 -person committee that works on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and they're all engineers, and they vary from development engineers to consulting and also public sector as well, so there's a consensus. And we did do that. And in other projects we've done that to, to your point. Like, sometimes there -- we'll question a value, and like, say, for auto sales, you know, we have luxury auto sales and so, in fact, Collier County did adopt a differential trip generation rate for luxury auto sales, and so we can do that when we see that there are problems. Again, it's my opinion and belief, like in the mini warehouse, that these are valid. I mean, I get Page 27 of 91 May 16, 2019 your point that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep -- and I'm sorry. The mini warehouse is not the crux of the issue. Again, that was the first one in order. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can go to any one of them, Norm -- you know what, I don't want to belabor the point, because it's not going to necessarily affect the outcome. What I was looking -- and I'm going to be exploring this further with staff. We need an alternative that's tailored to Florida then the ITE manual. I don't know if such a thing exists or it could be done, but our road system is not responding adequately based on ITE trip rates. That's what it boils down to in my opinion. MR. TREBILCOCK: But the only difference I would just suggest, that the -- this is data that provides you numbers to what we've projected the traffic to be. I think -- you know, you're certainly right, there's a bigger picture. And I think a big part of our community has responded to that even approving the one -cent sales tax to understand the need to construct the infrastructure that we need to do, because we do have a plan there that tells us what we need to do, and if we don't do that plan, then we're going to have -- suffer the consequences. You know, that's why we do a needs analysis and a financially feasible plan. And so we just need to make sure that we, in fact, construct that system. A lot of this system that we have in place was built many years ago with a lot of extra excess capacity and knew that we would fill it up. And so we're filling that system up and we need to continue on, but I can tell you the ITE is a valuable tool for all of us, for all of us professionals, because it is -- for the very fact that it is independent is relied upon by engineers throughout the state of Florida. ITE is not our problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I am going to respectfully disagree with you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have to belabor that point. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other thing about the situation, we had asked a while back that all the uses you pick out of ITE be corresponding to the SIC uses that we use in our zoning code. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was probably after this started; is that a fair assumption? MR. TREBILCOCK: I believe -- I thought I had updated it to the SIC codes. Yes, I did. Table IA I do identify the SIC codes, just some uses a varian (sic), you know, shopping center. It goes across a broad spectrum of SIC codes, so I identify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you do get to choose the SIC code. There's been -- there was one project, for example, where the choice was for recreational homes which generates a much lower ITE rate than its corresponding real use, which is similar to a timeshare, which is a much higher ITE rate. But if you use the recreational homes, which 1 don't even think we have a category for that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. And what you're citing, that wasn't done in Collier County. I can tell you Collier County's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It's just that you do get to pick and choose, unfortunately. MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't, actually. What I do is I recommend, and your staff reviews it to make sure that it's reasonable and rational. It's not just, hey -- you know, and my goal in what I do is to look to be conservative, to generate, if anything, slightly higher than what's going to occur, and that's evidenced in how I did the multifamily, quite frankly, where I used low-rise, which is a higher trip generation. And it's not there to hurt the client or project or anything, but it's to have a balanced perspective. I mean, this is a community that I live in as well, so I want to do the best possible job. And I know our client does, and so they understand that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm. I appreciate it. Page 28 of 91 May 16, 2019 Anybody else have any questions of Norm at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does staff want to come up and address some transportation issues if they're here, which I know they are, so... Good morning. MS. SCOTT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, you've heard the discussion. There's a few points that I'd certainly like clarified, and that is how the 30 percent was accepted by staff as the right number; the stacking situation at the light that's going to occur; and the cross traffic abilities for that light at Pebblebrooke to function properly; and I understand the suggestion of a left -- dual left turn lanes may be problematic. I'd like to understand from you if you see it that way; and maybe some enlightenment about the ITE manual. Is there any options to that program? Because I would much -- I think Florida needs to see things tailored to Florida. We are getting the short end of the stick if we rely on seasonal states to provide data that we live with 12 months a year. So, anyway, would you mind? MS. SCOTT: Okay. I'll start with the distribution. For the record, Trinity Scott, transportation planning manager for Collier County. Norm is correct, as part of our Traffic Impact Statement guidelines we hold a methodology meeting with the applicant. They provide a distribution that is reviewed by our staff as well as we have an outside consultant who reviews the majority of our Traffic Impact Statements as well. And, by the way, I would be remiss by not stating that today I have with me Mike Sawyer, project manager from Transportation Planning, as well; Tom Ross from Jacobs Engineering, professional engineer who routinely reviews our Traffic Impact Statements; as well as Bill Grainer, also from Jacobs Engineering, who, for this particular project, reviewed some of the developer agreement business points as well as the traffic analysis, along with Mr. Ross -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you -- MS. SCOTT: -- for the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll be able to give us those business points? I meant to -- MS. SCOTT: Yes. I have Reader's Digest to read into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, the firm that you -- is Jacobs? MS. SCOTT: Jacob's Engineering, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are they out of? MS. SCOTT: They have a local office here, but they're an international firm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have not heard the name. I've just -- usually I see everybody. MS. SCOTT: Formerly C112MHi11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That explains it. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: But they do -- in Collier County they do public -sector work, and so we utilize them for our TIS review as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: With regard to the distribution, for any project that comes forward, the distribution is presented to us as part of the methodology meeting; that is before we're looking at the AUIR. When this distribution came in, I believe it came in two years ago, so we're looking. And we just look to see if it's a logical representation of what we feel will occur with the traffic, if we concur or not. There are times when we've pushed back, not on this particular project, on other projects, where we have said -- you know, particularly when you get into low numbers, 5 or 10 percent doesn't seem reasonable. And so we will look at that. So before the applicant even starts the TIS, before we review the TIS, we look at that. We provide that concurrence before they proceed forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you ever get suspect when you see the numbers come so close? I Page 29 of 91 May 16, 2019 mean, 188's the cap. You trip that, you run into different scenarios, but 175's pretty close. Did that ring a bell with anybody to take a closer look at it, or is it -- MS. SCOTT: It wouldn't have at that point because we wouldn't even have that end data. We're just looking at the overall distribution at that point. And this was -- when this project started, it was started on an AUIR that was two years ago. And I didn't bring all of my AUIRs with me. I don't know what the trip -- what the available capacity was two years ago. I can look it up, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The conditions have gotten worse. MS. SCOTT: Correct. So it wouldn't have been as close two years ago when we were having this conversation as what we are now, because we do reevaluate it before we come to you to look. So with regard to the stacking: My only concern with regard to requiring a dual left -- and 1 understand where you're coming from -- is that depending upon the configuration of the intersection, it could -- depending on spacing, it may require different signal timing. And so from a county perspective, we want to be able to give as much green time as possible to that Collier Boulevard intersection to be able to clear that. That's our main road. And while I understand the dual left, that may mean that the left turns may not be able to go at the same time, which would then take green time away from the Collier Boulevard intersection. So I'm not saying that we won't necessarily get there, but that will be an analysis that's done when they're looking at that intersection, and that's with our Traffic Operations Department. Our Traffic Operations folks will ultimately be the ones who time this intersection and be responsible for it once it's constructed of timing it and coordinating it with the adjacent signals. So I would defer to the traffic operations staff and our chief engineer there, Tony Khawaja with regard to those specific lane calls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't forget, so thank you. I'll remember we had this conversation when I try to get out of that shopping center. MS. SCOTT: Well, what I will tell you as you're trying to get out, there will be a signal box there, and if you have issues, you'll be able to call 252-5000, which you can at any signalized intersection today, and you'll talk with our Traffic Operations staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a recording, right? MS. SCOTT: After business hours, yes. I did call it over the weekend, I'll have you know, and left a message. With regard to the ITE options, ITE is the acceptable standard for us. It has the most data points that we have available. You and I have talked in the past, and we have discussed that it's the basis of our impact fee analysis, along with any local studies that we might have. If there is a specific land use that is giving this Planning Commission heartburn that you would like us to study, we can go out and do an individualized study to look at that. Understand though, to do that for all of the ITE manual, for all of the land uses, one, we may not find them in Florida. We may only have a few data points to be able to look at. So if there are certain land uses that you think may be off, we can certainly look at them, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Trinity, excuse me. Excuse me, Chairman. I think the Chairman's question was, are there any alternatives that are out there? MS. SCOTT: The acceptable standard for us -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not for you. MS. SCOTT: For -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are there any other alternatives to the -- MS. SCOTT: The majority of the professional industry is the ITE. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are there any other alternatives out there? MS. SCOTT: Not that I'm aware of. Page 30 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thar -Ac you. MS. SCOTT: As I said, if there is a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Trinity, I understand your question and your point. I think it's -- MS. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned is right. I just needed an answer on that. If you don't know of any, that's fine. You did suggest we look at alternatives for specific uses. And the use that comes in that's most common that seems the most -- and it's relied upon because it has a reduced trip generation, is shopping centers, but shopping centers have become part and parcel to gas stations with convenience stores and other big attractors more than a majority of middle attractors. If there was any that seems to be plaguing us more, I think it's these shopping centers at these intersections. And if someone were to ever consider looking at a separate number for how we would look at those, that might be one to consider. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll move on. I wanted to make my point. I did. And we'll go from there, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? Could ask? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• Does the Federal Highway Administration have any sources that they use other than ITE? Does Norm know? MS. SCOTT: I can't think of any off the top of my head, and I've done a lot of research on it, based on the feedback that we've had, and I'm looking to my engineers in the back who aren't jumping up either, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because I was Googling and finding things, and just was curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were Googling during all this excitement. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I asked you this question unofficially, but I'd like to ask it publicly now. When and how often do you do followup traffic studies, traffic counts at projects once they're approved and implemented to compare the actual traffic generated by a project to what was predicted by the ITE manual? MS. SCOTT: So for specific traffics of going out and putting tubes across their driveways, the county does not do that. The county used to require the developers to do that back until the early 2000s. When a project would close out, the developer, the property owner would submit a closeout, if you will, that would have a comparison of their Traffic Impact Statement as well as what their actual traffic was. And I have found a few of those in our files from the early 2000s. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we have any data that would support the accuracy of the ITE kind of after the fact what's actually generated? MS. SCOTT: Not in recent years, other than with the Altura development as it came forward with the GMP amendment, the applicant did go out and do some analysis as well as with this one. I believe Norm did some analysis as well with regard to the condominium apartment that was included in your packet, so going out and counting actual Collier County and seeing how that compared to the ITE trip generation manual. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I'm also curious about the levels of service that we always are referencing. And we've got Immokalee, that segment is a D. It would be a D without this. It would be a D -- still slightly a D with this project. Can you just explain the definition of a Level of Service D and Page 31 of 91 May 16, 2019 how -- a person that's actually driving the road, their experience of a Level of Service D, what it looks like. MS. SCOTT: And let me go back to, when we're assessing our level of service based on the Annual Update and Inventory Report, we are looking at the p.m. peak hour in the peak direction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. The heaviest traffic possible on that segment. MS. SCOTT: Heaviest traffic possible on Immokalee Road, which would be, you know, 4 to 6 p.m. and going eastbound in that particular segment in this area. So that is your most congested time of the day. So a Level of Service D, you're going to have levels of congestion. You're going to have levels of delay. It's not a free flow like an A where you're, you know, just going probably above the speed limit just cruising along. You're experiencing some levels of delay, but it is not in a gridlock situation where you're not moving. COMMISSIONER FRY: So is that the definition of a failing road then, a level F? MS. SCOTT: A failing road is when the roadway exceeds the adopted capacity level. COMMISSIONER FRY: And so the driver experiences what when it -- MS. SCOTT: Significant delays. COMMISSIONER FRY: So significant delay, meaning instead of sitting through two cycles of a light, it might be three or four -- is there a definition as to what represents significant delay? MS. SCOTT: I'm going to look to my guys back here, see if there's a specific -- Tom Ross is going to come up and give me the specific definition. I'd Google it, but I don't have my computer up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ask Stan. He's got his running, obviously. MR. ROSS: Good morning. Tom Ross, for the record. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the adopted manual that everyone uses for evaluating capacity for intersections and for roadways -- and this is a nationally accepted document -- for intersections, the level of service is based on delay, so it's based on the amount of time, but there's also an evaluation for capacity as well. So every intersection approach, given the geometry, the number of lanes, has so much capacity and so much time to get that traffic through, and a lot of that is dependent upon the timings for that intersection. So the more time you have for a particular approach, of course, you can get more traffic through. As you have competition from the other approaches, you're splitting up that time. And so, of course, now the delays increase for each of the approaches. I can't speak to the exact time, number of seconds, average per vehicle. I believe it is somewhere around 55 seconds on average per vehicle is the overall level of service where it is considered failing when it gets beyond that. The other measure to determine whether or not an intersection fails is when the capacity overall for the intersection exceeds 100 percent. So in other words, if you have the capacity to serve -- now, I'm just going to give a random example. But if you have 3,000 cars entering an intersection within an hour and you actually have a demand for 3,100, you've now failed because you exceeded that capacity. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So there are no hard and fast standards for number of cycles or time specific -- 55 seconds, you can sit at a light under normal circumstances, and it can be two minutes for that cycle to happen. MR. ROSS: Yes, sir. That's considered an average. So, I mean, you've got to look at the total time and all the number of vehicles that come through an intersection. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. ROSS: So some vehicles may actually experience time that goes beyond that, but then there may be other vehicle that have much less delay. So it's figured out on the total overall average for all those vehicles, and that's how that's determined. Page 32 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Appreciate it. Trinity, one final question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to have a question for Mr. Ross, but -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you want me to answer -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Trinity, one last one for you. MS. SCOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: The 30 percent we've talked about was arrived at before we really knew the use of this -- the intended use of this project and any trip counts that might be generated by the project, correct? The 30 percent distribution that was allocated to that one segment that is so close to -- MS. SCOTT: Well -- and Mr. Sawyer just actually brought up some information from the prior AUIRs that I think will be helpful as well. When they come in for a methodology meeting, we have a general idea of what they're going to be doing with the project. They'll state, you know, X number of residential units, approximately this much square footage of these type of land uses, so we know that when we're having that methodology meeting, because it can certainly make a difference depending on land uses. So, yes, we have that information available. But what Mr. Sawyer provided to me was in the 2017 AUIR, that particular roadway segment had 635 remaining trips. So if they came in at 178, it wouldn't have been something that we would have said, hey, it's really close. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But it was established way back then, and now the trip counts have all been updated. MS. SCOTT: Trip counts have been updated, and you've also had a lot of development come online in that area. You've had Logan Landings open, the apartment complexes have come in, and those trips are banked, so that reduces that capacity in that area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Ross, the 30 percent number that was assigned to Segment 43.2, do you believe that was the right number to use? MR. ROSS: It seemed like a reasonable number at the time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you describe in a little more detail how you would arrive at that conclusion. MR. ROSS: Well, when you look at the surrounding land uses around this particular location and the development that's occurring and the proposed development that's going to occur further out, say, for east along Immokalee Road and further south along Collier, you look at an area that's getting built out fairly -- I wouldn't say exactly uniformly, but it is spreading out around from that location, so that when you look at a distribution that is relatively even pretty much in all directions, it's a very reasonable number. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The standard that Ms. Scott mentioned, logical representation, is that the standard that you would use also to evaluate the recommendation from the developer as to assignment of numbers of trips in any of the particular four directions? MR. ROSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is? MR. ROSS: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have for you. MR. ROSS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, excuse me. You're local. You're familiar with the local conditions? MR. ROSS: I don't live here. I live in Orlando, but I've been down here a lot and have been studying this area and doing a lot of work for the county for a number of years, so I am quite familiar with Page 33 of 91 May 16, 2019 the conditions, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When you're engaged by the county for advice, would you ever consider actually, you know, putting those tubes down on the roads to determine the percentage and the actual numbers of cars? MR. ROSS: Well, in order to determine what a future development's going to occur (sic), it wouldn't be possible to do that because those trips aren't there yet so -- and counting what actual traffic is there, again, only tells you the current travel patterns and where that volume is on those particular links. So determining what a future development, which direction those vehicles are going to go, that's one measure, but a lot of the measures are basically what the adjacent and other uses are that those trips would be exchanging to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's not only an estimate based upon current conditions, but it's also not related to anticipated future conditions? MR. ROSS: It is related to anticipated conditions as well as existing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's an estimate of existing on top of estimated future? MR. ROSS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You got quite a few of the points. I don't know if you had any more you wanted to discuss, but I still need the business points. And I would like you to tell us the time frame for the opening of the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road to Wilson, the completion and functioning of the traffic signal proposed for the one here at Pebblebrooke, how that would be coordinated, and the traffic signal proposed for Woodcrest and The Quarry. I'd like those three time frames, if you don't mind. They will factor into a potential phasing request of the applicant. MS. SCOTT: Can we go back to the three time frames as well VBR extension, Immokalee Woodcrest, and what was the third one? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one they're proposing at Pebblebrooke. How soon within the project's parameters are you going to require that light to go in? You know, that's going to be important to make sure that functions like it's supposed to. MS. SCOTT: Okay. There are a few other things, if I could get on the record, just as I was listening to the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. SCOTT: So we've had a lot of discussion about the 188 trips. Remember, today when you are looking at this, you are looking at consistency. Consistency is different than concurrency. We do not bank their trips when the Board approves this development -- when the Board approves this PUD. Banking of trips does not occur until they come in for Site Development Plan approval or plat, and they receive a certificate of adequate public facility. So when we're looking at consistency purposes, we're looking at five years. In the next five years, will there be sufficient capacity for the roadway? Within the five-year area, We have the parallel roadway, Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, that I'll get into completion time frames, is anticipated to be completed in the next five years, and per our Capital Improvement Element, projects identified in Years 3, 4 and 5 of the schedule of capital improvements can't be relied on for committed capacity for concurrency but are considered for consistency when reviewing land -use applications for compliance with Section 5.1. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the 2018 AUIR projects 188 remaining capacity, including the trip bank for people who have paid their impact fees, but it's also projecting that, not five years, but two years from now it's going to become deficient; 2021. MS. SCOTT: So -- but what I'm telling you is based on our guidelines and our rules and when we review, we are able to look at the five years and if an improvement will be in there within the five years from a consistency standpoint. Now, when they come in, Mr. McLean's group will get another bite at the transportation apple, if you will, and will look at it from a concurrency standpoint. And if there is not available capacity existing and there is -- I'm going to read from the Capital Page 34 of 91 May 16, 2019 Improvement Element -- projects identified in the first two years could then be utilized for concurrency standards. So they would be able to do that if it were within two years. And right now it's not; it's in the third year. So just to get that on the record. So we will have another opportunity to took at this. When this comes in at whatever point in the future, if there is not available capacity on that roadway and there is not an improvement identified that will increase that capacity within two years, they will have to wait until, or they'll be able to pay a proportionate share and pay and go forward. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They would have to wait, I get that. Would that be, in effect, a reduction of the trip cap? MS. SCOTT: No, it would not. They would -- understand, today is consistency. You are not banking those trips. Those trips are not being taken out of our checkbook until they come in for Site Development Plan or plat approval. Consistency only today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'm sure that, as the expert that you are, that you're accurately reporting the standards that you use and the considerations, but I'm looking at myself, for instance, and others as motorists and the concerns that real motorists would have. There's an 1,159 trip cap. If in the 2019 AUIR we find that we've already blown this number, 174, '75 is not going to be enough, does the county have the authority to reduce the trip cap? MS. SCOTT: The trip cap would not be reduced in the PUD; however, there are provisions when they come in for Site Development Plan or plat, the actual development order to build something where there are provisions where they can pay their proportionate fair share and go. They could wait and proceed forward. So there is another stopgap measure that happens after the zoning application. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They could wait before they develop the property; is that what you mean? MS. SCOTT: Correct. Or they could pay their proportionate fair share and go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that, I think, needs a little clarification. So if we have a road that is within the five-year window for improvements but it's going to fail in two years and they hit that failing two-year point and they cause -- they can't go over that, but they can if they just provide some monetary payment. So you can buy your way out, basically, of a failed road segment if it's within the five years that it fails because you're allowed to proceed if you're on the books within a five-year window of the overall improvements. Is that what you're trying to tell us? MS. SCOTT: The state statute allows a developer to pay and go for the improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the pay and go means whatever monetary amount somebody figures out as a fix to the road, even though that fix can't happen instantaneously -- road work takes forever. So we would have to live with the failed segment for a certain period of time if that were the circumstance. MS. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the piece I didn't understand. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We talked a little bit -- Commissioner Fry's question was almost exactly what I was going to ask, but let me follow up on it a little bit having to do with policing mechanisms to look back and see if the trip cap has been exceeded. It's my understanding that in recent years there's been no attempt -- and I understand budget limitations, but there's been no attempt on the part of the county to look back and see whether the assumptions were made when these trip caps were approved were valid. You don't do actual trip counts? MS. SCOTT: We don't, and then that would -- that would pose the question of if they went over by five trips, am I going to tell them to tear down 5,000 or whatever -- 500 square foot of their building? It's based on the Traffic Impact Statement as it comes forward, and we require them to do it Page 35 of 91 May 16, 2019 cumulatively to show how they're stacking up. And if they choose a more intense -- because they have a menu, if you will, of land -use options, if they choose something that's more intense that's going to eat up more of that trip capacity, then they're not going to be able to build as much square footage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I mentioned -- or I asked the question in the framework of recent past. Are you aware of any time in the history of county transportation current planning and current oversight that there has ever action taken against either a developer or a current owner if it turns out that the numbers have been exceeded? MS. SCOTT: No, sir. That -- to my knowledge, that has never occurred. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity, I think we left off on -- MS. SCOTT: Business points and some time frames. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phasing. Phasing, you said it's within the five-year plan for VBX. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you didn't say VBX is scheduled to be completed. That was the question. MS. SCOTT: You know, I should take some advice from Mr. Scott who got his hand slapped quite a few times by you about Vanderbilt Road extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your husband. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we got along just fine. MS. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really do -- I think that's a critical answer. So just out of curiosity, do you have that number? MS. SCOTT: I do. I have the latest information from our Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: For Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, it will go from 951 to 8th Street, so it does go beyond Wilson. Anticipated to start in early calendar 2021 and be completed in early calendar 2023. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And either one of -- the Woodcrest light? MS. SCOTT: The Tree Farm/Woodcrest light is anticipated to be complete within one year from today, so around May/June time frame next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when would you require the light to go in at the Pebblebrooke entrance? MS. SCOTT: I'm looking at the DCA points. I don't believe that we had a specific time frame but, presumably, they're going to put it in right away. But I'm looking to see if there's a specific time. It does not have a specific time at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's probably a concerning issue, because until that gets done, it's going to be -- for people to go -- if they're going to go south on Collier and they wanted to come into this facility first, and that is an -- that hasn't got left -turn lanes open. They're going to have to go up to the Immokalee Road, go down and start making U-turns, get back in the left going to Collier, and then back south on Collier again. MS. SCOTT: I'm meeting with Mr. Klatzkow hopefully at the conclusion of this meeting today to finalize the developer -- the draft developer agreement, so we can look at a first CO, if that is acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm suggesting that it be added to your business points for the DCA or the DA, whatever you want to call it. That's kind of why we'd like to have seen that DA ourselves so we could have understood some of the things that may have been overlooked or not thought of, so... MS. SCOTT: And if you like, I can go through the Readers Digest version of the business points, Page 36 of 91 May 16, 2019 if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Are you prepared to send that to us in a written format so we have it? MS. SCOTT: I can, yes. So, number one, the developer will design and permit their stormwater management system to accommodate the necessary storage and conveyance for the future single -point urban interchange. We call them SPUIs or overpasses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SPUIs. MS. SCOTT: SPUI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Never heard that term. What country uses that? Where'd that come from? MS. SCOTT: Single -point urban interchange. It's just another one of our marry acronyms that we use in Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's interesting. MS. SCOTT: The developer will be responsible for their perpetual operations and maintenance of the shared stormwater management system. Prior to the first CO, the applicant will convey to the county at no cost approximately 1.3 acres along Immokalee Road. This additional right-of-way will accommodate the future single -point urban interchange. This additional acreage is sufficient to provide for the compensating right-of-way for the development -specific turn lanes as well. The property owners and its assigns will waive all claims for future business damages as a result of the single -point urban interchange construction. As part of the final design of the residential portion, the property owner will coordinate with the neighboring properties regarding the interconnections, which we've talked a lot about through this -- through our PUD process as well. In the interim condition, the county will allow the intersection that is aligned with Goodland Bay Drive to consist of a right -in, right -out, and left -in to the site. In the buildout condition, this access point will be limited to a right -in, right -out access point only. Collier County will pennit a traffic signal at the entrance on Collier Boulevard which lines up with Pebblebrooke, and the property owner will not receive impact fee credits or cash for the right-of-way donations or the value of the stormwater improvements associated with the single -point urban interchange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to distribute that, so but when we -- we'll have to review what's resubmitted and double-check it against that, and I'm hoping that can be done outside of a consent hearing, but we'll get to that as we wrap up. Okay. As long as you consider adding that one to activate that light within whatever time frame needs to be in there, I think that's a critical point. MS. SCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any other traffic questions. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much for your time, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, do you have any additions to the staff report? Well, I do know your recommendations have got changes, so do you have your new recommendations? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Yes, I do have new recommendations and, for the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal plainer with the zoning division. Page 37 of 91 May 16, 2019 And recommendation No. 1 still is in effect, and that states -- would you like me to read it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, so everybody knows what it says. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Yes, I will. Number 1, the companion development agreement is required to be approved with this rezoning request and then, No. 2, the previous recommendation, that's been modified slightly, and it now reads, any building located on an MU tract within 50 feet of an external residential PUD boundary shall be set back an additional one foot for each foot of zoned height over 50 feet. And the Recommendations 3 and 4 are no longer valid because we have the new PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else you wanted to add to your staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: I don't have anything else to add to the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the Planning Commission have any questions of staff at this point? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just a general one, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The development agreement is where these bullet points have come out, correct? The ones that you mentioned earlier that I guess Trinity mentioned. MS. GUNDLACH: I believe so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I believe in other jurisdictions, such as the City of Naples, the development agreement comes before the Planning Advisory Board before it goes on to City Council. And this is the first time its occurred to me that that might be helpful for us as well. Did staff have an observation of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our requirement, too. That's why it was worded the way it was, but it didn't get, I think, to us in a timely manner. We normally see DCAs. I think this time it got -- between working out the business points and all that, I had asked for it during staffs -- my staffs review, and I was hoping if we got the business points as the basis; as long as it got to the Board with us having reviewed the business points, it would be adequate. That's how it happened this time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are right. It's supposed to have come to us as part of the package. MR. KLATZKOW: No, and part of it's my problem because Trinity originally sent it to me on May 3rd, and just getting our schedules coordinated so we could actually meet and sit down and go through the terms have been longer than we'd both had hoped for. That's the reason. It's partly on me. I did have the documents on 5/3. We just haven't been able to sit down and bang it out for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I have one question and, Ray, it kind of involves you as their manager. I noticed inhere that we talked about us joining --and the issue's been resolved, but I'm just saying for the future. Between Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek, there were some issues of comparisons of the heights both actual and zoned of the proposed PUD to the actual and zoned of the two adjoining PUDs. And I understand what you guys utilize. If one PUD could have 50 feet, the residential, let's say Bent Creek, or 55 feet, whatever it was, and they didn't use it but they put single-family along the side, the comparison was, well, they could have used it; therefore, they're compatible to the height of the proposed Baumgarten PUD. I'm just suggesting in the future if you've got a platted project next door, let's use the actuals, because the platted projects aren't going to change. They're what they're unless 30 years goes by and mortgages go away. So I would suggest we start comparing things to what's really on the ground in those cases, if you don't mind, unless you've got a reason not to, Ray. Page 38 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Staff does look at both examples. What both PUDs allow as their maximum height limits or development standard setbacks plus what is built. Now, sometimes during the review of those staff reports, some of the original analysis gets modified or tweaked because new information comes in, they have a greater setback, let's say, than they originally submitted. So some of that might have got pulled out of the original draft of the staff report. But we will work better at trying to ensure that the actual conditions are referenced in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you write your compatibility up, I mean, to take into consideration more than just the buffers. If you've got greater setbacks -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and things like that, all that should be looked at together. It would help us know that you've seen the freshest information and the most relevant we're looking at, so... MR. BELLOWS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't have any other questions of staff. As long as nobody else has, we'll move to public speakers. Whether you're registered or not, we're going to start with the registered speakers. Then I'II ask, generally, from the audience if anybody else likes to speak, and, Rich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you want to address the points you wanted us to consider before the public speaks or after? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're ready to address them now, I asked them earlier, so I was wanting to give you as much time as possible, but if you're ready to go, I'm -- MR. YOVANOVICIE Whatever you decide. I thought maybe you'd want the public to hear that before they speak. It may affect some of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be the best, but I wasn't sure you even had a chance to talk about it MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm sure you'll remind me if I missed one. I think I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm watching. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I'm going to -- we agree to a wall next to Bent Creek along the MU tract parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would impose a condition that prohibited outdoor dining on the MU tract adjacent to Bent Creek. We would agree to a condition that there would be no dumpsters within 105 feet. Does that work on the MU tract? There would be no dumpsters within 105 feet of either Bent Creek or Tuscany Cove, the enclosures, the dumpster enclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 105 feet, though. Are you talking about just residential? What about that commercial piece? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I was -- are we sure on the MU tract? Are we good? Yeah, that would be the entire boundary both east and south of the PUD. When Mr. Klatzkow writes the revised business points, we would agree that the traffic signal on Collier Boulevard would be constructed before the first CO, so that would -- you talked about it, but I just wanted you to know that we would agree to that condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: What did I miss on development standards? I mean, we had already talked about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got them. I think you got them all. I think the one -- and I didn't know if it's best to approach this before or after public speakers. They may have some insight into the question. I have brought up the issue of phasing. You've got 370,000 square feet. You have -- I know by code and by law you have a right to develop that property. I'm not saying Page 39 of 91 May 16, 2019 you shouldn't develop it, but I think that right goes with coordinating it better with the area. I drive that area a lot, and I can experience the traffic just as -- probably as many of these people in this room have. So I would suggest that there's a substantial amount of square footage that ought to be postponed until many of these improvements could be in. Have you guys had time to talk about that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have, Commissioner Strain. One, I think that we've -- at one time we thought it was -- a hotel made sense there. We would be willing to take the hotel use out of the equation which could be a significant traffic generator. So we would agree to take that use off the table. And we also think that a logical split would be 250,000 square feet in the first phase and then the balance would be tied to the opening of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension but not later than the first quarter of 2023 is what I wrote down it's scheduled to be complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,1 appreciate you talking about it before the public speakers, and we'll get everybody's input on it and see where it goes from there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- just as an aside, I think when that traffic signal goes in at Woodcrest and our traffic signal goes in, I think those are going to be significant benefits to that traffic circulation in that area. So I think the phasing schedule we're proposing makes a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN:. Okay. Well, we'll hear from the public. So with that in mind, the staff will call the members that are registered first. If you'll come up to either speaker (sic). We ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes unless otherwise waived because of whatever reason you may request. If you -- by the way, if you have -- if you just agree with the speaker before you, it's fine just to say you agree with that speaker. But we're certainly here to hear you. And after we get done with registered public speakers, I'll ask for those who have not registered if anybody else wants to speak. So, Ray or Nancy, would you call the first speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Pritt, to be followed by Dale Walters. MR. PRITT: Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Robert Pritt. I'm the attorney for Tuscany Cove Master Property Owners Association, Inc. I think you have received a copy of a letter, it should be in your packets, from Tuscany Cove. It's dated May 13, 2019, and that does, indeed, indicate that Tuscany Cove and the developer have been able to have fruitful talks and have come to terms on certain matters that have already been brought up by Mr. Yovanovich. I won't go over each and every one of those unless you want me to. There's one thing I do want to clarify. I believe that Ms. Gundlach covered it, but it's my understanding that the reference, if I may ask, or at least raise this. It's my understanding that the 60 -foot setback issue does not mean that we're stuck with 60 foot. It's still the 105 feet; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. MR. PRITT: She mentioned the 60 -foot, but I didn't hear anything about the 105, but I think she said that those were all covered already, and I just wanted to make sure that was the case. If I can just say something about homeowners' associations, at least this homeowners' association, I don't want to get involved with ones that have unreasonable expectations and don't have a -- do not have a point to bring to your attention. Tuscany Cove has been wonderful to work with, and they had concerns that I think were very legitimate. Some of the things I heard some of the board members say today indicates that you have heard those also. So I think that it was very productive. It tamed out that it was very productive that the matter did not get finalized at the last meeting and had to be continued to this meeting. Frankly, there's very little time -- between the time that the final staff report comes out and it gets to you, there's very little time to do a whole lot of things and to make a lot of decisions. For example, should you hire a planner. In our case we did. Do they have enough time to do all of the reviews? It's a very, very quick process. Should you hire an engineer or a traffic engineer? Traffic engineers that will be hired, be willing Page 40 of 91 May 16, 2019 to be working for anybody but the government or the developers are very, very scarce. So we had to make all of these decisions and, in doing so, working with the developer, working with the developer's attorney and his planner and his staff was a -- had turned out to be positive. President DiFusco is going to be speaking also, but I just wanted to give you my take on it and indicate that we think the process is working out for the benefit of not only the developer and the county, but also Tuscany Cove. Be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Pritt, I only know that we get our packet about a week before these meetings. So what is the timing -- when the staff report is made available to you, what kind of time frame are you talking about to prepare? MR. PRITT: It's the same time frame, essentially. We do try to have a meeting with the staff ahead of time, but that's before the report finally comes out. And so, you know, technically it's a very short period of time. And when it becomes public for you, it becomes public for us, and then we very quickly try to get somebody in to do the reviews that are necessary. So this one turned out fine, as far as -- I think, as far as we're concerned. I think it was also -- and I don't know if the developer agrees, but I think it was productive and worthwhile for us to have the discussions we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ned. MR. PRITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to commend Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Pritt for getting together working out so many of these things. It's very productive when that happens. Thank you both. MR. PRITT: I'd love to take credit for it, but it was really the members of the board and the developer and their team. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I should have said and your respective clients. MR. PRITT: As well as the attorneys. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else -- or what's our next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Dale Walters followed by Louis DiFusco. MIZ. WALTERS: I'm Dale Walters. I live in Tuscany Cove, and I live right on the property line with this project. And there are 37 homeowners that live right on the property line. My biggest concern is the buffer that we're going to have to make sure that we have adequate buffer for visual and, more importantly, noise. There is significant vegetation existing along that property line. I would like to see it left in place. It doesn't extend that far out into the property, but it is along the property line, and understood that it was going to be removed. It would also be nice to have a berm placed behind that vegetation. Again, this would help, would give us a buffer. The water, the pond or lake or whatever's behind there, will provide no buffer for us. That noise would carry right over that. So that doesn't help us one bit. Also, I saw in previous drawing where there's going to be a parking lot directly behind me. Well, I would like to see parking lots be on the north side of these apartment buildings. That would give us a nice buffer to have the backside of the apartment buildings, you know, coining along parallel with the border of the two properties. So thank you for putting in my request, and I hope you can make goodness out of this for a buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I have -- go ahead, Karl. You have a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Walters, you mentioned a berm -- MR. WALTERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- as an alternative to a wall or -- I mean, right now there's nothing specified other than the buffer. Page 41 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. WALTERS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you prefer a berm to a wall? I'm curious if you'd considered either possibility. MR. WALTERS: Well, if there is a berm there, there has to be some vegetation to be able to keep it in place. That would be more significant than having a wall, because vegetation's, of course, going to be able to grow up, and over time I think we would see a better buffer with something like that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Were you part of the meetings that occurred between the applicant and -- MR. WALTERS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- the association? MR. WALTERS: And as I say, there's 37 homeowners that are going to be directly behind this property. I'm one of them, and that's my biggest concern is making sure we have a good buffer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Of those 37, a significant number of you are to the east of the lake. There's a large lake that's going over in that southeast corner, and then the others would have a significantly larger buffer, the ones that are the -- I'm sorry, that are on the east side of the interconnect because they'll be looking across a very large lake and you'll have a very narrow lake. Which side are you on? MR. WALTERS: I would be where there will be narrow lake. COMMISSIONER FRY: The narrow lake. MR. WALTERS: From the design, they showed a parking lot directly behind that on their property, which would be -- I would have a parking lot 100 feet from my property, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: The other you would have -- and I'm just -- I'm curious if this was part of the discussion. This room, I'm guessing, is approximately 100 feet long. It's about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can count the files, but... COMMISSIONER FRY: If we start at this wall, I'm going to say it's probably 100 feet, so that's not much shorter than the distance between the property line and where a four-story multifamily building could be. MR. WALTERS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• The room is closer to 70. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is? COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: The room. It's closer to 70. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it's 70 feet. So it would be another third of this --or another half of this length, so another 30 feet beyond. Was it discussed -- we've had other applications where the difference between a three-story and a four-story building at that proximity was very important. I'm just curious if that issue came up and what the discussion was regarding that. Did you have any concerns about four versus three stories? MR. WALTERS: Really, I think, having that buffer is significant. Like I say, leaving the plant material that is there, putting a berm behind there with vegetation on that would really help with ground noise, and that's where most of your noise is going to be anyway. What's happening at three or four stories probably is not going to be significant. It would be the ground noise that we're going to be affected by, and that's why I say the lake wouldn't help us one bit. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your concern is more related to noise than vision? MR. WALTERS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Louis DiFusco. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many speakers total do we have? Page 42 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. BELLOWS: Three more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DiFUSCO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Lou DiFusco. I'm the president of the HOA for Tuscany Cove. And, as you know, the last meeting that we had, we've had about 50 homeowners with red shirts in. They were very upset about this entire setback of the buildings going up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, before you go too far, would you mind spelling your last name for the court reporter. MR. DiFUSCO: D as in David, I, F as in Frank, u -s -c -o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sony to interrupt you. MR. DiFUSCO: That's okay. Since that time we've had a meeting with our attorneys, our planner, along with the Barron Collier construction as well as Grady Minor engineers. We discussed basically setbacks, fences, security, a number of issues, of which they did agree to abide by. I'll address the thing Dale just mentioned, the buffer zone. There is going to be a buffer zone. I believe it's a 15 -footer with plants and trees that will be supplied on the Baumgarten side. As far as Tuscany Cove is concerned, we'll take a look at that. If we have to put in some plants and trees ourselves, we'll take a look at that. But I do believe that they will do us a fine job of getting that buffer zone in. With the setback of 105 feet, that bails us out quite a bit as far as privacy is concerned. So at this point I'm going to withdraw our objection for the building of the multifamily homes and, in turn, support the Baumgarten situation to go forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. DiFUSCO: Questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Brian Gorla. MR. GORLA: Hi. I'm Brian Gotta, G -o -r -1-a, and I live in the Bent Creek Preserve area. I also spoke last time. And I just wanted to say I appreciate the support for Bent Creek Preserve. We didn't hire an attorney, so a lot of it's just been our community and our HOA president who came last time who represents the builder. I'm still a little bit confused after the hearing today. What I heard was at the beginning the setback would be 105 feet, but I also think I heard over in the northeast section of the Baumgarten that it would be 65 feet where that -- where their commercial building will be up against residences. So I'm not sure if it's 105 feet over in that northeast section or 65 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 105 feet up till it gets to the road that they're putting in, and that road will access that commercial -- very last commercial parcel. That last commercial parcel is up against the site where your cell tower was or is today, not directly up against residential. In that location the setback would be 50 feet plus one foot for every height of the building, I think. Is that correct, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus we've asked them to put a wall in, and they've agreed, and they will still have the vegetation buffer. MR. GORLA: Okay. And I appreciate the wall. I think that's great. I would go one step further. In our original request we requested that the wall be a hundred and -- I think, 870 feet was the request. Noise doesn't know to stop where that area is, and the noise will come right down the wall where there's other residential. So my request would be that the wall would go down to the lake, or if there is going to be an interconnect where that is, where the interconnect is, and I think that that's one of the things that's missing from it. Page 43 of 91 May 16, 2019 Because we can hear noise from Pelican Larry's across the street. Once this gets developed, that noise will carry into the development, and I think the wall would help with that. The interconnect, the other -- that was confusing to me as well. I know that, you know, we got clarification on why it didn't line up; that was a main road. But when I stepped up to the picture during the break, all there was was a dotted line. I'm not sure if that dotted line represents a road or -- it just looked like a dotted line. And so I'm not certain whether there is going to be an interconnect or there isn't going to be an interconnect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They will make provisions for you to connect to them. But if you've got a gate or there's something like that, that would -- MR. GORLA: Right now we have a stub, a stub that ends on our side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding, there will be an ability to interconnect to them. They will pave or provide an access up to your point. And I believe that's going to be enforced by staff. Is that your understanding, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, at the time of SDP, they would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, yes, you'll have an interconnect, and you can treat your side of it whatever way your PUD allows. MR. GORLA: Okay. The cell tower was relocated. They put in what I understand is a temporary cell tower. It's a smaller one. I think after they decided to relocate the larger one, they realized that 911 calls go through it, so they bad to put a temporary smaller one in there for now, but the larger one has been relocated. And then the other thing with Woodcrest. I'm originally from Missouri. We're the show -me state. I've been hearing for about the last three years that there was a stoplight going in at Woodcrest, and I've got email saying, yeah, in the next year you'll have it. So I did hear it today that it will be another year, but I'm not sure why I should believe that it's going to be there in another year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can only do what staff tells us -- MR. GORLA: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're scheduled to do, so, I mean -- MR. GORLA: Yeah. Okay. 1 get it. There is a potential problem with --and I just want to highlight it to you -all. So when the Woodcrest was built out, they put a rotary in at Woodcrest into Massey. And it connects to Tree Farm as well. Massey was not developed, and it's just a -- it's an abbreviated road. It doesn't have curbs. Some of the road is not -- it's not wide enough for, kind of, traffic. People really have to drive it slow, but that traffic goes through there very fast. I'm just telling you that its a very dangerous road. It's not up to standard. So, potentially -- you know, a lot of people take that road now because it's been built out, and I would just encourage you to just drive it. And it's considered a private road from what I understand, but I think that it does -- it's going to require the county to come in and take over that portion of the road, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are working on that, too. Thank you. MR. GORLA: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to -- what I'd like to do with this board, if you all don't mind, I'd like to finish this item before we go to lunch break. We do have to take an hour lunch break, but we will finish up on this one first, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Cheryl 011ila. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so the speaker's prepared, who's after her? MR. BELLOWS: Ruth Fahmy. Page 44 of 91 May 16, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. OLLILA: Good afternoon, I'm Cheryl 011ila, 0 -1 -1 -i -1-a. I'm the president of The Quarry Homeowners' Association off of Immokalee Road. I'm very concerned with all this development about the lack of traffic signals that have been approved by the county east of the intersection of Immokalee and Collier on Immokalee Road. Ms. Scott talked about -- that the traffic signal which has been approved will be constructed and installed in a year at The Quarry Drive and Immokalee Road and Woodcrest intersection, but that is the first traffic signal east of that intersection. And with all this development that is occurring on the southeast corner as well as all the activity and building that's occurring on the northeast corner, that puts a heavy traffic load on that signal at Quarry Drive. And as we talked about today, there is no traffic signal planned on Immokalee Road for the entrance either into the northeast properties or the southeast commercial properties, and anyone leaving these areas going east on Immokalee Road but wanting to go west will be turning around right in front of Quarry Drive making it nearly impossible for our residents and homeowners to be able to turn right out of that intersection with the left turns. So I'd like to know -- we've had previous town hall meetings where the transportation engineering department has been to The Quarry when this traffic signal has been talked about. The county has denied a traffic signal at Bellaire Bay Drive and Immokalee where the Racetrac gas station is at. And I'd like to know how close is this Pebblebrooke light to the intersection of Collier and Immokalee as opposed to the traffic signal that was denied at Bellaire Bay Drive and Immokalee and Collier, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll ask questions of staff when we finish with public speakers, and we'll ask that question for you. MS. OLLILA: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And staff -- transportation staff, the question was how far south is the roadway that's going to be interconnecting to Pebblebrooke from the intersection and, likewise, how far east from that intersection is the -- where they had tried or asked at one time, apparently, Bellaire Drive. I think the difference is going to be the fact there's an overpass going east to west, but we'll let transportation staff answer that when we're finished with public speakers. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Ruth Fahmy. MS. FAHMY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. FAHMY: Thank you. Do you need me to spell my name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do, yes, ma'am. MS. FAHMY: Ruth, last name F -a -h -m -y. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FAHMY: Again, I want to thank everybody today. I understand that our association and our board of -- our HOA board who hired our attorney and worked a lot of these issues out. And I want to thank you for the time the last time also. I also want to thank you for really being sensitive to this traffic issue because, like I said, before I got involved in this, about two years ago, and I reached out to Mr. Bosi because of an article in the Naples Daily News with regard to rezoning this particular Pelican Nursery piece of property. And from everything I've listened to, the keywords that still come to me -- and I appreciate all of you for being sensitive to it -- is putting together the legally sufficient without being deficient, looking at all these calculations and numbers and updating them in lieu of all the new construction that has taken place in just the last few years with many more, you know, about to be developed, and with the sensitivity to traffic. Page 45 of 91 May 16, 2019 I know it was asked of me, and it was mentioned at this April 18th meeting, that when you purchase a home or move into a home or rent a home, whichever, that's next to a piece of property like Pelican Nursery, you needed to expect that in the future it would be developed some way somehow and that this was always on the board or on the county records for being an activity center. I just want to point out one thing, because it kind of came to me today, and I actually mentioned it to Ms. Gundlach in the ladies room. Galgano was always a named street in Tuscany Cove, and its not a street. There are no homes on it. To the right or east of it, we have the Collier County utilities and sewer and other maintenance type things like that, and to the right is, like, a little bit of a preserve. It's about the same width if not identical to what our inner roadways are, and it had a name 15 years ago, and that was because we were all told that our developer was initially planning a larger development. And the piece of property that they've agreed to put the lakes and give us the 105 -foot setback, my understanding would be that that was going to be more homes until the housing bust, the crash, and then the builder didn't pursue that. And maybe that's why it was a named street all the way back then. And if that had been the case, then that piece of these 55, 56 acres -- you know, and you talk about the commercial portion being 40, that would have probably been the acreage that would have been our single-family, one-story homes, and maybe this other portion would have been just strictly for the commercial. I am so thrilled to hear that several of you have engineering licenses. I do not. But I've said from the beginning of this I wish that the developer and the traffic people and all of their people, if they could have developed this where your entrance would have been on Immokalee Road, similar to like when you got off of Interstate I-75 after you're in that far right lane, and you are now -- you have to turn into Target. You pass Regions Bank, you either turn into Tarpon Bay, or turn into Target. And if they could have made some of those adjustments, it could have avoided some of these issues that definitely are being created for Tuscany Cove, because we're not going to have the option of having a traffic light in front of Tuscany Cove. So we're going to have to head north. We have no choice. And as far as -- it would avoid the stacking. I appreciate that -- Commissioner Strain, that you and Commissioner Fryer are sensitive to what that stacking is going to cause and how long you're going to need it for that many directions and the timing of it and the lights, and no one really knows for sure how many homes they're going to bring. I was never that much upset over whether these were apartments or condos or townhomes. For me it was always more about how many cars. So, obviously, if it was another 150 single-family homes at an average of two cars, right, that would be 300. cars; 400 apartments at an average of two cars is 800. I mean, it's going to have significant impact no matter what. And everybody's going to have to have some give and take. But I look at this development and I say, okay, the overhead, I know from Ms. Scott, it's not even in the future five years for the flyover overpass. So that's a lot of years for us to all deal with this but -- and we don't even know, you know, in lieu of whatever else could happen. But you would think that if they took that piece of property and kind of divided it down the middle a little bit, they could have had the residential, they could have had the commercial, they could have had the entrance come in that way. I would just think that there's a lot of great minds here that can put this together and, you know, make it be a good thing for everybody and meet the compatibility and the legally sufficient. But I like compatibility better than legally sufficient, or borderline deficient. Thank you all so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. Ray, is that the last public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: We did have somebody who didn't register but would like to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. Could you please call the name or -- oh, he didn't register. Sir, come on up, identify yourself for the record, we'd be glad to hear from you. And we'll need to know if you were sworn in previously. Page 46 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. BROMLEY: No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BROMLEY: And I did pass in a slip, and I think it must have gotten lost over at the desk. Gary Bromley, B -r -o -m -l -e -y. Address, 9517 Ironstone Terrace in Naples. Thank you for the opportunity, Chairman Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mic's not picking you up too clearly there, sir. MR. BROMLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR. BROMLEY: Again, thank you, Chairman Strain and Commissioners, for giving me this opportunity today. A couple of things that I wanted to comment about is the insightful remark that Chairman Strain made about how we calculate traffic and roadway flows. And it seems to me that there is a great need for something that's more customized to the state of Florida than other parts of the country. That makes a great deal of sense, and I hope that conversation continues. And I would like to participate in it if it does. I was very surprised to hear that the county really doesn't do any after -studies to try and look at what the original projections were and then what, in reality, happens. And I think that that's maybe evident as I drive around in Collier County and see all the different changes that are taking place after the fact in order to try and accommodate traffic situations which were decided upon years before. So Pine Ridge is one example of where the intersections are going to have to undergo fairly expensive projects to improve the flows there. And so, again, this is something that I just want to go on the record and say I think that the county really ought to take a look at doing after -studies on these projects. One of the things that was mentioned by Mr. Yovanovich in terms of his willingness to do some phasing on this, which I was very happy to hear, phasing in terms of coordination that's better synchronized with the Vanderbilt extension, he said no later than early 2023 that he would be bound to that phasing idea. My only concern there is -- and I'm not even sure if it's fairly based, but is there anything that could hold up the Vanderbilt extension? I don't know if a recession can affect it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's all kinds of things that can hold up roadwork in this country and county. So, yes, they're too numerable to even mention. MR. BROMLEY: Okay. So, you know, I would say that with the levels of traffic calculations that have been done, what we're using as the database for that, the only way to really kind of get relief from that building congestion would be this Vanderbilt extension. And if that were to go another year or two or whatever past the early 2023 projection, it seems to me that we're going to be stuck, and we're going to be stuck with a lot of congestion and delays. So I have a concern about making it hard and fast that it's early 2023 and not beyond. And, let's see. The last thing -- and I don't quite understand this, so it's kind of part question and part comment. But the pay -to -go stipulation that I heard about for the first time this morning, that sounds to me like a bypass for the developer to -- you know, if a road is considered to be close to failure or in failure but if you pay enough money you can keep going anyway, I think that's a wrong concept. And I have that wrong, I apologize, but that's the way it sounded to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're paraphrasing it a little differently, but you're right. I think if there's a deficiency, they can pay their proportionate share of that deficiency to have relief from the deficiency, yes. MR. BROMLEY: Okay. So I think that has to be re-examined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's above and beyond today. MR. BROMLEY: Yeah, the scope of this. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it is an issue that we have to deal with, unfortunately. MR. BROMLEY: This is more public comment in that regard. Page 47 of 91 May 16, 2019 So those are my major points, but I appreciate the time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any members of the public who have not spoken on this item that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Trinity, would you mind responding to the question concerning the accessway over to Pebblebrooke versus a similar accessway that had previously been requested for at Bellaire and Immokalee. MS. SCOTT: For the record once again, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. I'm not going to tell you that my measurements are dead -on accurate. They were from the Property Appraisers' website where I was in trying to measure. Collier Boulevard, the proposed signal is approximately 1,100 feet south of the intersection of Immokalee Road, and the proposed -- the intersection of Bellaire Bay Drive on Immokalee Road is approximately 2,500 feet from the intersection of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the Pebblebrooke one is 1,100 feet south, and the other one is even farther away from the intersection. So, then, isn't that --you just answered the question in the opposite way I thought you were going to say. MS. SCOTT: No. Actually, we've had some internal conversations with regard to the intersection at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bellaire. MS. SCOTT: -- Bellaire Bay Drive. That is within an area of influence of what would be the future interchange, and so that is why we have been reluctant to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the overpass. MS. SCOTT: Yes; the overpass, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought your answer was -- okay. You didn't say -- now I'm understanding. So even though it's farther away -- MS. SCOTT: The overpass is anticipated to go -- for Immokalee Road to go over Collier Boulevard. That is what all of our conceptual designs show for that. So that signal would be very close to those approach ramps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I thought was the case. I just wanted to understand it from you. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions? Is there any -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, for Trinity. How far -- how far -- how much farther from Immokalee Road or how far from Immokalee Road is the light that has been approved to the east? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wooderest. COMMISSIONER FRY: Woodcrest. MS. SCOTT: Yeah, it's about a mile. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's about a mile. MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And was that the nearest U-turn point for people that wanted to exit then go west to Immokalee? MS. SCOTT: No, there's a U-turn actually at Bellaire Drive, I believe -- Bellaire Bay Drive, I believe. COMMISSIONER FRY: What distance do the people turning out of the new development have in order to get across the three lanes to make a U-turn? MS. SCOTT: I'm going to pull up the Property Appraiser and see if I can measure really quickly. Do you guys know offhand? COMMISSIONER FRY: While you're looking, I asked that question because I know in my own Page 48 of 91 May 16, 2019 neighborhood we had a similar situation where a right turn could be made, and then you had to quickly cross three lanes to make a U-turn and eventually, because of safety issues, that was disallowed by the county and a light was put in. You're no longer able to make a U-turn. So one of my concerns is just that there's a tenable way for people to exit east or west -- or I'm sorry -- east on Immokalee and then be able to make that U-turn in a sustainable way and a safe way to head back west on Immokalee. MS. SCOTT: It is just over 1,100 feet between their -- essentially, they're lining up with Goodland Bay Drive. Their access point is lining up with Goodland Bay Drive, and it's about 1,150, 1,160 to Bellaire Bay, which would be the next U-turn opportunity. COMMISSIONER FRY: A little short of a quarter of a mile to do that. So that's a lot greater distance than in the scenario I was describing. So thank you. MS. SCOTT: So, yes, someone could make that U-turn there and not have to go all the way down to the entrance of The Quarry where the new signal will be. And if there's one other thing that I could just clarify. When I was talking about Vanderbilt Road extension -- I'm not going to change the dates I gave you. But the limits -- allergy medicine must have gotten to my head. It actually goes to 16th Street, which is a mile further than 8th Street. So we're building another bridge to make a connection to Randall Boulevard as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you potentially open up the intersection of Wilson and Vanderbilt before you completed that last mile? MS. SCOTT: I couldn't commit to that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We don't have any more public speakers that we can -- we closed the public speakers at this point. We'll entertain a rebuttal by the applicant if you have any, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have any rebuttal. We think that the proposals we've made before the public speakers and the other revisions we've made throughout the history of this project are good commitments on our behalf and result in a good project, and we'll answer any more questions you have or comments you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions further of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. This phasing issue's going to get complicated, and I'm trying to think of a solution to it. I notice this project didn't start out with the square footage you're asking for now. And the TIS doesn't support the square footage you're asking for now. I understand the 250,000. Why don't we just drop the phasing and drop the rest of the square footage? MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want to reduce 370- to 250- -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and eliminate phasing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm suggesting. Then you've got your project, you've got your units, and you've got what you've asked for. And I'm just wondering why we need to mess around with the phasing, because it's going to get complicated. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. Can we take a two -minute break? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we can do that. Two minutes. We'll break for two minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on the speakers, folks. So, Richard? Page 49 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, here's -- I'm going to propose that we take it down to the 400 units and 270- square feet instead of 250-, because if we do the indoor self -storage option, that would probably bring us to the 270-, and that's a lower traffic generator anyway. So I would request that we just reduce it down to 270-, we take the hotel out that I previously had mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that would be 270,000 square feet and 400 units and take away the 100,000 square feet in Phase 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're really saying is the hotel goes away, we won't need to phase the project because you're willing to drop from 370-, 100,000 square feet, down to 270-. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 270- is based on the fact if you do self -storage, it's a low traffic generator. So of the -- because you're asking for 250-. So of the 270-, at least 20,000 will be for a self -storage facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that keeps the traffic where the 250- was. Okay. I like that a lot better. Does anybody have any concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll -- I'm going to read off -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to be clear then, there will be no phasing? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're just going with as stipulated then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just eliminated 100,000 square feet, so yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we're not connecting anything to the Vanderbilt Beach extension. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Remember, we have all those other commitments we talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm going to read those into the record, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have the whole list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Here's what we've talked about: The changes to the project will be consistent with the new document that was produced for today's meeting. The MU tract in the upper right-hand corner furthest east above the road will have no outdoor dining facilities. And along the eastern boundary of that MU tract, there will be a 6 -foot wall, and there will be no dumpsters within 100 feet of not only that tract but all tracts to the external PUD boundary. MR. YOVANOVICH: One hundred and five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One hundred and five. I'm sorry. A one hundred thousand feet; that would be nice. Boy, that would be subtly just taking it away completely. That would be a win, but okay. And then we're going to remove the stormwater notes that are on the master plan. We're going to accept the staff recommendations as they were modified on the record. And the phasing and all the other issues involving the road system on that issue go away. So that takes us to the DCA business points. We're going to get a circular on that, but there are seven of them, generally. Conceptually, they'll be reviewed -- they've been reviewed by us, but they'll be going to the BCC as a part of the package for finalization, and that will include the timing of the Pebblebrooke light, the overpass water management facilities and the maintenance of those, the 1.3 acres along 846, the business damage claim waiver, the coordination of the interconnections -- we'll coordinate the interconnections on the interior, and the Goodland Bay -- within the Goodland Bay Drive Page 50 of 91 May 16, 2019 issues -- what's the Goodland Bay Drive issues? What was that one? Does anybody remember? Trinity's coming up. MS. SCOTT: Sorry. For the interim condition they would have a right -in, right -out, and a left -in, and in the buildout they would only have a right -in, right -out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, you're going to articulate this in a memo to us anyway. MS. SCOTT: I've already emailed it to Nancy so she can send it out to everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Then the last one was, there will be no impact fee credits for some of the items that were just mentioned in the business document. Now, that's all going to be gelled up so it's finalized by the Board. Those are the concepts; then they can fluctuate a bit, obviously. That's what we are considering. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to be -- and that sounded very comprehensive, and it's probably going to be the basis of a motion. I wanted to be sure that it included, and I think it does, but it's worth saying. It includes the business points that -- in the development agreement. It also includes the accord reached with Tuscany. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't know what that is. Tuscany's not opposing it for some -- they're the agreements that were put on the master plan, so I'm not sure what else there is. MR. YOVANOVICH: We put -- all of our agreed-upon conditions are already in the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. They're in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're already in the version you had today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to refer to an accord we haven't seen. Let's just leave it with the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood, okay. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't done yet, but anyway. I had more. Did you want to hear the rest of it, or did you have things -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other item, there will be no hotel use allowed on the property. The property's square footage will be reduced to 270,000 square feet, and with that at least 20,000 square feet of it will be for self -storage, and because of that, the phasing is not on the table anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And to include elimination of the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You said that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, do you have any more? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to be sure that this statement is correct or, if not, that it gets made correct, that all of the benefits that are being extended to Tuscany are also going to be enjoyed by Bent Creek? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the extent they're on the master plan and in the document. Isn't that how it was worked out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Both properties get a Type B buffer on the master plan, both properties get the setback of 105 feet, both properties get an interconnect that's private, if they want it. I can't force Bent Creek -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, yes, those are -- well, and then we committed to that wall up on that one parcel that's not involved, obviously, in Tuscany. They did it with a chain-link fence. So I just want to make sure it's not exact, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the only thing that is different, if I understand correctly, is the provision of a lake on the south? MR. YOVANOVICH: Tuscany -- if you look at the master plan -- actually, let's use this one. Page 51 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a lake across a portion of the Bent Creek as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: So we make up for it. The setback is equal. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Chairman, my concerns were picked up in your comprehensive statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. And I know we're not privy to the agreement that was made between Tuscany Cove as proffered or as stated by Mr. Pritt, but, for the record, can I ask that -- you did confirm, and you're still in agreement you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said on the record he's fine with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. You're still in agreement with all the conditions as agreed to? MR. PRITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anything, you're probably happier. MR. PRITT: Happier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope he is. That was a concession that I didn't expect, and I'm glad we've got further -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want, for the record, to make sure. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on record, so we're good. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you may have forgotten to say that the indoor self -storage is air-conditioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are -- those are -- those are as we worked through the document, and there were a few other grammatical things. I'm assuming those will all be taken care of as they always have been in the past. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure there's no ambiguity there. We understand. COMMISSIONER HOMAK: So there won't be a wall between -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your mic. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There won't be a wall between Bent Creek residential and the residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: There will only be a wall where you have commercial up against residential for Bent Creek. There's no wall between us and Tuscany either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The residential to residential doesn't require a wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the buffer with an additional setback. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: There was a request from a Tuscany Cove resident for a berm, a resident for a berm, and there was a request from the Bent Creek resident for a wall. So the answer to both of those, is that no? MIR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to both -- well, I want to say it in a nicer way. We don't -- first of all, I think when the request for the wall came from Bent Creek, we only had a 50 -foot buffer. That's now gone to 105 feet. I'm sorry, 50 -foot setback. We've now gone to 105 -foot setback. And we did work on configuring our site, and to change the site to now put a berm over there is just not doable. We believe that the landscaping that we're proposing -- and we showed you the sightline studies last time. I think we've taken care of those issues. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have one concern that hasn't been addressed, but I think that I will defer to the negotiations that took place between Tuscany Cove and the applicant, and that is, is a four-story building compatible with single-family homes even at 105 feet. My personal opinion is no; that's a pretty significant change in land use. I was surprised it wasn't Page 52 of 91 May 16, 2019 an issue. It was a huge issue in a previous application that we heard. I was prepared to support that argument in terms of requesting a reduction from four-story to three-story buildings. What would the unit -- your units approved -- you're asking for 400 residential units. What would be the impact on that number if the multifamily units were three stories versus four? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we've not done the math because, for us, that's not an option because we -- by going to the 105 feet that we've gone to in designing this site, we think that is more than compatible. We did look at a straight zoning option. And if you looked -- if you remember, we went through this. The straight zoning option, if we went to multifamily, would be half the building height. So if I did a 75 -foot -tall residential building, which you can do in RMF 16, the setback would be reduced to 37 -and -a -half feet. So I think that to go to what we're asking for at 105 feet is far more adequate from a compatibility standpoint than if we went straight zoning. COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand that -- do you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a comment, though. One of the biggest significant differences is the location that you're referring to required a small-scale plan amendment. It was not an activity center. It did not have previous zoning that would have given it a height of 75 feet by right for different uses. So this is a far cry from that. So the land -use rights here are substantially different for negotiating such items as the land -use rights were on that other project, because in that they had to even amend the GMP because they were not within an activity center. So that's the reasoning I saw not to go that far with it, because the 16 units per acre in that density band are given. So, anyway, did that help? COMMISSIONER FRY: I appreciate that. I just observed that in that previous application when it went to the Board of County Commission, they took it upon themselves to lower, even the units adjacent to Livingston Road, to three stories throughout, but I understand. Thank you for clarifying the differences. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's exactly what happened. Remember, that was during the Comp Plan amendment process. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I wanted to just go on the record with that concern and have it in there in the public record, but thank you for addressing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I ask a couple questions? Is this on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, its on. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. It's just on Page 9 of the PUD document; it's the residential table under the accessory structures, the bounding setback for the amenity area. There was a statement that there be no pool within 105 feet. I didn't know if you wanted that as -- if that was a commitment change you were planning to the PUD, if you wanted a footnote or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we did clarify the dumpsters. I don't know -- I'm not sure where the -- how does the pool fit in? MR. YOVANOVICH: The way we looked at this, if you looked at Footnote 5, it says, "Does not apply to past recreational uses such as trails and pathways." We interpreted that to mean none of the amenities other than trails or pathways could be within 500 feet, 505 feet (sic). So if we need to clarify -- we thought the footnote took care of that, but clearly a pool's not a -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the footnote says that the 105 feet does not apply to trails and pathways, so you can put the trails and pathways closer than 105. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And every other non -passive use would be subject to that 105 -foot setback is how we thought we'd address it. I'm not objecting to clarifying -- Page 53 of 91 May 16, 2019 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. I'm just saying you said on the record there would be no pool within 105 feet. So I'm just asking, did you want to add a footnote to the minimum PUD boundary setback for the accessory structures that there will be no pool within 105 feet? That's all I'm asking as to whether that was something -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we simplify it by just doing that. Do you have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll add another Footnote No. 7. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, and it will go under -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It will go under amenity area. Right where we have the No. 5, we'll also put a No. 7. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it will be under 15 where you have the 15 -foot setback for the PUD boundary setback. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll put it wherever you -- we'll work with you, Heidi, to put it wherever you want to put it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Well, we can talk about that later. MR. YOVANOVICH: We agree with the words. We'll figure out where it goes in the table. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are we there? COMMISSIONER FRY: Final comment. Just that I --having gone through a similar process, I believe the residents of Bent Creek and Tuscany Cove will enjoy having all of those additional services and amenities in their area, so I think that's a -- it will be a blessing in that respect. I think we have a problem here in Collier County in that every application the residents -- the homeowners walk in -- and this is not related to you. They walk in, and they were somehow not aware of what was already approved to go in next door to them, be it an approved PUD or be it that was zoned for a road, that kind of thing. And I think we have an issue here in Collier Couth that I'd love to see — I'd like to be part of getting this addressed where there is an easy mechanism for homeowners to research what is approved and what could go in next to their house. And in my case, at the end of our streets was a right-of-way for the Logan extension, and I had a half dozen people who bought at the end of that street and had no idea that a major road could go in there. My wife and I went through extensive steps in order to figure out how to research what might go there and decided, no, we don't want that. There could be a road some day, even though it was all woods at the time. And I just think that's a problem we need to address. We'd have a lot less people walking in going, well, I was told this would be a preserve or some or -- somehow the message is just not getting to the people, and there needs to be an easy mechanism for that to take place. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff has been very good about answering people's questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't doubt that. MR. KLATZKOW: It is as simple as somebody picking up a phone and asking staff, you know, what's planned around me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Maybe its communication. Call this number. MR. YOVANOVICH: 311. COMMISSIONER FRY: 311. That the new -- that number actually would answer these types of questions, what's going in next to my -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fantastic. Thank you. I'm glad I brought it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a list of stipulations. Is there a motion to either deny or Page 54 of 91 May 16, 2019 approve this project? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve PDDR-PL2017000768, the Baumgarten Commercial Planned Unit Development, based on the stipulations as stated by Commissioner Strain on the record. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karl. Discussion? First of all, I want to thank the applicant for the extensive amount of cooperation. Not all times do they work out as well as this, so I do appreciate it. I think we've got a project that's better off now than it was when it started, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I do thank the residents -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- of both communities, Tuscany, in particular, taking the initiative to hire an attorney to at least go through this and hammer out these issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCH 41TT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Thank you all very much. We're going to take a one-hour lunch break. Well, actually, a 59 -minute lunch break. We'll be back at 1:30 to resume the meeting. When you come back, we'll be talking about the generator issue. That will continue no later than -- till 3 o'clock, at which time we'll have to depart from that one. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioners Chrzanoswki and Dearborn are absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, thank you for the mic. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if you'll have your seats for a minute, we're going to continue with this kind of an out -of -sequence portion of our meeting today. We have one other land -use item that we're going to hear no later than 3 o'clock. So if we start on an item now and we can't finish it, we'll start it at 3:00. ***Jeremy, we need to move into the generator portion of the LDC amendment. Could you guide us to the right section and page that we're talking about. MR. FRANTZ: This should be the first amendment in your packet after the memo. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On what you distributed, I think it's 518 of 567, but that may not match your pagination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a 31 -page document for one of them. That's the lighting, generators, and gas station signs. MR. FRANTZ: This is addressing LDC Sections 4.02.01 and new section 5.03.07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Okay. We're there. So at this point we're going to -- right now the discussion's going to be for LDC Section 4.02.01 and 5.03.07, permanent emergency generators. And there's no need to be sworn in or disclosures. We'll Page 55 of 91 May 16, 2019 just move right into the discussion. Jeremy, you want to -- MR. FRANTZ: Briefly, we've seen this amendment two other times, and hoping that we can resolve the issues that you -all had and maybe fine tune some of the language that you had concerns over. Rich Henderlong has got a really brief presentation just to bring everybody up to speed, get everybody on the same page. There's some people from the public who have not been present at previous meetings. And then we can move on to your questions or concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go right into it. Richard? MR. HENDERLONG: Rich Henderlong, principal planner, Planning and Zoning Department. We thought it might be just appropriate to just recap what the Board directive was for the benefit of the general public. It started back on this first slide June 26th, '19, last year. The main directive was to bring back the amendment to address generator setbacks and make a recommendation to enhance the existing LDC regulations. And, as you know, those LDC regulations are 3 -foot encroachment in side yards is the principal issue that people have been debating back and forth. In addition to the report, they wanted to know what are the issues to report back to the Board, and I've listed them here as quoted from each individual commissioner. They talked about fire, setbacks to property line, separation between homes, the amount of clearance between generators due to heat and fumes, noise attenuation along a neighbor's property line, theft, or placement on the same side of neighboring property lines. Next slide. So out of these issues -- okay. Out of those issues there are four principal issues that the Planning Commission discussed since March 27th, the last hearing meeting, and the main. one was health and life safety. We were asked to take -- you heard testimony from the fire official regarding obstructions for maneuvering emergency services equipment between principal structures, and provide assurances for early detection to carbon monoxide fumes. What is proposed and in your text today is a 3 -foot clearance around the front and the sides of the generator, a 3 -foot distance to gas/electrical meters, pool pumps, other mechanical equipment, landscape planting, other than shrubs and trees, a 5 -foot clearance from shrubs and trees, 10 -foot offset in distance to and between generators and, lastly, the installation of CO detectors on each floor when generators are located within 10 feet of an exterior wall. The next three issues relate to noise, placement, and proximity or location of the generators. On noise, we are requiring the adherence and compliance with the county's noise ordinance and the manufacturer sound -level readings. We provided in your packet the manufacturer's data that shows that the sound -level readings, decibel readings range from 61 to 73 of those manufacturers we looked at, and it also keys it into the fact that they meet the level requirement of 75 dBA for the county noise ordinance. The third issue is placement within all types of easement. This was brought to our attention at the last meeting by Mr. Anthony Pires. The language that has been added into your text, he sent an email this morning saying that he's in agreement with it and satisfied with it, and so that text has been added to the amendment. The last issue is proximity and location to the property lines and neighboring principal structure. Following the lead from the last meeting, we gathered from the general consensus that there should be a 5 -foot distance to the property line in the side. We already agreed on the rear yard. Secondly, that there be a 10 -foot distance to the property line when the side -yard setback is greater than 20 feet and then, lastly, at a 10 feet distance to a neighboring principal structure or wall, okay, that that be a standard. So to that extent we looked at -- that that separation for distance is -- if you had 48 feet, you would have 10 foot for the structure. That would require about a 7 -foot side -yard setback to meet those standards. Also, we received some general public comments that are supporting the original amendment at Page 56 of 91 May 16, 2019 one foot from the property, and I believe there are residents -- you'll hear testimony from others today about their concerns; how it may affect them who have tried to get permits and have been rejected. In some cases, there may be medical necessity. We sent you an email -- I think Jeremy did last night or yesterday regarding Mr. Halts, Ammel Halts (phonetic), and his situation is that in Talis Park he has a 5 -foot setback. He needs -- the 36 inches does not work for him, the 3 foot. He's looking for a 4 -foot setback. In his property, there are no obstructions other than just a -- no plantings, an air-conditioned unit on both of the adjoining properties. But his wife has, for over 20 some years, a medical necessity, needs refi•igeration of her medicines to be constant and continuous and not be interrupted by any electrical outages. So he's brought that to our attention, and we just wanted to mention that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich, first of all, you did a really good job inlaying this out for us. Thank you. It's going to be easy to read and discuss, and I certainly appreciate it. And with that, I'll turn to my Planning Commission members and see if they have any questions. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do. Rich, I'm trying to figure out the best way to phrase this. With regards to the permitting -- and I'm going to give a scenario. I'm in a house, there's no -- the lot next to me is vacant. I put in a generator. Does that now force the builder who's going to build a house next to me snake sure that the house is designed to comply with the requirements of where that current generator is placed? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, as proposed today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we'll have to -- so no opening can be within 10 feet of the existing generator? So no window could be designed. So if this is a standard cookie -cutter type of development where you might have five or six options, they're going to have to redesign the house in order to construct that house next to a lot that already has a generator. MR. HENDERLONG: Let me answer your question as it relates to the other property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: What this code will say is that if it is closer than 10 feet, that window, you must have a carbon monoxide -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the carbon monoxide. MR. HENDERLONG: Right. So there's nothing that would restrict thein to making that a little closer. What does require is an offset generator. They cannot be adjacent, like this (indicating). They'd have to be at least 10 feet or offset -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MR. HENDERLONG: -- to meet the 10 point -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If the new home then wants to add a generator, they would have to meet distance requirement and place the generator at a place that complies. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's understandable. MR. HENDERLONG: They'd be rejected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second scenario. The two houses -- and I think we may have talked about this last time, if they have no other place to put it than very limited from a standpoint to meet all the requirements except for this 10 -foot separation to an opening. Does that, then, force the neighbor to install the CO detector in the house? Or who's responsible? MR. HENDERLONG: It does not. The CO detector would be on the original applicant who goes in. The county doesn't have a proposal for it. Although you heard testimony from the fire official that their preference is to see that it be required for all of them, but the Florida Building Code does not require that, to have carbon monoxide alarms installed in these other adjacent properties. MR. FRANTZ: I think its also important to remember that with a minimum of five feet from the Page 57 of 91 May 16, 2019 property line, it's going to restrict you to a certain size setback and that will -- that will force those generators to be, I think in a lot of cases, at least 10 feet from a window on a neighboring property as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is -- yeah. For both questions Joe's asked, if you take this 5 -foot minimum to the property line into consideration, it solves the issues that he's bringing up, and I think that's probably a solution to the response that might help. MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Five-foot distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got 10 feet between any obstructions, and you've still got the width of the generator away from the wall to building, so you're far enough away you wouldn't need to do a smoke detector or anything like that, a carbon monoxide detector. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Carbon monoxide detector. I had one other question. And from a standpoint, some communities require sound walls around pool equipment or A/C units. Is there any restrictions that a sound wall -- if a community requires some kind of a sound wall, there's a screen, are there stipulations as far as how far from the generator one would have to put the wall up? MR. HENDERLONG: That is usually a manufacturer determination in their specs, and what I have seen where there is a wall or landscape, it will be two to three feet. It is not something that the county enforces from homeowners' association, but if that homeowner's association has a more restrictive, they'd have to comply with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Many homeowners in the docs require some kind of a sound wall or screening. And the last is, as far as the -- in regards to over easements, the applicant is fully responsible. They'll come in with all the documentation, as I read, to assure that if they're on some kind of a -- over some kind of an easement, that the easement holder has released -- they're obligated to get the release. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And verify that they've coordinated. MR. HENDERLONG: They will not proceed with the application if they provide their — to require -- they'll submit the easement with the application, and if that letter does not accompany the application, staff will not process that building permit application until they get it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff, during the application process, is verifying any type of easement. It could be a landscape buffer easement, or it could be a utility easement -- MR. HENDERLONG: Correct, drainage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- drainage easement. Sometimes these easement holders -- and that was Mr. Pires' -- Tony Pires' biggest concern was many of those easement holders are the CDD or the homeowners' association or somebody that really is the -- is the responsible entity for the easement, but the applicant has to secure the release or the approval. MR. HENDERLONG: I'm glad you brought that one up, because we went back after the meeting and pulled that permit to see actually what happened, and transpired, and that was a situation where a vendor and a contractor went out, they just knew the 3 -foot setback was whatever it was, and they went and installed that, constructed it, but the county had never issued a permit for it. It came back for permit. It was rejected and, therefore, that's when it got caught again, and they had to move it to the rear yard. So that's where the permit was issued. That generator was moved from the side yard to the rear yard, and it met the requirements. COMMISSIONER SCIB4ITT: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: But it still means that we need to be very vigilant making sure they're not in the easement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The real issue is in the staffing process that -- because many times the industry, the applicant may just pull the -- I want to call it kind of the site -- the spot survey or Page 58 of 91 May 16, 2019 the survey for the house, but you'll actually have to go back to the plats and plan to make sure -- MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and verify that there's no easement, because the easement may not be noted on the survey plat for the home, but it would be on the plat or plan for the street, so there's got to be that due diligence to verify that those are not going over some type of easement. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. The Planning and Zoning Department gets the application first. They check the setbacks, and they're looking for the easements. They'll check the plats and see if there's any; if so, they'll send that back and put it on hold and ask the applicant to provide that letter or some proof of evidence that all the easement holders are willing to accept it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Am I correct that -- let's say I own a vacant lot right now, and my next-door neighbor decides -- we have a small setback or small distance between where I could build a building and where his housing unit is? He puts a generator in, and in some cases that might result in a smaller footprint for my house; am I correct. MR. HENDERLONG: Not necessarily. Generators are always allowed currently under the LDC as an encroachment in the side, or it has to be in the rear yard 10 -foot back. That's being modified with this amendment to -- in the rear yard from 10 to 5 feet. The second part is -- what we're doing is acknowledging that a generator is an accessory use. It's not -- should not be looked at as somewhat like an encroachment into a side yard, but the proper standard is to set it at a certain distance from the property line. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So in my vacant -lot hypothetical, the fact that my next-door neighbor puts a generator in would have no effect on the sideline of where I could construct a house. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One more. It's somewhat related, corollary. As you recall during the last hurricane, we lost a lot of power in the county, of course, and as a result, after three or four days, the people using their facilities in their home -- we had no lift stations operating, and we pretty much overwhelmed much of the county with sewage because we had little sewage moving because the lift stations don't have auxiliary power. We now have many homeowners who are deciding to put generators in with the belief that they're going to live in the home now and, of course, the generator -- they're going to be living in the home, but after three or four days, if we don't have power restored -- and I don't believe we have plans now for any type of auxiliary generators in lift stations. They may be living in the home, but they're not going to be able to move sewage, which is going to be a real problem in the county, because in the past people who didn't have the generators either evacuated or they lived in a hotel or they went somewhere. I just see it really becoming -- going to be a significant increase in the number of people coming back turning on their generators and trying to live in their house, but we can't move sewage in this county without auxiliary generators powering the lift stations. I don't know, is that -- second and third order effects of this. Has anybody talked about this? MR. BOSL• Well, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I believe utilities has a plan of trying to provide generators in more locations to individual lift stations, but it's a pretty hefty task with the number that they have. It's like 657, I believe it was. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Significant task. Very familiar with even the days when FEMA used to provide generators and what it cost to store generators and all the other things associated with it. Though it's a great concept from a standpoint of the county trying to do it, it's a pretty significant expense to have the generators to power the lift stations. Page 59 of 91 May 16, 2019 So though they maybe have power in their home, they may not be able to move sewage. And we had some serious problems, as you may recall, during the last hurricane. MR. HENDERLONG: Duly noted. I agree with you. I know the Board struggled with that, and Mr. Summers has talked to the Board about that, and they're trying to do a study on how they can improve that or find accessibility for auxiliary generators and have a certain amount or quantity available and where to place them on a first-, second-, and third -tier level. For instance, nursing homes, ALFs, gas stations, et cetera. And then where do they get the most number of people back up and running with the sewer problem? That's still -- my understanding, that's still an ongoing study. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And in my summation, it's going to be a short-term fix. If it powers more than 10, 15 days, it's -- you know, we're not going to move sewage. I mean, that's what happened. MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? One point of clarification. Rich, on 5.03.07.C.2, you added some language in yellow. It says, "All easements burdening the property including, but not limited to, drainage easements, lake maintenance easements, and access easements." And I understand what that means, but in the amount of single-family that I've been involved in, either between the units or in the rear lot lines we have drainage swales or areas where drainage is directed by slopes. A lot of times those are interrupted because people plant in the middle of them, stop the water from running, and that stops -- blocks it up on both sides for drainage, and it stops water from going to the street or to the back. How -- is that occasion addressed somehow in the sense that if they are in an area where the drainage is supposed to sheet flow or flow in a collected swale to a direction, especially one that backs up to other properties, how are we addressing that? MR. HENDERLONG: In the context of what you have in front of you, it's not addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it should be because then that's one of the problems with these -- when you keep packing this stuff in between units, because most of the times -- and a lot of the conditions don't have gutters. Whether they do or not, though, the water ends up going between the units and then it's supposed to flow front to back or middle to both sides. We've got to make sure that's not impeded. So I think some note ought to be added just to make that as something that should be considered in the site plan review. MR. HENDERLONG: You can make that a condition for your approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Any drainage directions are accounted for, something to that effect. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only thing I'd ask I think I've seen missing from this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good point. I've got one more. The zero lot line pretty much negates any ability to put a generator in, because it will -- typically the zero lot lines are, what, five foot and zero, so you -- MR. HENDERLONG: Well, a true zero lot line says that the structure's on the lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the lot line. MR. HENDERLONG: And then you've got 10 foot to the side, okay. So they still -- if you've got 10 foot on the side, you would be -- if the other house is 10 foot, too, you would be prohibiting anybody in that area. Same thing with the 5 -foot setback. If you've got five and five or seven and seven, they're going to have to have five that -- if you've got seven -and -a -half feet on both sides and they're looking for 48 inches, four and four, okay, and you're going to get the 10 foot, that's the only case where you'll get your 10 -foot separation between a structure and the generator is on a 7 -and -a -half foot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, a lot of places are going to require generators either going Page 60 of 91 May 16, 2019 in the back -- mostly in the back of the house behind the pool or other places. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: These are -- I don't argue with the restrictions, but the restrictions are going to be, I would say, difficult to meet in a lot of places, and they're going to end up putting them in the back, which is what my neighbor did. He put it back behind his pool cage. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. And staff, as a whole, tries to ask that question. They are cognizant of that; why can't you put it in the back? And then they do try to -- when they do the review of the planning and zoning, I know I've talked with a couple of the reviewers regarding that, but they're not -- they can make the suggestion. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- here might be able to make -- what is it, 20 percent additional cost? I don't know. I just don't know. MR. HENDERLONG: You'll hear from some of the members of the industry today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If nobody else, we'll do public speakers. We'll start with registered speakers, whoever wants to call them up. And when you please come up, identify yourself by spelling your last name if it needs to be, and then we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. BOSL First speaker is Joe Dvorak, and he'll be followed by Ray -- Ron Kay. MR. DVORAK: Yes, I have some pictures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to use the microphone. Identify yourself before you start speaking. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can put pictures on the viewer. MR. DVORAK: My name is Joe Dvorak, D as in David, V as in Victor, o -r -a -k. My wife and I live in Lely Resort. I have with me 55 signatures on a petition, and there's another gentleman here tonight, he has 45 signatures. We have over 100 signatures on our petition making a recommendation that the previous provision of one foot from the property line be adhered to. These were signed before it changed to five feet. So this is -- this is in reference to 12/18, the provision one foot from property line. So I have three sets, and I have photos. My wife and I purchased our home a year -and -a -half ago in Lely Resort. We've been renting down there for four years. We're from Chicago. And at the time when we were looking for a home, we were trying to focus on areas that had natural gas. We wanted natural gas for cooking, for barbecuing, and also for a generator. In Chicago we have a generator. We've had it for 10 years, and I can tell you it has saved us probably two or three times a year. We have a high water table, and when the power goes out, our sump pumps will shut down. The generators runs our sump pumps. It runs a lot of -- in the wintertime it runs the furnace. So we were focused on a generator. No problem. So we purchased a home, and I asked the realtor at the time, I said, is there any problem with having a generator on this home? He said, absolutely not. Half of your neighbors have generators. Great. So after we moved in the home, I decided -- I met some of my neighbors. We decided we're going to do a package deal. We went and we purchased -- we got seven neighbors. We purchased a generator from a gentleman right here. We got a package deal, great deal, 10 -year warranty, everything was fine. Six of my neighbors got their generator installed. Came time for our generator, we were told it encroached six inches into the side yard; six inches. So I said, really, why don't we put it behind the pool cage? The problem is we're on a lake. On a lake you own no property behind your pool. On a golf course, most of the homes don't have any property behind the pool cage. So we couldn't put it behind the house, couldn't put it on the side of the house. So Anthony goes, let's put it in your front side yard. I said, front side yard? I want to put it between two garages. I've got two garages. There's no windows. There's nothing there. Page 61 of 91 May 16, 2019 He gets the permit to put it in the front side yard, our HOA will not approve. There's no generators in the front yards. So now we have no -- we want a generator. We have no option. All we want to do is protect our home. We know that there's three appliances that protect your home: Security system, air-conditioning for mold, and a generator. Hurricane time, without a generator you have no protection for your home. That's what we're looking for. When the staff proposed the one foot from the property line amendment, we were all in favor of it. It help -- there's probably, I don't know -- Rich, how many people have had permits rejected? MR. HENDERLONG: About 15 percent. MR. DVORAK: Fifteen percent or 50? MR. HENDERLONG: Fifteen of the total pool. MR. DVORAK: Fifteen of the total pool have been rejected. So all of a sudden we're trying to figure out -- we were told when they first did the amendment that it was going to speed in help getting generators. So going from two foot from the property line to one foot would speed the process. All of a sudden now we have five feet; five feet. Well, my calculation is, if it has to be five feet from the property line and you have two generators, that now means that homes have to be 17 feet apart; 17 feet apart. We live in a new community, three years old, and I could tell you for a fact, there's 150 home. Seventy percent are not 15 feet apart; 70 percent. Of the 633 permits issued in the last two years for generators in Collier County, 633, 36 percent are between 10 and 15 percent (sic), a total of almost 71 percent of those permits would be rejected with this 5 -foot addition. We are against the 5 -foot addition. We don't think it's reasonable. We're very concerned. Hurricane season's coming. We've been waiting a year for a permit. I go back to Chicago in two weeks. I can't -- I can't be in the house, can't watch the house. So we know that the Board has their meeting at the end of June. We want this thing resolved today; today. We want the recommendation resolved today. We think that the seven foot is really ridiculous, the 17 feet. How many communities do you live in that the homes are 15 to 17 feet apart? Not many. Now, if you don't mind, I'd just like to pick a couple highlights out of the petition just to mention a few things. We, the people, demand equal protection rights. A phrase in the 14th Amendment in the United States Constitution requires that states guarantee the same rights, privileges, and protection to all citizens. We are sure that every commissioner who -- would want to have the same right to install a permitted generator if they so wish so. We want the same right. This gentleman over here has a generator. I compliment him. He knows the benefit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't have a generator. Make it clear. I do not. MR. DVORAK: Do you want one? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. No interest in one, and I don't want one. MR. DVORAK: Okay. Then I misunderstood you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. DVORAK: We understand -- if the commissioners believe there's an issue with this, we really say that Collier County is responsible. Collier County approved developers building homes 10 to 12 feet apart. Back when there was a hurricane in 2007, this could have been amended and changed but with Wilma where you could have incorporated the pool equipment, the air -conditioners, and a generator. Nothing was done. And today new developments are still 10 to 12 feet apart. So you helped to contribute to the problem, and now you want to penalize us because we can't get a generator. We didn't decide how wide the lots were. When we bought our home, we thought they were wide enough. We assumed in planning and zoning that was considered. Page 62 of 91 May 16, 2019 The Fire Department's already indicated they don't have a problem with access between the homes. So in summary, we compliment the staff for all of their work and their first initial recommendation, and we believe if you still feel there's a problem, grandfather all existing homes that are 10 to 15 feet apart, anything platted new and going forward make the developers put the homes further apart. I know that's a task. It's not easy. But it doesn't -- why penalize the residents that we can't protect our homes? So in the end, I have just four quick pictures, then I'm done. All right. This first picture, in my opinion, says it all. This is my next-door neighbor's pool equipment, the generator is behind it, and down further is an air-conditioning unit. His pool equipment is on the property line. There's no provisions for pool equipment, there's no provisions for air-conditioning units, but now there's a provision for generators. The generator's the smallest appliance between two homes. Does that make sense? I could probably show you 100 pictures where the pool equipment's on the property line. No provisions to stop that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Could you go back to that picture again. When you say the pool equipment's on the property line, what do you mean? MR. DVORAK: You see the concrete slab. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. DVORAK: That is on the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So right where the slab ends. MR. DVORAK: Ends is the property line. Those homes are 10 feet apart. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a 5 -yard side -yard setback? MR. DVORAK: Yeah. And you're proposing that the generator now has to be five feet from the house. The whole pool equipment's five feet from the house. Those homes have to be 15 to 17 feet apart to abide by this five foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it's five feet from property line, not five feet from the house. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The generator has to be 18 inches from the house. MR. DVORAK: From the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. DVORAK: Exactly. But isn't this new provision that the generator has to be five feet from the property line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we just said, yes. You were saying five feet from the house. It's got to be five feet from the property line. MR. DVORAK: That's what I meant. Okay. It's got to be five feet from the property line. So on both sides it has to be five feet. That's 10 feet. That's without the generator. You've got to add in the generator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand. MR. DVORAK: So we're talking 15 to 17 feet. What we're saying is this is a hurricane zone; 50, 60 percent of the homes aren't that wide. You're telling us we can't have -- some people could put their generator behind their home, yes, and maybe there's some HOAs that will allow it in the front yard, maybe yes. But there's a high percentage of the new projects you're not allowed in the front yard, and you don't have property in the backyard. So I appreciate your time, your consideration. This -- we feel this is a very serious issue, and we would appreciate your very serious consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I just want to ask Rich to clarify. I'm looking at Exhibit D illustration, and this is installation for a typical five -yard setback, and it shows 18 inches, and then it shows the generator one foot maximum. Is that -- is this illustration not correct? I'm looking at Page 63 of 91 May 16, 2019 Exhibit D. Do you need a page number? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. It's Page 10, correct? That's what you're looking at, Page 10? Or your Packet Page 528, COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 530 is the packet I'm looking at. MR. FRANTZ: It's on the visualizer. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay, sorry. There we go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, this is showing one foot. This is how the original codification would have worked. MR. FRANTZ: We didn't go through and update the exhibits. We just updated the language as requested. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the original then? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if someone did this, the neighbor would have to install carbon monoxide detectors? MR. HENDERLONG: If there's a window opening -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a door. MR. HENDERLONG: -- within five feet, or a door, correct. And also manufacturers usually specify if the vent above is five feet, clearance from the top of the generator up to the vent, it has to have at least five feet of clearance. Some of them say four, but most of them say five. And I've been told one company won't even allow it -- if it's less than four, they won't even put the generator in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So what the gentleman had stated, that he was -- he's not allowed to put a generator. And this is now no longer allowed, as you're showing here? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. MR. DVORAK: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you have to use the microphone if you're going to speak. MR. DVORAK: This is exactly how our home is right now. Ten feet apart. The one foot would allow us to put in a generator. Now that one foot becomes five feet, we can't put in a generator. And probably 70 percent of the homes can't put in a generator between homes. We have carbon monoxide detectors throughout our whole community. Not a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What percentage of the homeowners' vote is required to amend your division indenture, your declaration? MR. DVORAK: I don't know. We just --you know, we moved in a year -and -a -half ago. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It might be around 70. MR. DVORAK: Probably. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Get Rich back up there, because I -- again, I'm looking at -- of course, I'm looking at the chart, but I'm also looking at the exhibits. What I've heard stated, then, if there was 18 inches plus the width of the generator plus five feet, no one will be able to put a generator in the side yard. MR. HENDERLONG: No, that's not what we're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it's -- preponderance of homes in this county, typical layout they're 5 -foot or 7 -and -a -half -foot setbacks. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. For setbacks at five feet, okay, no generators. It gets up to seven feet, it can be done. We've done a study on that. You can do it at seven feet. You need at least seven to seven -and -a -half feet to be able to put a generator in and offset them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So then it's stated again, if there's a development with 5 -foot setbacks, they are not going to get a generator on the side yard. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A 7 -and -a -half -foot setback, it's possible? Page 64 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. They've got two -and -a -half feet to work with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So when I look at Page 10, that's the -- that is -- it's Packet 528, Page 528 in the packet, but it's Page 10 in the ordinance, that's the one. That is acceptable right there? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. And that is the one that DSAC -- oh, no, no. Let me back up. This one -- this new diagram that was added -- this is on Page 10/528. This was added in to identify for you that -- you asked us to take a look at clearances with an A/C. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: There's the minimum three foot, that's in the code; the 10 -foot minimum, the diagonal, would be code required; and then your 48 inches. It would yield two feet both from the common property line, which would necessitate a 6 -foot side -yard setback in order for that to be approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So this is -- yeah, it shows 6 -foot setback, but -- MR.IIENDERLONG: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, the preponderance there, a majority of the homes are either seven -and -a -half foot or five foot. MR. BOSI: Just a clarification. If it was passed with the five -- the 5 -foot restriction from the property line, this diagram does not work. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. That's what I just was going to ask. The five foot from the property line, this wouldn't work, nor would a 7 -and -a -half -foot setback work. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is 3 feet short, correct? Maybe 24 -inch, we would need 60 inches. We'd need another 36 inches to the property line. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Maybe I lost it, because I -- what necessitated the 5 -foot distance from the property line? If you have five foot, plus 30 inches, plus 18 inches, it's -- we're not going to have any -- most of the divisions will not be able to put it in the side yard. MR. HENDERLONG: The five foot from the property line was brought up at the March 27th meeting -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: -- and that was your goal was to say that you didn't -- that the Commission did not want it within five feet. You wanted 10 foot between the structures, and that you're manipulating too marry elements into a very impacted area. That was the primary concern. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Maybe I was -- MR. HENDERLONG: In addition, if you look at -- you'll see there is some in your packet on Page 11, right next to it, you'll see that we gave you other Florida community research. And you'll see under the counties Brevard, Miami, Orange, Palm Beach, and Sarasota Counties, on the sides, Miami -Dade is at three foot, five foot for the estate lots; 10 foot for Orange; Palm Beach is three foot for single. On zero lots, they're five foot. So my point -- and if you look at Sarasota way to the right, distance to the property line, that's how they allow them. It's no closer than three feet for Sarasota County. So there are standards in other communities that are doing this. We looked at Marco Island. If you look at Marco, they're allowed four feet into the side and the rear regardless of the distance to the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think at the last meeting I was thinking between the two units total of 10 feet. So that would be two-and-a-balf foot from the unit to the property line and another two -and -a -half feet from the unit to the property line, which would give you a 10 -foot clearance for people to pass through. MR. HENDERLONG: And that's why we thought the offset would accomplish that, by offsetting that they can -- around generators, and three foot between the A/Cs. We have no requirements Page 65 of 91 May 16, 2019 on pool pumps or A/Cs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But now if it's five foot, nobody's going to be able to put a generator in. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, in some communities, like where I live, that's public utility and drainage easement -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- at five feet on each property line. We don't allow anything in the easements. It impedes the drainage and anything else that you have to do within your property. I don't understand why this community doesn't just change their documents so you can put them in the front yard. You have 100 signatures right now. That's enough to -- you can change your documents. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How about my community? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you can't talk from the audience. You'll have to wait till your turn to speak. Thank you. Okay. Joe, are you finished with any questions at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm just going to sit and listen for now, because I want to look at these drawings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: So as I recollect, the fire official that was here last meeting said that they'd like to have 36 inches in order to weave through the equipment and get to the backyard and that they did not have significant issues with that. They didn't need five feet. They needed --maybe it was even 24 inches. MR. HENDERLONG: They said two to three. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two to three. MR. HENDERLONG: The minutes reflect that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it sounds like we're trying to balance safety issues, emergency access issues, safety from the standpoint of carbon monoxide, or generator fumes being drawn into other mechanical air intake equipment. I guess I'm unclear as to if you could achieve those other objectives but still have the 1 -foot setback from the property line. That's really no farther encroaching than the air-conditioning pad or the pool pad, the pool equipment pad. Then why do we need more than the 1 -foot setback to the property line? MR. HENDERLONG: That's your illustration that's in the packet for the original. What that illustration doesn't show is any of the other mechanical equipment. It doesn't take into consideration all that. But that's how you still could maneuver around assuming none of the other equipment's in there as an obstruction. COMMISSIONER FRY: So an alternative would be to have -- have this read where you could be within a foot of the property line but have these clearances to the other equipment to ensure a safe access. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that's the intent. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So there's no magic in the five feet. One foot, as long as it was safe in all the other directions, all the other dimensions, would be acceptable. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. MR. FRANTZ: You -all have expressed concern about the neighboring property, and being one foot from the property line might not address your concerns about being that close to the other home if it is that tight space. COMMISSIONER FRY: But if the air-conditioning pad can be encroaching that far, and the pool pad encroaching that far, farther than the generator would, which is 18 inches from the house, and Page 66 of 91 May 16, 2019 then that adds two -and -a -half to three feet, so it's, what, 44 inches, three -and -a -half feet, four feet max from the home outward. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: If we can ensure safe clearance for emergency access and everything else, then I guess I'm just looking for clarification as to why we need further restrictions in -- MR. BOSI: The 5 -foot setback was the Planning Commission that made the recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, I was thinking five foot between two neighboring units. So it would be two -and -a -half on each side. Maybe I was mistaken. I'm going to ask another question, then. On Page 13, the drawing that is shown, it shows four feet. This would not be acceptable. It says four feet from the property line is the generator. I'm looking at the highlight; 18 inches from the wall, 5 -foot openings, four foot to the property line. MR. HENDERLONG: You're looking at Exhibit D? MR. FRANTZ: It's on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the one on the visualizer, yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. That's a 7.66 -foot side -yard setback, and this is a common note that would -- that staff would put on there, 18 inches from the wall, five feet from the opening, four feet to the property line, and the state, so that's in compliance with the 36, the 3 -foot setback, their encroachment that they're allowed. So it would be 4.65 from the property line. And what -- those that are being rejected, they need 42 inches to 48 inches rather than the 36. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I tell you, I must be -- I'm just not grasping this. This says four foot from the property line. What I heard you say is it has to be five foot from the property line. MR. HENDERLONG: That's what you're proposing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are going to stop this discussion at 3 o'clock to go back to our regular agenda, so if we keep going on this and don't have a -- don't understand it, we're going to be here and maybe not even get to finish this today. So you -all need to keep that in mind every time we hear some new comments, because we've got to get it to a solution on this. MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Dvorak's got the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just leave one with the court reporter, one with the County Attorney's Office, and one with staff. And I have one question of Rich before we move on, or Jeremy. Jeremy, how many homes do we have in Collier County? How many homes have generators? MR. FRANTZ: I don't have either of those numbers available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have over 211,000 homes, but I'm not quite sure how many have generators because we're -- I'm just trying to understand the quantities that are involved. Not everybody in every home lives down here full time and is here during the summer and needs a generator. And I just was trying to find out how many -- MR. FRANTZ: I know that Rich looked at how many permits we've received within a period of time, but we don't have like, you know, all -- total numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Ron Kay followed by Bob Cramer. MIR. KAY: I need to swear in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. We don't need that for legislative action. MR. KAY: Hi. I'm Ron Kay. I'm the president of one of the HOAs in Lely Resort, and I'm on the current turnover committee to take the entity back from Stock Corporation to the Lely LCDD. So I'm well acquainted with what Lely looks like. Page 67 of 91 May 16, 2019 And let me recite a couple things for you. There are over 5,000 doors in Lely, and the preponderance of those doors are in single-family homes or condos. Those single-family homes have about 10 feet of separation, as Mr. Dvorak indicated, and I know that because I live in one of those. Last year during the hurricane, or a year and a half ago, those of us that live in Lely ended up going without power for about six to seven days depending upon the location you were in. That's the first time that that's really happened in a very, very long time. I've been down here for over 20 years. That drove demand for generators, and so there are lots of people who are buying generators. Interestingly enough -- by the way, some of you may say, well, why didn't you have a portable generator? Well, that's the way I started. I had a portable generator. I had it hardwired into my panel where I could pull it out of the garage, run it, and it powered -- I had a 7 kW generator. It powered a little bit of the house, so it took care of my refrigerators, it took care of my fans, took care of my lights. It wouldn't run air-conditioning; didn't have enough juice coming out of it. And we survived for two days until you couldn't get gas down here anymore. So anybody that thinks that portable generators are the solution to this problem, they are not the solution to this problem, because when power is out, it's out everywhere. There were only a couple of places where you could get gas, and the lines were a anile long to get there. And so portable generators aren't the fix. So I agree with Mr. Dvorak; you need to get to the place where reasonable setbacks are honored. I just had a whole -house generator put in. I didn't have a problem with setbacks because I have a very large pie -shaped lot, and so I was able to put a generator in, and I was able to bury a 500 -gallon propane tank. But with weather being what it is, I mean, we could go another 30 years without seeing a storm like Irma but, then again, we could see another one very shortly, and we'll be in the same predicament. And I think demand has risen significantly. You'll probably hear from some of the generator folks, and I think we need to have reasonable setback requirements and, frankly, I don't see the reason for the change to the existing setback requirements that were in effect before this subject was brought up last month. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSL Next speaker is Bob Cramer followed by Jeff Wegner. MR. CRAMER: Good afternoon. Bob Cramer, Generac Power Systems, C -r -a -m -e -r. I am the technical applications manager for anything 0 to 150 kW. I travel the country. I just came down from New York. I wasn't expected to be here, but I came down from New York to provide some support to your residents and our dealers in this market. So I'm here more to answer questions that you might have than provide any statement, but I can certainly provide history on CO detection and where we're going as a manufacturer. I can provide NFPA 37 placement issues and how that's evolving with the codes. I can talk to you about emergency systems versus optional standby systems are legally required, like your lift station issue that you had some concerns about. So I guess I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Absolutely. I'm glad that you're here. What do you find -- I'm sure that we're not the only place in the country that has homes that are 10 feet apart. MR. CRAMER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: What do you find elsewhere in terms of the preponderance of the requirements and the ability of people to put generators in their side yards in those developments? MR. CRAMER: So NFPA 37 is the standard for placement of a generator, and NFPA 37 developed a position that required you to be five feet from any combustible structure or any opening in a structure. Page 68 of 91 May 16, 2019 And I would say back in the early 2000s we were developing portable product and limited home standby product, and the lot -line restrictions here caused us to go through special testing, which is Southwest Research Institute, and they're based out of San Antonio, Texas. And we went in because of the NFPA 37 requirement of placement to allow us to go to that 18 inches. So that 18 inches that you see is we established that as a manufacturer. COMMISSIONER FRY: So 18 inches from the home? MR. CRAMER: From a combustible wall, correct. We could have gone 12. We could have gone 10. But we chose 18 inches as the standard because of some air circulation for the equipment and things like that. So the placement of the product at 18 inches is based off the testing we did in the earlier years to provide a product for Florida, for the hurricane areas where the homes were closer together. The problem was portable product that was getting used in these markets, they were leaving them in the garage. The elderly communities, they wouldn't pull them out onto the driveway. They'd leave them in the garage, and carbon monoxide would build up. So testing -- we spend about $250,000 a year on testing for placement and then redesign of product. We have to go through and test it every year, and that developed that 18 inches. And then we work directly with any community across the country for placement. In New York -- one of the issues I'm dealing with in New York right now is we have to go through an affidavit program to get placement closer than 24 inches, and New York is accepting that, but they're trying to roll forward with some laws in this one particular community. So we deal with these issues from California to New York all year long. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I think what we're dealing with here is not so much the 18 inches to the home. It's the distance to the property line and between the generator and other equipment. You know, we have the carbon monoxide requirement within 10 feet of an opening, a window or door in that structure or an adjacent structure, but what do you see elsewhere in terms of how close the generator can be to the property line and what kind of factors are -- you know, are weighed by other communities in making that decision? MR. CRAMER: The lot -line restriction, I've never seen it to the five foot. From the building structure, 18 inches to the unit, 24 inches -- and, again, I'm talking about our product, not any of our competitors -- width of 24 inches, and then an additional five feet to a lot line. We don't see that. And in this market in Florida, there's tens of thousands that are already installed within what your community is requesting right now. So they're already in place. I think there was a misunderstanding of the distance from the generator to the lot line just listening to the conversation that's taking place. And as far as the fire marshals that we meet with, they don't have a problem getting to the front door or the back or getting into our equipment. They have an ax, and they open it up, and they do what they want. So we haven't -- we've never really had any issues other than CO. On the CO side, we are -- we're leading as -- we're leading manufacturer in stipulating that CO detectors are installed if a generator is installed on the property. Now, there's some hangups that come with that based on the building codes and things like that, but our recommendation is that a CO detector is installed when a generator is installed on a residence. It's not a requirement but NFPA 37, which again, talks about placement, is moving forward to try and adopt something. I don't know if it's going to make it in this code cycle or it's going to take another three years, but there is discussion right now. We were just up in Savannah with the panel members of NFPA 37, and it's a recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRY: In this version of our code, the recommendation is -- or the requirement would be one carbon monoxide sensor per floor inside each opening, a door, window, that's within 10 feet of the generator. Does that support what you've seen in terms of ensuring safety elsewhere? Page 69 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. CRAMER: Our installation and owners' manuals recommend within -- inside in the closest part of the structure that has an opening, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Even if it's farther than 10 feet away? MR. CRAMER: Correct, correct. The closest opening within the structure. COMMISSIONER FRY: One carbon monoxide sensor inside near the window or near the door? MR. CRAMER: We'll call it a bedroom. Inside that bedroom, if that window's on that side of the house, we make a recommendation for an installation of a carbon monoxide detector. COMMISSIONER FRY: And if you were within 10 feet of the adjacent house in these very close lot -line situations, the recommendation would be to have one inside the window of that home as well if it was within proximity of the generator owned by the adjacent neighbor? MR. CRAMER: Again, it's tough to discuss that because it's not a requirement. It's not part of the Florida Building Code. It's not part of the ICC. It is a recommendation on our part based on the events that took place here over the years. And, moving forward, we know that there is going to be adoption but, again, it's dictated to the structure that the product is installed on. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. CRAMER: So if the neighbor -- I don't have any control -- or our dealers have no control over whether the neighbor wants that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Jeff Wenger followed by David Gregory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many speakers total do we have, Mike? MR. BOSI: Five additional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to be cutting it close to three. MR. WENGER: I can go fast. My name is Jeff Wenger, W -e -n -g -e -r. I'm here to speak on my own behalf and also for 45 residents of Stone Creek. Stone Creek's a brand-new development. It's still under construction. The advantage Stone Creek has is it's one of the very few new communities with natural gas. Like many of my neighbors, we moved there because we wanted to get a permanent home generator. The standby generator we've had in the last two homes. We value what it can do for us not only for health reasons, but if there is a hurricane, to answer one of your questions, we're not going to stay around, but we don't want to come back to a house with rotten food in the refrigerator and mold throughout the entire house. That's why we want a generator. We're 12 feet from our neighbor. After Irma, all of our neighbors applied. Neighbor on one side got his generator. Neighbor on the other side got his generator. We're six inches too close to the property line as the previous restrictions were. That means that we're looking out at his generator yet we can't put one in the very same space even though there's 10 feet of room between generators between openings in both of our homes. There's plenty of room. We can't get it because we're six inches too far apart. Forget about the 5 -foot setback that you've been talking about. We feel one foot is too much. We'd like you to make that one-half foot. If you make it one-half foot, we get our six inches, we can put our generator in in the same space between our two homes as he does. We cannot put it in the back of our house because our pool cage goes all the way to the property line. We might be able to put it in the front of the yard, but even if the homeowners would allow it, it would be unsightly. I want you to know, too, portable generators are dangerous. Hundreds of people die every year because of portable generators. Permanent generators, permanent standby generators are not. There are very view instances where it contributed to any deaths whatsoever, all right. And the idea of the carbon monoxide and everything, I think you have to realize that -- I think the fears are unwarranted in terms of Page 70 of 91 May 16, 2019 these permanent generators. Also, the sound is not an issue. For years at a time that generator may never go on full time. It's going to turn on for maybe 15 minutes once a week, and the sound emitting from air-conditioning units and from pool equipment, those -- that equipment runs continuously, all right. A permanent backup generator does not run continuously unless there's a hurricane situation or a major outage, all right. I have here signed petitions and letters addressed to you from 45 of our neighbors right along our own street. Our homes are all 10 to 12 -- some of them are a little more than 12 feet. Some people can get generators, some people cannot, all right. Every one on this list, they're all asking you to lessen the restriction, lessen that 1 -foot setback. Make it half a foot so we can all get generators. If this doesn't go through, my wife and I, we're going to move out of Stone Creek. We're going to have to move somewhere else where they already have a generator, all right. It's just something that we feel we should be able to get. And the ability to do it with natural gas is so much better than having to bury propane tanks or have aboveground propane tanks. They're just unsightly, okay. So we ask that, if you would, please, lift the restrictions somewhat. Don't increase them. Permanent standby generators are a good thing, they really are. And they're -- if this does go through where you're going to increase the restrictions, right now with the restrictions as they are, about 10 to 15 percent of the homes in Stone Creek would not be approved. They'd be denied just like I was denied and some of the other people here were denied in Stone Creek. If you increase them, I guarantee 90 percent of the homes would not be able to get permanent standby generators. And that's what I have to say. COMMISSIONER FRY: What distances were involved in your case? What distances? And where were you six inches shorts? You're 18 from the home for the generator. MR. WENGER: Eighteen inches from the home. The Generac generator's 24 inches. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's 42 inches. That's three -and -a -half feet. MR. WENGER: Then we need it to be another foot to the property line. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's four and a half feet total. MR. WENGER: But we weren't a foot to the property line because our house is a little bit wider than our neighbor's house. So we're short six inches to the properly line. We need another six inches. And even with that space, there's so much space between our homes, the fire people could easily get in and out, weave between the generators and, you know, pool equipment and so on. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your setback --your property line is four feet from your house; is that what you're saying? MR. WENGER: I don't know. All I know for sure is that we're six inches short. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. WENGER: So here are the copies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, again, they're either 5 -foot setbacks or 7 -and -a -half. That's why I'm trying -- sitting here doing the math, and I mean -- I mean, even if it were six inches, how are you going to -- Commissioner Strain brought up the fact of assuring that there was adequate drainage between the homes so you don't cause a dam effect or backup water, because the home requirements are is -- you know, they're built up a bit and you're allowed drainage so you can have -- water comes off the roof. It has to move to the front or the back of the house. MR. WENGER: Understood. Our neighbor's pool equipment extends much further out from the house than this generator pad would in the same space. Believe me, it's not going to be an issue because the space is there. It's just our house is a little bit wider than his. We're 12 feet apart. He has his. We look out at it every day. It doesn't bother us. He can get his. We can't get one ourselves. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So your request, in summation, is you don't want any more than six inches from the property line. MR. WENGER: Property line, yes, sir. Because if we don't do that, 20 percent of the homes -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) Page 71 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The math doesn't add up. Twelve -- 18 inches plus 24 inches. MR. WENGER: You've got the 12. How many inches, 18 inches from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, 18 inches from the house. Twenty-four inches, you said, is the typical size of the generator, so that's two -and -a -half feet. MR. WENGER: Yeah. But from looking at your exhibit on Page 12 or 13, whatever it is, it shows that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Three -and -a -half feet, sorry. MR. WENGER: You need that extra foot. And all I know is that we were denied because we were six inches too short. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: The next speaker is Brian Gillis. MR. GREGORY: I thought you said David Gregory. MR. BOSI: Oh, I'm sorry. David Gregory followed by Brian Gillis. MR. GREGORY: Thank you. My name is David Gregory. I happen to live in Stone Creek. I've also been on the board for over four years at our North Naples condo association. I'd like to address a question regarding the sewage which you talked about, Mr. Schmitt. One of the big problems after the hurricane -- and I think there's two types of people: Those that leave and those that stay. And then some people do come back early. We were without power for 10 days at the condo from FPL. One of the major problems is, because people didn't have air-conditioning, they were running showers all the time, and we had to go out to people and knock on their doors and tell them, please don't take a shower. Don't flush your toilet unless necessary. But by not having power, you actually created a problem with the sewage because people were trying to cool themselves off. As I recall, it was, like, 98 degrees and 95 percent humidity. So I went to put in an application for a permit for my new house in Stone Creek. I am zero lot line. I have 10 feet that I own right to the wall of my neighbor. Now, he does have 6 -inch easement to be able to paint his wall, but I own 10 feet. My air -conditioner sticks out 42 inches. I don't have any pool equipment, so there's nothing else going down there. I know that other people with pool equipment, as was shown here, with pool, gas heaters, et cetera, extend out beyond that. So we're not encroaching on your drainage because, if we are, the builder has already encroached on the drainage. I was denied the application just this past week. It wasrejected. Finally today they listed why the -- you know, the application. And it tells me that the encroachment is over three feet into the 10 -foot setback because that's the current code as I understand it. If that is true, then nobody should be a play (sic), because if you take 18 inches from the wall, 24 -inch, you're at three -and -a -half feet. There should never be a single installation in this county. Before I put in my application, I did it for the HOA, and I pulled identical houses to mine, identical footprints. I looked at what was approved. They all were approved with six -and -a -half feet to the property line, because if you take that 18 inches plus 24 inches, that's three -and -a -half feet to a 10 -foot property line, there's six -and -a -half feet of clearance. I was rejected. I do not understand why -- I have it in writing if you'd like copies. I have copies of all of the permits that were approved and their addresses in my community. So we're ambiguous here or selective enforcement. I don't know what the situation is. But it is not reasonable -- I mean, I can agree with safety issues, but I'll tell you builders are putting air -conditioners straight across from each other that -- and I've got pictures of them -- where it would be hard for people to get through. Obviously, six -and -a -half feet to walk between what's on my property to the wall of my neighbor would not be a problem. My neighbor on the other side has two air -conditioners that the builder could have spent $25 additional and moved them back probably four feet so I'm not hearing them every day. 1 can't open my Page 72 of 91 May 16, 2019 front door. But that's the way builders do things. So I think that there's a reasonable expectation here. The reason I want a generator is I spent $25,000 on hardwood flooring when I built this house, and I saw in the condo association many people after 10 days with the humidity and heat lost flooring as it all started to pop. If you look at the current insurance, your deductibles are now a percentage of your value of your home that's insured. So, therefore, you can have 15- or 20,000 or more in insurance deductible, so the investment in a generator to keep my refrigerator going and not having throw out food and not take a chance losing my floors, to keep my security system on and other things to me is well worth. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Brian Gillis, followed by James Klug. MR. GILLIS: Good evening. I'm Brian Gillis. I live at 2899 Cinnamon Bay Circle, in Naples, a development known as Riverstone. It abuts up next to the other two gentlemen's establishments, which is Stone Creek. One of the issues I heard was about the Swale, about the water coming through the Swale, the runoff of the gutters and things like that. I know for sure Riverstone, built by GL, and the HOA does not allow anybody even to plant on that, put any equipment there. It's supposed to just drain out to where it's supposed to drain. It's a big violation on that. There's another photo I have here, if I can do this, showing A/C equipment and a generator, about how -- about how the A/C units do not -- actually, the A/C units here further encroach -- I think they're 44 inches, and the generator itself is only -- is one inch less than that. My point is, the fire marshals, police department, or anybody trying to go in there to go to the back of my lot to put out any fire or anything could easily go through there. And that's the way it is right at my house. That's been sitting there for about a year, because I've been battling with a shortage of about four inches on the side yard. I have hired All Phase Electric to do the job. They were declined to get the permit because of a shortage. One of the big reasons here, I think we've made it kind of clear today is this 5 -foot setback from the base of the generator just won't work on a majority of these homes, because you would have an 18 -inch off the wall of the house, the unit -- a Generac unit is 25 inches, and another 60 inches is for the 5 -feet setback. That's a total of 103 inches. You would need a side -yard setback of each house eight feet, seven inches, which is a total of about 17 feet. And these homes down in Florida are put on with eight to 10 -- 10 feet, 12 feet, side yard clearances in a typical acre, which is 44,000 square feet, the builders are allowed to put five homes at, say, approximately 8,000 square feet, which equals about 40,000 square feet. If the builders would give us 10,000 square foot lots, we would avoid a lot of problems with generators for the future. I agree with what Joseph carne up and said, and I agree with DSAC's setbacks for the setbacks for the generators. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you the house on the right? MR. GREGORY: I'm the house on the left. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're the house on the left. So that is your generator? MR. GREGORY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. GREGORY: I bought it after the hurricane which was, what, a year and a half ago. They've already put the underground tank in. It's all plumbed up, as you can see on the side, but we can't get a building permit because we're short about four or five inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. Page 73 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. BOSI: Next speaker is James Klug, followed by Larry Smith. MR. KLUG: Hi. My name is Jim Klug, K -1 -u -g, and I live opposite Lely on 941 (sic) in a new community called Winding Cypress about a mile north of where Collier Boulevard comes into 41. I'm applying for a generator. The houses in this community are -- if they're straight, without the pie shape, are 10 feet apart, okay. There's a Swale. There's no problem with having the air-conditioning units or any of the other appliances out there on a concrete slab which obstructs -- which would obstruct the water fiom going down the thing. We've had some rain, and I've had no problems with it at all. My problem is is that its -- oh, the other key thing about my particular thing and I've -- I realize I'm kind of unique, is I've got no houses on that side because I'm on a corner lot. And I bought that house because I was on a corner lot, and I've also got a small preserve in the back. So I only have one house on one side. The other side is where the pool equipment and the air-conditioning equipment and everything like that is. But from my house to the common ground, the association common ground is five feet, one inch. And from what I understand -- I haven't submitted a permit yet, but from what I understand, I might as well not do it, because it's just not going to work. And I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I don't want to -- let me ask a question. What is the reason for the 5 -foot setback? Why can't it be six feet or 10 feet or not -- I'm sorry, smaller -- four feet or three feet? I don't understand the reason for it. Could somebody help me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're trying to get to the bottom of today, sir. MR. KLUG: Because it just doesn't make any sense to me that, particularly on my particular side, where there's no neighbors or anything like that, and all the other requirements are 10 foot to the doors and all of that stuff are met. But I just don't -- it just seems to me -- I don't see the reason for regulating a 5 -foot setback. We've got -- I've got -- I live with my daughter and granddaughter and husband. My granddaughter is handicapped/impaired. We all -- all of us have handicap stickers. We don't want to leave. We've got hurricane panes. I bought the house in February, and it's powered by natural gas. So it's a perfect hurricane shelter. I've got all the stuff that's necessary for a hurricane. And the reason I bought the house was because it was natural gas, and I say, oh, boy, I can put a generator in. And that's all. And I just don't understand the reason for a 5 -foot setback. Maybe there should be some kind of a setback, but I just don't understand why it's got to be so much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Larry Smith, followed by our final registered speaker, Frank Lowery. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Larry Smith. I'm at 12784 Aviano Drive. I also represent the condo association architectural community for the same Aviano community. I submitted my permit request about a year ago. Bought the generator from a local Lowe's and had installation part of that, and then I got told, I don't know, July or August of last year that I failed my permit. There's 14 feet, two inches between my building, or my home, and my neighbor's home. It's the same distance of a neighbor down the street that put his several years ago. It's the same distance. He's got his in. So if you go with the original that I saw there of five foot from one building to the property line and 10 -foot total, I'm golden. I don't know what -- all the various things we discussed today because it seems to sort of go around with lots of different five foots and three foots and whatever, but I thought the original one that was submitted way back, what'd you say, March of last year, of five foot with a one foot from the generator to the property line seems to be one that would work, and I would recommend the Page 74 of 91 May 16, 2019 Board approve that so we can get on with all these generators. And I was told there's much more than 15 sitting out there based on my discussion with other people. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mike. MR, BOSI: Your final speaker, Mr. Frank Lowery. MR. LOWERY: My name's Frank Lowery. I'm at 9016 Cherry Oaks Trail in Fiddler's Creek, Cherry Crossing and, respectfully, wanted to attend the meeting to kind of figure out what was going on. And there are a lot of different circumstances, and I know you have to get a uniform code together for future building and what have you. My particular situation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we saw it, sir. You don't need to put it back up there, that's fine. Unless you want to leave your phone for us; we'll take that. MR. LOWERY: You can see there's plenty of room going down through there. And I'm told that I'm an inch -and -a -half, two inches into the easement that -- since we moved the -- from 12 inches to 18 inches, we're just a couple inches too far into the easement. Again, the A/C and the pool equipment are further into the easement. But my situation is I have a building permit. It was installed and inspected, and everything's 100 percent okay, but I can't get my CO. And I've paid a lot of money. I'm invested a lot of time. My major desire for the generator is not to live here through a hurricane or through sewage issues, but I was a general contractor for a number of years in Dublin, Ohio, and Columbus, Ohio, and I'm very sensitive to mold issues both personally and professionally. I'm very sensitive to maintaining my investment in a good condition, including wood flooring, including ventilation and breathing issues, et cetera, et cetera. I had a generator in Ohio for storms and winter cold to keep the heating going, and I installed a generator here to keep the A/C going was my primary concern to protect the house. And there's a lot of unique situations. A corner lot with easements would be a unique situation, and I don't know if some of these things -- you know, you're planning ahead and setting statutes, and I appreciate that and understand that, but when the permits were submitted for your approval and approved by Collier County, you know, there are some unique situations here that are being presented that need to, I think, be sensitive to. And I'd appreciate very much being able to get my CO and moving on with my life. I love it here. I plan to be a full-time resident in another couple of years and would appreciate your consideration in getting me my CO. And I understand the other issues. There's a lot of things you're considering, but it's there. It's in place. It was approved by your Building Department, your Zoning Department, and now I can't get a CO. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, was that the last public speaker? MR. BOSI: That was the last registered speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That phone has to be confiscated by our court reporter. MR. LOWERY: Give me my CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Is there anybody else who has not spoken that would like to speak on this matter? Yes, sir. Come on up. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. PIPIA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are running out of time, so if you can be brief, that would be helpful. MR. PIPIA: Vei-f brief. My name's Dominic Pipia. I'm owner of All Phase Electric Service. There was a comment made earlier, not everybody's going to have a generator. 1950, in Fort Myers, not everybody had air -conditioners, okay. So we're in a new world. Page 75 of 91 May 16, 2019 Generators, it is predicted -- or alternate power supplies are predicted to be a very common, common issue or ability on each house in the near future here. So we expect to see more and more of this happening and, as you see, this is the reason that we're here. The second thing is, on the CO2 issue, there was a report -- I think Antonio, you know, which report came out recently, that said that deaths by CO2 for generators, there was zero deaths reported for standby generators, which is what we're talking about right here. For portable generators, there was multiple deaths. So it's actually a life -safety thing. A lot of these people here, if you don't give them a generator, a standby generator, they're going to get a portable generator, and you're creating another issue all together, life -safety issue in that. The other issue that I wanted to bring up is that this is being called an emergency generator. NFP 72 is what we work on. We're electrical contractors. There's three classifications for generators. And the generator that we're calling -- that you're talking about is called an optional standby generator. But -- and I had brought this up again previously, and I was told, okay, no, we're calling it an emergency generator. So, okay. It's called an emergency generator, so -- and we're talking about drainage, so an emergency generator, which we think is important. We're so -- we want to put a classification called emergency on it, but we can have pool equipment that stands out farther into the yard than the generator itself. We've got to have some common sense to put this thing together. These people need their generators. I think we need to stand up for them in your community. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. We had our public speakers. Anybody have any comments, suggestions to staff on how to proceed with this? Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would like to be reminded how we got to the five feet from the property line rule and what, if any, support for public safety reasons or noise pollution or whatever was behind what we had decided. MR. FRANTZ: My recollection is that, in particular, thinking about the zero -lot -line scenario, there was concern about allowing them too close to the property line, and that could allow for a generator to be just several feet away from the actual home on the neighboring property. And so the thought was, I think, you know, thrown out towards the end of the meeting that perhaps five feet from the property line would cover the bases in any situation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're also talking about everyone in Collier County. This applies to everybody, every home, not just one community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. It would be the LDC for every home. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's right. So, I mean, you're not denying generators. They can be in the front yard, backyard, or side yard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, as long as they meet the code requirements. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this particular issue, is anybody in a position where they want to make a motion? We're going to have to move this forward to get to the Board in one manner whatsoever. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would begin a motion. I guess I would ask, before I make the motion, just, is there any other information we have not discussed that would require more than a six -- one gentlemen said a 6 -inch setback. I'm at a loss, personally, to understand why we need more of a setback or more of a setback from the property line for a generator than we do for a pool pad, air -conditioner, anything like that. They're on concrete pads. They all are. They all would impede drainage in the same way, so why would we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, I think the thought at the time was that this I0 -foot clearance for Page 76 of 91 May 16, 2019 carbon monoxide is important. And if you've got a neighbor and you're going to put a generator next to his home and he's got a potential of having a life -safety issue because of the carbon monoxide, maybe that's been solved by the way staffs laid it out. I'm not sure, but I'm just telling you that's what generated a lot of concern. You also have -- and I can certainly tell you I know Fiddler's Creek better than anyone in the room. The swales that -- the example that was shown to us last, those are swales down the middle between the units. Those things can impede water. In fact, in the couple times they had in that particular project, people complained. So you've got to be cognizant that we've got to still maintain the flow. We've got to have enough setbacks so the property owner on the opposite side is not interfered with in his routines and daily life activities. And to say that, okay, we're going to cover it by if you're within 10 feet of a window or door or something else, you've got to move farther away, then that means we're going to have to have surveys showing where all that stuff is accurately on the house next door in order to get that locked in for a permit purpose. Those are the things we were trying to avoid in the previous discussion. If that isn't necessary, then that's fine, but I think that's where -- that's how we got to where we were. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were some issues there that I don't know how you resolve them for the neighbor next door. In the particular case of these neighborhoods, they may all be on friendly terns, but as seen sitting here for what, this is your third month, you've certainly seen when neighbors aren't happy with one another a lot. So they just happen to be good in this particular case, but what if someone moves in and says, you know, I keep smelling these fumes or I keep having this -- I'm worried about the carbon monoxide or the noise that goes off, those are the kind of things we were trying to accomplish. If it can be reduced to make it better, fine; but that's where we started from. COMMISSIONER FRY: It sounds like we're in a balancing act position here, weighing different things against one another, one being the right of a property owner to have a generator for many of the justifiable reasons that were mentioned here, the other being do we force them to put it in the front yard, which is -- I think would be universally agreed not a nice alternative aesthetically for property values, and it's sometimes not even allowed by the community. So I'm going to throw out that -- just in trying to balance everything we've heard, I haven't heard any -- I believe the five foot may have been more of a setback from the neighbor's house rather than the property line, if we're talking about a zero -lot -line situation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Not for me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not for you. It's really the property line for you? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Where I live it's -- it would be -- there's plenty of room, and we need five feet from the property line. So it's our public utility, and it's drainage, the whole community, and the water drains there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that not covered by the restriction in the LDC that you get approval from the easement holder? I guess if it's a drainage easement, that does not apply? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's public utility, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It needs to be identified in the plat as a drainage easement, utility easement, or a landscape buffer easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't have to be in the plat. It can be a separate instrument, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it could be a separate -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only way that shows up is by an ALTA survey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we not requiring --isn't part of the amendment to this that they're requiring the easement holder to provide written approval, or they will not process the application? Page 77 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that cover -- my question is, does that cover -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So what happens when the house is sold and there's written approval? Then it can be withdrawn by the new owner, and their generator's removed. So what's the point? Why don't you just put it in the front or back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two things that are coming up. We committed— applicant earlier said they would agree to delay their application till 3 o'clock today, but they had to be finished today, and I think we need to start that by 3 o'clock. It's 3:01 right now. The court reporter needs a break as required. So we need to give her a 10 -minute break. I would suggest we take a I0 -minute break, we come back, we hear the applicant for the thing that we've postponed all day, and then come back and finish this up before we go home today. And I don't think the other one's going to take more than 30 minutes or so, so we should get through that quickly and jump back on this. And maybe it will give us time to think about it a little bit before we jump back on it. So with that, let's take a break till 3:10, we'll resume, but then when we come back, we're going to be talking about the SRA Ave Maria change. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats, we need to move on with the meeting we started earlier. ***Next item up is 9A2. It's PL20180003069, the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road. All those wishing to testify of behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just emails. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've -- I think I might have gotten an email. I talked to the applicant. They asked me if I had any issues, and that was -- of course, I said no. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. There was emails? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the package. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just the packet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, you know, you might expedite this, since there's no members of the public here for this issue, we simply could just ask you any questions we have from it. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless anybody on the panel objects. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no questions, and I could -- I'm about ready to make a recommendation of approval, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go through the -- let's go the gyration. Go ahead, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's pretty insignificant. MR. ARNOLD: -- with Grady Minor & Associates. With me is David Genson, Barron Collier companies; Richard Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester Law Firm. The change itself is fairly insignificant in terms of removing neighborhood general areas just Page 78 of 91 May 16, 2019 under 13 acres and adding it back. The only thing I wanted to make sure I got on the record -- and, Heidi, I know there was communication between our office and yours. The sketch that accompanied the legal description that's in the ordinance, there was an error in that, and a corrected version was provided to you after this packet was provided to you, and I can -- just so you're all clear, I can put that on the visualizer, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a sketch -- it's for the legal description? MR. ARNOLD: It is the sketch that accompanies the legal that's in your ordinance. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So it's Exhibit B of the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to substitute a new Exhibit B with a corrected scrivener's error? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: That's -- the small corner that's in the southeastern portion of Ave Maria, this is how it's depicted in the sketch that's in your packet. It really should have looked like this when they mapped the legal description. COMMISSIONER FRY: Advertisement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, a little bit larger. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it was clearly air error in the mapping of it, but the legal description was provided and checked accordingly, so that was correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. My only question -- and I didn't highlight it, but, Wayne, I believe there -- from a standpoint of credits, everything's wash -- pretty much a wash between the areas? Receiving/sending credits, none of that has been really significantly impacted, correct? MR. ARNOLD: None of it has been impacted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff report? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. For the record, Gil Martinez. Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition SRAA-PL201800003069 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval contingent on the following conditions as further described in the accompanying resolution: SRA monitoring requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any members of the public here for this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Wayne, do you have anything you want to rebut? MR. ARNOLD: I do not. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an interesting approach today for this item, but let's -- with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Joe, I guess you had one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I make a motion we recommend approval as stated in the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 79 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Sorry you had to wait all day, but I appreciate you allowing the other one to move forward while some of the people were here. Okay. With that, we'll move back to our favorite subject for today, and that is the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What are we talking about? What was that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, generators. Let's start with that. We'll wait and switch county teams. And, Ray, thank you. Let Mike take over. Okay. We left off trying to figure out what to do for a motion, and I guess we'll pick it up right there. Is there any -- anybody have any idea how they'd like -- Karl you started it. So let's blame it on you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I started it. So, Jeremy, how often does the county get complaints from one neighbor about another neighbor's generator? MR. FRANTZ: I'm not aware that we have received any. MR. HENDERLONG: Just for the record, it's in your file, none. COMMISSIONER FRY: None. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah, I can show you the page if you want to see it where we did look into that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So -- MR. HENDERLONG: They did get complaints for other things, but none for generators. COMMISSIONER FRY: This may -- may not fly through, but you asked for a motion, so I'll offer one. I'd like to move for approval based on an additional condition beyond the ones defined in the amendment. That is that the setback from the property line be reduced from five feet to six inches, which there -- that's basically it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's have -- is there a second to the motion first? Then we'll go into discussion, then we can modify the motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Okay. Joe, discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, in accordance with the chart, would it be easier to state in compliance with the chart, which we have five feet or less, greater than five, up to seven -and -a -half feet, and then greater than seven feet. That's the chart. So -- and -- yeah. I'm actually on the -- where you had the comparison and summary of recommendations. The DSAC has voted -- and which was commensurate or the same as -- pretty much the same as what the staff initially proposed. But I believe that if we change that one foot to one -and -a -half or, really, 18 inches for five feet or less, everything else falls into place, and it would -- then no matter what -- the gentlemen with the 6 -foot separation would comply. It would be a 6 -inch -- oh, he'd have more than six inches. But actually, instead of DSAC where it says one foot, we actually make it one -and -a -half feet. Probably even easier would be anything less than seven -and -a -half feet would be -- have to have a minimum of 18 inches from the property line. Seven -and -a -half feet or greater would be 2 feet and then 4 feet as shown. That's, I think, 18 inches. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm personally not clear -- I'm not clear on what you're suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you -- Joe, take a column on what's in front of us and tell Page 80 of 91 May 16, 2019 us -- you want to modify the DSAC column or the initial draft column or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the initial draft column, yes, I would just modify it and change it from one foot to 1.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're increasing the setback from the side yard -- from the property line under the initial draft from one foot to one -and -a -half foot; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how would that -- and what about No. 2, the second line? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I could just leave that at two feet, because I don't think there will be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you end up with, then, if you have two 5 -foot setbacks, you're going to be three feet between -- clearance between the area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Three feet between clearance, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the motion maker accept that as an amendment to their motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And let's go back, just so we're clear then, because it would be 18 inches plus 24, so that's three -and -a -half feet, and then another 18 inches would be your 5 -foot setback. So it would be 18 inches instead of the foot. That -- I'm not sure where we got this six inches, because that's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: They had a -- I believe they had -- they must have had only a 4 -foot setback from their property line to their house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we've ever done less than five. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not less than five. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've never done less than five. So unless there's a stagger, seven and two or something like that or seven and three, but typically you have a side yard -- if you have a zero line, it's at least 10 foot to the next house, or you could have a variation thereof but, typically, it was either zero, 5 -foot setback, or 7 -and -a -half is pretty much your typical in subdivisions in the county. If we made that 18 inches, the gentleman that talked about the six inches, it would work. I don't know where he got the six inches, but I worked it backwards, and 18 inches -- MR. FRANTZ: I believe that there's some confusion based on the way the current standard is, which is a 3 -foot encroachment into the standards -- into the side -yard setback, and they were encroaching an additional six inches. MR. BOSI: So what -- that 3 -foot encroachment allows a 2 -foot, basically, setback currently. It's a 2 -foot setback from the property line, and I think he was saying he encroaches six feet -- or six inches into that 2 -foot, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So 18 inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, your mic needs to pick up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eighteen inches he would meet the requirement. Here's the real problem. By creating very strict standards, which we would, we create an enormous number of nonconforming structures in the county, which creates a problem if and when they want to replace the generator. They can't replace it unless they conform, or they have to get a variance. That's the only two options. MR. KLATZKOW: You'll never get a variance. There's no hardship to a generator. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Where's the hardship other than I won't have power for three days? I don't know. I mean, that's the only option I could see is make that one foot -- just make it one -aid -a -half feet, and I think we solve the problem so that the worst scenario would be three foot between two units if they were side by side in a -- in a development that had 5 -yard setbacks. Mark, what do you think? I mean, is it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, I've got a portable generator, and I'm just happy as anything. Page 81 of 91 May 16, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'm coming to your house. You know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'm fine with that. So whatever we've got to work out so everybody's happy, I can live with that, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think the 18 inches would work, and it -- and we don't create a problem of this enormous number of nonconforming structures and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue that they're going to add about the drainage was the only issue I saw on the table, and if that gets added within a three foot, you can easily take care of the drainage. In the example that was shown to us at Cherry Oaks, I know that drainage would be fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I'm very familiar with Cherry Oaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. So I just -- I don't see a problem with the 18 inches. And, you know, the carbon monoxide issue, we're just going to have to tackle it. It's just going to be a burden on the applicant now to bring in all the true locations of the doors and windows next door. It won't be on the back of a piece of tissue. It's going to have to be something bonefide. So if that's the way -- they want to get that close, then that's part of the deal they're going to have to do to make sure the neighbor's safe, and that's something we'll have to watch. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I absolutely agree. And it's up to the applicant with the -- unless the industry does something that significantly -- or approved through NFPA or one of the other testing criteria where they can demonstrate that the -- that the CO or the carbon monoxide detector is not needed. But I honestly think the biggest issue with these are going to be neighbors with noise, but you've gotten no complaints, and Code Enforcement hasn't been out there hammering them. But, of course, during -- when the power's out, everybody's going to be looking for the noise -- where the noise is coming from so they can enjoy the air-conditioning in the house with the generator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think what it boils down to, under this table in front of us, the initial draft submittal would be the numbers we'd go with with the exception of the first line where it says 1 would be 1.5. Is that something the motion maker accepts as an amendment to their motion? COMMISSIONER FRY: With a question for Jeremy. I see an exhibit that shows 29 inches typical -- it's in Exhibit D, illustration, it may be the generator pad, but we're making the assumption that the generator is two feet, two feet wide, 24 inches wide. Do we need to allow for generators that are up to 30 inches wide, in which case that 18 inches might need to be one foot in order to fit within a five foot? MR. FRANTZ: I think that there are a range of sizes of different generators. I can't speak really well to what is the most common size, but we tried to incorporate as many of the different types of generators as possible when we initially recommended one foot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me ask a member from the industry again — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to come up to the mic. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you'd come up to the mic. Because typically with a 5 -foot setback, these houses are 22 to no greater than 3,000 square feet. So you're not going to put a big generator to power those units, are you? MR. PIPIA: Dominic Pipia, All Phase Electric. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. MIM. PIPIA: That's correct. Typically what we're talking about here is air-cooled generators. We deal with Generac generators and Kohler. There's an 18 -inch allowance, and typically they need -- to get the generator -- the air-cooled generators in, you need 43 inches. That's what you need. So after 43 inches, you tell us what we need after that to make the standard, and that's what we need to put it in to make it compliant. I do want to say one more thing, too, please. The standard for the 18 inches is for combustible walls. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. We're not talking about -- it's still going to be 18 inches from the wall. MIM. PIPIA: I just want to make one comment. But the standard is 18 inches from a combustible Page 82 of 91 May 16, 2019 wall. In the garages, they're noncombustible walls. So I don't know if there's any kind of an allowance for that that we can look at, because they're noncombustible. You could actually put them right next to the wall. But that's something that we really haven't discovered -- talked about. But I think that's an issue that -- you know, there is another way of us doing this here if we look at it, and that's -- if you need anything else, I'm here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the IBC is -- is the building code looking at changing any of the requirements? They say 18 inches, but -- MR. PIPIA: Eighteen inches from a combustible wall. The garage wall is a noncombustible wall. It's a block wall. I mean, where is it going to go? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, most of the other homes down here are pretty much block wall as well, stucco, block wall. MR. PIPIA: Ninety percent of the generators that we put in are right next to the garage wall, so that takes care of a whole lot of them. COMMISSIONER FRY: When you say 43 inches, you're saying -- is that including 18 inches from the wall and 25 inches for the width of the generator? MR. PIPIA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's 43 -inch. That leaves 17 -inches to a 5 -foot property line. MR. PIPIA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: So with an 18 -inch requirement, he could not put a generator in a 5 -foot setback. It would need to be a 17 -inch. MR. PIPIA: Yes, and that's the point I'm trying to make, too, so that you could see that. So we need a little bit more there. I mean, we're throwing six inches because it's a nice round number, okay, or 18 inches because it's a nice round number. So what's a couple inches amongst our friends here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, just to get past this and let the Board deal with it -- they'll have a lot fun with it -- why don't we -- MR. PIPIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- consider accepting the original submittal, one, two, and whatever the numbers are and just send it on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a problem with that? Would you amend your motion? Well, put that -- where's the other one, the colored one that was just up here? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What does -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So we're leaving as -is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. We had -- see the one on the right, the yellow one, that's where it went to. Now what we're suggesting is basically go back to the initial draft submittal and live with that. MR. FRANTZ: But I think if you maintain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six inches more than you want and six inches less than what Joe wants, so that's a compromise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I still want to keep the 10 -foot separation, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you keep the 10 -foot separation? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, between units. MR. FRANTZ: Between generators. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two different units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we're protecting the distance between generators, we're protecting the ability for emergency personnel to get through, we're protecting with carbon monoxide detectors, but we're allowing people a reasonable distance to put in a generator if they want one. Page 83 of 91 May 16, 2019 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And just for clarification, you're using the text that's in this proposed amendment, but you're substituting the Table 1 with the table you saw in your first review as revised as discussed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're taking the -- I don't know -- the text that -- see where it says "initial draft submittal" on this chart? All of that column as it goes from top to bottom is what we're saying we're recommending. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, except for the -- instead of two, we'll go with the 10 as -- that's the distance between two generators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'm completely lost. Now, you know what, you sound like we're talking about the PACE program. You ever want to see something confusing, watch that program. So what is it now we're -- where are we at this time? Mike, can you help us? MR. BOSI: I think what's being suggested is you're taking the initial draft, you're taking all of the -- all of the things -- all the numbers, 1, 2, 4, 10, 5, 10, and 5. That's all the same. The only thing that's going to be changed is where you see 2, that's a separation, that's the separation between generators. You want that at 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. This is -- we see 2 down at the bottom, it says, distance to public and private road right-of-way, 2 feet. Why would we want that 10 feet, right? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. The distance between generators is shown as 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I got it. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we don't need -- for not requesting any changes to that table. That table looks -- matches my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are you willing to amend your motion to go to that table instead of your six inches? That increases you by six and deceases Joe by six. I'm just trying to get this off the plate today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. We'll go -- I make a -- amend my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's got to amend his motion first. Do you accept -- THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. MR. KLATZKOW: Make a new motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying. MR. KLATZKOW: Somebody make a new motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: I amend my motion to adopt that table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe seconded. MR. KLATZKOW: By "that table," are you referring to the initial draft submittal? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As discussed. COMMISSIONER FRY: The initial draft submittal column, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, you're also accepting -- the only change we made to the language would include some language indicating that drainage flows have to be maintained. We spoke about that. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, you said -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, any further discussion? (No response.) Page 84 of 91 May 16, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It passes 4-1. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am so glad that one's over. Now, Jeremy, I think by 4 o'clock we need to be wrapped up today before we all lose our minds. Can you tell us what's the most sensitive for the remaining time we have left, the time -sensitive issues that we have? MR. FRANTZ: Well, we have two additional LDC amendments. One is related to gas station signage. That's one that you've reviewed before. You requested some changes. I believe that we've met or made all the changes that you requested. That is an amendment to Sections 5.05.05, 5.06.00, and 5.06.06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is everybody ready to -- want to go to that one next then? Is that the most time sensitive one we've got left? Because we're not going to get to this now for two more weeks to finish this up, so... MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I think we've been working with the industry on this one. It would be good to move this one forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's do that. What agenda item is it? Is it A3? MR. FRANTZ: Yes, this is still A3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Jeremy, take it away. MR. FRANTZ: So there's just a couple of changes that we've made. Last time that you saw this we asked for some additional time to look at corner lots and the language related to when a second sign is allowed. We've made that change. We clarified the maximum height should be measured from the average elevation of the vehicle use area. We prohibited electronic message boards on directory signs. And then as discussed at the last meeting on March 7th that you reviewed this, we changed the maximum allowable sign height to 12 feet. There were concerns about the previous height of 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the -- I think the discussion at that time led to the 12 feet being what the Racetrac used in front of our building over on Horseshoe Drive, for example. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was a City of Naples standard. MR. FRANTZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sign seems to work pretty well. I'm not sure why we need it bigger. Did you have anything, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: No. Did you say that that is the City of Naples standard, 12 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the City of Naples standard for that site. I don't know what else their standards are, but that's in their -- MR. KLATZKOW: They're lower as you get away from the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In Paragraph C, the only thing that may become an issue is, how Page 85 of 91 May 16, 2019 many lines can be illuminated per sign? What I mean by that is, like diesel, leaded and unleaded, or do you have to specify how many places I can have -- MR. FRANTZ: We just specify the total square feet that could be a part of that LED gas price sign. We called it electronic messaging. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So no requirement in how many prices they can put on there then? Six if they want? MR. FRANTZ: Just whatever they could fit on that sign. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you think we should or -- MR. FRANTZ: I don't know that we can regulate to that level. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the only question I have. I'll stay with the square footage, and if they want to put six on there that I can't see, then that's fine. If they want to put three on there that I can see, I guess I'll go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on the other -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think from the dating of these emails, it seems to me that the lawyer, Douglas Lewis, still believes that we've been preempted out of the ability of doing what is currently proposed; is that -- MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- what he says? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that's what he says. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I take it the County Attorney's Office is comfortable? MR. KLATZKOW: Hey. I cut a deal. If Dougie wants to go outside the four parameters of that deal, fine by me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to stick to what's best for the code. If there's other issues outside of that, that's what we have a county attorney for. Do we have any -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion we approve as stated with the changes as noted. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before I -- is there any member of the public here for the item that would like to speak? And I don't see anybody in the audience -- well, there's a couple people here, but no one here for that. So with that, we'll close the public hearing. And a motion's been made and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERFRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Next most sensitive. MR. FRANTZ: The last item that we had was related to self -storage buildings instituting a separation requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, just -- we have a couple people in the audience. Is there anything that -- you guys are waiting for anything in particular? If you don't mind -- I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't want to keep you waiting any longer. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just wanted to say thank you for your consideration today, and we appreciate everybody's time today. Page 86 of 91 May 16, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. I didn't want to keep you here any longer than you had to be. It's torture. Okay. So you want to go to the self -storage facility? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. And Eric Johnson is going to present on this amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: What's the basis for this separation? MR. FRANTZ: This amendment was -- I mean, I can let Eric speak to it. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. Good afternoon, Eric Johnson, principal planner. This LDCA is an implementation of the vision that was -- that the Board accepted last year. The actual name of that vision is the U.S. 41 Corridor Study summary of findings and recommendations to the Board. It was one of the recommendations, so this is an implementation of it; that's why we're coming forward with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That vision statement, it didn't come to us first, it went straight to the Board, so we didn't -- I don't remember weighing in on it. MR. BOSL• Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. No, the U.S. 41 corridor study was just a simple design, a preference study, that was conducted over a three- or four-month period with the residents of East Naples. It was presented to the Board of County Commissioners. One of the recommendations was an LDC amendment that was going to analyze the placement of self -storage facilities to ensure that the opportunity for neighborhood goods and services would still remain if a self -storage facility was going to be occupying a location simply because of the concern of the proliferation of these type of uses. And the perspective of the community, they weren't quite -- they didn't give to the neighborhood the necessary access to goods and services. They didn't interact with the neighborhoods in the way that our traditional commercial establishments would that sold goods and services. So they just wanted to make sure that they weren't going to extinguish those opportunities, that they were going to be able to -- there was still going to be a balance for neighborhood goods and services to be provided to close -in residential units along the strip zoning that proliferates U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? Eric, did you want to do any more formal presentation other than what Mike just said? I don't know if you had anything else to add to it or not. MR. JOHNSON: No. Just -- I had uploaded onto the CityView portal some of the exhibits that --you know, instead of being printed out, I just put them on the CityView portal. So, you know, that's part of the record as well. 1 just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The CityView portal is part of the record? MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm just curious what you mean by that. I don't have a CityView portal in front of me. MR. JOHNSON: The GMD portal that everyone has access to. MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to make it on the record, you've got to put it on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out how you're accomplishing what you just said to do. MR. BOSI: What Eric was trying to say, he placed the documents that were part of the package that you've received as part of the CityView portal as a part of the record. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a public hearing. You can't be saying we put secret double probation thing on a secret double probation thing that the public doesn't have access to. MR. BOSL It's part of -- the CityView portal is a public portal. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who would know to look there for -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. BOSI: It's the way that Mark is provided the information that he takes for the meetings. Page 87 of 91 May 16, 2019 Well, not Mark, the actual board. MR. KLATZKOW: We have a visualizer here. That's what it's for. MR. BOSL• It was an unnecessary statement by our planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't understand it. I had to ask. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Eric, did you have anything you want to add to the discussion, any highlights you want to make sure about the particular issue at hand? MR. JOHNSON: Well, just that it would create a separation requirement between self -storage facilities within a certain segment of U.S. 41. We would also create a waiver process that would be heard either by the Hearing Examiner or the Board of Zoning Appeals. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: And another aspect is if -- the self -storage facility, if it was in location -- that it was in a quarter mile of another self -storage facility, it would not have to seek a separation requirement if it agreed to provide 20 percent of that square footage that would be dedicated to goods and service. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, 25 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that. MR. JOHNSON: And also, the intent of this whole -- well, part of the intent here is that existing self -storage facilities that are already here, ones that have been constructed or have an SDP, would be allowed to expand, and they wouldn't have to be subject to the separation requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're not nonconforming structures, or they are -- will they be considered nonconforming in the future? MR. JOHNSON: I don't think they would. I mean, Heidi would probably say no. I say no. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe he said that the — that if they already have an SDP in the works or they're already existing, they wouldn't be subject to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if they were existing and this went into play and they couldn't be there because they failed the distance separation, say they burnt down or was 100 percent destroyed, are they considered nonconforming and thus could not be rebuilt? MR. FRANTZ: That's not the intention of the amendment. We can clarify that a little more in the applicability. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll put in a savings clause. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we do that, then I'm fine. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The notice for the public hearing, is it only within 500 feet to the property owners? MR. JOHNSON: It would be 500 feet. It's the urban area, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it is now. Yeah, that's what you get for PUDs in the urban area. Why would this rank higher than a Planned Unit Development or a rezone? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know why it couldn't be 1,000 feet. We suggested it, 1,320. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. That's the distance separation, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know, but, no, that was the suggestion. This is what DSAC wanted is 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DSAC -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's what I read. MR. BOSI: I think DSAC wanted to reduce the distance from the quarter mile to 500 feet. If they were proposed within 500 feet, then they would need the separation requirement. It's not really the notification requirement. It's whether they would be subject to have to go through the waiver process. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe., COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the last page of your packet you did provide a digital map that showed all the locations. Yeah, that's the -- and you have a digitalized version in the packet. Page 88 of 91 May 16, 2019 MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It certainly shows the location. I guess the real question is, is this a real problem, or was this just a problem -- it appears to be a perceived problem from the folks along U.S. 41. This was the East Naples Civic Association that did this, or this was part of the U.S. 41 overlay study, you said? MR. BOSI: This was -- and if you -- this is one of the common concerns expressed by Commissioner Fiala, that she feels that the storage facilities are proliferating in an abundance within the East Trail, and her concern is that they are going to displace your traditional shopping opportunities for neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. U.S. 41 and Collier. There's -- of course, there's one there. We just approved another one, just almost around the corner. MR. JOHNSON: Just past Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next to Tractor Supply. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right next to Tractor Supply, which isn't on here. But I guess if it's a problem, fine. I mean, I'll leave it up to the community. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This area has gone out to -- meeting's have been with the public, four meetings with the public. And this is one of their concerns is the storage, not just for Commissioner Fiala, but... MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. With respect to this map, this was -- the data from it was gleaned from a map that was made in 2018. With this particular map, the only radius that wouldn't be reflective of this code amendment is the one that encircles V incentian. They don't have an SDP for a self -storage facility or a self -storage building, so -- but all the other circles are accurate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, obviously, the industry is fulfilling a need. This is just going to tell them they have to find somewhere else to build them then. MR. BOSI: Or provide a portion of their facility for a more traditional commercial goods and services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a warehousing. There's no reason they can't go in the industrial area, but it's cheaper for them to go here, and the problem is that they're using up space that should be utilized by restaurants and stores and other things that can't go in industrial areas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: So Section D.1.A, we touched on it, but I want to make sure I understand how this plays into it. You can apply for a waiver if within a quarter -mile radius of the proposed self -storage unit there are properties that have existing C2 uses or are zoned to permit C2 uses, if there's any business within a quarter mile either direction that's a C2, they can apply for a waiver, thereby -- that -- to me that seems like -- let's say there's a restaurant next door. That means that I could have storage unit, restaurant, storage unit, restaurant, storage unit, restaurant by that clause. MR. BOSL These are only applicable to properties that are zoned C5. A C4 zoning, a storage unit would have to go through a conditional use process. A C5 zoning district -- so the applicability of this amendment is very limited. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very limited. MR. BOSI: It's very limited. COMMISSIONER FRY: So nobody has a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was exactly what Jeff said. It just prohibits the abuse, I guess, of the C5 zoning and making them just a warehouse. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It's not really abuse. It's land use. And we would want this land used for certain purposes. And this purpose really was intended to be more of an industrial use. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it just keeps them from crowding out other businesses that Page 89 of 91 May 16, 2019 support -- that provide services that are needed for the neighborhoods? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it's limited to the certain areas, so its -- you know, its what that area has wanted and what the Board said they approved as their vision statement, so I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then there's a provision for an exception to policy. So I would recommend approval as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before -- I didn't realize there's nobody here, so okay. I'm sorry, Joe. There's no member of the public, so they can't speak. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I recommend we forward this to the Board of County Commissioners for their review and approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying 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. Jeremy, where does that take us? MR. FRANTZ: That's all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I want to talk generators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us down -- there's no new business on the agenda, there's no old business, there isn't anybody here for public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Joe, seconded by Karl. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:46 p.m. Page 90 of 91 May 16, 2019 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION � 1 � MARK $TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERIC OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on _fas presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 91 of 91