Loading...
Allura - 9A & 9B Ex parte Items - Commissioner Penny Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA September 24, 2019 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 9B ***This item to be heard no sooner than 10:00 a.m.*** This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) known as the Della Rosa RPUD, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Allura RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 304 multi-family dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans-Memorial Boulevard,just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 35.92± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance No. 07-73; and by providing for an effective date. (This is a companion to agenda item 9.A). NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ®Meetings ®Correspondence Xe-mails ❑Calls Meetings with the developer and the developer's attorney, reviewed the CCPC meeting minutes, various meetings with constituents, phone calls and emails from constituents and staff. CONSENT AGENDA 16A8 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Vyne House at Talis Park Tract "B" Replat, Application Number P120190000891. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings Correspondence e-mails Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner Penny Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA September 24, 2019 SUMMARY AGENDA 17A This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5.85±acres of land zoned Planned Unit Development to the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD; by amending Ordinance Number 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to add 5.85± acres from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD; by increasing the maximum square footage from 764,478 to 878,889 square feet; by increasing the maximum number of independent living units from 355 to 431 units and increasing the maximum number of assisted living beds from 35 to 47 beds; by adding sales and marketing as a permitted indoor accessory use; by reducing setbacks from the south and west property lines, by reducing the minimum square footage of assisted living units, by increasing the landscape buffer on the south property line, and revising the master plan to reflect the additional acreage and modified site layout; by adding one deviation and removing one deviation relating to landscape buffers, and modifying developer commitments. The subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, just east of Airport-Pulling Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.1± acres; providing for repeal of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, Ordinance Number 92-75, as amended; and by providing an effective date. [PL20180001174] ,X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE I (Meetings (Correspondence ne-mails Calls August 1,2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,August 1,2019 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 ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner James Sabo,Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 63 August 1,2019 PROCEEDINGS VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Could you please take your seats,please. And welcome to the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission August 1st,2019. Could you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Commissioner--Chairman Strain will be a few minutes late. He'll be here within the half hour,and Mr. Schmitt has an excused absence. So with that,could we have roll call,please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, ma'am. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain is absent. Vice Chair Homiak? VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr.Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair,we have a quorum of five. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Okay. Addendum to the agenda. MR.BELLOWS: Yes. We have a request for the first two items--and I think we would like to--Mr.Jeff Wright to explain his request for a continuance. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. Madam Chair,I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin Law F. We're here on Items 1 and 2. And as I've explained to staff and to the chair in advance of the meeting, also to the members of the public who are present here,we're going to need some extra time to get some of the details in relation to our petition ironed out,and for that reason we're requesting a continuance on Items 1 and 2. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. And our next meeting on August 15th, our meeting date we have nothing,and we're not having a meeting. MR.BELLOWS: At the present time there are no items scheduled, and I believe there was an email canceling the meeting, so the next meeting would be September 5th. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Will that work? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, it will. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair,what do we have? I guess I should pose this to Ray. What do we have on that first meeting in September already? MR.BELLOWS: I'll have to pull it up on the computer. It's not many items,though. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not many? Okay. MR.BELLOWS: I can get you the list,but right now-- I was having computer problems this morning. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Mike knows. MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning director. The September 5th meeting already has two full-scale Growth Management Plan amendments Page 2 of 63 1 August 1,2019 and a small-scale amendment. So I think that you'll have five--or four individual Growth Management Plan amendment requests, small scale and large scale. So it's going to be a very busy September 5th meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well,I think in fairness to us,we should take a serious look at when--the proper time to schedule. I don't object to the continuance concept,but-- VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: There's also advertising. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: We'd have to be-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. MR.KLATZKOW: They're going to have to readvertise. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why can't we have it at the next meeting? You know, even though-- it seems like if the next meeting is canceled because there's no agenda,why don't we just put it on that meeting and send a notice out. Is it not enough time or what? MR.BELLOWS: Well,the idea is we would continue time certain to that meeting, so it should be-- MR. BOSI: Yeah. If this body--if the Planning Commission continued this item to the August 15th meeting,then the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, it would satisfy the advertising requirements,and you also would have the Golden Gate Area Master Plan consent item that could be held at that specific time. MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff,how much time do you need to work this out with the community? MR. WRIGHT: I would say we probably need three or four days to work out the details. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Does that give you enough time to get it to the staff in time for an August meeting; is that the-- MR. KLATZKOW: We're okay. I mean,he's the one asking for the continuance. I didn't know how much time he needed. MR. WRIGHT: We're okay with the August 15th meeting. We're available. I understood it was canceled, so I didn't want to go for that date,but we're happy to show up on the 15th. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Yeah. If you would rather do-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'd move that we allow the continuance but to the second meeting in August. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (No verbal response.) VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Well,I guess that's it then. That will work for you then? MR. WRIGHT: Yes,ma'am. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. So Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting will be on August 7th at 5:05. Will everybody be here then or-- No. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Ms. Commissioner,I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to make that next Wednesday meeting or not. I'll have to get back. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. We'll still have a quorum. Mr. Strain will be here,I guess. And August 15th,will everyone make it then? Are you going to be here? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. Page 3 of 63 August 1,2019 VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Yeah, okay. We have no minutes to approve and no BCC recaps. There's no meeting,right. No chairman's report. No consent agenda. And the first two items-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Ms. Chairman,I have one thing, if we could. It's been brought to my attention that Mike Bosi,this may well be his last CCPC meeting after 17 years, so I think we should take a moment and recognize him and thank him for his 17 years here working with the county and wish him the best. Is that true,Mike? Is this your last meeting? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks,Mike. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: He'll be missed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: He certainly will. MR. KLATZKOW: Mike has done outstanding work for us,and I know my office has greatly appreciated the time and effort that he's spent on this. He's a true public servant. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want to know where he could possibly go that's not (sic)nicer than Collier County. MR. BOSI: Other places need help. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Add my personal note of thanks to Mike for all you've done,sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. ***Okay. So that brings us to Items 9A3 and 9A4,which are companion items, so I assume we would hear them together. So the first one is PL20170004419,and the companion item for Allura PUD is PUDR-PL201700043 85. All those wishing to speak on these items,would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: And did you have any contact with anybody? MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than the documents in the public record including the email correspondence. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A short conversation with Rich Yovanovich and the same,what he said. COMMISSIONER FRY: Public record,this packet just on our desk today,conversation with Rich Yovanovich,and conversation with the president of Barrington Cove Association. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have received the materials from staff and also had a communication with one member of the community. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. And I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich before the last meeting was canceled,and I have emails. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just email correspondence and staff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. My disclosure was with respect to the most recent period of time. I didn't cover things that I'd already disclosed. Thank you. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Okay. First we'll hear from the petitioner,then have the staff report, and then we'll have the speakers. MR.MULHERE: Thank you. For the record,my name is Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here this morning on behalf of the applicant. Also with me this morning,Rich Yovanovich,who is our land-use attorney; Ted Treesh,the transportation consultant; Chris Mitchell,who is our civil engineer; Cat Cardoza,who is a manager of apartment facilities,has experience doing that. Page 4 of 63 August 1,2019 Our client is expected--he's on his way. Expected within five minutes. So Keith Gelder, and he may be with Chris Johnson,but they're on their way. So we will proceed. Just a little reminder that the BCC transmittal had--before transmittal there were two hearings, January 17th,February 7th. There was a 4-2 recommendation to transmit this petition with a density of 304 units in three-and four-story buildings. The BCC transmittal was,I believe, in March. And there was also a recommendation from the BCC to transmit,but at that time the BCC limited the building height to no more than three stories. I know all of you know where the property is located,but I'll just go through it briefly in case anyone is here that hasn't seen this or is watching on TV. So the property is located along Livingston and Veterans Memorial. It is in the southeast corner. The surrounding--the property includes both ag-zoned parcels--a little over 20 acres of ag-zoned parcels, and the 15-and-change acre De La Rosa PUD. And surrounding land uses are PUD residential development to the east and the south. There's actually an ag piece also to the south. To the north is Veterans Memorial,which is a 200-foot-wide right-of-way at that location, and then Mediterra. And to the west is also--across Livingston Road is ag-zoned parcels. All of the property in this area falls within the urban residential subdistrict,and the property is not within the coastal high hazard area. The GMP is 35.57 acres. The PUD is 35.92 acres. That differential was a couple of slivers of land that we did not have clear title to at the time we went through the transmittal. We are not including that in the GMP amendment,as was directed by the County Attorney's Office; however,we are including it in the PUD. It's right long the edge of Livingston Road and would be in the landscape buffer. So the density is based on 35.57,and that is--at 304 dwelling units,that's 8.5 DUs per acre. I already discussed the transmittal recommendations. But just to reiterate at transmittal, staff recommendation to transmit,Planning Commission recommendation to transmit, and BCC recommendation to transmit. With respect to the De La Rosa PUD,which was approved in 2007, 15.38 acres allowing 107 multifamily dwelling units with a zoned building height of 50 feet and an actual building height of 69 feet. You may recall this exhibit. It shows in red our proposed plan. We do have a minimum principal structure setback from the east property line of 125 feet. The De La Rosa PUD had submitted an SDP which had buildings located within 20 feet of the property line,and that's circled and shown on this exhibit. It's probably a little hard to read,but that is the transmittal language which you also have in your packet. This is the proposed master concept plan. Today, of course,you're looking at not only the Compreheasive Plan but also the PUD,which we had the same version available to you when we came before you for transmittal,but this is a hearing for your recommendation with respect to the zoning as well. The only thing that really changed was the reduction directed by the BCC down to three stories. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chairman,I request--I guess it's a point of personal privilege. I must correct my previous disclosure. I also spoke with Mr.Yovanovich, and I was confused because we didn't make disclosures when this was continued on July 18th. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. 1 COMMISSIONER FRYER: So I apologize,Mr.Mulhere,for interrupting. MR. MULHERE: Sure. No problem. This is just an example of our site--or a depiction of our site plan overlaid on an aerial. Again,just to point out the 125-foot setback from the eastern perimeter boundary and the maximum building height as directed by the BCC at transmittal,three stories,zoned height of 40 feet,and actual height of 50 feet. Just want to go over this again briefly. These--this exhibit shows our perimeter boundary Page 5 of 63 August 1,2019 landscape buffers by type. I have more detail in the subsequent slides. So if you look on the right-hand side,you can see where this particular Type B buffer elevation applies. We have a stormwater lake on the east side right here. So you have that buffer here,on the south adjacent to an ag parcel,and here adjacent to the--this is a commercial Cl parcel right here. And this elevation is a Type A buffer,which is adjacent to the ag-zoned piece,which is a five-acre piece right here. This is probably the most significant, or I should say, important buffer. This is an enhanced Type B buffer that we discussed at our previous meeting as well,and this buffer would be located right here adjacent to Barrington Cove. And, finally,this is the Type D buffer along the right-of-way,the Livingston Road right-of-way right here. There was discussion on line of sight. MR. PRITT: We can't see that. Whatever you're pointing to,we can't see that outline. MR.MULHERE: The pink outline right here is that buffer. MR.PRITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: There was some discussion,and we had provided you with a line-of-sight exhibit at our transmittal hearing. But this line-of-sight exhibit shows the line-of-sight with the reduced height from four stories down to three stories. And it was a little hard to see. There was a dashed line, so I inserted a brighter red line so you could see that line-of-sight exhibit. This is an individual standing right here. This is the berm, landscape buffer,on Barrington Cove, for example. I'm sorry,Mediterra,yes, looking straight. That's both ways right here too. I'm sorry,that is Mediterra,A. You're right. And then looking across the right-of-way,travel lane. This is just a large open-space area. It could be widened right-of-way,but it's a large open-space area. And then you can see that the line-of-sight runs just over the roof line of a three-story building. And I'm sorry,B is looking from Barrington Cove. Again,you have an individual right here. You have their landscape buffer,our landscape buffer. You have our one-story parking structures which forces the line-of-sight upward. And,again,this line-of-sight actually goes above the roof line. And the last two are C and D also generally looking sort of directly at the project from Barrington Cove,and then looking at an angle into the project at Barrington Cove. And you have the same scenario there with this reduced height. Again,the reduced height is a maximum zoned height of 40 feet and a maximum actual height of 50 feet. We did look at other multifamily apartments. (Chairman Strain is now present in the boardroom.) MR.MULHERE: Good morning,Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,Bob. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: And you'll see this list in front of you includes approved, some developed,and one project that is in the--in the process of going through zoning. But we wanted to give you an idea of the size and the number of units and the density of these projects. So Pine Ridge Commons,these are net densities,has 375 units on 11.9 acres for a density of 31.51;Briarwood,which I did work on,is 320 units on just under 16,for a density of 20.04;Aster Resort has a density of 17.31;Legacy, 16.01; Courthouse Shadows, 15.96;Addison Place, 15.6;Inspira, 15.12; Milano Lakes, 12.52; Orchid Run, 12.23; Springs at Sabal Bay, 9.54; and,finally,Allura,which has a density of 8.46 if you look at the entire PUD acreage. If you look at just the smaller acreage,the lesser acreage on the GMP,the density is 8.5. So that's why you see 8.55,because the density is based on the GMP amendment. There was some discussion about the ITE trip generation manual and whether or not it accurately captured trip generation for this use. Ted can speak more specifically to this issue if you so desire but, in general,we looked at--I think Ted looked at five or six different multifamily projects, did a traffic count Page 6 of 63 August 1,2019 in season for those. And the outcome of that is that the ITE trip generation manual is generally very consistent with the actual trip generation for those projects. And,again,he can speak to the issues. But we did do that because of the discussion about that matter. In terms of market analysis,we know there's strong demand for apartments,and that demand does exceed supply. Occupancy is close to 95 percent right now,and the estimated demand for market-rate rental units by the end of 2022 is over 5,300 units. These are--and we went over these at the transmittal hearing as well,but these are typical demographics and management elements of this project. It is assumed that it will be--the project will be occupied by working professionals and potentially also empty nesters. There is a strong demand for empty nesters for rental-- luxury rental apartments. The average household income would be from 80-to 135,000. And we know that there is a market for those empty nesters based on our experience at other projects. There will be professional on-site management by Greystar. And,again,Cat Cardoza is here,and she can speak to those issues. You had some questions the last time. You may have some more questions this time. We do require full background checks for all tenants. There is a seven-day eviction process for any criminal activity. We do not allow subleasing. Airbnb and similar types of transient rental businesses are prohibited. Renters insurance is required. All vehicles are required to be registered. And there are strict restrictions on breeds of pets, including photos and proof of vaccination. The standard lease is 12-month minimum lease term. We had talked about seven months. I think there was some discussion about whether or not that would--that would continue or whether there would be a 12-month minimum. But at this point, 12 months is the standard lease,and a seven-month is available for people who may want to come for just the seasonal rental. I don't want to--I know you have a--well,you don't have as busy of an agenda as you did previously,but I did share these pictures with you, so I'll go over them briefly. These are photos of Inspira at Lely Resort,and that is a--I believe a four-story building, so keep in mind,this is a little taller. But it does give you a sense of what the site will look like. These are pictures of the amenities at that facility, and this will be very similar in terms of the amenitization. Pool area,interiors,very high quality, common areas,other common areas. Again,the pool area. So that concludes my presentation. I know you have a lot of questions. We do have experts here to respond directly to some of your questions,but I wanted to at least give you an oversight and overview of the project,and from there we'll take your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all,thank you. I apologize for being late. But I want to make my disclosures. Since the last meeting,I have not had any others conversations,I believe,with the applicant. I don't think I even met with staff since the last meeting on this item, so I have no other disclosure to offer. So with that--pardon me? MR.YOVANOVICH: Actually,Mr. Strain,you and I had a conversation on the phone. You may be confused-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it before last time or before this time? MR.YOVANOVICH: It was before this time,Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks for letting me know. I didn't even-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Thanks,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was very impactful. I didn't remember it. MR.YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. MR.PRITT: And me,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,that's right,Mr.Pritt. Boy. Coming in late,I didn't have enough Page 7 of 63 August 1,2019 coffee this morning, so thank you both for correcting me. With that I'll turn it to members of the Planning Commission for questions. Anybody have any questions? We'll go with Karl first and then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Chairman Strain. Just a few questions. The first question is,what effect on the site plan occurred as a result of the Board of County Commissions'decision to reduce from four-story to three-story buildings? How does that impact the footprint and thelayout of your site plan? MR.YOVANOVICH: For the record,Rich Yovanovich. Mr.Fry,what essentially happened by reducing the height from four stories to three stories,the way we accounted for that is we--I think this is a correct word--we elongated some of the buildings to accommodate for that. We didn't lose--obviously,we brought the density down to 304 at the Planning Commission's request. But going down to three stories did not impact the number of units that we could achieve on the property, nor did it really change the location of the buildings that we previously showed you in relation to Barrington Cove and other properties. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Regarding the sight lines,you showed sight lines from various angles. What would the sight lines be like through the enhanced buffers that you described? How much--to what extent would the neighbors and residents be able to see the buildings through the landscaping buffer? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm showing you the enhanced buffer to Barrington Cove. I'm assuming that's the focus of your question; is that correct? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: Basically,what you see there is what you'll see of our project. As you--if you'll recall,the one-story apartment,the garages,are immediately adjacent to Barrington Cove. So with the enhanced buffer that's there,you're basically not going to see the one-story garages, and with the sight line that we showed you,you're not even going to be able to see into the units, and neither will the people in the units be able to see into people's backyards. I know that was a concern that was previously raised. But we believe the sight line works both ways. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of your slides was the density of various apartment complexes, and Inspira being one,which had a much higher density,the same number of units,304, on a much smaller footprint. How do you--what makes up the difference in the much lower density on this project? Is it simply open space and water management,the large water management? MR.YOVANOVICH: Preserves. The difference in this site and some of the other sites is this is a stand-alone PUD, and we have to accommodate on our site our water management, our preserve,which adds to,you know,the lower density that we can achieve on the acreage because we have to accommodate those things. Really,the purpose of this slide was to show you that the market for apartments is in the 300-unit range for apartments to provide the level of amenities that Collier County's demanding and the rents are demanding and the community wants to see with these types of luxury apartment complexes. You have to have enough units to be able to support the amenities we're offering. And I'm telling you because, fortunately,I'm representing a few different clients who are coming through the process--already been through the process for the apartments and are coming through the process for the apartments, it's a competition. Who can provide the better amenities? Because they can command high rents, and they want to attract those people. So as you saw the amenities that we're proposing here and the amenities that are already at Inspira,they're first-class luxury amenities. And to support those amenities,you have to have the number of units to support being able to provide those amenities. That was really the purpose of this slide,to show you what the unit sizes of these apartments are. And I'm embarrassed;I should have added to this slide Baumgarten which just was approved by the Board of County Commissioners and also came through the Planning Commission. I think that was 400 Page 8 of 63 • August 1,2019 apartments at the corner of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. Coincidentally, also adjacent to a single-family community. So there's--you could see that the numbers that are required for these types of communities to provide the amenities gets you in the 300-unit range. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the showing of the buffers from the various angles,I don't remember,I might have missed it,was there a buffer along Livingston Road shown? MR.YOVANOVICH: There is. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask,just focus on the setbacks and the buffering on Livingston. Okay. The pink? MR.YOVANOVICH: There's the pink. I'm assuming you're talking about the pink,not the yellow,because that's not really adjacent to Livingston. COMMISSIONER FRY: The pink,yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is that it,Bob? No,that was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just went past it twice. Keep going to your Type D buffer. MR.YOVANOVICH: Where this is? MR.MULHERE: It's probably not in yellow,but it's a Type D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it is in pink. There it is right there. MR. YOVANOVICH: What threw me off, as you can see where the pink is is up at Veterans Memorial,I was looking for the pink also labeled. That's the buffer you'll see from Livingston Road as you're driving past the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: And what is the setback on that? MR.YOVANOVICH: The setback is 50 feet for principal structures from Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fifty feet. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's the current PUD. COMMISSIONER FRY: I know some of the concerns expressed by residents were driving up Livingston and seeing this,you know, four-story apartment complex. The County Commission reduced that to three. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think partly to alleviate that stark contrast in building heights. Are you willing to enhance that buffer--I guess any kind of buffering along Livingston,I believe,would also be important. Is there a reason why that could not be an enhanced--you know, enhanced buffer with the buildings set back a little father so they're not hanging right-- 50 feet is about 17 steps. MR.YOVANOVICH: So-- COMMISSIONER FRY: So from the road to a building,a three-story building, 17 steps, is there--what can we-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me make sure I don't get anybody dizzy by going the right way or wrong way. MR. MULHERE: Want to go to the aerial. MR.YOVANOVICH: Bob,I'm looking for the regular B. Okay. Here's a regular B buffer which obviously is more enhanced than the A. We could put that along Livingston Road. And we've started to,obviously, lay out the site just like we had done in Baumgarten. ` So we could accommodate a setback along Livingston Road for principal structures of 80 feet instead of the 50 feet. So with the enhanced buffer and the greater setback for principal structures,I think that would go a long way towards addressing-- Right, okay. But thank you,Bob. We do the same B plantings but within the Type D buffer width. So you're still going to get the same blockage you'll get from the plantings. It affects the site plan if I have to go a little bit wider for the landscape buffer but with the increased setback of the principal structures. So you'll get the same level of Page 9 of 63 August 1,2019 plantings. COMMISSIONER FRY: So more density of plantings in the same width is what you're saying? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: That would skew the view more, and then setting the buildings back-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Another 30 feet,principal structures,yes,sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: And so how close would the garages be or parking spaces? What was the layout on that side in terms of garages and parking spaces? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have the garages just like we do on the east side,and that is how many feet? I think it was 20 feet. MR.MULHERE: Twenty. MR.YOVANOVICH: I think the garages would be 20 feet. COMMISSIONER FRY: Starting at 20 feet. Okay. MR.MULHERE: Right,at the edge of the landscape. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. It would be at the edge of the buffer hidden by the trees. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. I guess,you know, in the public comments last time you had showed De La Rosa,the PUD that was approved,which presumably gives the developer the right to build the De La Rosa PUD even if this were not passed. What--I got the impression from some of the residents that they didn't believe that the De La Rosa would be built. If it was going to be built, it would have been built by now. What would the developer do if this PUD and GMP amendment was not passed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,the difference between--and I hate going backwards,but to remind everybody;there may be some new people in the audience. Stock has acquired De La Rosa,so they own it. They have not yet acquired the other 20 acres. So since they own De La Rosa,they have two options: Build it or not build it. So they're going to build it, and the only thing that's authorized to be built on that property right now is multifamily. Single-family is not an option. We had this discussion last time. So it was bought with multifamily on it with the development standards for De La Rosa in place and, in fact,Barrington Cove came after De La Rosa. And Barrington Cove--so Barrington Cove knew that De La Rosa had been zoned ahead of it at the exact same standards that are in there today and, in fact, we're bringing those standards down and pulling the buildings further back. So if we're denied,we have two choices,you know; submit another PUD request under the current comp plan to achieve probably a higher density than we're asking for under the comprehensive plan today--amendment we're asking for today, or simply go forward--if that's unsuccessful,then we would build De La Rosa as it currently exists. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Rich. Mr. Chairman,just a clarification. This came to us before for transmittal. It was passed 4-2. It ,1 went to the County Commission. They approved it with the reduction of building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was 4-1 there. COMMISSIONER FRY: 4-1 there. Okay. What is our latitude today in terms of this coming back through us for transmittal without significant changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you want. There's no restriction. If you want to vote differently, if you want to request changes be made,that's what this is for. The transmittal is just to get the feel of it. The adoption is where the--I guess the rubber meets the road. This is the final blink we have at this,with this and the PUD both, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan,then Ned. Is that okay,Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said there were two options. There's a third option. Stock is not going to hold onto a park. For the benefit of people around it,they'll probably-- if they can't Page 10 of 63 August 1,2019 build what they want,they'll sell it. And to my way of thinking, Stock is a developer I would rather have building on this parcel than somebody they might sell it to. So it's just a thought. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I don't like to--you're right,that is another option,but I believe Stock intends to build on De La Rosa if we're turned down. But you're right,they could decide that this isn't the Stock quality project that they want on their name, and they'll sell it to someone else to build De La Rosa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have several questions and comments. First of all,at the BCC transmittal, Chairman McDaniel asked the developer and the agents to go back to the neighbors and see if further concessions could be made including with respect to more buffering. And we've heard some things already about additional buffering. My question is, is have you gone back and met again with the neighbors? And what was the outcome of that all in? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,I had discussions with their representative, and what was relayed to me is you can have four units an acre. And I said,well,then there's really nothing to discuss. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This was their legal counsel or the president of their HOA? MR.YOVANOVICH: I can't talk to their HOA president, so it was through their legal counsel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then my questions are what, if any,additional steps have been taken to mitigate further the automobile traffic that will result from the project in addition--if anything, in addition to the points that have already been made. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,I will--the difference has been the analysis has been done on 304 units versus the prior iteration with the higher density. We still--and Ted can get into the details. I'll give you the summary. We still do not trip a failure on any links in the road-- in the TCMA. So we're not utilizing the 85 percent"area is doing fine" analysis,which would not trip any of the transportation demand techniques that you would have to do under the normal rezone process and Comprehensive Plan process for a project of this density. We agreed to provide two of the four TDMs as additional transportation mitigation for this project even though we would not be required to do that under the TCMA. It's an MA,right? So what we have in our PUD is, obviously,there's two we can do right away,which is interconnecting with the commercial. And I'm blanking on the second one. What was the other one we were going to do? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bus stops,but that's-- MR.YOVANOVICH: That wasn't counted,though. There's three that we can do. Interconnection with the commercial--I'll look at it in a second. And we threw--the bus stop--we also agreed, if the county wants a bus stop,whenever they want the bus stop,we will provide them with that bus stop. And when we--it was discussed at the last meeting,people said,well,Rich,you basically offered us nothing. And I said,well,you guys are--you're not thinking about the future,because we had just approved the transit,the park-and-ride at the corner of Livingston Road and Immokalee Road. Right down the street you've just approved a CAT transit stop. It's not a difficult thing to imagine in the future that the county's going to want to have a bus line going up and down Livingston Road to the north. So we provide that opportunity. I guess you'll have to explain one,Bob,because I didn't understand it. So the CAT bus stop, although it may not be needed today,I don't think it's much of a stretch that it would be a benefit to the community in the future. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would it be fair to say that when you're marketing to empty nesters Page 11 of 63 August 1,2019 ` with product that would be described--I think you've described it as luxury product--even a rental basis, that in all likelihood the occupants would be less inclined to use bus transportation and more inclined to use auto transportation? MR.YOVANOVICH: To be honest with you, I don't know the answer to that question. If it was convenient and I had a bus line that can get me, for instance,to the beach so I don't have to fight for beach parking,I might take the bus to the beach. It would depend. I think it's fair to say that most of us are probably still users of our cars right now and maybe not believers in the CAT system. But,as time goes along,who knows how things can change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you have or does your traffic engineer have an estimate as to how many additional automobiles would be generated by the 304 dwelling units? MR.YOVANOVICH: Versus what number? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Versus where we are now. MR.YOVANOVICH: Ted, do you? MR. TREESH: Good morning. Ted Treesh with TR Transportation. Yeah,we'll look at just the p.m. peak,because it is the highest. And for the 304 units, it's a total of a hundred-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question was additional automobiles. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the unit, in the complex. MR.YOVANOVICH: Compared to the existing zoning, Ted. MR. TREESH: I don't think we did that--I don't think we've completed that part of the analysis. We just looked at what the project will generate at buildout of the 304. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think some of the residents have estimated upwards of 500 additional automobiles as a result of the project. Would you have any basis for taking exception to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I took a look at some of the numbers. The average household of that size is 1.97 cars. So if you take 1.97 cars times the additional increase over what you would have been entitled to on De La Rosa and the 20 acres you're adding,that would be 189 minus 304, so you're at 115 more at almost two units--that would be 230 additional cars over and above what I think the zoning would probably allow if you were to go forward with just straight--with just the zoning that was there,I think. That's the best I can tell you. MR.YOVANOVICH: And,again,I get the number of cars,but the important issue is the county measures the impact of traffic on the peak hour, and during the peak-hour analysis is which we're required to do. We do not trigger any failures on any links on the Collier County transportation system. And that's one of the reasons. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I finish? COMMISSIONER FRYER: --developer must comply with the standards that are outlined and to meet the tests that are built into the various legal documents,but I don't think it's quite fair to say that that's the only thing that can be looked at. I think 100 percent of the residents are looking at what the actual conditions are going to be and are less concerned about whether certain trip wires have been tripped. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,we have standards that we go through that are reviewed, and the transportation analysis standard is a level-of-service analysis standard,and it's based upon the peak-hour/peak-direction analysis for determining transportation-related issues. And that's the analysis we did. And under that analysis,we do not trigger any failures based upon a transportation review. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That certainly would answer staffs concerns,but I don't believe it answers the neighbors,and it doesn't answer mine either. But moving along,would you commit to a minimum lease duration of 12 months? MR.YOVANOVICH: Can we--do you have any others while they're talking amongst Page 12 of 63 August 1,2019 themselves? COMMISSIONER FRYER: You can hold that thought. We'll get back to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes,thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you describe in greater detail the kind of tenant vetting you do. There are various ways of accomplishing that. Probably the most thorough would be a LexisNexis or West Law search to identify prior criminal record. Could you give us an idea of what you typically do, what you do at Inspira. MS. CARDOZA: Good morning. For the record,Catherine Cardoza. So we run a full criminal screening through RealPage,which is an international software program that does property management from start to finish. So we do not allow any base--the laws change all the time,but anything that's a violent misdemeanor or any type of felony is not permitted. It's an automatic decline. I've had them decline-- it's a very sensitive system where they look at things very,you know,detailed through all different states because, obviously,we're a transient area. So I've had them flagged even for, like,toll violations. So those things we can get,you know, disputed,but--and overturned traffic violations. But outside of that, any violent misdemeanor or any felony whatsoever isn't approved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I think your standards are right on target. My question is,is what background information do you rely upon against which to measure your standards? And I submit that West Law and LexisNexis are--and I'm not familiar with the one you mentioned,but unless that service is a subscriber to one of those two,you're not going to get the stuff that you get from the level of detail. And, frankly,the cost that is associated with LexisNexis and West Law--the reason they charge so much is because they have developed incredible detail. So do you know what your service uses and relies on? MS. CARDOZA: RealPage is actually the leader in the multifamily housing screening industry currently,and it is very,very expensive, even with Greystar's,you know,national discounts. I mean,we don't see on site the actual background that is,you know, done through corporate,but it's done on a scoring module that's extremely sensitive, and we have to verify date of birth,ID--you know,photo ID,your driver's license number, Social Security number all has to tie in together as well as proof-of-income standards that are pretty stern. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The--your comment about no subleasing, of course-- MS. CARDOZA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: --I would expect that, and I'm glad that's the case. That,though, triggers the question,though,how do you enforce that? And you mentioned automobile registration, which is good. Can you elaborate on what else you would do? In other words,I'm trying to identify if there's anything more than simply reactive actions that you would take in order to spot a violation of the anti-subleasing provision. MS. CARDOZA: To spot it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MS. CARDOZA: Absolutely. We have to do unit inspections on a regular basis. We have to do regular cleanings. This kind of clientele demands a very high-level product and a very clean environment at all times. So myself and my staff,we know everybody. We know their pets. We know the ins and outs. We get to know their habits. And we're on site every single day. We are screened through,you know,risk management procedures to be trained on how to recognize those things and transient activity. The restricted access gates help with that,the fobs. You know,all of those different devices that we have in place currently and at previous communities--current community and previous community that that really make it difficult for outsiders that are not registered to a resident to take it into one of our communities. You know,we watch for suitcases. We watch for,you know,real estate style door locks that are, you know, in place of ours. It's very easily recognized, especially when you're starting from the ground Page 13 of 63 up at a community,to know who's supposed to be there and who's not. August 1,2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Those are all the questions I have for this witness,unless someone else does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you ask all the questions of the applicant presentation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I will do that. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got some? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just one. I saw you say you can evict a person in seven days and yet I've heard a lot of horror stories about how it takes months to evict people. Is it really that easy to evict someone in seven days? MS. CARDOZA: So for criminal activity, if I may,real quick. Our lease agreement is full of all kinds of fun. It's worse than a mortgage. It's well over 43 pages that cover all of it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know what you may have written,but I've heard--I see this--instances of people actually moving into places they don't even own-- MS. CARDOZA: Oh, certainly. So-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --and you can't get them evicted for months. And a simple piece of paper like that-- MS. CARDOZA: Yes. So it's called the crime and drug free housing addenda is one of the key factors in our lease agreement that every single resident signs to. They are responsible not for only themselves but any guests they may allow to,you know, step site--on the site. And that--any criminal activity whatsoever is an immediate seven day to terminate. So yes,the--I can serve them with that and,by law,they--if I have documented proof of any criminal activity happening,they have to vacate the community. Now, if they want to fight that,well,certainly they can in a court of law,but we would go through all of the steps. It can be a little bit longer,but if somebody has a criminal incident on site, it's very easily taken care of. It's not something that is--is handled lightly,I guess. So if I know of a crime, and I have a police report,that's really all it takes. I've been successful in doing so at all past communities. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I was just wondering if somebody squat--if I ever go on vacation and somebody squats in my house,I just come back and tell them to get out, and it's that the easy? MS. CARDOZA: Well,no. Single-family law and multifamily law are very,very different. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have for the lady. Thank you,ma'am. MS. CARDOZA: All right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What-- looking at the discretionary density bonus of three, and if we start at four dwelling units per acre,the first tranche, if you will,of additional dwelling units per acre that you would want would have to be based upon a case to be made that they are justified and that they will be somehow in the public good,I believe. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't think that's one of the criteria. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, it is. MR.-YOVANOVICH: I appreciate the coaching from the audience,but it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not allowed to speak from the audience without being recognized, so please don't. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well,I believe that the factors in question--and I'm aware of them--could be summarized in that fashion. I don't think it's a matter of absolute right on the part of the developer to have those. It's discretionary. And I'm having difficulty identifying what public good would be served. And if you say that that's not a criterion and,therefore,you're not going to answer it,I'll take that as an answer. Page 14 of 63 August 1,2019 MR.YOVANOVICH: No. Of course,I'm going to answer it,but the--first of all,my question to you is,which criteria are we talking about? Are we talking about if we were to look at this as within the TCMA? That's the-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be the only one that you could possible qualify for. MR.YOVANOVICH: Under today's application. But remember-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know. Affordable. MR.YOVANOVICH: That one,and there's also--you're asking me--first of all,I'm not in here today to ask for the TCMA three-unit bonus. I'm here asking for my own subdistrict to allow me to build 8.55 units per acre on that property. But if I were to go-- if we want to do the hypothetical of what could I do under today's Growth Management Plan and what criteria I would need to meet,I'm happy to address that question with the following response: The TCMA was designed and intended to focus density in the urban area,and by doing so, it gives you the ability to request three units per acre as a bonus to the base density of four. There are criteria to get those bonus units, and it's the same rezone criteria you would go through to rezone any piece of property,which would include an analysis of transportation-related impacts under the transportation rules. You would have-- one of the criteria is you would look at compatibility with your neighbors. Your professional planning staff says we've met the compatibility standards based upon our setbacks and our height, et cetera. Those are the criteria that you would go through to get the bonus units of three. Now, let's assume I'm going under the existing Comprehensive Plan. I then am in what's called a quasi-judicial hearing process. And I know you know that, but I don't know that everybody in the audience knows that. r So under a quasi-judicial hearing process, it's very different than a legislative process,which means there are rules of the game. And if I meet the rules of the game by competent substantial evidence, I get approved. And I would submit to you that we have--we will meet the rules of the game and have met the rules of the game under the quasi-judicial standard and would be entitled to an approval. One of the rules of the game is not,have I made my neighbors happy? The Comp Plan says,we want you to infill the urban area because we don't want people moving out east and creating longer drives into town and clogging up our roads for the longer drives. That's why you have these incentivizes to develop in the urban area. You also have another incentive for smaller infill parcels that are 20 acres or less. You can get another three units per acre. So let's go through that. Same analysis: Four units per acre,three for TCMA,three for residential infill. That's 10 under the current Comprehensive Plan. I could go in and break this into two projects. I could do it under the current rules,and I'd be eligible for 10 on 20 acres, 10 on the remaining 15, but if we're going to talk hypotheticals,I could do that. You've asked me what I could do under the current rules of the game,and those would all be under the quasi-judicial criteria and not a legislative process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The three additional units,which I understood from your materials was based upon the TCMA. MR.YOVANOVICH: No, it's not. It's not at all. Staff put that in there for a background analysis to understand what you can do under the existing Growth Management Plan. I've then asked to add some of the TCMA transportation demand methods,or whatever they're called,as additional support for the Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. So let's look at the benefit, if any,that accrues to Collier County-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Happy to do it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: --by allowing for the greater density that you're asking for,which is in excess of even seven. It seems to me--and one of the points of analysis that I would employ would be the TCMA,because that is a thoughtful--even if,as you say,that's more a creature of the staffs work Page 15 of 63 August 1,2019 product for this project than yours, it helped me understand, for instance,that those additional three units under the TCMA would be to, for instance, remove some traffic from the public roads by means of interconnectivity,by means of mixed use with commercial uses included in the subject property. And,of course,this is all residential. And you,Mr.Yovanovich, and your colleagues who are before us on other projects frequently tout the benefit achieved from mixed-use projects in that it would tend to keep more people on the farm rather than going into Paris, so to speak. And that I understand, if it works. And interconnectivity is also important. But when you put 100 percent residential in, density for its own sake doesn't seem to me to be justified. MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me answer that question. And I don't want to rehash what we talked about the last time, but I will. There is no question that there is a need for more apartment rental housing in Collier County. Your staff does--we have not reached the saturation point yet to meet the demand. In order to have apartment complexes,you need density. You need apartment complexes to serve a lot of different types of people, including teachers, firefighters,nurses, sheriffs deputies. So where would there be a better location to put multifamily housing apartments than this location? And we talked about this the last time. It's on a major arterial road easy to get into Collier County. You have two schools right now within walking distance of this property. You have Veterans Memorial Elementary School,you have the middle school, and you have a soon-to-be-built high school. Ideal location to provide housing for teachers to serve and live in their community. I would submit to you that's a public benefit to have your teachers living in the same community that they're teaching. Arthrex recently appeared in front of the Board of County Commissioners and said,you've got to provide housing opportunities for our workers. This provides housing opportunities for their workers when they're locating here. It will be nice enough for them to stay many, many years, or they may just elect to stay for 12 months while they look for another housing opportunity. So I submit to you the benefit of this project is we're providing housing to demographics of people who need it. And that is a public benefit, and it is meeting a need that is not-- is uncontroverted that you need this type of housing. And you can't get this type of housing at four units per acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I want to move to my main concern now, and I'd ask that you would put back on the visualizer the image that you have of density comparability,the other projects. MR.YOVANOVICH: Density comparability? I don't know that I had an exhibit. Oh,you mean the similar apartments? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh,okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: By density. MR.YOVANOVICH: I will. Bob,am I close? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here I am. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. Now, in the material that was submitted to us by staff in preparation for the July 18 meeting,there were a number of quote-unquote surrounding PUD projects with approved acreage that the numbers for which were revealed to us in detail. True, as you and I,Mr.Yovanovich,had discussed,there was an allusion to this situation by the expert that had been employed by the residents,but the only mention at that time--and this goes back to January--was of Mediterra. At the time the other proximate developments,Brandon, Sandalwood,RMC Enclave,Royal Palm,Marsilee Villas,those were not mentioned,they were not called out by name, and neither were the dwelling units per acre,the density specified, and as it turns out--and I went back and looked at both the minutes and the agenda packet to Page 16 of 63 August 1,2019 confirm this--I did electronic word searches--and I found no mention of the words Brandon, Sandalwood,RMC Enclave,Royal Palm Marsilee. And so I concluded from that that information had not been put in front of us even though the densities--and if you include Mediterra,it's .56 dwelling units per acre; Brandon is 3.99; Sandalwood is 3.1;RMC Enclave is 4.02;Royal Palm is 3.37; and Merislee, 2.63. So it was--I believe it has been represented to us by staff that these are the proximate developments. These are the ones that are close. And the list that you provide with greater density,could you identify for me the ones that are as close to your project,to Allura,as the ones that I just mentioned? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not sure I understand the question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are any of these as close? MR.YOVANOVICH: To what? COMMISSIONER FRYER: To the ones that I just named off. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I didn't think so. MR. YOVANOVICH: But there's--do you want me to go through all the different zoning through Collier County where you have multifamily adjacent to single-family so we can talk about-- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have got to wait for one of you to finish talking. MR.YOVANOVICH: I thought it was my turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It was. I'm just saying,please one of you wait. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you want to go ahead? MR.YOVANOVICH: If you're looking for a comparison of another project that's in this vicinity, obviously the answer is no. But I could show you, if you want me to,many other projects that are similarly situated to this type of project to residential. If you'd like me to do that,Bob's prepared to do that,and I can show you in my own community,which is the Pine Ridge community,where you have RMF-16,which is the most intense,the highest high,the most intense 16-unit-per-acre zoning district immediately adjacent or abutting--we can use both of those words in this case--to RSF-1 which is the least intense residential zoning district,and that has been deemed compatible with each other where you could have a 75-foot-tall multifamily building at 16 units per acre right next to a 35-foot-tall building at one unit per acre,which I would submit to you is not the situation we have here. We have a much less restrictive or--restrictive adjacency of 16 units per acre to one unit per acre. COMMISSIONER FRY: What are you referring to,Rich? MR.YOVANOVICH: What do you mean? COMMISSIONER FRY: In Pine Ridge. MR.YOVANOVICH: Pine Ridge. If you remember,on the northwest corner of Pine Ridge you have the commercial that fronts U.S. 41,and immediately behind that you have condominiums. Those are all RMF-16,and we have a slide that Bob can bring up,RMF-16. And immediately adjacent to those condominiums is RSF-1. So you have that scenario right there. Baumgarten,you just approved 400 multifamily units immediately adjacent to a single-family community. There are all kinds of scenarios. Briarwood,you have approved 320 units within a single-family PUD community. I can go on Pine Ridge--Pine Ridge Commons,which is the redevelopment of a grocery-anchored shopping center adjacent to--or across from residential. You have all kinds of scenarios where you have apartments adjacent to residential,and they are compatible and do fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we're permitted to look at each of these cases individually rather than look around the county for precedent. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not asking for precedent. I'm just showing you that if you--your question was, do I have another apartment complex in this area, and the answer's no,and I don't think that that's the complete answer to the question, and I think that there are other areas where, similarly situated, Page 17 of 63 August 1,2019 where the answer's yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you feel like you've had a full opportunity to present your answer? MR.YOVANOVICH: I could be here for all day,but I don't want to be. I'm going to let Mr.Mulhere add something. MR. MULHERE: Thanks. For the record,Bob Mulhere. I do want to--I just want to add an observation or a statement as a professional planner for many years in Southwest Florida. We can't start out at a premise that multifamily is incompatible with single-family. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're the only ones who are saying that. MR.MULHERE: No. We're not saying that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not. MR.MULHERE: So you-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm talking about density issues right now. MR.MULHERE: Okay. But my point is,if you start out with the premise that multifamily is not necessarily incompatible with single-family,how do you address what concerns are raised? COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I grant you that so that we can move on? I grant you that it's not always incompatible. MR. MULHERE: And the compatibility issue is addressed by other standards: Setbacks, buffering,reduced building heights,those types of things. So,you know,we believe that we've established a project that addresses the compatibility issues. We have a recommendation of approval from staff-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'm not in any respect being critical of the developer or the developer's agents. I think,as always,you guys are doing a terrific job for your clients. But I'm trying to look at this situation that is before us now, and these adjoining properties,these adjoining--then the densities of the adjoining or the nearby properties are an average of less than half of what you're asking for. And so under the state statute, 163.3177,it seems to me that looking at the area in question rather than the entire county or other situations that have been allowed to happen in the entire county,but looking at this particular situation is a valid exercise on our part. And I come more and more to the conclusion that--I wasn't so sure at first, but I'm getting to the point where I do believe that this could be spot zoning on the basis of dwelling units-- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not spot zoning. This is a Comp Plan amendment. Not spot zoning. Comp Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, should we let it--on the issue,then, of compatibility-- MR.KLATZKOW: No,no,no. If you don't think this is a good idea--comp planning is legislative--you can say no. But don't call it spot zoning, because that's the whole thing of small-scale amendments is,well, legalized spot zoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'll withdraw that comment then. But it seems to me that the most important inquiry is the area in question,which is the Allura property and the surrounding properties. And I think that the Allura is so out of keeping with what would surround it that you've got a serious compatibility issue. And if I were a neighbor,I would be very concerned about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that. And you're certainly entitled to that opinion. And I don't want to spend the next two hours trying to persuade you differently,because I don't think I'll be successful. But let's just put it on the record that I disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on with the rest of Mr. Fryer's questions. Page 18 of 63 August 1,2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, if I may,I'd like to reserve the rest of my questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What, for today? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, for after the public comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman,I have a couple questions just regarding the--just curious. I actually took a tour of Inspira at Lely Resort and during this thing over the last couple months with Allura coming back and forth before this commission. And I had a couple questions regarding the percentage of how many places are currently rented right now at Inspira, since they're a relatively newer project, and the average rental per month for that project. Just curious. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,they're at 65 percent rented up right now. I don't know what-- MS. CARDOZA: Sixty-seven as of yesterday. MR.YOVANOVICH: We had a 2 percent gain since yesterday. We're at 67 percent leased up. And you want to know the average rental rate? But do you want it by--Mr. Dearborn,do you want one-bedroom,two-bedroom,three-bedroom? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Overall average for the project. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're absorbing 18 units a month. And now I'm waiting for the money number. The average overall rent is $1,750 to$1,800 a month. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. In touring Inspira at Lely--and I saw the amenities and I saw the layout, is it safe to assume,based on you-all showing us pictures today in the presentation by Bob,that this project's going to look very similar as far as aesthetics, elevations,the buildings,the design,the deco--all that stuff? The level of amenity is going to be very similar? MR.YOVANOVICH: It will be equal to or better. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: As I said,because,you know,the bar keeps getting raised for every apartment complex that comes in-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sure. MR.YOVANOVICH: --by the time this is finished, it will probably be better from an amenities standpoint. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I toured--I wasn't very familiar with those type, and I was--I've got to be honest,I was very impressed with the level of--being a realtor here in Naples,I was impressed with the amenities and the layout and how beautiful the facilities meant(sic). And I think with a lower--the three-story thing, I think you guys are trying to accommodate. So that's the only question I have right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then I have a few. If we start with the GMP document first,there is one correction not necessary for Richard to comment on. Under the CCPC recommendation on Page 3 of the transmittal, it says the declining votes were Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fryer. I believe it was Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's my understanding as well--or recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know why that wasn't correctly done,but we need to get it corrected. In the comprehensive--I'll wait. I've got Comprehensive Planning questions,but I think I'll wait till I get staff up here. On your traffic study,your TIS,you're restricted to 249 units,I think it is. I think staff recommended COs. Can you explain what that's about? Do you under--I mean,that was a Comprehensive Planning request. Do you guys-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. Mr. Chairman, it is that we must physically construct the Page 19 of 63 August 1,2019 interconnection. We have no control over when the commercial may be built next to us. It has nothing to do with when that gets built. It was-- it is that we must physically construct both the pedestrian and vehicular interconnection as part of our project prior to going beyond 249 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then how would you make those locations without knowing what the property owner would be willing-- MR.MULHERE: First in. First in,we make the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that property owner would be bound by what you do on this PUD? I just didn't know how legal that would be. Usually we can't bind off-site properties by one other property's commitments. MR. MULHERE: It happens often that there is an interconnection constructed and,you know, the staff will,when someone comes in for a Site Development Plan,make them make an interconnection at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can pick anywhere to put it,and that's where the other owner's going to have to agree to it? MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even if it's in the side of a building? MR.MULHERE: Well, it won't be in the side of a building because he hasn't planned his project yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I know,but he could be planning it in a manner that won't match up to yours. That's what I was trying to figure out. Okay. Comp Planning seemed to have a--well,I'll have to wait for them to get up here since it's going to be--I'll wait for staff then on that one. Hang on a second. Let me get to the next. By the way, I did recognize another person in the audience. You know,when you get me off my normal routine that I've been doing for 18 years and have me do disclosures in the middle of a walk-in, I didn't get everybody's correctly. Dr. Grekos from Barrington met with me and some of the other people from Barrington earlier this week. And so that's--the same thing as we're talking about today will(sic) be talked then. Moving down to the Development Standards Table. And I mentioned to you,Bob or Rich, whatever--at one point I brought up the distance that the setbacks were. You have agreed to 125-foot eastern perimeter boundary setback,but your accessory structures can be 15 feet. And I know you showed a little picture here with a garage next to the berm and buffer,but that garage can go up to 35 feet, which is really three stories. So are you restricting your accessory structures that are going to utilize that reduced setback from 125 to 15 feet to single-stories only? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. The answer's yes, and that was always the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just doesn't say that in the document. MR.YOVANOVICH: We thought it did,but if it doesn't,we'll--we thought the footnote took care of that,but if it doesn't, Commissioner Strain,that was clearly the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,actually-- so the footnote says,the maximum actual height of the parking structures is limited to 35 feet. So if you've got a flat-deck parking structure,you could have three 10-foot stories, including your keystone joists or whatever else you'd use for your structural components, and then you could put a four-foot stem wall on top to keep traffic safety. You'd still be at 35 feet,but you've got three stories of parking garages, so... MR.YOVANOVICH: I was referring to Footnote 3,which says--there's a footnote that says for one-story parking structures, garages,carports,trash compactors,enclosures which do not exceed 15 feet zoned and 20 feet actual. The setback from Livingston Road and from Veterans Memorial shall be 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: We need to make that consistent on the east side as well,I think, is what Page 20 of 63 • August 1,2019 your point is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want a three-story parking garage to be next to the homes. I don't think that would be helpful. MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand,and that's--we never are--obviously,we showed you a picture of a one-story garage,and that's what we intend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that picture back up. MR.YOVANOVICH: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that showed the three-story garage. MR.YOVANOVICH: No. I said we never intended to do that. I showed you a one-story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,no. I'm sorry. The one that showed the single-story garage that I started the questioning of this from. Just--there's a buffer there that I want to look at the detail. That's it. See where it says under alternate--Type B alternate enhanced buffer,and your 15-foot buffer goes from the property line back. And then notice on the--next to the building you say--you have a six-foot fence,but it's outside the buffer. And the reason I'm asking is I was looking to see if you were providing walls anywhere,and I needed to ask that question. I didn't see any. Is the fence going to be part of the buffer? What was--so you're putting no-- MR.YOVANOVICH: The fence and the landscaping is between the garages. MR. MULHERE: That's what the fence is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the fence part of the buffer then? So you're including a fence as part of the buffer? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm correct,then, in I didn't find any walls in any of your buffers? You're not providing any walls? MR.YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a slight discrepancy between the maximum density that's in the Comprehensive Planning staff consistency memorandum and what zoning staff is saying. Do you know why that occurs,or is that something staff will have to answer when I get to them? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,I think the difference was the slivers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that sliver along Livingston Road? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I assume,but I just wanted to make sure. There is a comment in the Comprehensive Planning staff report that in order to--Policy 7.4 requires that there be a blend of densities,common open spaces, civic facilities,and a range of housing prices and types. And I know you've got the range of housing prices. But it says a single standard dwelling unit size as proposed 650 square foot minimum floor area for all apartment configurations. No other submittal documents appear to propose or require some combination of these different apartment styles and floor areas to be provided. And I was--since you're not going to have all 650(sic)units,that might be cured by providing a breakdown or some minimum breakdown of what your ranges will be. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when we go on break, if you want to have time to come up with that before the end of discussion,that's something we can deal with. MR.YOVANOVICH: And,Mr. Strain,I think you have a note--I'll be answering--.able to answer that on the break as far as how we intend to break down the ones,twos, and threes. But I'm just going to ask you--because this is a standard Comp Plan provision,and in every PUD we only include the minimum square footage of a unit. We've never, as far as I know, ever said I'll have X number at 650,Y number at 750. I'm happy to address the comment. I'm just saying we've just never done it before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the comment was--I don't recall seeing the comment before from Comprehensive Planning staff. So the fact that they have it here,I was just following up to Page 21 of 63 August 1,2019 . see if there was a way to address it. And if there isn't, that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can say yes or no. I just need an answer. MR.YOVANOVICH: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the TIS, there's a couple questions of your traffic gentleman, if I could get an answer for. In your analysis of the traffic in that area,we have this thing--we used to have it. I don't know how effective it is anymore--called checkbook concurrency. And I'm just wondering from the perspective of projects like Seed to Table and the new high school,have you included those calculations of what the traffic generations during peak hour will be from those two facilities on the same intersections and areas you're dealing with? MR. TREESH: In our traffic analysis,we utilize the AUIR volumes. So if those values--as the basis of our analysis,then we add our project trips to those volumes. So if those uses are not included in the AUIR,then,no,we have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I ask is because I thought you were going to say that, and I looked, and you used the AUIR from 2017. We're in 2019, and the new AUIR will be coming out in a month or two. But at least we'd have the 2018 to compare to. But it doesn't look like you've utilized that,then. And I'll probably have to ask staff why we're still sticking with the old numbers when we are here two years later and also had the--does the new--or the 2018 AUIR--what its impact on the remaining balance that the 2017 shows that it may not show in the 2018,so... MR. TREESH: We've been working on this a long time,and I'll check on that during the break with the 2019 volumes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.TREESH: But I suspect it hasn't changed significantly from what's in our report. In terms of the available capacity, it's still-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's a significant difference for that one road segment. I think-- MR. TREESH: Which one? COMMISSIONER FRYER: --it goes from 305 to 193 with a deficiency projected for 2022. MR. TREESH: Which segment? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think it's 42.1. MR. TREESH: Which is? COMMISSIONER FRYER: And this is comparing 2017 to 2018, and that was going to be one of my followup questions as well,Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too late. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good for you. Also,though,I would note that staff kind of fell into the same trap mentioning 2017 a number of times in the staff materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll ask staff to address that. I'm just curious how they have or have not included those other substantial projects in the configuration of the traffic for that area,because it will have an impact. MR. TREESH: 42.1 is Immokalee Road,correct? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe that's right. MR.TREESH: To the west of Livingston is a deficiency segment. It has been and was in our initial analysis,and it currently still is. But we don't significantly impact that segment. And,Commissioner Fryer,just to go back to your previous comment about we did--I did look at the numbers between the 111 units on the Comp Plan that are currently in De La Rosa versus what we're asking for in the 304. And,again,as Rich said,we look at peak-hour trip generation in terms of the level-of-service analysis. For the p.m.peak hour based on what's currently approved would be 49 peak-hour trips. So that's in and out. So, again, looking at the peak direction,that's 30 trips that that project would generate in the Page 22 of 63 l August 1,2019 peak hour peak direction that we would add to the road network. With the 304 units that we're proposing,that peak direction would go to 79. So it's a little over twice the number of peak-hour trips from 30 to 79 in the peak direction. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I acknowledge that you're still within the 193,but it's a significant observation to make that between 2017 and 2018 the remaining capacity dropped from 305 to 193. I mean,that's a big drop. And also the projected year of deficiency dropped from 2023 to 2022. MR.TREESH: One of the other things we do look at as well,we don't look at just the 2017. We (; increased the volumes based on the growth rates. So are accounting for additional traffic in the background at the buildout analysis. You know, it may not be specifically a high school or a shopping center to our south,but we are accounting for an increase in traffic that will occur on the roadway network, and our 2023 analysis is what we looked at. But, again,I'll verify that during the break. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's not problem. Okay. That's all the traffic I had. I had just a couple comments to make on things I heard stated. The Baumgarten PUD was used as an example a couple different times,but the difference there is that's in an activity center. That activity center has an allowance of 16-units-per-acre activity bands. This is not an activity center, so that really isn't a justifiable comparable. And also,I believe Arthrex came before the Board of County Commissioners--and,Ray,I need to ask you this question. They expressed a concern about a type of unit--rental unit,I think,they were asking about or even housing unit to meet their needs,that they didn't think the county was doing a good enough job to do that. Do you know what they were asking for? I didn't see it, so... MR. BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. The Arthrex developer has indicated some need for housing,but I don't recall specifics of what type. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I know I've heard mentioned a couple times that the Arthrex folks could possibly go here,but I don't know if they need affordable housing or they need luxury housing or high-end housing, because this is not affordable,that I could tell. I also heard the idea that firefighters and nurses and people like that would rent here possibly. But I would--I mean,that's still--the numbers that they're talking about are the higher end, and I'm not sure from affordability we look at those service workers being in this value--this value range. But if staff hasn't got any comment on it,I understand. Thank you. Did you have something you wanted to add? MR.TREESH: Yeah. I just want clarification. We did update our analysis in April of 2019,and did use the most recent AUIR report in that document. So we did use the most recent AUIR numbers that are available to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In which document is that? MR. TREESH: It's a revised traffic study for the GMP dated April 30th,2019. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the--okay. Hang on a second,because I-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I,too, found references to 2017 in the material that was sent to us by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's what--I mean,I remember 2'17,because I circled it wondering what the latest was. So,I mean,I'm not disputing the fact you may have provided it. I'm not sure that-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we've--I'll look at it during break and try to figure that out. MR.YOVANOVICH: Since we're on the topic of Arthrex and others,can I bring Cat back up real quick before the break to address that specific comment? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wanted to ask a question of the traffic engineer, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did I. Page 23 of 63 August 1,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought you were done with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish with him first. In your traffic analysis,you're still at, during weekday p.m. peak hour, 79 in and 50 out, 129 total. You have 304 units which,theoretically, at the rate these are leased, if you do--I think the lady last time said they get about average of two parties per--two people per unit. That's 608 drivers. The census that I pulled up,the average household is 1.97 cars per household,which is 599 cars. So out of that 599 cars,we're dealing with mostly young professionals,I would think, at the price range you're talking about. That means they would be looking at peak-hour travel. And only,what-- 129 is maybe a sixth,maybe a little over a sixth of the people are going to be leaving and coming at that peak hour,when most of them would likely have jobs that pay a value high enough for them to live there. They wouldn't be laborers in the field. They wouldn't be getting up at sunrise. Did you--did any of that come into factors when you looked at your TIS,your Traffic Impact Statement, or did you just take straight ITE manual numbers which sometimes are tailored-- include Florida,sometimes they don't? How did you look at any--did you look at any of these parameters,these other parameters for your traffic? MR. TREESH: What we did since our last meeting before you is conducted a site-specific trip generation study of similar communities here in Collier County. And as Rich indicated,that study was done and completed and submitted to staff, and it showed very consistent numbers in terms of trip generation during the peak hours from this type of residential product in this area. You know,that's what we have to look at. You can look at all kinds of different charts and come up with different calculations trying to figure out,but what we look at in terms of transportation planning is the data that is collected at existing facilities. And right now that's all summarized in the ITE trip generation book. If something turns into a disagreement that we don't believe that data is accurate,then we can go do independent studies,which is what we did at five studies for this project. And I believe Mr. Trebilcock also did some in the Baumgarten PUD and added onto that. And all those studies show that the trip generation during the peak hours was fairly consistent to the ITE trip generation manual that we use. And I can go into--there's many different explanations why someone leaves their home at a certain time of day. I mean,you have a large demographic that lives in these types of communities,and depending on when they go to work, do they have to take their kids to daycare, do they--you know, many things factor into when that person decides to leave their home to go to work and when they come home and those trips that they make throughout the day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your peak hour is what time? MR. TREESH: Generally,the peak hour in Collier County area occurs during a 60-minute(sic) period between 4 and 6 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's--I just wanted to make sure. That's the same number I came up with,too. Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: A couple of things. First of all,am I correct that the tenth edition of the ITE has combined the statistics for rental units along with luxury condo units? They're all treated as the same-- MR. TREESH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: --is that correct? MR.TREESH: Determined--ITE determined that the datasets between the two different ones was not substantially different, so they combined those land uses together. Then what they did was separate those land uses by building height. There's a land-use code for multifamily with one to two stories,which is your typical townhome type product,and then there's another category for units that are between three and 10 habitable floors, and then there's a high-rise component which is above 11 floors Page 24 of 63 mow August 1,2019 and higher. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question--I think it's my last one on traffic--has to do with this. When you worked your computations,you estimated that 30 percent of the trips going south on Livingston--30 percent would turn west on Immokalee. How did you arrive at that number? MR.TREESH: That's basically just a general estimation based on our experience and the travel patterns in the area. We look at traffic counts that we've conducted,how do those turns occur at those intersections,where the locations of peak employment are,where the major transportation corridors are, the influence of 1-75. For instance,this property's very close to the 1-75 corridor. So there's a number of different factors that go into estimating the trip distribution. And then we also consult with the staff in terms of if they have any comments on the trip distribution as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's essentially anecdotal,would you say? MR.TREESH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you also say that if I were to argue that 40 percent make that turn,you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong,would you? MR.TREESH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to take a break for the court reporter. We'll come back at 10:50 and resume the meeting. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen,please take your seats. We need to resume the meeting. We've got a little change in agenda here for just a moment. Mr.Pritt and I,when we did speak,he mentioned he had to be on the road by 11 o'clock today, and I told him after the break he could make his discussion--put his discussion on the record. Mr.Pritt, if you want to use one of the microphones, it's all yours. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Good morning, and thank you very much for taking me out of order. I do need to get on the road over to Broward County. For the record,my name is Robert Pritt,and I'm here on behalf Mediterra Community Association Inc. That's the master association for Mediterra. I'm not here on behalf of Barrington Cove. They--as far as I know,they do not have an attorney that's representing them,but I think they're representing themselves pretty well. Mediterra has engaged Dr.David Depew,AICP, lead AP,to review the proposal,and he has submitted a planning analysis and, like me,he testified here earlier at the-- in preparation of the transmittal hearing on the GMP. But as I understand,we're here on both of those matters this morning for this hearing, and he's here and available and will be testifying. Mediterra is a mixed-use residential PUD. I think that's been said already. I think most of you have actually done a lot of homework,by the way,and know a lot about it and the other developments in the area. It's about 1,168-plus acres. It's right next or across the street on two parts from the proposed development. And its density is a little less,I think--Mr.Fryer,I think it was you that--somebody had taken a look and seen that the density is less than a half--is somewhere around-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: .56. MR.PRITT: .56,yeah. I had .64,but I think your number is probably closer to correct. It is primarily single-family homes with some attached coach homes. We had testified earlier in the transmittal hearing that the proposed development and inconsistent with your Growth Management Plan. The County Commission approved for transmittal the ordinance amending the GMP to create a subdistrict to allow for this particular apartment rental development with a maximum density of 304 units and a three-story maximum height, and I think that's been alluded to here today. The RPUD rezone ordinance reflects the same provisions as the GMP provisions. Page 25 of 63 August 1,2019 We continue to have several issues. It should be no surprise,but first and maybe foremost, but certainly first, is density. In plain language,this proposal is still too dense at 304. It's too much development on too little buildable ground for a good quality of life. And just before the break I heard some things--some talk about 650 square feet and so on. Part of this is a function of it being too dense and trying to get too many units in. The densities in the area range--once again,I think Mr.Fryer had looked at these. A .56,there was a 3.89,4.02,3.37,2.63. In other words,right at four development units per acre. So in this case even if you give credit--I'm not saying you should,because they're asking for something new. But if you give credit for the De La Rosa--existing De La Rosa PUD, my calculations would be that the density would be somewhere around 189. If it were on a clean sheet at four, it would be somewhere around 140, 150. So they're already getting a benefit of De La Rosa at 189, and that's not enough for them. They make a--what I think is a very weak argument concerning a density of up to seven. And I think that under very good questioning by this board,members of this board, it became very clear that they just want--the seven units,they just want them because,and that's not a good reason. And all this--I will say that all this stuff about,well, in a quasi-judicial proceeding it's different. No,they have to follow--you have to follow the law,they have to follow the law,we all have to follow the law no matter what. So I'm not buying that argument. But anyhow,getting to--even at seven,that yields 269 units,and that's--that's at--that's taking this so-called TCMA stuff,which they admit that they don't qualify under, and anything else into account that I don't think you have to take into account. So that gets the seven units per acre. That's 249 units. And then they're making--and I can't call it anything else other than "I'm a good guy" argument for another 52 units to get them up to 8.5. There's just no justification whatsoever for that to get all the way up to 304 units. Remember,the GMP has,as amended,puts an upper limit on the proposed development at 304. The County Commission did not commit to a rezoning at 304 but let--left that up to the further hearings, and here we are at the further hearings. When you're looking at--and I know you're sitting at the dais. And I've been at the dais for most of my career in one function or another. But you're always getting told by somebody how you should be doing something and how you're doing it wrong. That's not the issue. Part of the reason,I think, is for the record we need to be able to make our record. But the first thing I would say is when you're looking at planning and zoning matters,rezones and things like this, is you always look at what,not who. In the law of planning and zoning, it's improper to consider who the developer is;rather,the only consideration should be what the proposed development is. I bring this up only because I heard testimony and even comments from the dais at a Board of County Commissioners hearing concerning,well, Stock's a good developer, and--we're not arguing that. That's not relevant to your decision-making. It's not one of the criteria. Good developers and bad developers both come in with bad development proposals and vice versa. And it's up to this commission and the Board of County Commissioners to vet or screen the development plans in accordance with the goals and the objectives of the county plan and the limitations set out in the county's regulations and not to consider political favor or just favor. Now,I'd like to comment on what I think is a game,and this is a game that is very,very common, and it's just not right, in my opinion;that is,you start way too high. We start--the first time you heard this it was 420 units; 420 units. And then they graciously reduced it. And I say "graciously" in quotes to still way too high at 350,and then they"graciously," again in quotes,reduced it to 304,which is where we are now. Has anybody considered the fact that 304,as I said earlier, is still way,way,way too high? And so I don't think you should buy that argument. It's kind of like it was on sale, it's really on sale,and this is a better sale,but--before it started. It was way too high in the first place,and still is. Just comparing a couple of other areas in Sanibel. And I know that there are a lot of differences. Page 26 of 63 August 1,2019 But in Sanibel there has not been a single increase in density since at least 1985. I believe that is a correct statement,unless something happened within the last week. And what happens is--what happened is that the developers would come in and they would try everything; even try litigation. Whatever they could do,the city would not budge. /, I say,the only increase in density has been for affordable housing. They do allow that for affordable housing. But nothing. And the answer is no. There's--we have a Comp Plan,you know what the Comp Plan says, and you build in accordance with the Comp Plan. After a while,when they saw they couldn't do that,then they stopped trying to do that,and they still make more money probably than if they were able to enter into this negotiation stage at the--as we see here in Collier County. On the other hand,take a look at Lee County. They're set up quite a bit the way you are. But we have development all over the place and negotiated development and things like that. And I don't think F that you really want Collier County to wind up in the same boat as Lee County. That's up to you. But that's just my observation on a couple of the local communities. So the answer no in a quasi-judicial matter is a lawful answer. If they haven't made the case for the increase in density or for the type of development they have,then you are allowed to say no. And all this talk about,well,what they might do--and that's the other thing I hear all the time. Well, it will be worse if you don't do this. It will be--oh,are you ever going to be sorry. We'll do this,we'll do that. What's in front of you, at least in the rezone, is a quasi-judicial matter, is do they meet the criteria, and in keeping in mind here,they're actually asking to change the standards. So it's up to you to determine whether or not the standards ought to be changed. Now,I did talk about--in the first hearing about incompatibility. We think that the type of the development,the apartment buildings,is incompatible with the existing neighborhood development patterns and the prevailing single-family or low-density coach homes in this area. Simply put,this is in the wrong location. And I heard something here a few minutes ago about spot zoning,and this is not spot zoning. I call it spot planning in order to enable spot zoning. The result is the same. And what I would ask, whatever you--even without using these legal terms,what I would ask you to consider is this: The Commission and the Board of County Commissioners should be very,very weary about creating subdistricts. You've already created 19 or 20 of them or something like that over the years,but what is a subdistrict? What are you really doing? Well,I think that many knowledgeable and diligent citizens,board members,public members, competent staff members in the county,maybe some of you in this room over the years carefully analyzed the Growth Management Plan in creating districts. Subdistricts such as this are for no other reason than to accomplish a single private developer's proposal to overdevelop a particular parcel of land in that developer's own image. That's not how planning and zoning is supposed to work. It's supposed to work opposite. Once there is a well-thought-out plan, developers should purchase and develop property in conformance with that plan. You should ask yourselves,why do we even have subdistricts? What good reason other than appeasing a particular development--developer such, in this case, Stock, is there for creating a subdistrict? So what we have here is a developer trying to make the regulations to suit its desires. If that's allowed,then it does open the flood gates to any well-connected developer to impose its individualized desires upon the community. You know,this country,the United States,is the envy of the rest of the world,which is why a lot of--everybody would like to be here. In the same manner, Collier County is the envy of the rest of the United States,which is why people are clamoring to come here. If any of you heard Bloomberg,the discussion on the Bloomberg channel a couple of weeks ago,they were talking about why are all the New Yorkers leaving New York Page 27 of 63 August 1,2019 City and leaving the east Coast and coming down to Florida? And--they want to be here. We already have the very best incentive to come down here,and it's called the weather. And so we don't need to be doing a lot of things to--I'll use the word that's been used before--to slouch,to not be what Collier County is--has been, is,and could still be by allowing overdevelopment just because somebody wants it. The more you do that,the more you'll be like other cities and other counties,and it's just not going to be the uniqueness of Collier County. As I've previously indicated in legal parlance,this is planning in order to accomplish spot zoning. Spot zoning is illegal. I get it. I understand the difference in what your County Attorney's indicated,but I think I see that it's the same result. You wind up with what a developer wants rather than following the city or the county's requirements. In your case the county. Whether your codes are considered Euclidian--and remember I--I don't know if anybody remembers,but I did say something about the Village of Euclid case,the original zoning case, in which zoning was found to be constitutional,and the Court gave reasons for it. But whether your codes are considered a Euclidian zoning type of code,a form-based code, performance impact codes or any other codes,the one recurring and overarching theme and principle is compatibility. Compatibility of uses and compatibility of structures. That includes the internal compatibility,that is within the zoning district such as a PUD, for which the county does a great job; but also external compatibility,compatibility with existing neighborhood uses and structures. This hearing room would be a lot less full--it's not too full today because it's summertime, but the hearing room would be a lot less full if there was more attention paid to the effect on the neighborhood outside of the PUD. The PUD is a great way to get a mix of uses--of residential uses, other uses, single-family,multifamily,and so on,but it also must pay attention--strict attention to the neighborhood in which it is located. I also heard a staff member once comment--and Mr. Yovanovich,I think, commented--that it's the fault of the people who move into the neighborhood next to a property that may have permits for differing uses,more density,bulkier and higher structures,et cetera. But I also recently heard in the transmittal hearing a county commissioner lament that this problem ought to be addressed and ought to be corrected. And there is a fix,at least for this proposed development. It's right here and right now. Since a PUD is a zoning district,just like ag,commercial,residential, et cetera,the county can put, essentially,whatever restrictions on it that it wishes. Right now you have the opportunity to address and fix use of the property, density of the property,height of the property, location and bulkiness of the structures,and anything else so long as it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And,by the way,the Growth Management Plan still requires that the development be compatible and even complementary to the surrounding neighborhood, and also increases in density must be in the public interest,which has not so far been demonstrated here. I won't get back into the U.S. Supreme Court case, because I did quote from that. I will say that I recall that after I quoted from that Mr.Yovanovich indicated that it didn't say what the direct quote says. Instead,I'll stick with the direct quotes of the Court on that, and that is, essentially--I'll just say that, essentially, as to multifamily housing, it can be--it could be compatible if it's in the right place, but it can be very nearly a nuisance if it's in the wrong place. I think that's a fair shorter rendition of what the Court said. So what we'd ask-- it's almost a century later. That was 1926,I think,but nothing's really changed. Compatibility of uses,compatibility of structures, and looking out--using your police power, which is your zoning power,to look out for the health, safety, and welfare of people that live both inside and outside of the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Pritt? MR. PRITT: So in conclusion--yeah. Page 28 of 63 August 1,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said"in conclusion." When we talked about you speaking out of turn,you said you needed seven minutes. MR. PRITT: Am I going too slow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 20 seconds or so it will be 20 minutes. MR.PRITT: Oh,okay. Well--so, in conclusion, let me just ask you,ask yourselves,what is the proposal,not who is the applicant. Why must the county change its regulations to accommodate a single owner/developer rather than the owner/developer developing in accordance with existing regulations? And is the proposed development consistent with the compatibility and complementary requirements of the Growth Management Plan? As proposed,we do not think so. So thank you for accommodating me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr.Pritt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr.Yovanovich, if you want to--I can't remember where we left off. MR.YOVANOVICH: I think we're still in my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we are. Yup. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to do rebuttal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't go to staff yet, let's put it that way. Is there anybody else that has questions of the applicant? MR.YOVANOVICH: I do want to address a few things through my consultants, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. MR.YOVANOVICH: One of the questions that was raised,or there was a discussion about Arthrex and police officers and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I raised the question. MR.YOVANOVICH: You raised that, so I'm going to ask Cat to come back up and explain to you how, in fact,Inspira and other communities do, in fact, address those concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't that relationship. I was wondering how our Housing Department would have looked at it in relation to the values that they--when they look for affordable housing,how those categories fit into the affordability range. I don't know if your people can provide that. I was looking--I mean,that was just a--I didn't know Ray-- if Ray had that information or anybody else did,but-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,they--that's fine,but I do think it's important for the Planning Commission to understand how we do provide housing for,I guess,that unfortunate sheriffs deputy who makes too much money to not qualify--to qualify--to not qualify for affordable housing but not have a nice safe place to live in Collier County because the rest of the housing is too expensive. And that's one of the things that we're providing through this is that--we used to call it gap. Remember that we had gap where there wasn't a program to address people who made too much money but not really enough to really afford Collier County prices. So I'd like to get that into the record, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. I just wanted to explain to you it's different than what I asked. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,you also asked Arthrex, so she's going-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you can't answer me about Arthrex unless you were at the meeting. Did you hear what they said? I mean-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. They want reasonably priced housing so they can attract people to come here and work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they used the words "reasonably priced housing"? MR.YOVANOVICH: They did not use the affordable housing category in the term that--the bonus type affordability. MR.KLATZKOW: This is market-rate housing. Page 29 of 63 August 1,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? I know it is. That's what I'm trying to understand. MR.KLATZKOW: It could be 1,800 a month,2,000 a month, 3,000 a month. It's whatever the market bears at the time. So this conversation where we're providing housing for a certain type of people, it's not relevant. It's market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I was just trying to clear up a-- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR.KLATZKOW: Arthrex is--Arthrex needs housing for some of their employees. This doesn't necessarily provide it. It's market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.KLATZKOW: Those employees that can afford market rate housing can afford to live in Collier County. I guess what we're really saying for Arthrex is we need below market rate housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was wondering if that's what they said. That's what I was trying to get at. But okay. Miss,go ahead. MS. CARDOZA: In regard to the Arthrex situation,we do identify certain preferred employers: All first responders, educators, government employees,and Arthrex is a big one, all the NCH,Physicians Regional. So we provide certain amounts of discounts for those particular preferred employers because those are the type of people we want to draw to our community is-- MR. KLATZKOW: Are you willing to put the discounts in the zoning documents? MR.YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. We're happy to talk about providing discounts to certain--we used to call them essential service personnel, and I think that's the proper category. We're absolutely willing to talk about those things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that disparate impact against protected groups? MR. YOVANOVICH: It hasn't been in the past. MR. KLATZKOW: No. We've done this in the past where we've reserved a percentage of the housing for essential government workers. MR.YOVANOVICH: We've absolutely done this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the meeting's over and discussions are heard,we'll need to address it in some substantive format, so... MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious, from Inspira,the percentage of those types of essential workers that rent from you currently. MS. CARDOZA: To get you an exactly--I can say police officers,right offhand,I have eight of them, Collier County Sheriffs Department, I have probation officers,I have at least two professors from the university across the street,and then I also have--for Collier County Public Schools,I want to say I have three teachers,without drilling into the exact numbers,but I can certainly provide more accurate data if given the time to do so. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Or did you fmish what you wanted to say then, Miss? MS. CARDOZA: Oh,yeah. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Go back to Rich. MR.YOVANOVICH: And obviously we'll respond to any public comment. I do enjoy having Mr.Fryer on the Planning Commission as an attorney,but I do want to make sure we clarify one comment he made on the record regarding the 40 percent on the transportation. The right answer to that question is, if you were to say 40 percent,I don't believe that would be a credible number. We'd have to talk to another transportation consultant, figure out how he came up with Page 30 of 63 August 1,2019 the 40 percent, and we might or might not be in agreement with his number. We had that conversation with Collier County staff,and Collier County staff did agree with the 30 percent allocation of trips based upon their professional experience, and that's what professionals are hired to do is give you their professional opinion. And you have Mr. Treesh's professional opinion,not a number pulled out of the air where he was not given an opportunity to understand and digest that number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end of your presentation,Rich? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,we'll go to the staff report. James? MR. SABO: For the record,James Sabo,certified planner for the county. Do you want to hear the GMP report? I know we're doing them together. Do you want to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you've got to say on both reports. Just start with one and finish with the other. MR. SABO: All right. Well, if the GMPA amendment is approved--never mind. David Weeks is coming up. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff Keep it short and sweet,just as was the case at transmittal. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has demonstrated that there is a need for the proposed use and density and that it is a high-level view that we take at the Comprehensive Planning level of reviewing a Comprehensive Plan amendment petition,not a zoning petition. We find it to be generally compatible with the surrounding area,and we continue to recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of David? David,I do. Were there any recommendations in your GMP on document, staff recommendations? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I concur. I looked;I didn't see any. But if you turn to Page 8 of the PUD document,under conclusions there are two stipulations that I would suggest if you want those, shouldn't they be recommendations? I mean,they're under your section. It says the PUD ordinance needs to be provided for the effective date consistent with effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. Then the word "stipulations,"Nos. 1 and 2. And I just wanted to make sure that those are incorporated since they weren't in your recommendations section of your GMP. MR. WEEKS: Those are both, if I could put it this way, internal. On the one hand, it's something for you to be aware of,but you don't,nor does the Board of County Commissioners,control the ordinance itself. So one of these is--those stipulations or recommendations is that the zoning document contain language that the ordinances--the effective date of the zoning ordinance must be linked to the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan amendment,because the PUD must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan amendment has to go through a process at the state level before it goes into effect. Ordinarily a zoning petition would go into effect as soon as recorded by the Secretary of State. This is a different scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to my question. Do they need--do they-- do those stipulations need to be incorporated as part of the recommendations? Just yes or no. MR. WEEKS: I'm going to say no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as you're covered. I just wanted to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted. MR. WEEKS: Well,there's nothing for the applicant to do;there's nothing to change in the Page 31 of 63 August 1,2019 application. It's really on the county side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something that happens internally by staff should they get approved. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. So--oh,and the issue on the square footage,the staff report talking about a blend of densities. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't--I don't recall seeing that discussion before. In this point it's being pointed out as something that should be considered. How necessary do you see that? I mean, since it's not been pointed out before,what brought it to rise this particular occasion? MR. WEEKS: I'm not certain. I could tell you--two things about that. First of all, it's a policy that encourages a certain type of action. It encourages a certain type of development. So if you push it to the extreme and if the petitioner does not demonstrate that they are--are doing what that policy says, it is not a basis,at least at the staff level--our opinion, it is not a basis for finding the petition not consistent with Comprehensive Plan, because it is encouraging something as opposed to requiring something. So it's not mandatory language. It's a"shall" encourage. But, secondly,I know that Comprehensive Planning staff routinely comments on that policy and those before it when we're reviewing a petition. I don't know if we've commented specifically like this one before where we talk about the number of units,the type of unit,and that they did not provide for a variety of housing prices and types. We usually do make some kind of comment acknowledging that the petition allows for a variety of unit types,or in this case it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it would. I mean, if a minimum is 650, it allows for anything above 650. That's why I was trying to understand why this is differentiated,because in this one it's bolded and underlined. And that's what--the underlining is kind of like an enhancement like,whoa,we better pay attention to this. And so I thought I'd ask the question to clarify it. MR. WEEKS: Let me say, in hindsight I think we probably should not have emphasized it that way. We simply should have pointed it out. Secondly,I know there was some discussion earlier about the applicant committing to or asking the applicant if they would commit to some minimum or maximums--you know, some way to ensure this policy's fulfilled. And my suggestion would be,if that's going to occur, is keep it as narrow as possible. What I mean by that is perhaps identify a--the one-bedroom unit and, say, commit to providing a minimum number of one-bedroom units and then a maximum number, and then,by default, the other units will have to be two bedroom or greater. That will ensure some mix that occurs,rather than X percent of one-bedroom,X percent of two-bedroom, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is not a requirement? MR. WEEKS: Correct,not a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'd rather not get into it. If the applicant wants to volunteer something just for the heck of it,that's fine. But if it's not a requirement and we've not used it before with anybody,I don't want to be inconsistent with this application, and that's kind of why I was getting into it to begin with, so... MR. WEEKS: And just to say, one thing different about this: This is not unique. We've had other petitions that are a plan amendment that's asking for a single type of use, in this case multifamily, not single-family,not the whole gamut of unit types. It's strictly multifamily, and it's strictly rental. Most of the time--as I think you know, most of the time when you see a residential PUD,you see a gamut of unit types. So there is that allowance for that variety of unit types and prices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a couple of questions or comments that relate to the GMPA part. Page 32 of 63 August 1,2019 First of all, on Page 418 of the materials that staff sent us in preparation for when this was set for July 18, it says, in accordance with Chapter 163.18--excuse me--3184 pertaining to the expedited state review,blah,blah,blah, and other reviewing agencies on December 20,2017. I think that date is wrong. I just suggest that you get that cleaned up when it goes to the County Commission. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because it might have been December 20,2018. And then my other question has to do with what came back from Tallahassee. There was--having to do with traffic. They disclaimed a responsibility,I guess, for oversight of this, but then they went on to offer what they called a technical assistance recommendation. This is on Page 418. How often does that happen in your experience? Does the FDOT come back and make technical assistance recommendations like this? MR. WEEKS: It's pretty common. It depends on the nature of the project,the scope. The state agencies, including FDOT,are limited in reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments for impact upon important state resources,which in the case of FDOT translates into state roadways. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What--there are three specific technical assistance recommendations that are cited again on Page 418. My question is, is what will become of those recommendations,or another way of saying it, are you satisfied that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed those concerns? MR. WEEKS: Staff is satisfied. I would note that for the most part those comments are beyond the applicant's control. For example, looking at speed limits on the adjacent roadways;Livingston Road, I think it calls out specifically, as well as Veterans Memorial east. It also talks about,I think, bike/pedestrians facilities off site. Those are beyond the applicant's control. That really comes back to us as the county government to take those-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's really what my question was. I wasn't suggesting that the applicant has a responsibility to address all of these. So what will become of the recommendations that are within the county's control,like speed limit? MR. WEEKS: And for that I will defer to Trinity from the Transportation Planning staff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's the only other question I had. MS. SCOTT: For the record,Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning manager. With regard to the speed limit,that will be up to our Traffic Operations Department. They are the folks who set speed limits for the county. There is a technical basis that we go between to--based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and engineering studies on how we set speed limits. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there an internal process for getting this comment,this official state comment,on the proper desk of a person in county government so that they can become aware that this recommendation has been made? MS. SCOTT: Yes. This has been transmitted to our Traffic Operations staff as well as our Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement staff because they are the ones that make a determination of whether or not they would expand transit service in the future. And we coordinate with them throughout the planning process as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will they report back to someone with respect to these recommendations? MS. SCOTT: No. They will just take them under consideration as they're moving forward with their update of plans, et cetera. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity,before you leave. MS. SCOTT: I figured I'd be up here a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we need a couple different discussions. TCMA. The TDM strategies I learned a week or two ago through Mike Sawyer's assistance that the TDM strategies require an evaluation pursuant to the GMP language that should have been Page 33 of 63 August 1,2019 implemented by the LDC. That was never done. So when we do use these TDM strategies,we don't now monitor them, and we don't now know that if they haven't been successful at some percentage,that we don't even--we haven't even established yet,that we can then require other strategies to be implemented to get to that percentage. And I understand that the TDM strategies here are being voluntarily applied? MS. SCOTT: Correct. They are not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Required. MS. SCOTT: They are not required because the applicant is not seeking to be exempt from link-by-link concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And we'll get into that in another minute. But since they are being voluntarily required,how effective--or how do you measure their effectiveness, if any, ability to--based on what we learned with the project a couple of weeks ago,there is no measurement standard. There is no criteria for effectiveness. So even if the--they were supposedly having no impact,we have nowhere to say,well,because it's having no exact,you've got to give us a new one because we have nothing that says that. Is someone working on that to fix it? I know we can't do anything today. I'm just curious because-- MS. SCOTT: Yes, it is something I'm working on. Since we have discovered that the language from the GMP is not in the Land Development Code,we are working to get that in there. But as part of that,we are seeking assistance from the Center for Urban Transportation Research,which is connected with the University of South Florida. They work with many different conununities not only in the state of Florida but around the country,but many within the state of Florida with regard to TDM strategies. And so I'm asking that they look at our TDM strategies,because they were put into the Growth Management Plan back in the early 2000s,and,you know,we're 20 years later,and things change. And so I want them to look at best practices around and see if there are different TDM strategies that we may want to look at including and what the future will hold as far as them as well. In looking at the TDM strategies that we have in place,what are other areas seeing as far as the measures of effectiveness that we will be able to utilize? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the TDM strategies came about because of the creation of the TCME or-- MS. SCOTT: MA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or MA in this case. That came about because we're starting to pile up constrained roadways,and we needed an effective way in each segment of the county where these were occurring to alleviate the pressure to not allow any more activity on those constrained roadways when someone came in with an application. And I'm just kind of paraphrasing the thought process here,because I remember in the prior days we used to have a deduct on the base density of four by one for a congested area. And there was certain criteria for congested areas,and we even,I think,have maps. And I've asked David for a copy of that, but he hasn't been able to find it yet. But at one point when I get that map--you had responded to me that David did have a map. And I can't remember from the old days where those were,but I was wondering if this one had been a constrained roadway. If it would have required--would have then qualified for a deduct from four to three on the base densities in that area. Because the reason for that is--it's kind of strange,we went from having a deduct of one for a base density--from the base density to an add-on of three, if you're in a congested area,from the straight base,which is four. So all of a sudden we went and said,this is bad to put more traffic here;therefore,we're going to deduct one if you're in that area,but it's okay now; we're going to add--give you three to please put more traffic in the area. How does that make any sense? MS. SCOTT: Well,from a traffic standpoint-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David's got something to say. I got him to jump up. Page 34 of 63 August 1,2019 David,I had emailed you right after Trinity emailed me about constrained roadways and asking you for a map, and that's probably why you--when you looked puzzled,that's what had occurred. MR. WEEKS: I was puzzled because I thought I did respond. So I'll make sure I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see it. I'm sorry. Maybe you did. MR. WEEKS: I'll make sure I do. What I know is that the traffic congestion boundary was west of this location. It would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to understand. MR. WEEKS: It ran up Airport Road-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this wouldn't have qualified for that anyway? MR. WEEKS: It would not have been subject to that one-unit-per-acre reduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I haven't been able to find since I didn't get--I didn't see the email you may have responded to. Well,then,Trinity,the next followup question on this is, in the TCMA,what percentage do you have to have for the collective area now before it's considered as--is it "failed" is the right word for it? MS. SCOTT: Deficient. Eighty-five percent of the lane miles, if it goes below 85 percent,that is when the--everyone within the area would have to do TCMA requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Immokalee Road between Airport and Livingston Road is at 93.8 percent. So it's already within that category. But because it's averaged out with the rest of the TCMA--this is from the 2018 AUIR. The link on Immokalee Road between 1-75 and Logan is at 84.9 percent. So one-tenth of a percent away. And the link between Immokalee Road and Logan--Logan to Collier Boulevard is 94.1 percent. So you've got two links nearby that are already exceeding the 85 percent capacity that the overall TCMA has to hit before they're considered deficient, but because they're lumped and averaged together, it's not considered deficient even though it's above 85 percent; is that-- MS. SCOTT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't know how--I'm just-- MS. SCOTT: And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's puzzling. MS. SCOTT: --we also--can we go back to t e staff report and the conversation that we had had earlier with regard to the 2017 and the 2018 AUIR - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. SCOTT: --because we were incorrect in t e staff report. We should have updated those numbers,and I do--I did put them together really quic and I want to have brief explanation about what we put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I forget,please address the question I asked earlier about the high school being included and Seed to Table. MS. SCOTT: I will do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Okay. So in our staff report,I h. e updated what is our typical table that we put in the staff report to be reflective of the 2018 remaining c. a acity. The applicant did update their TIS to the 2018 AUIR;however,when we put our information into the staff report,we were remiss and looked at the 2017 AUIR. So this is the new 2018 information. And the ri ason I have the Livingston Road corridor highlighted is our Comprehensive Plan Transportation I lement Section 5.1,when we review a petition, you look at the first link that the petition goes on,that e traffic impacts are on. If they are equal or exceed 2 percent of those service volumes,then you proceed to the next link. If they do not,we stop our analysis at that first link. Page 35 of 63 August 1,2019 So when this petition originally came in with a higher density,we were beyond the first link,but as it has been reduced down in units, from a staff perspective we are analyzing that top link. So when we revised our staff report--or when we put our staff report in for this adoption hearing,the bottom two links should have come off of that,because we are not analyzing those links,because based on our rules they are less than a 2 percent impact and so,therefore,we would not go to that adjacent link. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That piece I understand. MS. SCOTT: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that,but--so this has been updated now with the 2018 numbers. And for the Livingston Road,Imperial to Immokalee,there's still sufficient capacity for this specific petition. With regard to your checkbook concurrency-- so for checkbook concurrency,we utilize the background traffic number which you see in your AUIR,plus the trip bank. And so when a new project comes in,they become part of the trip bank. Once they CO and they start operations--and certificate of occupancy. I know I'm talking a lot of acronyms. Once they obtain their certificate of occupancy,we go on an annual basis and clear out that trip bank. So because those trips,no longer in the trip bank,they've become background traffic. What we do not do is if a business goes out of business,go back and put those trips into the trip bank. They're vested from an impact fee standpoint, but we do not. So the Seed to Table,because it has not been operational for quite some time, is not included in that background traffic. When we are looking at the projected deficiencies,we look at the background traffic and the trip bank plus we apply a growth factor. The growth factor is the higher amount of either 2 percent or whatever the average growth rate for that specific link has been. We grow that traffic out. And so for the AUIR, for a planning purpose,that's how we come up with the projections of when the roadway is anticipated to be deficient. If the roadway doesn't grow as fast,that number could continue to be pushed out. If the roadway grows faster,then it might come in. But we use that as just a gauge for us to know when we need to start looking at planning studies for projects. With regard to the high school,the high school is not--we just actually received some traffic analysis in the past few weeks with regard to the high school,and we will be working with the school on that with regard to our Veterans Memorial project and any other intersection improvements that will be necessary based on the high school. Now,remember,the high school,their p.m. peak, most likely going to be a southbound direction. So it's opposite of what our p.m. peak is for that roadway,which is northbound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the high school, is the high school a substantial traffic generator? MS. SCOTT: I believe it was around 210'ish p.m. peak trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the time the high school's open,that link on Livingston/Memorial will get out to Old 41,but Old 41 will still be somewhat in the condition it's in today? MS. SCOTT: Old 41 northbound,remember. The high school will be more southbound trips because most likely it's going to be the people going back to their homes. If they're within that school area,they're within Collier County,unless they're staff,who live in Lee County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just curiosity,have you gone far enough to know if you're putting a light at Livingston and Old 41? MS. SCOTT: We do not yet. We are working--the Florida Department of Transportation is doing a project development environmental study at--for Old 41,and so we're coordinating with them of what type of intersection treatment that will be. The other thing that I would tell you with regard to the Veterans Memorial, in our current adopted AUIR,we anticipate that roadway to begin in Fiscal Year'22 for construction; however, in coordination with the school,we need to start that a little sooner. So we're anticipating--it's in our budget that's being developed for the Board. And in the draft AUIR that will be presented to you later in the fall,we're Page 36 of 63 August 1,2019 anticipating that construction to begin in Fiscal Year'21 to be able to accommodate the school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead,Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: So talking not so much about the numbers. As the numbers play out as of now, it appears that the project does not kick the road segments into a--what was the word,not failure but-- MS. SCOTT: Deficient; deficiency,yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Status. But let's talk about what people are experiencing today. And I think in public comments last time,I'm about 150 percent sure you'll hear more similar concerns today about traffic. And I know that there's several,probably,Planning Commissioners,I assume,where traffic is one of our main concerns. So as I understand it,even when 75 is flowing, in the afternoon heading north,traffic will back up starting at the Bonita Beach Road light back southward on Livingston,past Veterans Memorial and sometimes to the fire station,which is south of Veterans Memorial,and that people that are in the Mediterra community are not able--because they don't:lave a light,not able to actually get out from the east side side of Mediterra to get out and turn south to even get on Livingston because they're blocked by northbound traffic crossing their intersection. We have a large high school with thousands of students, and you said adding a couple hundred peak hour trips coming up with that interconnection between Livingston and Old 41 off Veterans Memorial Boulevard;however,my opinion,I guess,unless you can counter this, is that the bulk of traffic that is the issue now,which will still be the issue for the residents, is the north/south traffic which won't necessarily be mitigated by that Veterans Memorial Boulevard east/west corridor. So my question is,what help is on the way? These people will tell you that it's bad now, and if you add all these trips, it will get worse. What help is there for anybody to look forward to? MS. SCOTT: What I think that everyone needs to understand is that during season,yes,there is a backup in that area. It occurs,and particularly when the interstate is congested. We do not plan our roads for peak season congestion. You can go out there today,you can go out there for eight months out of the year,nine months out cf the year,and that road is flowing fine. After our public hearing last time,I had--our traffic operations folks have the opportunity--they can see all of our traffic signals from one room. I asked them to monitor that. So after our hearing,until after the Board of County Commissioners hearing--because I had them here to provide testimony at the Board if necessary--we did not find that the roadway was backing up that far. So this is by our own visual of us watching.t. Now, if there is an incident on the interstate, absolutely, it backs up. Every roadway that backs up--north/south roadway backs up. U.S. 41,we get more congestion because people are diverting over. Or if there's something that occurs on Immokalee Road etween Livingston and the interstate or that-- something happens on Immokalee Road,people divert. So I look back at during peak season,yes,we all experience additional congestion on the roadways,but we don't build our roadways to accommodate peak season. We don't plan our roadways to accommodate peak season. So the remainder of the time,which is what we're doing our analysis based on,that road is functioning at an acceptable level of service. COMMISSIONER FRY: Notwithstanding what you said,there are projects that come before us that the timeline of development is based on an assumption or plan for widening of roads or extensions of roads and that type of a thing. I'm told in this case that one of the large causal actors of the backup northbound is the light at Bonita Beach Road,which is--the road narrows from ee lanes each way on Livingston. Around Mediterra,north of that, it's down to two lanes each wa . Page 37 of 63 August 1,2019 Are there any possible expansion probabilities for the light at Bonita Beach Road to be three lanes each way north and south or widening of the road north of Mediterra up to the Bonita Beach Road? MS. SCOTT: That would be based on what the City of Bonita Springs in Lee County would agree to. But I can tell you after our initial transmittal hearing I did reach out to Lee County. Bonita Beach Road is a Lee County roadway, and they operate the traffic signal,and I asked them to look at the traffic signal,study it. My perception of it as a driver, because I would divert once in a while to Livingston, is that the east/west was getting a lot of the green time. They have studied it. They've adjusted signal timing but,you know,we need to continue with them,because if their phone starts ringing the other way,you know,they might adjust the other way. So we need to keep on the City of Bonita Springs in Lee County to maintain that traffic signal operating as good as possible. We can ask Lee County if they have any plans to make any additional improvements. I understand that there may be some in the works,but they're still coordinating with Bonita Springs on that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sounds similar to Immokalee Road where they--Collier County traffic engineers prioritize east/west traffic because that's the greatest source of congestion and traffic flow. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess that wraps up the staff report for the GMP. And,James, do you have one for the Planned Unit Development? MR. SABO: I do. For the record,James Sabo,principal planner. Zoning Division--if the GMPA's approved,Zoning Division recommends the CCPC forward this petition,4385,to the Board for a recommendation of approval subject to relocating Developer Commitment 3C,which I won't read the whole thing,but moving 3C to 1B so that it's more visible in the document, and also change to Footnote 3 which was discussed here earlier in the Development Standards Table. That's our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll turn to public speakers. I wanted to make sure, if the lady with the child was here-- UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: She left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I saw her leaving. Because I was going to let her speak first. Because if I was a baby in this room as cold as it is,I'd be screaming too. Maybe that's a discouragement for young people to come here. Yes, if she wants to speak,and she's more than--to start out,that will hopefully relieve her for today. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,I think a lot of these people came in after Terri swore people in. You may want to get them to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STARKMAN: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Do the best you can. We're trying to get you accommodated so--I know you might want to be on your-- MS. STARKMAN: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one. The kids can speak at one,and you can speak at the other. Are they twins? MS. STARKMAN: They are. Page 38 of 63 August 1,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, fantastic. MS. STARKMAN: They're identical. And just to let you know, it's random. It doesn't run in families. So watch out if you're planning on having kid-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you identify yours-if for the record,please. MS. STARKMAN: I'm Brittany Starkman. Ili e in Barrington Cove. We actually moved down to Florida in 2016. We moved to Orchid Run. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in,by the way? I was reminded to do that, and I forgot right off the bat. MS. STARKMAN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could you--our co reporter will swear you in. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There ight be a lot of people in there that weren't sworn in. They might want to stand up and all do it at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since I wasn't here the beginning,I'm not aware of who did or didn't. So if you haven't been sworn in and you're going to speak, o lease stand up and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you can go ahead. Thank you. MS. STARKMAN: Okay. Anyways. So we moved here 2016,my husband and I. We lived at Orchid Run for our first year,you know, with basically the intent to buy down here and, of course, a lot of people who are moving down here it's basically because their parents are down here because they were snowbirds at one point, like my parents who live on Marco. And we were looking for a nice family community. And Barrington Cove actually has many children there. And we were not about to stay at an apartment. Basically,even though it's really nice,it's still not a place that I would raise my kids at. There definitely was some drug usage at that place that I saw. There were parties. They say no smoking--I don't know. I don't know what they mean. So, anyways, I just don't want that around my kids. So it's a nice facade,very nice,but you never know what you're going to get. Yeah. And--oh, sorry,you know,we are those young professionals that,you know,you're referring to. My husband is a PharmD. He's getting his MBA,too,right now. But,yeah,just want to keep it safe. Want them to be able to walk to school,cross that road no problem,which is,even right now, sort of a big road to cross. But with even more traffic, it will be insane. And school is during the season, so just a heads-up. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask her--could I ask you one question,please? What type of interaction would you expect? There is no interconnection and driveways,at least, or roads between Barrington Cove and the projected apartment complex. So what interaction would you expect between your neighborhood and the people that live in the apartments? MS. STARKMAN: Well,you guys are talking about putting in a busing system probably, as well,to help with that. So I would imagine the bus would be out on the street,and that's where the kids would be as well,since we do have two schools right there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you're thinking Livingston Road where your kids are walking to school-- MS. STARKMAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: --congregating with the people that are from the apartment complex? MS. STARKMAN: I wouldn't want them to,really,but if they're out on the street,they might run into those people. You know, it's like any bus stop. If you're walking down,you know,the road,the bus stop is right there,you walk past people,and they might interact. You never know. COMMISSIONER FRY: The reason I ask,because I wasn't sure if you were expecting people from the apartment complex coming through across the buffer through the borders and entering your Page 39 of 63 August 1,2019 neighborhood. MS. STARKMAN: Oh,no. But,I mean, still,we have that long--Veterans Memorial has that really nice area--sidewalk there--sorry,tired. And a lot of people use that to run,you know, exercise. You know,there's a lot of young families there. Obviously,they're not here today because they're probably at work. I get to be a stay-at-home mom so I'm lucky enough to be here. But,yeah, so,you know,there could be interaction there. You know,that's a really good place to go ride,you know,your,you know, bike eventually. Just saying. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well,thank you. You have very good reason to be tired. Just we all-- MS. STARKMAN: Sorry. I was trying to keep them quiet, so--trying my hardest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And then we'll go to--first we'll go to registered public speakers, and then we'll go to anybody that hasn't addressed us yet. And if there's somebody that's registered to speak who has to be out of here by noon,we'll try to accommodate you first, but we are going to continue this till after lunch. So we're going to take a break in about 10 minutes to lunch. But if someone can't come back after lunch and you're registered to speak, if you could just raise your hand. I'd like to address you first to try to help out the accommodation. Ma'am, if you don't mind, come up and state your name for the record and-- MS. WREDE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --then we'll take the lady behind you, and that should take--all we'll be able to do before lunch. MS. WREDE: Thank you so much. My name is Katy Wrede,W-r-e-d-e. I live in The Strand. This is my third trip down here. And I pulled up online the public service ethics statement that you're bound to. As a Planning Commissioner you wield considerable power over how your community grows and develops. With this power comes the expectation that you will hold yourself to the highest ethical standards. Part of being ethical means exercising your power in the public's interest as opposed to personal self-interest or other narrow private interests. Frankly,the fact we're here today when this wasn't stopped the first time around points to a disregards for the Collier County management plan and zoning laws that are in place and a disregard for the general good of the homeowners and residents of Collier County and instead appears to be acting for the benefit of an individual land developer. The current zoning laws under the Growth Management Plan of Collier County can only be disregarded, it is my understanding, if there's a public benefit. I just shake my head to believe that any of us truly, any of you truly think that Allura's for public benefit. We already know it is not affordable housing but rather luxury apartments. We've heard many statements here this morning about Arthrex and firemen and teachers--I was a teacher for 40 years. If I had to pay 1,700 a month in rent,I'd rather have a mortgage,which I could afford,for 1,700 a month. My understanding recently from the articles in the newspaper regarding Arthrex employees is this would not be affordable for them. And many of the-- if we truly care about Collier County,then we would require our developers to come in and build condos,whatever you want to call them,townhouses, homes that could be bought by the employers(sic)of the businesses we hope to accommodate and attract to this area. Most of the people that have considered coming here I've had heard their employees do not want this area because they have not--have no desire to sit in traffic on I-75,Immokalee,Bonita Beach Road, or Livingston. If anyone watches WINK News in the morning, four out of four mornings a week,because there is a wreck on I-75, it is diverted to Livingston or Imperial or Three Oaks or whatever you call it,and it impacts us all the way down. Everyone has heard for the past many hearings, here and in front of the Collier County Page 40 of 63 August 1,2019 s Commissioners,the false traffic data. It at least points to some of the errors. And I so appreciate Mr.Fry and Mr. Fryer's,Mr. Strain's questions today with clarity and highlighting some of these traffic area things. But the 5,000 to 8,000 residents who live in this small quadrant between--on 1-75,Immokalee, Bonita Beach Road and contribute 75 percent of the revenues for Collier County realize this is not true. Even now,just two weeks ago when I was supposed--when we--I came down here and it was continued,the day before it rained,I was coming west on Bonita Beach Road in the deluge of rain,Bonita Beach Road was flooding,because we have taken up all the wetlands as well,as this will do with more cement,and was backed up. I sat through three lights to try to turn on Livingston. Livingston was backed up all the way to Veterans because they couldn't turn onto Bonita Beach Road because it was flooded. We all know that Collier County,despite collecting mitigation fees that Stock is only happy to pay to get what they want, is not able to use that money fast enough to keep up with the multitude of problems that continue to(sic)overdevelopment along this corridor or are currently experiencing and will only be exacerbated. The schools are at capacity. And,by the way,there are three. There's little Royal Palm Academy there too. The schools are at capacity. The sewage is at capacity. During Hurricane Irma,the county was unable to pump the sewage stations there. Bonita Beach Road was flooded for weeks,and this was all before we add more concrete from Allura,before we add the traffic from Oaks Farm and the high school and more developments along this corridor are being built. This seems to be purely a matter of self-serving commissioners. Not you guys,but the commissioners, and you work at their behest,because I think they appoint you,who are embedded with Stock in doing their bidding. So my question today is,who is running Collier County,the commissioners or the developers? Because it seems to me, from all the times I've been here--every time I see Mr. Yovanovich get up and ask for rezoning,he gets it. Stock comes in,they bought this valuable land, and they knew how it was zoned. So why are we allowing them to come in and over-zone--rezone--ask for rezoning and overdevelopment for only one reason? Theirs. Their greed. Please just give us one good reason why you should--why you should grant this request. This is red. And I heard when Mr.Pritt was speaking,he made a comment about the people,and there were less people,and I heard something from this group say nobody's here because they don't care. That simply isn't true. When we met County Commissioners,there were 500 people overflow,upstairs, out in the halls, and in here, everybody wearing a sea of red because red stands for stop. We urge you to stop this today. Please stop and stand up for the residents that you're ethically bound to support. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Our final speaker before lunch. Ma'am? MS.BELLONE: I'm Ronnie Bellone,and I live in Camden Lakes,which is just south of the firehouse on Livingston Road on the west side of the road. So I am here to tell you that in season traffic comes south below the firehouse. There are times when I cannot get out--there's a light,but I cannot get out and turn north because,oh,by the way,the lanes go from three to two,and those two are controlled by the light at Bonita Beach Road,which I know we don't have any control of, so--but I'm just telling you that is extends further than had previously been stated. I think the additional traffic,as has been noted with the Seed to Table and with the new school, while that has not really been accounted for officially yet,I think that's going to be additional. While it may not be during the peak time of 4:00 to 6:00 or 4:00 to 6:30, some people may be like me,retired, or those stay-at-home folks can do it during the day. I try and do that. But those folks coming from work are certainly going to do their shopping then, and the school,yeah, some of them go to school early,they Page 41 of 63 August 1,2019 stay for sports. So there's additional traffic other than the normal 9:00 to 3:00, or whatever those school hours are. Originally, as I understand it,this was supposed to be for 55 and older folks. Then it was changed. Now it's for firefighters,EMS,teachers,Arthrex folks. And I understand the need for, quote, reasonably priced housing,whatever reasonable is. I used to be at that many years ago. That's why I can appreciate building things for them. But certainly--Arthrex can certainly afford to build some housing for their employees. Other counties and counties where public--where well-to-do companies exist,they buy properties as well. So I would just ask you to take a look at the folks who live in that quadrant,that triangle between 75,Livingston,and going north of Immokalee. I think somebody just said 5,000. Please take us into account. I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. And with that,we're going to take a break for one hour. We'll come back at 1 o'clock and resume with public speakers. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Chrzanowski is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone welcome back from the lunch break. When we left off, we were getting into our public speakers as far as just starting out. So with that,we're going to go to--back to registered public speakers,and when your name's called,just come up to the microphone,and if you have a difficult last name, please spell it so we get it right. And with that,I'll move to the staff. MR. SABO: The next speaker is Alan Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. Alan Johnson. I'm the president of the Mediterra Community Association. I'll try to be brief and not be redundant. I'm concerned about the magnitude of the variance we're considering granting here. Four to eight and a half, in our view, is significant. I was glad to see that someone had done some homework, I believe,with regard to development in the area by other developers to point out that all of these developments were done within the guidelines of what the commissioners had established as a goal of four units per acre. I think we're on a very slippery slope here. If we grant this variance,what are you going to say to Argo when they come in--they own the piece of property right across the street--for their development and say,well,you granted Stock eight and a half. We'd only like 10;that's not that much more. And then we have the piece of property that's immediately adjacent to the high school that's going to go in. What's going to happen when they come in and want their variance? It's a slippery slope. We get people coming to our office every day of the week looking for variances. Whether they want a landscaping variance,an architectural variance, a paint scheme variance,they want relief for their generator offset,or their pool cage. And I know it's hard to say no,but at times we do have to say no; otherwise,we're going to end up with the dog's breakfast, and that's my concern here. This is just the beginning of what could turn into a mess. The Planning Commissioners over time,I think,have done a really good job in Collier County. That's why people want to live here. And I think--I don't think it's an onus. I've worked--met several times with the Stock team. These are good businessman. They're smart people. They're very smart. I don't think it's too big of an onus to go back to them and ask them to develop the property under how the property was meant to be developed. These are smart guys. They can do it. They developed homes in other areas. I don't think it's too big of a challenge. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. SABO: Tim Richards is the next speaker. MR.RICHARDS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tim Richards, general manager of the Page 42 of 63 _ 1 �kk August 1,2019 Mediterra Community Association office. Just here on behalf of the residents. And first off,just want to thank you for taking a really close look at all the details with this plan. You know, it seems like you're intimately involved and very knowledgeable on the topic. You know, as was stated before,our residents are very concerned about the impact that an increase in density in this area would have on traffic. The quality of life that they live--you know,as you heard earlier,you know,getting in and out of the gates is very difficult when the traffic's backed up over there. I encounter situations with our staff just coming to--actually more so leaving work. But,you know,coming to Mediterra and leaving Mediterra is very difficult; long trips from time to time. If this plan gets approved, like Mr.Johnson just alluded to,you know,where does it stop with all the other neighboring landowners? There's a lot of land along Livingston Road there and in the future with Veterans expanding. You know, if we're doing the 8.5 now,you know,the next groups that come along are going to ask for that, if not more. So with that being said,we're asking that you not approve anything other than what's already currently approved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next speaker is David Depew. DR. DePEW: David Depew. I am representing Mediterra. I am here today in my guise as an expert planner. I have been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1983 and a practicing planner in Florida and specifically Southwest Florida since 1980. I have appeared before you before under the same circumstances in terms of being here as an expert. And I have also, as Mr.Pritt mentioned, submitted documents with regard to this particular request and represented Mediterra at your last hearing on this,the transmittal hearing. I've looked at the current application,and I would reiterate that I believe the growth management amendment fails to be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis. It fails to react to that data , and analysis in a manner that's appropriate,professionally acceptable, or to the extent necessary as indicated by the data that's already in the record from the county. Specifically there,as an example, is your housing plan. It's not based,I believe,on the proper demographic projections upon which the plan is based,and it will create,I believe, internal inconsistencies in your plan. It fails to support the provisions of the Housing Element for current and anticipated future residents. With the current designation on this property,there would be no indication that this is somehow burdensome to the landowner or that the property itself is not economically viable given its current designation. There are development options for the subject property shown by the market studies that were provided as well as by the existing development patterns that are in the area. There's no compelling necessity to provide for such a significant increase in the development density for this particular property, and there has been no data and analysis that would suggest some sort of compelling reason for waiving the requirement of providing affordable workforce housing as an incentive for added density. And this is the crux of the real data-and-analysis problem. Right now you've got a plan that allows bonus density for affordable and workforce housing. That's not what this request is for you--before you right now. What it's a request for is market-rate rental housing. This is far,far and away from what your Collier County Community Housing Plan from October of 2017 is calling for. That client indicates that the county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden Page 43 of 63 August 1,2019 is not addressed then, at a minimum, 11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden above 50 percent than do households today. It goes on to state that there's a job housing imbalance in Collier County resulting in at least 17.4 percent of the workforce,which is approximately 40,000 people, commuting daily from outside of Collier County. As of the date of the report in September of 2017,the Community Housing Plan estimates that housing demand for extremely low,very low,and low-income housing would be 1,618 dwelling units per year. The applicants haven't provided any basis for a waiver of the elimination of this existing policy which provides for bonus density for this type of housing, and without that data and analysis to support a modification of the currently applicable future land-use designation,I believe that that is the essence of the problem with the data and analysis and the internal inconsistencies that will be created in the Growth Management Plan. Based upon the existing Growth Management Plan,as I indicated,I believe that it fails to demonstrate any kind of deficiency which this is intended to address. And I believe that you really have two options in order to address this in an attempt to be consistent with what you've got so far. The first being to simply deny this proposed GMP amendment. The second being, as part of the GMP amendment,restrict the density. Restrict the density to four units per acre,and that would require you to also modify the PUD ordinance,which is the crux of the PUD rezoning to restrict it to four units per acre. The applicant's been very good in terms of modifying setbacks,adding increased setbacks. They've been very good in terms of adding additional vegetation to buffers. They have been restricted on their height as part of the Board of County Commissioners'hearing. But it still doesn't address the Comp Plan problem,and that is the additional density that is being provided,as Mr. Pritt described it,because they're good guys. Whatever the reason, if you're going to waive the requirement for this low,very low, and moderate cost housing that the plan calls for,you need data and analysis, and that doesn't exist as part of this application. And so I would suggest to you that,first off,you deny it. If you don't,restrict it to a maximum of four units to the acre,which is their base density,because they're not applying the existing plan policies that would apply to everyone else in this area. I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have them. I see Mr.Yovanovich up there, so I'm certain he has some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He won't get his turn until the public speakers finish. So go ahead,Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Dr.Depew, I just would like to clarify just what your position is specifically. You seem to be suggesting that some additional density would be justified if it was affordable housing; however,from the other public speakers from the neighborhoods,that is the last thing that they would want. They are balking at the idea of$1,750 a month average rent market-rate units. So I guess I'd just like you to kind of clarify where you stand. If by chance they were to say, okay,we'll do affordable housing, is that something that, in your mind,would justify the additional density? DR.DePEW: Again,I'm basing this on what is in your plan. So according to what's in your plan,yes,that would,for the plan amendment,justify additional density. Now,you've got a second set of considerations that you'd have to take a look at for purposes of the PUD zoning, and that goes back to compatibility. As one of the prior speakers mentioned here, compatibility is very unique, and it's a--very much a situation in which you look at the neighborhood in which the project is developed. Now,I personally think that seven is not compatible because of the--just the amount of traffic Page 44 of 63 August 1,2019 and utilization of services and the discrepancies between the surrounding residential patterns. As one of the prior residents also mentioned,you've got densities that are in the range of half a unit up to a maximum of about four. So four's really about as much as you can justify. But the plan,again,provides density bonuses. And based on an analysis from the plan,yes,you could get these additional units but,again,you have to go through the compatibility analysis that's part of the rezoning. So I didn't try and address that in my remarks because I think everybody else has already tried to address that. But in terms of the plan amendment,I think you've got a significant problem with the way this was presented,because there's no basis for waiving this requirement that gives you these extra units. It's supposed to be an incentive to do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of the wildcards here that I personally am trying to weigh into its impact and importance in this decision is the existing De La Rosa PUD which is four-story buildings, 20 feet from the road, density of seven units per acre. What is your take on the relevance of that,you know, in the context of your argument? Because that's already an existing approved PUD. DR. DePEW: Right. And that PUD actually went through the Water Management District permitting process and,ultimately,was denied by the District when it went through. So that's going to take a considerable redesign. So,I mean,you saw as part of the presentation a site plan that put these buildings all through wetlands that's actually a preserve on the current site plan. And I think that's going to be a significant problem. So they're going to have to come back in here with a redesigned plan on De La Rosa as well that's going to provide these units closer up to the roads and further away from the development that's located to the east of the subject property and with less wetland impacts,I suspect,when it ultimately gets designed, if, indeed,they try and do that. I don't know that that's going to happen,but I can't react to what the next step is going to be. I can only react to what they've proposed right now. And right now the De La Rosa project--it may have been approved in some fashion by the county,but it's not approved by any of the other agencies. So they may be coming back before you if, indeed,they try and do that with a completely redesigned development. And at that point,then we can address what the concerns are with that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other member of the Planning Commission have any question of Mr. DePew? And, sir,before you sit down,I think Mr.Yovanovich--he may have wanted to cross-examine. If he can,he's welcome. M.R.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,thank you. Yeah,I didn't mean to rebut. I'll go after Mr.Fryer. ft CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Dr.Depew,I'm looking at your website,and I see that your firm includes traffic engineering as part of your expertise. DR.DePEW: It does,yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would that apply to you personally? DR. DePEW: I am a certified traffic planner,not a traffic engineer. I have had a variety of courses training in that area. I will tell you that I pretty much don't do that stuff anymore because I find it to be, shall we say,tactfully,boring. It tends not to be the most exciting stuff. Not that Mr.Treesh is a boring person. I use him on a number of projects. But I did look at the traffic study. I believe that it does comply with the county's requirements. I did not look at the amended traffic study because I didn't realize there was an amended traffic study. I'm not sure whether it was posted on the portal or not,but I did not get to see the most recent version of the traffic study. I will tell you that the comments made by the Board here today were on point. You've got a Page 45 of 63 August 1,2019 problem that's going to occur in this area that is going to exacerbate the traffic. I will also tell you that most of the national studies that I've looked at have said that increase in lanage gives you limited relief for a short period of time. And when I say "short,"most of the studies I've seen tell you about 24 months is all you get. You've still got, as I think another speaker said,some empty property out there. The problems that you've got on Livingston are going to manifest themselves again even if you add reliever routes with east/west connections over to Old 41 or additional capacity at the intersections to either the north or the south of this property. You're going to have additional problems because you cannot build your way out of congestion permanently. You always evolve traffic into actually more than what the capacity is. That's what all of the studies have shown. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With respect to testimony this morning of the traffic engineer, I asked a question about how one estimates the directions of travel,what percentage from one road would turn or go straight. And maybe this is outside your area of expertise. If it is,just say so. But I'd like to know a little more from another professional, if you have these qualifications. How--what would a sensible,reasonable,thoughtful way of quantifying how traffic turns be other than just what I call anecdotal information? DR.DePEW: Typically,they look at the directional volumes on the roadway into which the traffic is turning. So if you've got, say, 60 percent going south and 40 percent going north,they will anticipate that traffic entering--at a certain peak hour. They will anticipate traffic entering that traffic stream will go 60 percent south and 40 percent north. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that would require an actual observation of moving traffic at peak time? DR. DePEW: Typically that's what happens,yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Rich. MR.YOVANOVICH: I want to--Mr. --or Dr.Depew I just want to make sure I'm clear. You're not providing any expert testimony on transportation-related issues with regard to either petition, are you? DR. DePEW: Only insofar as I answered the question of the Planning Commission. MR.YOVANOVICH: But you have not done any independent transportation analysis for either petition? DR.DePEW: I have not done an independent transportation analysis. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I believe you said you reviewed Mr. Treesh's analysis and you agreed with how he did his analysis,correct? DR.DePEW: I agreed that it met the requirements of the Collier County codes. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, Growth Management Plans can be amended, correct? DR.DePEW: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would venture to say you've probably participated in amending Growth Management Plans,correct? DR.DePEW: Yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: And that was to address deficiency in the existing Comprehensive Plan, correct? DR. DePEW: Yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, have you done any independent market study as to the need in Collier County for market-rate apartment housing? DR.DePEW: No, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you have any evidence to support a conclusion that there is not a need for market-rate apartment housing in Collier County? DR. DePEW: I do not. Your studies that were part of the application seem to demonstrate that Page 46 of 63 August 1,2019 there is a need for market-rate housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you're not contradicting the testimony of David Weeks with regard to the Comprehensive Planning department's review and analysis of that data and analysis to support this amendment,are you? DR.DePEW: I'm not. MR.YOVANOVICH: Now,you're not providing any testimony with regard to the zoning petition; is that correct? DR.DePEW: I am in the sense that I indicated that the zoning petition should be restricted to four units to the acre at this point. MR.YOVANOVICH: At this point. And have you done--and is that including downzoning the existing De La Rosa PUD? DR. DePEW: No, sir. I'm not addressing the De La Rosa PUD in any fashion. I'm addressing the issues that are before the Planning Commission right now. MR.YOVANOVICH: So it's your suggestion that the entirety of the property be approved at a density of four units per acre and take away the three units per acre that De La Rosa has been--it's at 1 seven. You want the overall PUD density to be reduced down to four; is that correct? DR. DePEW: I am not talking about the De La Rosa PUD. I'm talking about the Allura request that is before the Planning Commission today. And what I'm suggesting is that as far as the plan amendment and the rezoning should be considered a maximum of four units to the acre is the most that I could fmd from a professional standpoint appropriate. MR.YOVANOVICH: Have you ever done any apartment housing rezones or Growth Management Plan amendments? DR. DePEW: Well,that's two questions. I think-- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR.YOVANOVICH: I'll break it down. Have you ever done any apartment--apartment--any Growth Management Plans amendments to authorize apartment--market-rate apartments in any jurisdictions? DR.DePEW: I don't recall any off the top of my head. MR.YOVANOVICH: Have you ever done any rezone petitions to authorize the development of apartment-style housing on property? DR. DePEW: Yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you recall what the average number of units were in those apartment complexes? DR.DePEW: I don't off the top of my head,no, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you have any testimony that the slide we presented showing that apartment developers are seeking approximately 300 units for apartment developments is an incorrect market determiner for the size of apartment complexes? DR.DePEW: No, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. DR.DePEW: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the next speaker,James. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Bill Arndt. MR.ARNT: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Arndt. I'm the president of Barrington Cove HOA. I really appreciate the consideration you guys are giving this. You're doing a great job for our Page 47 of 63 August 1,2019 community, and I really appreciate you very,very much. One of the things that came up today,my word of the day was specious; it's having a false look of truth or genuineness. I can submit that what we're looking at here is a specious type request. The reason being is--the first point is that the requirements to reach the seven or eight and a half,whatever it would be, are not being met clearly,at least in my estimation. The second point is is that this--when we were talking about getting to eight and a half, Mr. Yovanovich said that he meets all the requirements of the game and that the game allows him to do this. We didn't realize we were working in a game, because when we bought our properties we didn't think this was a game. We thought this was life. So the people that are being affected by this are not playing a game. And the second thing he said was that it's not a requirement of the game to make the neighbors happy. The neighbors are not looking to be happy. We're just looking for the quality of life that we're used to. We're looking for the right for our kids to walk down the street unobstructed by traffic that will be coming. Our kids walk down Veterans Boulevard every day to go to the schools,to the elementary schools. They walk down--they have to cross Livingston Road to go to the elementary schools. The one exit for the property,Allura,is on Veterans Boulevard. It's going to increase the traffic flow 120 feet from the light, and that's where kids are going to be going in the morning and in the afternoon every day that they go to school. When they start going to high school, it's going to be even more affected. So all we're asking for is simply to take consideration,first of all,the fact that we already own our property, so we're property owners. They own 15 acres,but they don't own the other 20. That's proposed. They're not property owners of the other 20 yet. We do--all the residents in Barrington Cove, 134 of us, do own our own properties. One last point: Mr.Yovanovich said he had been barred from speaking to the HOAs. I don't know where that came from. I don't have any agreement with Mr. Fryer--Mr. Bob Pritt barring Mr. Yovanovich or any of his people to talk to me. I know that Kady Wrede,who was here previously, she's from The Strand. She doesn't have anything barring them. I know that Camden Lakes doesn't have anything barring them. I don't know why we haven't been talked to. I don't know why we haven't been spoken to. I know that was made in detail with the commissioners. They were supposed to come back to us. They didn't, and I'm really disappointed in that. So I'm just asking you in your wisdom,you're the voice of us,the people. You're the voice that allows this community to grow the way it's supposed to grow. Please understand that the community,the people in close proximity are asking you,please,please,please allow the density of four to go through but no more. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,please. MR. SABO: Anne-Marie Cadwallader is the next speaker. MS. CADWALLADER: Hello. I'm from Barrington Cove also. Much of what I was going to say has been said already,but I think we're left with three questions: What is the need for this,what is the impact, and what is the precedent? As far as the need and why here,why apartments here at a luxury market rate. Included in the Allura packet is a list of apartments mostly just in Collier County that are new and existing. Over 10,000 units available, and that doesn't include new apartments, some on Bonita Beach Road, and Baumgarten up Immokalee. So the need for luxury apartments is just not--has not been proven,and allowing such a destructive planning change with an exception to the original plan will set a very bad precedent for any and all community development. How,then, is anyplace immune to changes in their neighborhoods that will diminish the quality Page 48 of 63 immuumuumumumur August 1,2019 of life, create the crowded conditions and traffic that people were trying to avoid by buying in primarily residential neighborhoods? Has there ever been a reputable study that proves home values go up when three-story apartment buildings are built in the backyards of single-family homes? It's just--it's a bad idea for our community. It sets a bad precedent. It's incompatible. So I would hope that you as Planning Commissioners would vote to remain at the original density of four. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Nancy Huntt. MS. HUNTT: My name is Nancy Huntt,H-u-n-t-t. Thank you,Commissioners, for taking the time to listen to us today. I am a board member of the HOA of Barrington Cove. Recently have moved here from Dallas, Texas,and took on the role of transitioning ourselves out of our developer into our homeowners. I can't agree more with our neighbors and those in the know,and I agree with all of their suggestions,and I ask you to take those into consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Arnold Saslaysky. MS. SASLAVSKY: Good afternoon. It's Arnold Saslaysky, S-a-s-l-a-v-s-k-y. I'm a resident in The Strand. And ever since this property change came to--came into my knowledge, I started checking online at apartments.com. And I checked this morning. There were 1,562 apartments listed available and,as was pointed out earlier, about a third of Inspira's inventory is available. So where's the need for apartments in this area? We've got 264 units going up right now on Bonita Beach Road by I-95 --I-75, sorry, and with the convenience of being able to walk to a Starbucks. We have a proposed 325 apartments at Pine Ridge Commons at the corner of Goodlette and Pine Ridge, also walk to a Starbucks. These apartments,nobody's going to want to walk to Starbucks from there, so... And the Arthrex employees,I'm not sure about--I'm not sure about that. I don't know how they get to be--what was it--oh,they get some kind of privilege,that firemen and policemen discount. I don't see how Arthrex employees qualify for that. They should be paid enough money to afford apartments. So I'm asking you to,as well as the other folks-- and I'd like to hear th'e answer to Mr.Fryer's question about one-year lease commitments from the folks at Stock Development. And I'd like you to consider either denying or minimizing this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Zannos Grekos. MR. GREKOS: Good afternoon,Z-a-n-n-o-s, G-r-e-k-o-s. Thank you all for your time on the Board. I know you're volunteers, except for Mr. Strain,and I know how much effort that actually takes. Just me having come to several of these meetings,the first Planning Commission,the Board meeting,the reschedule last week and so on and so forth, it takes a lot out of you. And,you know,people that were here this morning with children and so on had to go home. So I appreciate you being here. I think I'm going to--what I'd like to do is bring up a couple points that stuck out in my mind. First was the fact that we're talking about the traffic,and I saw the amended traffic evaluation that Trinity had put up,and the remaining capacity for Immokalee Road between Airport and Livingston is 193 --I think that's correct that I'm quoting--and that is going to exceed or be deficient by the year 2023,I believe? Page 49 of 63 di=114 411111111111111 August 1,2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two. MR. GREKOS: Twenty-two. Again,this is not--those aren't peak hours, but if you guys have ever been on Immokalee during any kind of peak hour,you know that it's backed up past Airport from Livingston. And if we've got a high school that's going in with close to 400 seniors that all drive and another 400 juniors where half of them drive,that's a lot of cars, and that's not even the staff of that high school. If a small percentage of them are going anywhere on Immokalee,that's already going to overwhelm. And I think we're going to reach that deficiency much sooner than 2022. I also believe that anything going northbound on Livingston--we're talking about--Trinity mentioned that we don't build our roads for peak,but peak is getting longer and longer in Collier County,and it's lasting from before Thanksgiving till after Easter. And as high schools and more density,which is already in the Growth Management Plan for that area, goes into place,that Livingston Road is going to become much more overwhelmed and it's going to add fuel to the fire if we're increasing density without a good reason. So the second question then--the second question is,what is the good reason that we want to add 150 extra units to this corner? Well,the ability for teachers and first responders and Arthrex employees to have a place to live transiently has been brought up,but what I would counter with that is in Barrington Cove,we are the neighborhood that they move to. So just Brittany here with her twins lived in Orchid Run for a little while and then moved into a neighborhood,we are that neighborhood. And that's what we believed that the planners for Collier County initially saw this corridor between Immokalee and Bonita Beach Road off Livingston as a neighborhood corridor where people could have families. I've got an eight-year-old at home. Their kids could ride bikes. And that is the flavor of this corridor. Those 5,000 family homes or attached villas in that area are neighborhoods. We need neighbors in Collier County, and I think we're being a little bit shortsighted in thinking that we need to build apartments now,because those people that build apartments that want to move into our area need to go somewhere. So where are they going to go? It's going to bottleneck, and then you're going to have people like the Stock developers here asking now for more neighborhood-type areas which we were shortsighted enough and did not provide at this point in time. So what I'm saying--what I'm asking is,please don't give us another apartment building. Please let us keep and give us a neighborhood,which is what we need right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,James. MR. SABO: Next is Rob Conforth. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: He had to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Ed Gorelick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't look like he's here either, so let's go to the next one. MR. SABO: I know this fellow is not here; Michael Dalby. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. And who's left? Anybody? MR. SABO: That's it. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member of the public who has not spoken and would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll turn to the applicant for any rebuttal that they'd like to make. MR.YOVANOVICH: Normally I don't respond directly to public comment,but I think I need to respond to Mr.Arndt. I met with Mr.Arndt twice regarding this project. He told us,Keith Gelder,me, and Bob Mulhere,that he could not deliver a majority vote out of his community one way or the other on Page 50 of 63 mow August 1,2019 this project,and I said I wouldn't put him in that position to have to be the decision-maker for the community. Mr.Arndt and I think it's his wife Anne-Marie have made it very clear they weren't budging from four units per acre. This is after they asked us at the meeting would we agree to three stories and basically redoing Inspira on this property. And where are we? Three stories and redoing Inspira on this property, and we're still not satisfying their comments. I don't think it was appropriate for him to characterize our team and in particular Stock Development as specious. I think Brian has proven to this community he is a reputable person personally as well as his company and have been dealing with Mediterra and Mr.Arndt and Briarwood--I'm sorry--Barrington very professionally and very courteously. And we agree,we agree to disagree. That happens. There's nothing wrong with that. But to use terms like specious is,I don't think, fair, and I just wanted to clarify that on the record. There's no slippery slope. Each petition is evaluated on its own. And we hear this argument all the time about setting a precedent. You look at each petition on its own. There's no precedent being set by approving the Comp Plan amendment and approving the rezone for the property. I will--I'm shocked at the attack against the project being we're not providing affordable housing. I think Mr. Fry is 100 percent on the number. If we came in with an affordable housing project under the current rules of the Growth Management Plan,I could tell you we'll be way higher than eight-and-a-half units per acre in the request,and we'll go through the process, and then we can have the discussion about is providing housing for people who need affordable housing in the public interest or not. And I will tell you I've been doing it long enough that whenever I have brought--and I have brought a few affordable housing projects through the process. There isn't a neighborhood next to it that supports it. So you have a Comp Plan that allows us to,I believe, get to 16 units per acre if we went through the affordable density housing program. And I'm going to tell you,people will go--they'll be upset if we were to elect to come in with an affordable housing project on this piece of property or someone else were to do this on the piece of property, although the existing Comprehensive Plan allows for that,to ask for it. So we did discuss how do we assure that first responders,teachers,nurses--essential service personnel has been the term we've used for other projects--are given an opportunity to move to Collier County, live in good, safe apartments until they decide whether they want to own a home or stay in that apartment. They may decide to stay in that apartment. And there have been some who have implied that people who live in apartments aren't quite the type of people that they would like to have their children associate with or run into. I've heard it in NIMs. I think we heard a little bit of that today. So there is no question that there is a need for market-rate apartments. We've proven that. Your staff agrees. The community is allowed to say we don't think you have proven it,but we have proven it, and they don't have any studies to contradict that we need this type of housing. So back to how do I make sure Arthrex,the school board, Collier County, and other essential service personnel have the ability to live in this community? And we said we would make a proposal after lunch, and we're going to. Our proposal is that we--and we've done this on other projects for essential service personnel, and we have a definition we can read into the record but it's essentially,you know,medical professionals, nurses, schoolteachers, government employees. That's the category of people I'm talking about. In other projects we've agreed to set aside a portion of those units to where we market to them first. And if they want to come live in our community, great. If they don't,then we can go to people outside of this ESP,essential service personnel group. People like me as a lawyer,I don't qualify as essential service personnel, so I would have to wait for a teacher or a nurse or firefighter or a police officer to say,no,I don't want that unit before I can go Page 51 of 63 August 1,2019 into these restricted units. So we would propose to restrict 55 of the units to be marketed first to essential service personnel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, before you leave subject--and I don't want to interrupt you,but I want to make sure the question that was raised,the young lady that spoke said that you guys provide discounts to essential service personnels,and I think we're looking to-- MR.YOVANOVICH: That's where I'm going to go next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was--I wanted to make sure you had it there. MR. YOVANOVICH: First I want to let you know that we were going to make sure that 55 of the units would be set aside to be marketed initially to them, and if we couldn't fill those 55 units with them, other nonessential service personnel can live in those units, and then when those units come available again,they would again be marketed to essential service personnel. So we would always try to hit that 55. Of those 55,we would agree to restrict 28 of those 55 to people making between 80 and 100 percent of the median income of Collier County which is-- if you look at your moderate income, it ranges from 80 to 120 in your affordable housing density bonus matrix. We would be at half of that. We put 80 to the 100. So we would agree, again, subject to finding people who want to live there in those income categories,which would mean we have to bring the rents down to meet those income thresholds. So that will take care of your schoolteacher who may have a roommate that wants to have a nice place to live. They'll be in that income category,plus they'll be essential service personnel, so you'll get them twice. So we believe between the need for more apartments,which is uncontroverted even by their own expert who says he's got no reason to believe that David Weeks isn't right in reviewing our data and analysis,that the further limitations that have already gone through the process,which was to reduce the height to three stories,reduce the density to 304,to further limit those 304 to targeting essential service personnel both from the 55 units but also income restricting 28 of those 55 to the 80 to 100 percent income category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean 80 to 120 or 80 to 100? MR. YOVANOVICH: Eighty to 100. Not 120. We're not trying to get all the way to the top. We're going to the midpoint of that range. We'll provide additional benefit to those who are trying to relocate to Collier County to work either at Arthrex or the school system or any of the hospitals or for any of the doctors that are in this community. And in that category we've even talked about construction workers fit the definition of essential service personnel when we've done this before. So we would propose that modification to address, and that's how we would be dealing with the reduction in price, if you will, for Arthrex and other employees,through restricting those income categories for 28 of the units. We are--frankly,we're proud of the project. You've seen it. You've seen Inspira. And if anybody says that that's not a luxury apartment complex that anybody would be proud to live next to,I don't know why people would say that. It's in Lely Resort,which is a top-notch community in Collier County. With that,we request that you follow your staffs recommendation on the Growth Management Plan and recommend to the Board that they adopt it, and we request that you follow your staffs recommendation with regard to the PUD and recommend that it be approved as well. And with that,we'll be happy to answer any more questions you may have or clarify anything I just said on the essential service personnel and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: One quick one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: How are you going to incent Arthrex employees? Could you just Page 52 of 63 August 1,2019 repeat that section. MR.YOVANOVICH: What we said is they would fit the category of--as I understand Arthrex, because I've done some work for them,I would think they would fit the category of medical. So they would be in the essential service personnel category, so they would fit within the 55 as well as the income restricted if they have some employees that needed the income-restricted unit. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you prepared to make formal offers in terms of the buffering and setbacks along Livingston Road also? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We talked about the 80-foot setback. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: And the enhanced buffer,yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made all those notes. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead,Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What is the rental times for-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The rental times,the length. MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh,they have-- 12 months is the normal rent,but they do have a shorter-term lease for people who relocate, and seven months for people who relocate. If they're building a house or something and they don't need a full year,that's-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: They still go through the same screening. And,frankly,they pay--I think they pay a little bit extra for only having seven months of an obligation while they're looking either for a house or they're building a house. So it's seven months is the minimum lease. COMMISSIONER FRY: Could we have the representative from Greystar confirm that in terms of--that was a concern of the neighbors and some people requesting the 12-month leases only. So is there a premium, in fact,for a seven-month lease? MS. CARDOZA: Yes. Anything that is shorter than a 12-month lease gets an added premium. So I have 200 additional per month for a seven-month lease and then 150 --for a seven to eight, add 200. Nine to 11,add 150. COMMISSIONER FRY: Per month? MS. CARDOZA: Correct. May I ask her one more question in terms of the makeup of Inspira? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ask all the questions you want, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: So what is the mix at Inspira of one-bedroom,two-bedroom, three-bedroom? Is there such a thing as a studio apartment? MS. CARDOZA: We have ones,twos,and threes,and I think we're 45,45, 10,right in there,for percentages,45 one-- COMMISSIONER FRY: Forty,45, 10? MS. CARDOZA: Yep,45 percent ones,45 percent twos, and 10 percent threes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Tom. MS. CARDOZA: Correct,no studios. MR.EASTMAN: Rich,I had a question with regard to the ESP units and offering those to that type of renter first. What type of period are you talking about? I mean, is it 24 hours or three months or-- MR.YOVANOVICH: What we've done in the past,Mr. Eastman--good question--was the initial lease-up we've required at least 60 days during the lease-up period to try to fill the building with someone who meets essentially service personnel. And then when a unit--if it's a unit that doesn't-- say we only get 54 people,when that 55th unit comes available,we have a minimum period of 30 days that we have to try to find someone who meets the ESP parameters before we could then market it to someone who didn't. Page 53 of 63 August 1,2019 MR.KLATZKOW: At the same rental? Is it still market rate? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well, it depends which unit we're talking about,Jeff,because some of them-- MR. KLATZKOW: Let's just break it down,because saying you're going to reserve market rate for essential services doesn't do anything. Let's just talk about the number of units you're willing to reserve at a discount. MR.YOVANOVICH: Twenty-eight. MR.KLATZKOW: Twenty-eight units. MR.YOVANOVICH: And that will be the same thing. MR.KLATZKOW: I understand that. So that will be--you'll have--you're offering 28 units at a discount rent. And how is that discount rent calculated? MR. YOVANOVICH: The county has a formula that they use. You look at the income, and then you have to subtract out an amount for utilities. We would use the county's formula to determine what the allowed rent would be based upon their income. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So that would be the formula? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,the county's formula. They have one. I wish I could tell you exactly what it is. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just looking to get some clarity as to what the offer is. MR.YOVANOVICH: We would use the county's exact formula for qualification. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: You're offering 28 units at a discounted rental for essential personnel? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject. The median income in Collier County is about 66,500. So if they're talking about 80 percent to 100 percent, 120 percent of median income-- MR. YOVANOVICH: No,no. A hundred,James. It's a 100 percent. MR. SABO: A hundred percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Eighty to 100. Not 80 to 120. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the offer. MR. SABO: Yeah, correct,but that starts at$53,000. MR.YOVANOVICH: For a family of four. MR. SABO: On the lower end, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Family of four. You've got to remember there are single individuals that that number's somewhere in the forties, if I remember correctly. Am I close,Keith? Yeah. MR. SABO: Fifty-three thousand to 66. MR.YOVANOVICH: For a family of four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something else you wanted to add,James or Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I just wanted to make sure-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other further questions of applicant or anybody at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I just can say, if it's a single person at the 80 percent,that's a$42,000 income just so you have that frame of reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,before we close the public hearing and go into discussion,I have some lists of things that we've brought up. First of all,the staff recommendations would be accepted. Do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was so long ago, I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The setback along Livingston Road will be at 80 feet with an enhanced buffer,meaning it will be the Type D width but the Type B buffer plantings. MR. YOVANOVICH: Principal structures would be the 80 feet. Page 54 of 63 rrrommr August 1,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I just want to make sure we were clear on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. You're going to correct the reference to the accessory setback on the eastern side from Barrington Cove so it matches up. You're going to be providing for essential service personnel first a period of 60 days on a unit and then--for 55 of the units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then each time they come up they'll, again,have the 60 days to--for first refusal. And then 28 of those units would be for 80 to 100 percent affordable income range personnel. MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me correct one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: The 60 days is at the initial rental. The re-rental would be 30 days for finding a replacement in the essential service personnel unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I didn't hear you say that. MR.YOVANOVICH: I thought I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might have. I just didn't get it. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's why I was correcting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the minimum lease period will be seven months. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the notes I made. Does anybody have any other notes that we-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: We'd put forth a question of whether they would be willing to go to 12 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you asking that question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm asking the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: It's--right now--can I have a moment? Honestly, I'm not ready to answer that question right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We'll take a pause for five minutes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, can I say one thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Ask one question? The question is, would they be willing to go to just 12-month rentals only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: With the belief of--that we're going to--my question is, so I come down here on a short--I know,for example, lots of companies do short-term contracts. So we're going to penalize those people that want to come here for Arthrex or--I know there's also mobile nursing that travel here that are on short-term. There's a variety of different things that would come here on six-, seven-, eight-month categories. And I'm not playing into yet the decision one way or the other. I'm just saying to you,I don't see an issue of being--requiring a 12-month minimum. Why penalize someone that can only come here on a work deal for seven or eight or nine months? MR.KLATZKOW: So what's the public purpose for a 12-month limitation? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. I don't get it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, anecdotally, again,I think that people take better care of property the longer that they stay there. And the shorter term,I just think,tends to bring about less regard for the premises they're occupying than a longer term. COMMISSIONER FRY: If the applicant wants to stick to your guns on the seven-months minimum,I'd like it stipulated that there is the premium for the seven-month. You know, as you stated, Page 55 of 63 August 1,2019 I'd actually like that written in, because I believe, in my mind,that addresses a concern of a lesser quality of people on a shorter-term lease,which I think is the overall concern. If you're paying$1,950 average per month versus 17,50 because you're renting for seven months, to me that further excludes the income levels that can afford that and would seem to serve the purpose of a high-quality of resident. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,this is the last time you get to speak to us, so let's hear it. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning director. I'd just like to remind the commission that currently we have a six-month regulation for tenureship within a leasing period by our LDC. For all other geographic or all other residentially zoned properties in the county,we have a current regulation that requires six months. Seven months would be actually greater or more restrictive than what the LDC would require. Twelve months,obviously,would double that. And I just wanted to provide that in terms of perspective in terms of what this ask is in relationship to the other residentially zoning districts within the county. MR.YOVANOVICH: And,Mr.Fry,the concept-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks,Mike. MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh,I'm sorry,Mike. That will be the last time I get to interrupt you. We certainly have--the concept is not a problem for us having a minimum of seven and that there be a premium paid for that seven-month lease versus the 12-month lease. I just don't want to put a dollar threshold in the PUD. So I don't have a problem saying that there has to be a premium payment for the seven-month to the 12th-month option. Does that work for you? COMMISSIONER FRY: You say you would-- MR. YOVANOVICH: We would charge a premium. If you rented from-- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRY: -- language you would charge a premium for a seven-month--for leases shorter that 12 months? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: It would never be less than seven, and anything less than 12,there would be a premium rent charge. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're not comfortable specifying a dollar amount-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: --or percentage. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. It's just difficult to do,you know,with the-- MR.KLATZKOW: You know,we have to enforce this as a county. Keep that in mind when you're putting together stuff for the ordinances. I mean, seven-month minimum is one thing. But trying to figure out what the rent discount is is--I don't know how we're going to do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Point taken. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's too much. I'm just wondering--I'm sure--I know in our homeowners association our rentals for a home are 90 days three times a year,and another association it's 180 days, once a year. So I'm sure these homeowner associations have their lease agreement in their documents, and it's less than a year. COMMISSIONER FRY: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't mean they can do it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One year. Well, not all of them I know. The Strand has a lot of associations, so I doubt they have all one-year leases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the documents that they have can't supersede our county ordinances. So if we have an ordinance-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. Page 56 of 63 • August 1,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that says they can't lease less than seven months,I don't care if their homeowners say they can lease three months. They've still got to do seven months. Now,how they're doing that,nobody's complaining about it, so it's probably not an issue. They've still got to go by what our local ordinance says. MR.YOVANOVICH: Plus,we're way easier to audit on that commitment because we're one owner and it's an apartment complex. It's not like you're having to deal with 304 different unit owners to verify that that commitment's being met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any--so what we'll end up--well, first of all,where's your question Stan--Karl? I mean, not Karl,Ned. You had asked a question that started this discussion. You're the Fryer. He's the Fry. So he already fried your fryer, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: You jump up from the fry to the fryer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is your--what do you want to do with your question? He was going to take a break to answer it. I don't know if you've resolved it now or not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It would not change my vote, so I'm dropping the question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the way that last item will read is a minimum lease period of seven months. So with that, if there's no more questions of the applicant, seeing nobody indicating such,we'll close the public hearing, and we can either start with the discussion or start with a motion,whatever somebody wants to do. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman,I think we should start with discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I defer to you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just read off my stuff as far as suggestions go. I'm--I don't know what direction this board's going to go. I had addressed some concerns I had originally because of the change to the GMP. I really have seen nothing new that changes my position on that, so my position on that will still remain the same. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I just had a question regarding essential service personnel. I think that that has been defined in the past to include government workers,police and fire,medical,people employed by the hospitals,et cetera. I don't know that it extended to construction workers and Arthrex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I can--yeah,I can pull it up here in a minute. Are you guys getting it? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,we have it. Do you want me to read it into the record, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we have done in others, it says, in Collier County, essential personnel--essential services personnel is defined as follows: Those individuals employed in the community as teachers, educators, other school district employees,community college and university employees,police and fire personnel, healthcare personnel, skilled building trades personnel as listed in the U.S. Department of Labor general division--I'm sorry--General Decision No.FL150012 dated 3/20/2015 for building construction in Collier County as may be amended or superceded from time to time, and government employees. If we need to be clear,I assumed Arthrex fit the definition of medical because that's what they're-- MR.EASTMAN: I stand corrected,Rich. You're clearly right based upon that definition. MR.YOVANOVICH: I want the record to be clear. If I need to add something to address Arthrex or other companies that provide these types of medical devices,we want to make sure they're in that definition. Page 57 of 63 August 1,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in your write-up to this defmition, why don't you -- don't reference Arthrex by company-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but reference the kind of personnel they have so that that personnel level is included. MR.YOVANOVICH: I will. I just wanted to make sure when that--I'm assuming that's --that clarification is wanted by the CCPC when they see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think--well, by simply using it in one of the stipulations, it has to be provided. MR.YOVANOVICH: We'll put something together that meets the spirit and intent of what I just said. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you added the definition, "medical device manufacturer,"that would certainly cover Arthrex. MR.YOVANOVICH: Probably get you there. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're going to have a separate category now for Arthrex now as far as the land development regulation. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR.KLATZKOW: Let's--I realize how valuable Arthrex is,but a secretary for Arthrex is not any more valuable than a secretary for any other company in this county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we leave it the same definition we've used in another PUD,we'd be okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fair enough. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that other PUD,I think Milano,whatever that one's called over there now by Lord's Way. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I believe--is that the one you just used? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the one I thought. I remember that from the past. Okay. But resurrect that. MR.YOVANOVICH: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: At the time of transmittal I had some serious misgivings about this project,but I voted to transmit,and I also stated some concerns that I had at that time. I also believe that the developer and the developer's agents have gone a good distance toward accommodating many of the concerns that have been put on the table, and I compliment them for that; however,the main sticking point that I have at this time has to do with compatibility of the developments that surround or abut the . Allura project. Mediterra,the DU per A is .56;half an acre roughly. Brandon,3.99 dwelling units per acre; under 4. Sandalwood,3.1 dwelling units per acre. RMC Enclave,4.02 dwelling units per acre. Royal Palm International Academy, 3.37 dwelling units per acre. Marsilee Villas, 2.63. Then Allura, 8.46. Now,I'm not saying that as a matter of judgment on my part per se that single-family and multifamily can't live adjoining one another. That's not my position. But I do think that compatibility is significant. And in this case I think as a criterion,and the compatibility criterion in my judgment has not been met by this project. And so for that reason I'm going to vote no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any other comments? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir. In the interest of eliciting viewpoints of other Planning Commissioners,I'd like to share my thoughts. Page 58 of 63 August 1,2019 I'm conflicted on this issue because I feel like we're between a rock and a hard place here. I believe that--I do see some justification, and I don't see it as an absolute not to have an apartment complex to single-family homes. I have that in myneighborhood. My kids ride by it and walk P adjacentg Y g by it on a regular basis on the way to Target. It's a considerably less caliber apartment complex than what you're proposing here. This particular location is on a major--is on a corner. It's accessible on the main roads,not through any neighborhoods. So in a way it's cut off traffic-wise from the neighborhoods. Those are positive. Also another positive I see,a potential positive, is that you are allowing people that don't have the down payment for a single-family home to buy one,or they're just not ready to buy one,but they have pretty high income. These are not--you could buy a house with$1,700 a month if you had a down payment. So to have the ability to have ESP units available and rental units which,by nature, is going to apply to some people that single-family homes do not,but to be able to put them inside the TCMA--and as I understand,the point of a TCMA is to concentrate development somewhat in an area to avoid sprawl out to the east. So I see those as--this is kind of the rock, and then I got to the hard place. Not a bad idea to have the ability for teachers if they want to rent rather than own a home. The firemen that work there, people from Arthrex. I mean,all the types of things to have a very local and central location to live. To me,those are positives. I've driven by Inspira. I haven't toured it like Commissioner Dearborn. Thought it was beautiful. As a younger person or in a certain circumstance,I could see myself wanting to live there with the gigantic pool and amenities and those types of things. So I don't think the--I think a very good job has been done by the applicants and by the team for the applicants of demonstrating sensitivity to the site plan: Buffering, setbacks,the quality of the apartment and the kind of people that you will attract at those rents and that type of unit. So the wildcard that I said earlier,to me, like I said, is De La Rosa,which I look at from a standpoint, if I lived in Barrington Cove,how would I feel about the prospect of De La Rosa going in? I believe the sentiment is probably that it won't go in or at least it won't go in according to that site plan that's been presented. But the fact I do see some relevance to is that it's approved at seven units per acre. So whatever they end up doing there,they can build at a density of seven units per acre. And because it was approved a long time ago without--at least it doesn't seem like it had the resistance that this has had--you guys have very effectively proposed or presented. You know,you've got less setbacks and higher building heights that are at least possible there which, in my mind, if I'm living in Barrington Cove I'm thinking might be a more intrusive impact on my--on a certain area of my neighborhood than this thing would overall be in terms of just how much of a sense I have of it being there because it's pretty well hidden. My main concern is traffic. And I think it's--I'm not alone in that. And I understand we meet the criteria for--by the numbers. It doesn't trip and triggers where it's over the thresholds to cause the roads to fail;however,just because we don't plan our traffic for peak season doesn't mean that people should necessarily be told they have to live with gridlock for--predictably, for six months out of the year. I would like--my hard place is that I think there does not seem to be any kind of an answer for the north/south traffic equation that will make this possibly get better as we add Oakes Farm, as we add the new high school,even the interconnection of Veterans Memorial Boulevard over to Old 41,I'm not sure how much that would alleviate the north/south other than people trying to get over toward the coast. So I'm not sure--I like the concept of this apartment complex. I like the design of it. But my concern is the density with respect to the traffic that it generates. I wish you could say--I've asked the question: How many units do you need to be able to create this caliber of apartment complex and--you know,but reduce the density? Because I-- in the last meeting I voted no,but I proposed that we extend that seven units per acre that's in De La Rosa,but Page 59 of 63 August 1,2019 spread it out across this total acreage,have it better buffered, and have it be a less overall impact to the neighborhood but still have the apartments located for all the other benefits that it provides,but I was told that 300 is a sweet spot and that below 300 units you cannot justify that level of amenity. To me,that's the great unfortunate aspect of this,because not much has changed. You made a few more concessions,which I certainly appreciate for the betterment of all but,fundamentally, it's kind of-- it's mostly the same development. And so the traffic conundrum hasn't changed. So I find myself in a similar position--or like I said, slightly different but similar position to Mr. Strain where I have a hard time voting for it at the density of 8.55. I could vote for it at a density of seven,which I believe is a reasonable way to balance all the interests in this,which is what I think our job is, or at least I look at as my job up here to try to balance the interests of the neighborhood,the county,you know,the potential positive interests of all so we all walk out--you know,nobody wins,but nobody people--you know,people walk out not having--feel like they were trampled on. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? Is there a motion from anybody? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman,I have one more comment, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: A lot of great points have been brought up about this, and I want to just readdress in my world of real estate. In most of the gated communities I'm familiar with, including those represented here today,there's some great communities there. Rentals in homes in these gated communities is rampant,whether people want to admit it or know about it or not,and a lot of them are off the record,and a lot of HOAs I'm aware of allow rentals, 90-day minimum, minimum three times a year, and I can rattle off a lot of gated communities in North Naples that allow that. To me,as a homeowner in a gated community, like these nice ones that are represented here today, I don't personally like, as a homeowner,having people coming and going in our,call it, our family, our gated community, especially off the record. Kind of hard to--we've seen some struggles at a county level of how to regulate all that. What I do see here from this project is that by making these nicer,higher-end apartments available,A,we can attract people to this area,professionals, first responders,those that we--essential to our county greater than we do now;number two,I think it will alleviate a lot of people, investors,buying a property in a gated community for the sole purpose of renting that out off the record,off the county books, et cetera,which is rampant in this county, and you can read the articles that have come out recently about that. And it's a controlled environment where we're going to provide nice amenities and nice areas. The one lady that was here, so sweet with her kids,and I appreciate her time, she even mentioned, she was in Orchid Run,I think,another apartment complex on a pretty busy corner of Airport(sic)and Livingston,and they came down for a year before making the move to buy and become a part of our Collier County community. And I think that, as a community,I understand the challenges with traffic. We could sit here and talk about challenges with traffic on every road in this county. But I think at the end of the day this is a good thing in the long run for the county as a whole, and I think that whether that makes people in those communities happy or not--and I'm in that North Naples area--I think that in the long run it helps us out. It cuts down on people trying to rent and turn these homes in these gated communities into rentals which is going on in my world all the time. I just wanted to say that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that takes-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the-- someone needing to make a motion, and I Page 60 of 63 August 1,2019 will--we'll have to do them separately. We have a GMP amendment first and a PUD second. The GMP amendment is PL20170004419,Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard east residential subdistrict. Does anybody want to make a motion on that item? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To what,approve or deny? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured as much,but I'd like you to say it for the record. Is there a second--well,before-- is there a second for discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Patrick, seconded by Karen. Now, anybody want--have any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From my perspective,as I mentioned earlier,I haven't changed my position because--basically because of the GMP at this point. I don't think that this could have been expected by anybody doing their due diligence in the neighborhood. The GMP wouldn't have provided for it. Most of the provisions in the GMP don't allude to this kind of density for this kind of use. And so I think from that perspective,I'm real concerned about the fact the GMP-- it could not have been expected from reviewing the GMP. I don't believe it's compatible due to the scale and the massing,which is inconsistent with the local development patterns. It's not just the fact that it's--we've had examples of where it's consistent with other residential in other parts of the county,but in this location there isn't anything quite like this. The higher density,we know,will produce more traffic. Basically they're going from what was previously allowed at about 189 up to 304. You've got to have more traffic with more units. And right now that area has got a difficult issue with traffic. It creates an isolated district for a higher density within the area. We've seen the evidence by staff that outside of this project the highest density,I think, is 4.02,and this is over double that. It provides a unique advantage to one property owner. This is an occasion where this one property is going to have that higher element. And the change is not needed to develop the property with what would have been allowed without a GMP amendment,which I estimate to be about 189 units. And so for those reasons,I can't support the motion to approve the project. Anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Based on the motion to recommend for approval,all those in favor of that motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you raise your hand just--how many? Two. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wasn't sure I heard anybody over here. Thank you. All those against the motion, signify same sign. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay. So it's 3-2 motion denied. And I don't know if we need to have any kind of--if there's any other compromise that we might want to consider to send to the Board of County Commissioners. I don't know of one offhand, so I'm letting our vote stand from my perspective. Does anybody else have anything they want to consider? COMMISSIONER FRY: I would vote in favor of the project at seven units per acre,249 units, under similar design parameters otherwise. Page 61 of 63 August 1,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. With that,Richard,that's your response: A recommendation of denial's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. You still have a PUD you have to vote on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,that's right. Same--and I'm going to basically--thank you for reminding me. The PUD is PL20170004385. Is there a motion for this PUD? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. The motion is to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have the same discussion with the exception that under this one I'd add one other caveat that it's inconsistent with the GMP only because I can't find a way to get there through the GMP. So with that,does anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed, signify same sign. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motions carries 3-2. Thank you very much for your time. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion fails 3-2,I'm sorry. Motion to approve fails 3-2. I'm running behind today. Let's look at new business. Is there any other new business? I don't see any listed. Old business? Mr. Bosi,you are definitely old business. I know--I understand when I was late this morning that Patrick had brought up that Mike is leaving. I found out a couple weeks ago,I think, or less. I was shocked and dismayed. I've been doing this for 18 years. I think Mike's been doing it at least that long or close to that long. I will miss his guidance. I certainly will miss his professionalism. He cannot--nobody could have done it better. And,Mike,I'm going to miss you. I want to thank you for all the time you've put into the help with citizens of Collier County,because you have kept us on a path,and we've always had arguments and disagreements with the boards trying to get things to the right side up and whatever,but you've always given us good advice, and I want you to know how much I appreciate it personally, and I'll miss seeing you here, so... MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. And I'd just like to say, in closing, it's been 17 years. It's been a great 17 years of professional development,personal development,watching the community grow, watching the evolutions of the planning process and the development and the attention towards sustainability and the absolute painstaking efforts that this county does go to to make sure that we're trying to provide the most sustainable future and the best arrangement from a land-use perspective. And as we've seen in today's hearings, it's not easy. It's hardly ever easy,because there's competing interests and there's things that are demanded upon this place,but there's also certain standards in a way that the population wants to feel. And it's always an evaluation. It's always a balancing Page 62 of 63 August 1,2019 judgment effort. And I think that leads to good discussions. It leads to positive outcomes. And I will--will miss those discussions. I will miss the wisdom that the Planning Commission provides to the Board of County Commissioners and,most importantly,will miss the friendships that I was able to develop. So thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: How about a standing ovation,Mr. Chairman, for Mike Bosi. (Applause.) MR.BELLOWS: And I'd also like to say in my 30 years with the county,there hasn't been a better manager--director. (Applause.) MR. BOSI: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, if you miss us too much,turn to Channel 97. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: They don't get that on the East Coast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can just say,thank God I'm not there anymore. MR.BOSI: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,Mike. That takes us to old business. I don't know of any others. Well,I just did old business. Public comment, nobody's left to comment. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:22 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 63 of 63 GrecoSherry From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:21 PM To: GrecoSherry Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged 02-August 1,2019 CCPC Minutes... Mario 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Property Summary Information -MLS: 217032288 Demo Agent Company Address: 11762 Quail Village WAY-NAPLES, FL 34119-MLS:217032288 To schedule a showing of this property, please contact: Asking: $329,000 Bedrooms: 3 Baths: 2 Agent name and contact Year 1991 Appx.Sq. 1800 Lot Size: info appears here Larger Picture Built: Ft: For informational purposes only:Demo Agent Company is not a mortgage lender.Contact Sample Lender directly for more information about mortgage products and your eligibility.You are not required to use the services of this lender. Demonstration Account NMLS ID 000000 of Sample dip Print Page E-mail® Page Lender This is a RatePlug SAMPLE Lender Detail Example-Affiliated Agent Lender will appear here. Since this is a Report SAMPLE and the Mortgage Payments are not using LIVE Interest Rates, please don't contact the SAMPLE Loan Officer since the e-mail address and phone numbers are not real and no response will be offered. Sign up for RatePlug: Click Here or Call (877) 710-0808. Available Programs from Sample Lender 0 Your actual rate,payment,and costs could be higher. Get an official Loan Estimate before choosing a loan. The payments below assume an Estimated Sales Price of$329,000 for 11762 Quail Village WAY-NAPLES,FL 34119-MLS: 217032288. Click for more Disclosures ► 30 Year Fixed USDA USDA 30 year Loan Amount: $319,130 $322,354 $322,354 Down Payment: $9,870 $9,870 $9,870 Term(Months): 360 360 360 Interest Rate: 7.375% 4.125% 5.000% APR: 8.051% 4.657% 5.548% Points: 0 0 0 Monthly Payment Principal&Interest: $2,204 $1,562^*** $1,730^*** Property Taxes: $220 $220 $220 Insurance: $206 $206 $206 HOA/Dues/Fees: $0 $0 $0 Mortgage Insurance: $199 $94 $94 Total Payment*: $2,829 $2,082^*** $2,250^*** *Total payment includes an estimation of principal and interest payment,property taxes,HOA/dues/fees,home owners insurance and private mortgage insurance(PMI)if applicable.Monthly Payment amounts above are based on estimates,may be greater and may not apply to your situation and can change without notice.A***USDA loans allow for a 0.0%Down Payment.USDA Disclosure. Enter an Estimated Offer Price and Down Payment in order to see your specific payment scenario: 1 Estimated Offer Price: 2 Down Payment or Percent: $ 329,000 $ 3% V GAL ULAt ' Generated:9/18/2019. Payments are estimates.Actual Payments may be greater. See below for additional Minimum/Maximum Payment information. APR=Annual Percentage Rate.Terms of Repayment:30 Year Fixed:55 payments of$2,403.61 at 4.375%, 152 payments of$2,204.15 at 4.375%and 153 payments of$0.00 at(8.051%APR) USDA:360 payments between$1,656.31 to $1,567.63 at 4.125%(4.657%APR) USDA 30 year:360 payments between$1,824.48 to$1,736.36 at 5.000%(5.548%APR) Your choice of the proper mortgage program will depend on several factors that will vary from one person to the next.These factors that should be considered include: Budget Constraints Length of Time in Home Voluntary Pre-Payment Plans Possible Changing Interest Rates At Local Lender,we specialize in this type of Mortgage Planning. Please call me or e-mail me at your earliest convenience to discuss in more detail. 4ample em ons ration Account Lender NMLS ID 000000 Sample Lender 12345 Any Lender Street Any Lender Town, IL 60010 Office: (5551 123-4567 Mobile: (555) 666-7777 Fax: (222) 333-4444 E-mail: Demonstration Account Web Site: WNW.lenderwebsite.com Sample Lender Interest Rate Information Updated as of 9/16/2019 9:24:10 AM.Interest rates change daily.Please contact me for the current rates. See conditions below. APR = Annual Percentage Rate. Cr These products and interest rates are subject to change at any time due to changing market conditions. Member Actual rates available to you may vary based upon a number of factors including your credit rating,size of FElic %AMR' down payment and amount of documentation provided.test disclaimer for Al Test 2 disclaimer for AZ Click here for SWFL relationship disclosure. Projected Payment Schedules for Loan Programs Created on: 9/18/2019 Purchase Price: $329,000 Sample Lender Property Address: 11762 Quail Village WAY- Demonstration Account NMLS ID NAPLES, FL 34119- MLS: 000000 dr,Sampue MLS Number: 217032288 12345 Any Lender Street Any Lender Town, IL 60010 Lender SWFL 217032288 (555) 123-4567 char.theiner@rateplug.com 30 Year Fixed: • Principal& Interest payment is fixed for 30 years. • Mortgage Insurance will end in 4 Years and 7 Months. Projected Payments Loan Amount: $319,130 Down Payment: $9,870 Payment Calculation Years 1-30 Interest Rate/APR 4.375%/8.051%APR Principal&Interest $2,204.15 Estimated monthly Taxes, +$426 Insurance&HOA/Dues Mortgage Insurance +$199 Estimated Total Monthly $2,829 Payment USDA: • Principal& Interest payment is fixed for 30 years. Projected Payments Loan Amount: $322,354 Down Payment: $9,870 Payment Calculation Years 1-30 Interest Rate/APR 4.125%/4.657%APR Principal&Interest $1,562.29 Estimated monthly Taxes, +$426 Insurance&HOA/Dues Mortgage Insurance +$94 Estimated Total Monthly $2,082 Payment USDA 30 year: • Principal& Interest payment is fixed for 30 years. Projected Payments Loan Amount: $322,354 Down Payment: $9,870 Payment Calculation Years 1-30 Interest Rate/APR 5.000%/5.548%APR Principal&Interest $1,730.46 Estimated monthly Taxes, + $426 Insurance& HOA/Dues Mortgage Insurance + $94 Estimated Total Monthly $2,250 Payment RatePlug © 2019 RatePlug, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Patent Pending , GrecoSherry From: GrecoSherry Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 8:50 AM To: 'William Arndt' Subject: RE: Email contact Good morning, Is this a condo or a single family home? Also, it is a 3 bedroom with a den. Can you give me a rental with just a 3 bedroom and 2 bath. I am also looking for a condo rental and mortgage payment. Thank you Sherry Clreco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter From: William Arndt<bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:58 AM To: GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Email contact Rental with in 1/2 mile of Allura. One of 27 withing 1 mile of Allura Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:01 PM From: "GrecoSherry" <Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> To: "bill.arndt@mail.com" <bill.arndt@mail.com> Subject: Email contact Good afternoon, Here is my contact information when you complete the report. Thank you. Skerry CJreco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.GrecoCa colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 GrecoSherry From: William Arndt <bill.arndt©mail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:59 AM To: GrecoSherry Subject: Re: RE: Email contact Attachments: Mortgage Information_SWFL11762 Quail Village WAY - NAPLES, FL 34119 - MLS_ 217032288.pdf Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 8:54 AM From: "GrecoSherry" <Sherry.Greco©colliercountyfl.gov> To: "William Arndt" <bill.arndt@mail.com> Subject: RE: Email contact Thank you for the information. As discussed yesterday with the Commissioner. Can you please put from the immediate area of Allura, an excel chart of what the monthly rent and/or mortgage if you were to rent in Allura, mortgage or rent in a condo and mortgage or rent in a house. Thank you so much. Sher] 4reco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov 3 Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter From: William Arndt <bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:12 PM To: GrecoSherry <Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Bill Arndt <bill.arndt@mail.com> Subject: Re: Email contact Sherry, Sorry it took so long getting back to you. Here is the information I gathered for you. Didn't know how you wanted to frame it, but I am here to help. I kept the list to within 5 miles of Arthrex. Going out further picks up another 250+ properties Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:01 PM From: "GrecoSherry" <Sherry.GrecoOcolliercountvfl.gov> To: "bill.arndt@mail.com" <bill.arndt(amail.com> Subject: Email contact Good afternoon, Here is my contact information when you complete the report. Thank you. S6erry CJneco Executive Coordinator to 4 a Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherrv.GrecoCa colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 GrecoSherry From: William Arndt <bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:58 AM To: GrecoSherry Subject: Re: Email contact Attachments: Vasari.pdf Rental with in 1/2 mile of Allura. One of 27 withing 1 mile of Allura Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:01 PM From: "GrecoSherry" <Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> To: "bill.arndt@mail.com" <bill.arndt@mail.com> Subject: Email contact Good afternoon, Here is my contact information when you complete the report. Thank you. SSierrs c reco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter 6 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. GrecoSherry From: Bill Arndt <SWFL@southeastmatrixmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:18 AM To: GrecoSherry Cc: bill.arndt@mail.com Subject: graphs of salse within 5 miles of Athrex Click the text below to view your property report: View in Portal Bill Arndt Domain Realty GRI SRES RENE 239-250-5045 bill.arndt@mail.com Bonita Springs and Naples Delivered By CoreLogic, Inc. 140 Pacifica, Irvine, CA 92618 Click this link if you wish to Unsubscribe. 8 GrecoSherry From: GrecoSherry Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:55 AM To: 'William Arndt' Subject: RE: Email contact Thank you for the information. As discussed yesterday with the Commissioner. Can you please put from the immediate area of Allura, an excel chart of what the monthly rent and/or mortgage if you were to rent in Allura, mortgage or rent in a condo and mortgage or rent in a house. Thank you so much. S6erry e reco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter From: William Arndt<bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:12 PM To: GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Bill Arndt<bill.arndt@mail.com> Subject: Re: Email contact Sherry, Sorry it took so long getting back to you. Here is the information I gathered for you. Didn't know how you wanted to frame it, but I am here to help. I kept the list to within 5 miles of Arthrex. Going out further picks up another 250+ properties Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:01 PM From: "GrecoSherry" <Sherry.Greco@colliercountvfl.gov> To: "bill.arndt@mail.com" <bill.arndt@mail.com> Subject: Email contact Good afternoon, 9 Here is my contact information when you complete the report. Thank you. Arty Chaco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 10 r ' J Z _ It 4 v c o D o p Uq 0 F. c w -c c P C V R - v N W c ' . (17 a a (D J ro •cu LD N D n A CU D oS, rel N N O A A O O c ai v D C Cli D n (D CO CM CD - :4 a i= r it 'el m Cn I 1 -�„ a i.:-.....1:-., ' ,, x-4 $ ,. n _ DV III X i � i C '0 of + • '• 8 , C A 's O to ,-; —— C m i.\. {.. I. • .w , C 4 i t' 'tua, .,`t. '"-,'V --, -----+roar*i a rrww m C ' fi . ma '' t . m2A j i z' \ is ,, 1 X114,4. , rGn f t \`�:� `�� a µ e: i ! ti 1 Vis- \� imp' {y t i }k ttt 1 *_ J A 1 et C E „_ � �' n� --7-i- — I Cu Q rn = 0 v-' a a•' C 3 ET c) co c.'-' N = 0 N I F—' = CD , H� ~' (DCD w -4==$. o o Ch C = r- O 00 h--% = O 00 N :v • CF 0 i Ca) O r-+• aLill 00 p cam—' O cis tD ai f7 —s 1 N = C -P ' • n D CD N '• 0- = n O N ' CVr, N r.'F _ N-) (-0 = = —s00 • r--t C •= -• , .--1: 0 f D -T=om O t.n = ' 2 Le) 0.7 ' _ NJ ' r-41-- C ' w C C CO rn N A • D C7 b o o Cp = (D -� w N D C o i 0 D rD Lel r+ • rD w N w V CDC -.1.- WO' - - , ! � R , 2 m Og22?? Zt | f; - # \ | t » i) ] ) \ ® , a $ » a § © > \ ,z` B | . ƒ| o 4 / ) f / / ¥- § - - ; a 7 ` � (7 J } § [ ) } / / ; 2( i(i R. • = «7 } \ ` \ \ \ { \ k) //,, /� } ) / \ ■ ; » ,-±. \ / ° ® - , E` \§/ F % 5 / \ \ - ƒ; f ) ] ƒ ƒ ; ` - '? [ r / -,,, K \ \ # 2 § e ; # ! \ } ki7i / § k 2 { a [ / ] 4 § # k n a x \ ) \ • f ) » \ * } ; ! k5 ■ \ � § E' It ! / \ B \ - a7 - � » ) ` 65 5 3 )i 9 § J ( ( \ . f § / (k - k } / ƒ } { 2t) o 5 � \ k $ ) ? 4 $� Cl. > ( M" 0- X fD r r+ rD 3 m-1 fp 0 -1 rD NJ r) o o 0 3 3 V. V) 0 = o = � D z -S CD p O cr) (D —% D (D < CD �. CD CD CD —. • OC D p CU = cn CSD �, D CD <. -hO 0n oD73 CU -10 • III. ■ ■ ■ ■ •■ ill t 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 3 CD 0- 0 T 0 -I 0O 0 71Nc 00 m -v). 11A s. (3) 0 0 O n d1 c O 0 -' V O 00 O `< O ni 3 cu Wows o moo CD17 CI) C y hi �, �• , m �' o • a N N .8 N (D `d -G CD- c) m o o. D o v Oa A- , m oCID T— CD C ' + I* O !1) c4 v mai O g cla�. 1-45.. Q- rsi° o 0" V' ayo o N CD yt A G P• CD P CCD H N o W ¢' CD N0 o a (1)% o N rn ,-d Q, o i— m LO cs � o � `ca v ° O 0 q,R P a0 5' B qP c1Cr� a n rt bR• � r+ D 6 p- 0 o QC CD CD � o Lk.) CD �CD A. —h 1-1 CU tNr-1- NI 0 G • MIII 11111/111111111111/ —h cn —I O ° • a) r-t- 3 , CO ca. > 0.) a) �D < O -„,. –5 cn O — • O Dn) -0 = CD C CD it CD aD CO = (/) - • 3C) .rt r-f O Da) ,......... co • v) o.... r--t- _ •N (D a) C/1 /,_. ie- VI a n �. rt. = o ai cn 0 NI C m CL O D 0 C O St v o O Fir a) VI St (1) XI NrD N F-' Q 0 c7:1' 0_ 0_ Q 0 pi. a 3 70in. N F--, N oti = = o ,^ NCU czii __ — Itn a Z 03 * 0 O O n V) • CD O r+ Om CU a Q 0 00 •i • a UJ 00 CrQ o 3 O •p E 3 ,.,..„ Q, o � 3 tn- 4, 0 • z N I = _ D -N-) '< VI N Ui N 70 = 0 F---‘ rt ...h E. <l 0 CU C 0 �' N v. OrD _D v fD Z CDC a ro (/) - CD D n m CO N v, N m C Lo rD 3 ui o E. * D N O O O Q Z cu cu -, CD (D O o O O a = W < O rD a w �, W CO M T �. W CD W W 0 a. 0 00 C o 3 SQ + CD CD O O N N NJ a „ W CT \ C V r+ N ,-+. CU a s a v) 0 z t,-). tlh _u-). ) 11) (In z O rn 0-, \ O Dci 0 — rano > O 0 O ,�* 'V 0 O O w 03 co 'i 1 N W JJWO12 CD *• O� O Om rf o. W N - 00 crcz " MI O O 7• 0 g 0 ro in- in in- O z N rt o , --..... co -__, --Ni CAI = 3 D Cr) N N Cu 7• 0 3 .• * O E CD '* UJ -u.)- W ((D M 0 N 0 D O O O C S > 0 r v17CM N 0O O D imc 04 CD lDO CD Ort CD < v `• 3 fl' v ' 3 CD o Q < n Z v v 13-1 O. 3 R m n n S a n A 2i - - m 3 :4 D a ' n3 � A bo g listings N m AO N 0 00 O O O 00 0 0 O 0 0 0 CD 0 0 IH «« 0, diallila CU NI Q6_ o r, ein II 1a. i MEN II dy vm r 0 at) I/� O C 117�/ 0' Q y Z m 3 �Gi- -• v m o q0 aDm =i o • V SQA N: r ■ i t 3 A: co __ —• ...... ,,,, O 69 0 -a to 0VI b EA N Eft 0 ill N O 0 0 0 0 0 j gaud IIIIIIIM C 1 • 6 N d c ��• s g na F Asa a ot" o er 1 I o o g o g 8 ppp4 �' o 0 1 8 0 0 d 8 O 0 hliX O 3 tn8IIIIIIIIIIIIII ,w b° ' Y p —h KN1 mmmr 0 W -"4O P.r c o Wa MI o R aM=11 N to CU N 1 ;II) o CD b rII K ki to t s¢• m i• S� nr Sop _. . r 9 �. , i = A r i I. , r o 0 V , C Lo 3 D C..1..6... �� 0 0 I m 0 . . . 0 . . e * 0 N . - !: N 0 0 N U0 :+ bo pc 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ad Arth re RECEIVED September 6, 2019 SEP 1 2 2019 aFRC COUNTY Collier County Board of County Commissioners �QARR OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner William McDaniel Commissioner Penny Taylor Commissioner Burt Saunders Commissioner Andy Solis Commissioner Donna Fiala RE: Allura RPUD PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 Dear Commissioners: I would like to thank you again for inviting me to speak at the July 9, 2019, Commission Meeting. Please accept this letter of support for Stock Development's proposed Allura project scheduled for final adoption at the September 24, 2019 BOCC meeting. As you are aware, Arthrex has long been a proponent of expanding the housing options within Collier County. While I only have a high level knowledge of this project, I believe it will be an attractive housing option for young professionals and essential service personnel. I ask the Commission to consider approving this project and consider additional measures in the future to allow Collier County, Collier Schools, and all other employers to attract and retain its employees. s2gcerely„2� David Bumpous Senior Director of Operations Arthrex Inc. Arthrex Inc.1370 Creekside Boulevard,Naples,Florida 34108-1945•Tel:800-933-7001 or 239-643-5553•Fax:239-591-6980•www.arthrex.com Janiary 117,2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 17,2019 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 Joseph Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt,Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman,School District Representative Page 1 of 79 January 17,2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the 9 a.m.January 17th 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: Would you-all please remain standing for a moment. Joe Schmitt was our previous developmental services administrator,and he worked with a lady who just passed away. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'd just like to take a moment of silence to recognize an employee who was with us for 15 years,just the consummate professional planner. Unfortunate circumstances, she passed away this past week, Kay Deselem. And, unfortunately, again, I will not be able to attend the ceremonies. I have to head out of town after the meeting. but I'd just like to take some time and each of us can, in our own way,take a moment of silence for Kay Deselem. Thank you. (A moment of silence was taken.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again,thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Joe. With that, we'll move to roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. 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 HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman,we have a quorum of seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a-- it will probably be a lengthy agenda today, so I talked to some of the members. I heard that some people need to leave at 3 o'clock or close to three,or I think it was 3:30 would work for quite a few of us or all of us. So with that in mind, I'd like to suggest that wherever we are in the process today,at about 3 o'clock we start weighing whether we should continue or break, and break no later than 3:30 and continue whatever is left for the following meeting. Does that work for you guys? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's--Ray, I don't have any changes to the agenda. We have three--four advertised items. Basically, items have come back to us,the first three,and then we've got a pollution control ordinance at the end. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Page 2 of 79 A January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. A couple issues to clear up. First of all,January 31st,we're meeting in Immokalee at 10 o'clock. I think all of you have been notified about transportation to get out there. So if you've not responded,you might want to do that. Does anybody know if they're not going to make the January 31st meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then on the 7th of February,we have a regular meeting. There was some confusion about moving that entire meeting to the evening. It's an LDC meeting,and not all of it needed to be an evening meeting,and there was too much there to be able to finish in an evening meeting, so we're going to retain the February 7th meeting,and it will be held in this room as normal for those items that can be discussed during the daytime. And then an evening meeting had to be held for two items,and those two items and any cleanup items will be heard on the 28th of February,and that evening meeting will start at 5:05 in this boardroom. And if you haven't been notified by that,I think Ray's going to put it together to make sure we get that on the calendar. Is that correct,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: That's correct. I'll coordinate with the staff,and we'll make sure that that notice is done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 28th of February. Does anybody know if--and it's a long ways in advance,but do you all plan to be there? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question. I,for some reason,have the 21st of February in my calendar. Are we meeting that day,too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,our regular meeting would be the first and third Thursday, so the third Thursday would probably be the 21st. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would meet then unless there's no cases. But right now I can't tell you that information. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we've got three February meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now,yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for those of you who haven't been on the Board too long, we periodically will have special meetings for numbers of things, including the AUIR and other special topics like that. Now,as far as the 7th meeting,does everybody know if they're not--anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the 3rd and the 28th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll keep everything on the schedule,then,as we just discussed. Approval of the minutes. We were sent two sets of minutes electronically. November 15th,we'll take that first. Are there any changes to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded. Discussion? And I imagine Mr. Fry, you're abstaining because you weren't here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So discussion? Page 3 of 79 1141E (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Six with one abstention. The next item was the December 6th meeting. Same question: Any changes? If none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. Is there--you're abstaining again,Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: 1 was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were here on the 6th. 1 forgot what day you started. Okay. With that in mind,all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. Ray, BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners held a meeting on January 8th, but there were no land use on that agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report: To be expeditious today,there is none. We're just going to move right into our hearings. The consent agenda,we have no items for that. ***So that takes us to the first public hearing. These are two items that have been sent back to the Planning Commission. They will be discussed together. The vote today will be a little different than what we're used to. The advertised--the items are PL-20160002584/CPSS2017-1 and PL20160002577. Both of those are for a change to--the first one is for the change to the Comp Plan,the second one is for a conditional use for the same location, both for the Grace Romanian Church on Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures? We'll start with Tom. Page 4 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. EASTMAN: I had a brief conversation with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. Some emails with Anna Weaver,and I think I saw something on Channel 2, 5,and 7,and I didn't watch CNN,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I spoke with staff and with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure,plus a telephone conversation with Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I --all the same plus I did talk with the applicant's team as a whole, not just Anna,and I've also talked to some of the people in Golden Gate Estates, the Golden Gate Civic Association and some of the neighbors. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen,just emails. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Email with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, before we start,I'm going to restate what the Planning Commission--not the Planning Commission--what the Board has asked us to do,and it basically--Mr. Klatzkow summed it up before the Board voted to send it back to us.and it was that we would ask the Planning Commission to look at it again to see if they can tighten,you know, somewhat the uses to make it more compatible with the community and then bring it back. So what we're doing here today is reviewing some additional compatibility standards as requested by the Board,and then this body will determine if they want to send that to the Board of County Commissioners as we discuss. And with that.Anna,we'll leave it up to you to start out. MS. WEAVER: Okay. Good morning. My name is Anna Weaver.and I'm a planner with Davidson Engineering representing the Grace Romanian Baptist Church. My presentation will include Companion Items 9A1 and 2. This is the third presentation to the Board, so you may be well aware of the project,but I'm going to briefly review, for the record.and include any revisions that we've made since our last hearing. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. It consists of two parcels and is approximately 6.25 acres. The applicant has two land-use petitions under review for this property. The first is a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. This is to include the site as an exception to the locational criteria for a church in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The second request is for a conditional-use approval to allow a church in the Estates zoning district. The conditional use is reliant upon the approval of the Growth Management Plan amendment,which is why we've requested them concurrently. So first I'll go over the Growth Management Plan amendment. Here's an excerpt of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan map with the subject property identified with a star right here. Florida Statutes identify review criteria for these small-scale amendments,which are listed here. County planning staff has found our application to be consistent with all the criteria and recommended approval for the amendment. So next I'll go through the conditional-use petition. Currently, the site is within the Estates zoning district. This is not a rezone request. Permitted uses in the district include single-family dwellings,family-care facilities,essential services,and educational plants. Churches are listed in the Estates district as an allowable conditional use. This means that Page 5 of 79 January 17,2019 churches have always been contemplated in this district,but each request is reviewed individually and approved on a conditional basis. So here's the conceptual site plan for the project. We've identified one ingress/egress point north on Golden Gate Boulevard. The development area will include up to 24,000 square foot of primary building to hold the sanctuary and other typical ancillary rooms for the church. Just south of that is an area reserved for outdoor recreation and the possibility of a pastor's residence, which is limited in size in the conditions of approval that I'll go through in a few slides. Highlighted in green are the conceptual areas for preserve and stormwater retention,and we've also identified that a minimum of 129 parking spaces will be required and provided based on the 300-seat sanctuary. So next I'll go through the proposed conditions of approval. As Chairman Strain already went over,at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting on November 13th,we presented a list of conditions to include recommendations by this board. The county commissioners asked if we would return in order to write more detailed language in the conditions to address compatibility. So in preparation for this morning's hearing, we met with the Chair and discussed revised language to alleviate any remaining concerns. I've identified in red lines today for you the changes suggested and agreed to since we presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Number one limits church service hours to the following: Maximum of one service on Saturdays between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.; a maximum of three services on Sundays between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.; maximum of three services on recognized holidays;Thursday evening services between 6 p.m.and 9 p.m.; weekday church-related meetings and gatherings between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. for up to 50 parishioners except for weddings and funerals. Weekday meetings and gatherings between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. will be up to 100 parishioners except for weddings and funerals. and we've also included Easter Sunrise and New Year's Eve services will be permitted limited to indoor activity only. Number 2 limits the floor area of the primary structure to 2,400 square feet and up to 300 seats. Number 3 states that the church shall provide a maximum of 140 parking spaces. Number 4 limits prohibited uses. So we've included daycare. food services, like soup kitchens or catering open to the public. Exceptions to that include church-related food services associated with activities like fellowship,weddings, funerals,or other similar events. Other prohibited uses are educational services and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Number 5 lists permitted accessory uses in conjunction with the church, and so we've included outdoor multi-purpose play area,gazebos,and covered pavilions,a pastor's residence no larger than 3,500 square feet,storage sheds collectively no more than 1,800 square feet,and counseling services similar to AA or NA. So we've added language to differentiate between drug and alcohol rehab and counseling services. Drug and alcohol rehab we would say is a medical facility,which we never intend to be, and fellowship-type counseling services are typical to a neighborhood church and provide a safe space for those needing guidance. Number 6 is a condition relating to the location of signage for the property. It states that signs must be within 350 feet of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate and are prohibited along Weber Boulevard. Number 7 allows for leasing of the facility only under certain circumstances. A representative from the church must operate and staff any event leasing--and leasing must be limited to charitable events: Weddings,funerals,educational events,events associated with holidays,and governmental events. We've added language to say that leasing to other congregations shall be prohibited. Page 6 of 79 January 17,2019 Number 8 limits special events to a maximum of 12 per year. Carnivals and outdoor amplified sound are prohibited. This was revised per the decision that we had at the Board of County Commissioners'meeting in November. Number 9 specifically prohibits all outdoor amplified music or sounds. Number 10 provides prohibition--prohibits lighting to the outdoor recreation area and allows typical residential lighting for the pastor's residence. And then No. 11 specifies detailed lighting conditions on the property to allow for minimal impact to surrounding properties. Number 12 prohibits any church steeple lighting. Number 13 specifies that an enhanced 15-foot Type B buffer shall be provided along the abutting residential property to the southeast. This buffer was reviewed and confirmed with the property owner who requested this enhanced vegetation rather than a wall. Number 14 is the actual building height for roof types,appurtenances,and screening shall be a maximum of 50 feet, and actual building height for the steeple is limited to a maximum of 60 feet. Number 15 states that in the event that a dumpster is needed, it must be placed on the western edge of the preserve,and the church can coordinate with Waste Management to determine if roll-out receptacles are acceptable. Number 16 limits the project to 12 weekdays p.m. peak-hour trips and 240 Saturday and Sunday peak-hour trips per the ITE manual trip generation rates for a church in effect at time of SDP. Seventeen is the typical language used for places of worship to indicate that if a specific event is predicted to or creates significant traffic,the owner will be required to hire law enforcement to direct the traffic. And, finally,No. 18 requires a wall along the south property line adjacent to First Avenue Southwest. That condition came out of our last hearing with the Planning Commission, and it is also required by code. So I'd like to conclude by saying that the applicant would like to request the Planning Commission move to recommend approval of the conditional use and small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment consistent with staffs recommendations and the previous recommendation from this board. So with that,I'll take any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission members? I know we've heard this a couple times before. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you go back-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add one thing real quickly before that? For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I spoke to Mr. Fryer yesterday, and I wanted to confirm for him on the record--his question was about the steeple. Was it 50 feet plus 60 feet for a steeple for a potential of 1 10 feet. and it's not. It's 60 feet total for the steeple. So whatever language we need to clarify in the record, steeple height is 60 feet for the actual height,not 60 feet on top of the 50-foot building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The steeple's 10 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically, it can be at 10 feet above the 50-foot building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record,I did speak to Mr. Yovanovich about the weddings and funerals, and I sent an email. My only concern is that the language--and I understand that funerals and weddings are unique and not a set schedule. Page 7 of 79 January 17,2019 I just want to make sure that the language doesn't put you in a predicament that you can be found not in compliance with the language by holding a wedding on Saturday morning and then a service on Saturday morning. So can you put that section of the language back up again? MS. WEAVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or a funeral on Friday night and another service. Because you have the exception of weddings and funerals. Again,as I pointed out, I think, in my email,for clarity,do you want to say wedding and funerals are unique circumstances? The question I rose is because, like I said,you have here shown you'll have a minimum of one service. Okay,that's fine. That works. If there's a wedding,that's another service on Saturday,and that fulfills the requirement. It doesn't put you in a box of being accused of violating the conditions of this conditional use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Our intention was by having"A"deal with worship services and then "C"deals with other church-type meetings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: A wedding would be another church-type meeting. And our intention was to say. if we had a wedding during the day,the 50-person cap wouldn't apply,or a funeral during the day,the 50-person cap wouldn't apply,and if we had a wedding at night,the 100-person cap wouldn't apply. So we put it under the"other meetings" so it wouldn't be confused with worship services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I'm fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: So hopefully that addresses your concern on our behalf,and we appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the Planning Commission have any questions? Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just have one. And I remember when this was here before. and maybe it was asked before. On that same page,just curious,you use the reference of "Bible study," which I attend a Bible study weekly that happens to start at 8:30. I was just curious as to a Bible study or a networking meeting or things of those natures why the 10 a.m. Was that to appease drive times and traffic? MS.WEAVER: Yep. We wanted to stay out of the peak hour. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So 10 a.m. is--after 9 isn't after peak hour. MS. WEAVER: Well,the peak hour is 7 to 9 a.m.,and I think we were trying to make sure that people aren't trying to get to site in time, so we tried to stay as--keep it as outside of the peak hours but also using the typical meetings that they have today. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will also, I'm sure, have some comments or questions after the public speaks, but just to tee up some of my basic concerns with respect to this. First of all. I take it that we are--the charge that has come to us from the Board is to look at the limitations on use. So I'll confine my comments to that; however, I must say that I am not at all comfortable with the level of any government intrusion into the holding of church services,and it makes me uncomfortable. If an agreement can be reached of some kind to satisfy most of the residents that is on that basis, I won't stand in the way, but it strikes me as not exactly the way we should be proceeding. Now,the other comment that I'm not sure is part of what our charge has been from the County Commission--and, Mr.Chairman, if I'm outside that charge,please stop me. But to me the issue of compatibility is most offended by the overall size of the facility; 24,000 square feet is a very large church. ■ Page 8 of 79 January 17,2019 And I did some research online and found some references to comparisons, numbers of square feet versus numbers of communicants or seats in the nave of a church, and also bearing allowances for how many square feet per person in the nave. And the numbers that I found pointed more to a size--for 300 members, pointed more to a size of 12,000 to 18,000 square feet than 24-. So to me that would have been a way of accomplishing a lot of this. I don't know if that's part of our charge or not, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that relates to compatibility and building size certainly does. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that would be the way I would prefer to see than intruding into when services can be held and what kinds of services and the like. MR. YOVANOVICH: We talked about this in our call,and I have had a chance to talk to our client on that. We are not going to go away from the commitment we made on when we will have--or how many worship services we can have within the time frame. So that's--that is a commitment we've made,and we can live with that commitment. I've also--we could also limit the size of the building to the 18,000 square feet upper end, because here's Fellowship Hall.there's classrooms,you know, for Sunday school,and there's space. So we think that the 18,000 square feet--although we think 24,000 is a number that is legitimate, I understand the research you've done,and if 18,000 will make the community more comfortable with it,fine,we'll go down to the 18.000. We do think that the real generator for activity on the property is the 300 seats in the sanctuary,but certainly we don't want to have an overabundance of accessory space. So if 18,000 is what will satisfy the community for further compatibility,we will agree to that change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have for now, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I would think there might be other limiting factors. You know,the size of the building doesn't really put a limit on the people that can come in as much as the parking does, so-- I think a lot of this-- I don't care about the size of the building,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, if the applicant's willing to consider a different size, it doesn't hurt. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we were really trying to be sensitive to the community by putting in the limit of the number of people who can be there during the day to a reasonable number,and then in the evenings,to a reasonable number,and the times that they can be there to address concerns about people going to work and kids going to school;that's why you have,you know,those hours of operation for during the week in there. So we believe that we have--we've attempted to make sure we address compatibility with the community and address all of their concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm going to withhold any comments till I hear the-- I guess there's some public speakers. And so,with this,we'll move next to the staff and then the public speakers. James? MR. SABO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. James Sabo, for the record. Zoning Division has no issues with the revised conditions. We recommend approval. There are a number of speakers as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? Page 9 of 79 January 17,2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. James,would these conditions,that has been put forth by the applicant,make this more compatible for the neighborhood than the previous conditions that were submitted to the Commission? MR. SABO: Yes,question mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SABO: That's not really our call. I mean, I don't have a problem with it. I said that there's no issues. I think it's compatible. We think it's compatible but, ultimately,you set the policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is this more compatible? I mean,you're the zoning people. You're telling me you don't have an opinion as an expert member of the zoning department? Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Those changes make it more compatible, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was looking for. Thank you. Sue? MS. FAULKNER: Sue Faulkner,Comprehensive Planning. I wanted to just let you know that I handed out some emails that I received after your packets were sent out, so you have those before you,and if you had any questions-- I can put any individual email up on the screen if you felt you needed to show anything else. And the staff has reviewed this project,and we find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Sue. Anybody have any questions of Sue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,the public speakers,please limit your discussion to five minutes. The redundancy is not necessary. If you agree with the speaker in front of you, if you want to just get up and say we agree with the previous speaker, that's great. And as your name is called, please come to either one of the mikes. They'll probably call out two names; if the second person is ready to speak after the first one. And with that,James,do you want to--who's going to make this--Pat? • COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: My only comment is I know some people came in late and weren't sworn in,so let's make sure if they haven't been sworn in,we do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be the first question you're asked. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman,the first two speakers, Sharon Griffith and Tom Griffith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If each of you will come up to the microphones. And, Sharon Griffith, if you'd take one of microphones you can start and,Tom Griffith,stand ready at the second one. MS.GRIFFITH: We're here for the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. Wrong case. This is the Grace Romanian Church. Is there any members of the public here wishing to speak on the Grace Romanian Church? MR. SABO: Sorry. I had the wrong number on the agenda item. Sorry. Is Mr. Schortemeyer here? Are you here for the church? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Yes. MR. SABO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you call the next speaker so they're ready to come up. MR. SABO: Mr.John Kelly. Page 10 of 79 3 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I am sworn in,thank you. Good morning,honorable commissioners. The first thoughts I had --my name is Jim Schortemeyer,and I'm a resident of Unit 4,which is the location of the proposed church. I have several issues and concerns with that. Before I start, I'd like to thank you all for your service on this board. I can tell just by the few minutes that I've been in here how trying and intensive your work is, so I do appreciate your work. I have four issues that I'd like to touch on briefly regarding the church. The first of those would be traffic patterns and problems: the general lifestyle and compatibility issues that have been raised;wildlife concerns that I have not heard in this brief time. I'm sure they've been addressed in the proposal;and then perhaps some other considerations perhaps following up on what the size of the structure might be and some other compatibility issues that might be addressed in the proposal. At the present time, I would recommend that the proposal --that the proposal be denied. The traffic patterns and problems that we already have within Unit 4 are well known. Anybody that travels that area,and Weber Boulevard in particular,knows what those patterns are and how they've changed with projects. The speed limit's been reduced from 35 to 30 on Weber Boulevard already,and there's very confusing and limited access to Unit 4 from the other-- from other roads. So adding traffic to that particular area that's already a problem coupled with we are in a growth phase and we are continuing to grow out within Unit 4,there are several new homes under construction,all of those things will make it an incompatible traffic load within Unit 4. Lifestyle within Unit 4 it's the same as all of the Estates.and people that have moved to the Estates have moved there for the peace and tranquility. I had the peace and tranquility in my particular neighborhood within Unit 4. The first time that it was disturbed significantly was when Big Cypress Elementary School was constructed, and lo and behold,the first night that the water plant was in operation, from approximately a half a mile away, that was my first disturbance from an audio standpoint,and that has just increased. This church and other types of uses of that nature will only make that worse in the future. So--and the general lifestyle,the remote Estates lifestyle is also dependent on the fact that we have lots of wildlife that uses the area,as you well know. Unit 4 is one of those areas being considered for bear-proof garbage cans being provided throughout the area. So we have a bear population;we have occasional panthers;we have a deer population. All of those animals have been hit on Weber Boulevard with existing traffic patterns. If, in fact,the area's going to remain compatible to all of the wildlife in the area,we have to consider other restrictions. And then the church and provisional uses,we already have a cluster development of provisional uses within Unit 4,and it's considerable. It consists of a church--two churches, actually,a school,and a park, Max Hasse Park,which adds,again,considerable traffic,especially on First Avenue. Thank goodness I don't live on First Avenue. I do feel for the folks that do live on First Avenue,but their lifestyle has already been compromised. This would only further compromise that. So the only thing I have in terms of other considerations and sort of looking into my crystal ball and seeing how far along this process is,the other key thing that we have is, if you're familiar with Weber Boulevard in that vicinity,there is a walkway/bicycle path on Weber Boulevard. Unlike other areas where that pathway might be 10 or 15 feet from the road, it's only about five feet from Weber Boulevard which doesn't make it real safe with existing traffic patterns. But that is a popular walkway and bikeway within the Estates,and it also provides access, ultimately,to Max Hasse Park and to the school. For people who are just using that for a recreational purpose. it's not any kind of a loop Page 11 of 79 January 17,2019 system or anything else. One of the things that would make this more compatible would be perhaps a trail that encircled the subject property;would allow for walking and biking activity with some enhancements on the canal side and on the First Avenue side. There would actually be a loop trail that people could use and enjoy in the area,and that would actually enhance the current use, and perhaps with additional safety improvements on Weber Boulevard,we would actually be increasing the compatibility. With that, I thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan,and then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been retired a long time. Where do I know you from? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did work for the State of Florida for a number of years with the Fish and Wildlife Commission. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's why. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: And so that's probably where we have met. Good to see you again. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you for mentioning the loop trail, because that's exactly the kind of thing that I, for one,want to hear from the public today about,because my understanding of our charge is is that we're to try to identify other points of connection where we could come up with a win-win or closer to a win-win, and so I appreciate your mentioning that. I'm going to ask you this question: Are there any other restrictions, limitations,or changes of a reasonable nature that you believe would make the residents happier about having this church in the neighborhood? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Well,as I listened to your comments this morning,the size of the facility is of great concern to me,and I think not just for this development but going forward. Within the Estates zoning and compatibility issues,a typical Estates home on two-and-a-half acres might put a footprint of about 10,000 square feet. Now,that sounds like a lot,but on two-and-a-half acres,that's 10,000 square feet of roughly-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 100,000. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: -- 100,000,thank you. So it's a 90 percent retention of either natural areas or at least green space. So if exceptional uses are planned --and they do have some buffer zones in there,but I think they ought to even be held,perhaps,to a higher standard in terms of setbacks and things of that nature; whereas, for an Estates house, I think there's 105-foot setback from the roadway. Perhaps--so that would force a traditional --a conditional use to have a larger tract of land with more green space, more protected area,and greater setbacks,and that would promote compatibility with the existing nature of the area,at least in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I think that would be important. Your size--the size limit on the church,I would go along with that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,question. Did you attend the first two meeting on this church? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did not. My first involvement was to write the County Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a yes or no. Page 12 of 79 5 January 17,2019 MR. SCHORTEMEYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you see the language that was put on the overhead by the applicant today in the black and red writing? She walked through the changes they were proposing to make. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did get a chance to look at those. That really was first exposure to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let me tell you why that's important. This panel previously recommended approval for the church without that red writing. The Board got that,and there was discrepancies on the Board as to is this the right thing to do? Should it be more compatible? Is there a way to get it so that some of the residents aren't so opposed? So the Board sent it back to us and said, see if you can find other issues that could be modified to make this more compatible, tightening it up. So the question from us today is not is the church--should the church go there or not go there. It's what on that black-and-white lettering can be changed to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. And that's how I'm looking at this. And so what we came out with is suggestions by the applicant where they would reduce the activities;they would reduce the number of people;they would reduce now the size of the facility;they were going to limit the amount of days they can operate to be more compatible than it was before it was sent back to us today. And so,really,we're trying to find out, from your perspective,now that you've spoken so eloquently on the whole issue,are the red lettering and the red changes that are being proposed, in your opinion, more compatible for the neighborhood or less? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did not get a chance to look at all of them closely but,general speaking, it seemed to be that those were honest attempts to make it more compatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the task we've been charged with reviewing, and that's what I'm trying to stick to as far as understanding what we can do today, and that's why I was asking you that question. So thank you. I wanted to understand that. I appreciate it. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: You're welcome. And thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. SABO: John Kelly is the next speaker,and David Meffen can come up to the other mike. MR. KELLY: Hello. I'm John Kelly,resident at 221 Weber Boulevard South. And I would like to echo the words of my neighbor and note that traffic is a sincere impact on Weber Boulevard South. And we're most concerned that the same thing that happens on this corner will happen on the opposite corner,and if the use--any use greater than that of a single-family residence really isn't appropriate,as we already have a number of uses on First Avenue Southwest which were mentioned,the primary ones being Max Hasse Community Park, the Big Cypress Elementary School,the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall with two worship services, and what was the Cypress Woods Presbyterian Church,which has since been purchased by Grace Romanian,and I believe services are being offered there. At the time this proposal initially came before you all,that church was pretty much a failed church and there were no services being held. At this time there are services being held,and it brings to question in my mind whether or not another traffic impact analysis might not be warranted,as there is increased traffic now,and with their second church coming up within the neighborhood,just very concerned. Being as this is likely to move forward given the Board's--the Commission's charge, I Page 13 of 79 January 17,2019 would ask that you also look at the height of the steeple. I would ask that it be no higher than the allowed building height in the area,not in excess of 50 feet. And then I would also like you to look at prohibiting on-street parking and seeing if there's not an enforcement mechanism for that. Much of what I heard earlier that the applicant has said, I don't see how much of that is enforceable. It's a nice thought,but I don't see how it is enforceable. But,anyway,that's what I have to say to you today. Thank you for your guidance and assistance to the community,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Ned has a question for you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I do when he's finished. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Kelly, I want to be sure I understand your position with respect to this parcel. Are you unable to accept any kind of a church on that parcel? MR. KELLY: Anything other than a single-family residence. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all you'd be willing to accept? MR. KELLY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,John,you're a planner with Collier County; is that correct? MR. KELLY: I am. I'm not here today in that capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but that's what your background is; is it fair to say? MR. KELLY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a planner,you're looking at the changes suggested by the applicant,do you see those as better in an attempt to seek compatibility? I know in your long run you don't believe it's compatible under any condition,but are these better than what was there before? MR.KELLY: They are. I would only ask for the two changes that I offered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just wanted to make sure I understood that point, because that's the task that we're here to look at. MR. KELLY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,John. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you do also understand that the steeple's 10 feet, the proposed steeple? MR. KELLY: Correct,that's above the church. I assume that would be 60 feet. I would like things to remain at the 50 feet,exceptions to the code notwithstanding. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there other speakers,James? MR. SABO: Yes. Mr. David Meffen is next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And who's after Mr. Meffen? MR. SABO: Don Ward is after that. He can come up to the other podium. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay. Mr. Ward,you're up next, so be prepared to use this podium, if you don't mind. Go ahead, sir. Were you sworn in when we started out? MR. MEFFEN: Yes, I was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MEFFEN: Looking at the changes, I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to identify yourself for the record,even though they announced your name. MR. MEFFEN: David Meffen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. MEFFEN: Meffen. Page 14 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you spell that for the court reporter. MR. MEFFEN: M-e-f-f-e-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MEFFEN: I was at the original meetings for this church,and everything seemed to be in order, as a matter of fact. You know, what-- I didn't really give much input,and I left. And these changes just seem to be incompatible. I think it should be denied. It looks like they're increasing the hours. There's --and I know the game. The game is you try and get the permit in,and then you do changes. And I think we need to stick with the original agreement,what we did in the first NIM. And you see that the hours are going to be different. And I know that there's--there are changes coming down the road which,once this is okayed,then no one can fight with the changes. And I thought we had a really good plan in the beginning. But I can't see how increasing the hours would be in our interest. Now,again, I don't abut the property, so I don't have the same concerns that these other people do, but I don't think that,you know,ramming this through this Planning Commission is the way to go. I think sit down with the neighbors and see if we can alleviate all the concerns there. You know,a neighborhood meeting,you know,where it seems like they were snowing us just to get the permit,and then come back with the changes-- I don't think that's the way to go--and then ram it through here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I don't see how the hours have been expanded,and I did listen to the NIM. Could you be more specific on that point? MR. MEFFEN: Yeah, initially it was-- I think it was till 9 p.m., and it's increased where they're going to have two services Sunday morning, one service Sunday night. I don't have the original in front of me, but here you have drug and alcohol rehab was prohibited. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It still is. MR. MEFFEN: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It still is. MR. MEFFEN: Okay. And then down lower,counseling services for Alcoholics Anonymous,Narcotics Anonymous. You know, like the gentleman said before, I just don't think it can be enforced. And if you're going to allow it,you know,they're going to be bringing drug rehab into the center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's prohibited. MR. MEFFEN: It's prohibited,but it's not enforceable. And here you're allowing drug and rehab counseling,okay, but you're not allowing drug and alcohol rehab. You know,you could get federal funds. I'm sure it will help the church. You know,they'll bus people in. I just think it's a can of worms. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry to interrupt you,but is there a word other than "counseling"that you would find more appropriate,a way of describing AA and NA? MR. MEFFEN: Well, I mean,you know,at the initial meeting,you know,we wanted them to prohibit soup kitchens,you know,homeless at the site,et cetera,et cetera,and there was a reason for that. This is a residential area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me,sir. But my specific question is, is there a word that you would prefer to the word "counseling"that you think would take it farther away from the possibility of becoming something like rehabilitation? MR. MEFFEN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Page 15 of 79 • January 17,2019 MR. MEFFEN: I don't know. I'm just saying that this short time that we have here,you know, we might be able to hammer out the differences if we got together and sat down,but--you know, it just seems like they got the permit,and now they're going to make changes to it. I think it should be denied. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our next speaker? MR. SABO: Next speaker is Don Ward. Last speaker, Michael Ramsey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Ward, were you sworn in? MR. WARD: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The court reporter will take care of that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WARD: I do. My name is Don Ward. I reside at 4055 First Ave. Southwest. I just purchased my home less than a year ago,and it's,unfortunately,going to be directly across the street a five-story church that's going to be basically, from what I can see,operating the hours--although they're limiting the services--excuse me, limiting the church services, it looks like church-related services can go on almost all day except for two hours a day during traffic-- peak traffic patterns, if I'm reading this right. They're not limiting church-related service. They're only limiting the actual service; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they're-- I mean,could you put that red --the first paragraph back on the overhead. MS. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that will help. They're going to have one service on Saturdays,three services on—up to three services on Sundays,and then the recognized holidays. And then in evenings,they're going to have--they can have, I guess, Bible studies or things like that. During the day, they can have up to 50 parishioners attend things,with the exception of weddings and funerals. MR. WARD: Okay. I guess where I'm missing it is the church-related meetings and gatherings. It basically can happen at any time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,to be honest with you, if they didn't put it here, they most likely could still do it because that's considered a typical accessory use to a church, and most churches have daytime operations. They don't just shut--a lot of them,you know, they go on and have smaller gatherings which is--you know, that's what this is,so... MR. WEEKS: So it's basically going to be a full operation except for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not full. Fifty parishioners is--what is it,a sixth of the total parishioners that could be there. MR. WARD: Well,my main concern is is this is a residential area. I purchased my home. I'm on two-and-a-half acres, private. I have all kinds of wildlife in my yard, like the first gentleman was speaking. I had a bald eagle on my property the other day, both the male and the female. I have deer in the yard all the time. We don't need another big, basically,a commercial business right across the street at the main gateway to Golden Gate Estates. The other issue is the traffic. We've mentioned it over and over. This is supposed to be a small neighborhood church, is what it's--my understanding. One,you know, I appreciate limiting the size. That's at least going to help, but the--as far as it servicing the neighborhood,the fact when they closed Weber--the crossover at Weber,the people from Golden Gate Estates east of Collier Boulevard can't even get to the church. The only way they can get to the church is to come all the way to Collier Boulevard, head south on Collier Boulevard,and make a U-turn to come back Page 16 of 79 January 17,2019 to Golden Gate Boulevard to get into the church. There's no other access other than going Max Hasse. So,you know,even being a small neighborhood church,they can't even get to it. I mean, the access is very limited, I should say, to get to this church that's supposed to be servicing our community. Then we have the whole access issue in general. This main primary entrance into the church is within maybe 300 feet of two lanes turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard. Even when you're limiting the time that the church can operate,this is going to be a traffic nightmare. As soon as people are turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard,there are going to be entrances into this church and people exiting the church. And,you know,this is just-- it's a bad idea all along. There's tons of places in Collier County they can put a church. The other thing-- I didn't realize that they just opened the same church,just started services at another church right down the street. Do they really need another church within a couple miles from an existing church that they already have? I mean, I just think this is a bad idea for our community in general,and I think we should deny--you-all should deny the petition, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And there's a question from one of the commissioners. MR. WARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean,this has been in front of us it feels like a year,maybe not a full year, but a long time,and early on the plans called for ingress and egress off of Weber, and by popular demand that was approved. Are you saying that there needs to be more ingress and egress for local access? MR. WARD: I would say yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want traffic on Weber. directly-- MR. WARD: It's got to be somewhere or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is. It's on Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. WARD: But as soon as all of the traffic going out to the Estates,everyone that works out in the Estates--and I know they're not going to be open during peak hours,but there's traffic on that road all the time. There's tons of construction going on out in the Estates right now. There's constant traffic turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard. As soon as you turn onto Golden Gate Boulevard,you're going to have an entrance to the church. Why don't they look at the same traffic study that Collier County used to shut the cut-through that they go from Weber north to Weber south? There was a reason they stopped that--cut off that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They wanted to stop me from going to civic association meetings. They succeeded. MR. WARD: I bet it was. No. But there's a reason that they must have looked at the traffic pattern and said there's too much traffic in the area to allow that cut-through, and that's even further down--further east on Golden Gate Boulevard than this intersection will be. So,you know,that's my main issue with it: One, it being across the street from my home that I just purchased and,two,the traffic issue that it's going to cause for the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please. MR. SABO: Last speaker,Michael Ramsey. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning. My name's Michael Ramsey. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Page 17 of 79 January 17,2019 We've spent a lot of time-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: One more time on your name, sir. I'm sorry. Your last name? MR. RAMSEY: Michael R. Ramsey. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ramsey,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, were you sworn in? MR. RAMSEY: Yeah, I was sworn in and sworn out. Okay. So we've spent a lot of time. Our group has been out talking to the residents around this area,and I get feeling from talking to the Planning Commission and some others you don't really understand the area. This church will affect every person that lives on every road south down Weber: First, Third, Fifth,Seventh, and Ninth. Because of the traffic pattern,all the residents that live down at the end of each of these roads will be affected by this church,or this operation, let's put it that way. All of--the way the traffic pattern will operate, it affects the quality of life for everyone in that area,not just at that corner. The way the road is constructed,and I think the five roads,they all dead-end,and they all come out and exit through Weber,and most of them go down to Pine Ridge or White. That's the way the pattern flows. This will affect all of those people,and there's not just a quarter mile around it. Second--and it's been made clear in here,Golden Gate Estates is zoned and was created to be a residential area. Residential quality of life is extremely important out here. Everyone in this area moved there around this location for the quality of life. Now,on First Avenue Southwest. which abuts right--or exits right across the from the church, it is also an exit point for the other two churches mentioned;Max Hasse Park. The thing that's not been brought out,and there's guidelines for traffic studies and other issues out here. is that most of the operation or traffic issues will occur on holidays,after work hours,after peak hours,and on the weekends. So two churches,a park, and the school out there,there's no guidelines in Collier County's traffic studies for the cumulative effect of these issues on weekends and holidays. They don't consider it to be that important, so it's not really measured. Residents here are complaining. The ones we talk to are complaining about that because they see it. When Max Hasse Park has an event, let's take, for example,Halloween, there are cars parked on both sides of the road all the way down First Avenue Southwest from the park to Weber. That is an intrusion on the residential quality of life. This, cumulatively,will add to it. Last,the thing that was especially interesting is that if Grace Romanian Baptist Church has bought the other church down there across from--on Golden Gate Boulevard, why hasn't that been explored for expansion of future services? Because the traffic impacts would be way less. Most of all,the last thing that we saw on there that was especially a change from the previous, leasing to outside entities shouldn't be allowed. I know in the new one it said that leasing to outside congregations is prohibited,but leasing to outside operations is an issue,because you're getting in on more operations, sound, noise,and traffic. So,basically,Golden Gate Estates after talking with all these people out here, we think that the residential quality of life out here is more important than having this operation at this location, and it's especially dangerous,we think, for traffic. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike. Ned,again. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You've been before us previously,correct? Page 18 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. I love being up here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I know. And you represent a large group of people. do you not? You're president of-- MR. RAMSEY: Pretty wide variety,yes. Mostly Estates residents. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay,good. Our charge.as I understand it from the County Commission,was--and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.Chairman--not so much whether we're going to revote on church versus no church,but what's before us is can we try to find more ways of bringing the community and the church together. In other words--at least that's my understanding of what is in front of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's basically what I read that they assigned to us,yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So my question.specifically, for you, sir, not only you. individually, but your best sense of what the folks whom you represent would be interested in having,you've seen the redlining of the conditions that shows how it has been updated. Would you add any other provisions or points to that,or would you care to comment on -- MR. RAMSEY: Well, I just did comment on one. I do understand the charge here before you. I just think it's important to bring up this other stuff,because if you're going to operate within a very narrowly confined set of rules that doesn't apply to the whole subdivision,you're making me give you a recommendation to give us a bad project for the community? I don't think that's a very good thing for me to do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well,that's certainly your prerogative,but within the scope of our charge we're trying to find other points where,perhaps,the church could be asked to make concessions that would make having a church there more palatable to the neighborhood. Now's your chance to say that either for yourself or,perhaps,on behalf of the other community members with whom you're familiar. MR. RAMSEY: After studying this issue for quite some time,there is no compatible--this operation at that corner and location with traffic is not compatible with the residential quality of life that we expected to have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike,were you at the board hearing when this was discussed? MR. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you spoke? MR. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why they sent it back to us for negotiation instead just doing it themselves. Why? MR. RAMSEY: It was our opinion that--we've been going through this with Grace Romanian for this property for about two-and-a-half years. We had an initial application, and we went through a set of negotiations. We came up with what we thought was a very good compatible use with it. They went away for about six months and came back with a second application that had almost doubled all the activities and the hours of operation and was completely different from the first one. So we spoke that it shouldn't be approved because there was no attempt to be compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR. RAMSEY: So they sent it back and said,see if you can make it better. We still contend the location is a problem. Even though I do understand your narrowly confined set of rules that you're operating on the recommendations, it's a bad location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the best solution,then,that you would see is that it just not exist at all? Page 19 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Stay residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's not one of the issues we were-- MR. RAMSEY: I know, but it needs to be said; it needs to be understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know how the first meeting of--the first recommendation to the Board went. It was a recommendation of approval of the language that wasn't struck in red 6-1. MR. RAMSEY: Yes. And most of the people I talked to out there,they still feel like most of the members of the Planning Commission,even the Board of County Commissioners,don't understand the Estates'quality-of-life issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think I don't understand the Estates, Mike? MR. RAMSEY: That was a general comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: This is the issue we fight most of the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've probably lived out there longer--maybe pretty long--what, 40 years. How long you been out there for? MR. RAMSEY: Thirty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just trying to make sure that everything's clear, Mike. And I have tried and--as you know by the last vote,tried to go a different direction,but we're not here tasked with that today,and that's why I'm trying to keep it focused on what we were supposed to do. And I appreciate your comments. MR. RAMSEY: Well, let's take an example of a cumulative effect,all right. So we're going to put a bridge on Eighth Street Northeast and connect Randall to Golden Gate Boulevard. We're going to divert traffic from the north end of the Estates down to Golden Gate Boulevard coming through this intersection. That's going to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that got to do with this church? MR. RAMSEY: That's traffic;cumulative traffic issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Mike,we're back to what we were assigned today. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have some followup questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there any other speakers,James? MR. SABO: No more speakers for this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody here-- COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a question for Mr. Ramsey-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- if it's not too late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike. No, it's never too late,especially for somebody brand new. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Mr. Ramsey, I live in an Estates area as well. You mentioned that you had, I think, negotiated with Grace Romanian Church and arrived at something you said would be acceptable. As Chairman Strain has said, we're here to try to define what improvements in the conditions might make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Not so much to possibly reject it, but to send it back with additional conditions. What was initially agreed to with the church in terms of scope and size and activities and number of people and that type of thing? Page 20 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Well, I think the square footage of the building was smaller,the parking area was smaller,the operations--proposed operations was less,the hours of time of operation were shorter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a-- like this one is, like,three pages,there was about a page and a half previously of stipulations that were--this goes back months that we started with, and then when it got to the Planning Commission,the applicant's team brought some amendments to those,and through the Planning Commission, it got changed again to a point where the traffic had to increase. So they had to go back out and do a NIM. They came back for another hearing. That got recommended for approval to the Board of County Commissioners,and then the Board sent it back to us today. So that's kind of like a real short history of what happened. It's been going on for quite a while. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other speakers,James? MR. SABO: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Joe,you had some followups. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had some follow-up questions. I'm going to ask the applicant--I don't care which represents but, Mr.Yovanovich,you're standing there. We heard from the public issues about, basically,the critters that are out in the-- I'm talking animals and other things out in the Estates. Did you have any requirement for a determination--jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Section 7 consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife regarding this property? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. we did not--we don't have any technical permitting issues for listed-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So there's no listed species or endangered species identified? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was there a requirement through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for a biological assessment or follow-on biological opinion? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So I guess that pretty much clears any requirement dealing with any identified listed or endangered species. Regarding traffic,regarding the county, I guess, Mike,you may have to answer this. Have you determined that the traffic pattern and the impact to be compatible with the existing road network,are there any issues been identified? MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. We have studied it. The amount of traffic during the week,which is our criteria for judging whether the petition is consistent with the GMP. is that the impacts are reasonable and are actually quite low in this case. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it meets the concurrence requirements? MR. SAWYER: Yes. it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My last comment has to do with what John raised. I'll go back to the county-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Mike leaves, Mike,did you do a staff review for the staff report? MR. SAWYER: Yes.we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you recommend approval on that review? MR. SAWYER: Yes,we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take all the considerations you were just asked before you wrote that approval? Page 21 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The last one having to do with the height of the structure. John brought up the steeple. I've pretty much traveled the world. I think I've been in 96 countries throughout the world regarding places of worship,whether it is a mosque,a church,a Buddhist temple,typically the structures on a religious building are higher than the surrounding community so it can be identified by the people in the community. It's been that way since the Middle Ages. Is the steeple deemed compatible,and does it meet all the requirements as far as appurtenances on the building with regards to the county? MR. SABO: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well,those issues were raised. Again, I see no requirement to deny this or-- I cannot find any reason to deny this petition,and I recommend it move forward as written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does--now,we've had public testimony, staff response, and--to it. Richard,do you have any rebuttal that you'd like to have? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I think that what we've done is what the Board tasked us with doing,which was try to make this better than what was originally presented to you all and to the Board,and I think we've done that. I just would like to say one thing,that this petition, like most church petitions, if traffic becomes an issue,we are required to employ off-duty police officers to be there to direct traffic. So if there are cumulative impacts from our project,that is addressed in the provisions that are already existing--we didn't change that. That's been there for a while. So I just wanted to put that on the record for the community so they know that we've had that commitment in there to provide off-duty police officers if the county says we're having a traffic issue related to our operation of the property. With that, I don't have anything else to add to the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan,and then Ned. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich,we've heard some suggestions for further concessions, if you will,and I want to go back to those and ask you and your client to what extent some or all of them might be acceptable to you. The first thing that was mentioned was the loop trail. Is that something that the church would consider doing? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll turn to Anna. I don't know what the loop trail is. MS. WEAVER: I think I need further clarification on what loop trail they're asking for. 1 think-- I know he said maybe a trail around the property or-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: What he said,yeah, around the periphery. MS. WEAVER: Well, I can tell you we're going to build sidewalks as required in the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fryer,we need to look at how that would interface with the back of the property. I believe there's a canal there,too,right? MS. WEAVER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a canal. So I don't know. To the extent that we can work that into our site plan,we're willing to look at it. I don't want to make it a formal commitment as part of the application materials right now. Frankly, it's something new to us to even consider. I'm not prepared to say yes; I'm not prepared to say we can't work it in, but I don't want it to be part of the approval. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The building size, I mentioned that my rather brief research turned up for a 300 congregation size, between 12,000 and 18,000. Would you consider splitting the difference on that,a compromise at 15,000? Page 22 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll be honest with you,it took me some arm twisting to bring it down. I mean,there's--Fellowship Hall takes up space and kitchens in Fellowship Hall. That all adds up. And we think what we've done by the limits on who can come and when they can come and--we think we've addressed the concerns about compatibility plus the reduction of that 6,000 square feet. I think that's a fair compromise. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then it was mentioned to some degree through confusion,1 think,on the part of the people who were trying to interpret the latest version of the compromise, 9 p.m.versus 10 p.m. Would the church be willing to conclude all activities at 9 p.m.? MR. YOVANOVICH: The preference would be to-- 10 p.m.has been in there for a while,and we'd like to keep it at the 10 p.m. I think the red is just--was the clarification of the how many services we can have on Saturday and the hours for that. But the 10 p.m.has been in there for a while for our worship services. And,again,the limitation on the number of individuals that can come,I think it addresses the concerns for the community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the 10 p.m. later limit,the one hour later limit would be exclusively for worship services? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,you have it under a couple of places. I've got to get a new pair of glasses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich,just to clarify,the 9 p.m.came about because of the first draft of the conditions. I have them. I'm looking at them. MR.YOVANOVICH: But we're looking at--if we're looking at church-related meetings, they end at 9, if Fm reading that correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Church operating hours,a,(lxa),original submittal-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Those are the worship services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Church services shall be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m.and 9 p.m. That's why I think it's coming up for a question. MR.YOVANOVICH: For the related--meetings—church-related meetings in C end at 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: Worship services have been 10 o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Originally, in the original submittal -- MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh,way back when,before I got involved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Way back when,before you got involved--well,you got involved at the hearing level,but before that they were limit to 9 o'clock. That's why that's coming up. MR.YOVANOVICH: Worship,Mr. Strain? For worship services? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says right there, 1(a),church services will be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m.and 9 p.m. That was produced by the applicant's planner. MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I just have one moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. And,Joe,as soon as Ned fmishes, I'll go to you next. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So after this answer he's done,then we'll go to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have services end by 9. Now,that means there will be people,obviously,leaving,but they'll be leaving an hour earlier if we had services ending at 10. Is that your--is that what you're asking for,Mr.Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It sounds like that's what was on the table. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe--and I don't have the history all the way back to the beginning,but if we originally said 8 to 9 for worship services,then we can agree with that. We just don't want anybody to say every vehicle needs to be off that property by 9. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. Page 23 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the concern we have, but we don't mind. We'll make that change back on the worship services. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then -- I did have one more clarification,then,on this very point. The way it is currently worded,what kinds of activities can continue until 10 p.m.? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if we make the change we just made-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: --nothing can happen after 9-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. We can shorten that,can't we,and just say no activities after 9 p.m.? MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than the cars leaving property,yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah,other than that;other than that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I had. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand the concept. We'll have to write it,but I understand the concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And the only thing I was going to ask Ned is to ask to put this pathway around the church on the fly, it may adversely impact the neighboring properties,and I think we really would have to look at that before we recommend that as a change, because there are buffers,there's other things around the church. And to basically do that on the fly is certainly going to have adverse effect on some of the homes surrounding the church. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that--Richard. is there anything else you want to-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just have a little--all right. Here's our issue. Thursdays--well, it didn't matter. We were limited at 9 anyways. Let me--can I have one minute,or do you want to take a break for Terri? Is it about her time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we'll take a full break then, we'll go into the-second case after we finish up with this one. I was going to let this one get done first, but-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I just need two seconds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a break till 10:30 and resume at 10:30. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats,we'd like to resume the meeting. Okay. Thank you. We left off with final comments on the Grace Romanian Church application and, Mr. Yovanovich,you had time to meet with your client? MR. YOVANOVICH: 1 did. Yeah,thank you. And I put on the visualizer-- I know it's old tech, but I don't know how to do it in PowerPoint. What I understood was we were going to make A,the hours would be 9 p.m.--for A as well as B and C,and then I understand 18,000 square feet is what we committed to during the discussion. And then it came up,and we heard--we were discussing during the break--and we committed to this at the Board of County Commissioners, so I just think we should add it,and I think this is the right place to put it under 3 regarding the parking to make it clear that would be no off-street--or no on-street parking permitted. Because there was concern that people would come to an event at the church and somehow would park on the local neighborhood streets. We've already committed that that Page 24 of 79 January 17,2019 wouldn't happen,so we thought we'd maybe want to add that to the commitments as well. That wasn't discussed,but we wanted to add that during the break. So I think those are the changes that were discussed in addition to what we previously presented. So that's it. I think I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only thing I have to ask is that Mr. Fryer--we have a Fry and a Fryer. I have to keep them straight. Mr.Fryer had asked to consider limiting all activities--no activities after 9 p.m.,and that was why you wanted the break. So did you discuss that? MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. Yeah,we did. And what happened is the only service that goes past 9 o'clock is the New Year's Eve service,and that's what I--and I spoke to Mr.Fryer about that on the break,that every other service except New Year's Eve has to stop before 9,and that's why we had that separate--we had that separate in D,because Easter Sunrise obviously happens before the normal hours that we had discussed in No. 1,and the limitation on when we had to end,and that's why we separated,originally, Easter Sunrise and New Year's Eve services, because those would be the two exceptions to the worship service hours in Number A--or Letter A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 9 o'clock change to the 10 p.m.up top-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --fixes that. Basically you've got no activities after 9. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right,right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you,Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,is there any other comments or questions from the Hearing Examiner--I mean,from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: How is a wall defined? We had the southern adjacent property owner,and in the writeup it mentions a wall is to be constructed,but what are the parameters of a wall? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let Anna--because you don't want me to answer. MS. WEAVER: The code requirement for that area is that because it's adjacent to residential zoning across the street,it states that we have to construct a 4-foot wall. And I believe it says--well,don't-- I don't want to quote what it says exactly,but it's going to be a concrete or prefab solid wall. COMMISSIONER FRY: Four feet in height? MS. WEAVER: Four feet in height to help with headlights. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is a 4-foot wall--and what is the purpose of that wall in terms of--1 mean,at four feet, it does not obstruct the view of the church for the adjacent property r owner. So what about the possibility of a taller structure? MS. WEAVER: The purpose,I believe,because it's right on the roadway,is for lights to affect the adjacent residential property. MR.YOVANOVICH: It's never been intended to be a security feature. It's always been intended to be a"stop headlights from bothering neighbors"feature. COMMISSIONER FRY: And has it been requested by the adjacent neighbors that it be tall enough to obstruct the view? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You guys don't do a Christmas midnight mass? Page 25 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: We will end it at the 9 p.m. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we--midnight could be at 9 p.m.for us older people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll --anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing,and then we'll go into a motion. If there's-- if anybody wants discussion on this before we go to motion-- if not, I'd like to suggest that if someone would want to make a motion, it would be a motion to send the changes to the Board of County Commissioners recommended as additional compatibility considerations, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, so moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be including the handwritten-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And what I'll do is, if you want to second it, I'll go ahead and read-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. The changes would be those in red that were presented with the amendments that are noted here in blue on this particular page. And I don't believe there were any past this section of that page. MS. WEAVER: Oh,not written. MR. YOVANOVICH: No further changes other than the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, more red ones,but no further written ones. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,the motion maker and the second accept that. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now,the next item up, I must--it's the only item left, so it must be why everybody's here. PL20170004419. It's the Collier County Growth Management Plan amendment for the Livingston Road-- MR. SABO: Mr.Chairman,we, I think, need action on the Comp Plan as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's not what the Board assigned us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The Comp Plan goes forward-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Comp Plan and the other motions go forward as they were. This just tells the Board what they asked for us to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. That was my understanding. MR. SABO: Very good. Page 26 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me start over again,then. ***The next item up is Item 9A3,PL20170004419. It's an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to add the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard located on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard just east of Livingston Road. 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,please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the Planning Commission. Let's start with Mr.Eastman. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich,and I saw the news stuff on Channels 2,5,and 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get any emails? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,yeah, I did;from the public,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we all got copied on some of them. Some of them went to the staff,and then they distributed them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious,do we have to--everybody sees those. Do we have to disclose that? MR.KLATZKOW: Technically,you should be bringing with you all the ex parte communications you have in a folder,which we give the applicant or anybody else the ability to look at them and to ask questions about it. That's what you're supposed to do. Customarily,I can't remember the last time an applicant actually asked for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In our case-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,anyway, I got copies of emails from a bunch of people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I,as well,received all the emails and the materials in the packet,which I--are a part of the public record and available to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And that's what I would suggest to all of you. If you get emails,always copy them back to staff,as I do. That way they're always part of the staffs record. Staff puts in the packet,or as Corby's done today,he passed them back out. So they do get them;they become available to everybody. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If he'd remember to say it, I'd remember to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Emails,phone call with Yovanovich prior to the December 6th meeting before this was continued,and I'm appointed(sic)with some homeowners in the Barrington Cove neighborhood. Do I need to name their names? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,just-- COMMISSIONER FRY: And I've had a brief conversation with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Conversations with staff,emails;conversations with Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had conversations with staff. I've had a slough of emails. 1 forwarded them all to staff. They're either in the packet or in front of us in the packages today. I've had meetings with Mr.Yovanovich and the applicant team as a whole I think once--almost all of them in December,and a group of them,again,yesterday,and that's--other than that,that's it. Go ahead,Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have had emails,and I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. Page 27 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Mulhere,numerous emails that came into my official Collier.gov address, so I have to assume that they're in the archive and part of the official record. I did not forward those to staff,but I certainly can,and additional information that was--I guess,was handed out by staff just came in. I got an email from Corby last-- I think yesterday or the day before regarding some language, changes in language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Similar emails,communication with staff,and a brief phone call with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That wraps it up. Bob,we'll turn it over to you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here this morning on behalf of the applicant. Also in attendance with me this morning is Brian Stock, Keith Gelder,Chris Johnson,all with Stock Development. Rich Yovanovich is our land-use attorney; Chris Mitchell is the professional civil engineer with JR Evans Engineering;and Ted Treesh. Ted Treesh is our transportation planner with TR Transportation Consultants. I have a PowerPoint presentation. I'd like to go through that. I'll be as succinct as possible. 1 realize there's a lot of folks here,and I don't want to take any more time than is necessary with my presentation, but there are some-- I think there is some information that will be significant. So let me just begin that,and I'll try to get through it as succinctly as possible. What you have before you is an aerial of the neighborhood and shows the subject property. Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's shifted north more than it is,right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: There's another outline. That's over a zoning map. The property has two zoning districts on it. Fifteen-and-change acres is part of the De La Rosa RPUD,and the balance of the property's presently zoned agricultural;about 20 acres. All of the property is in the urban residential subdistrict; none of the property is in the coastal high hazard area. Total size is 35.92 acres. So the property's located,as you know,at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial. This amendment seeks to establish the Veterans Memorial Boulevard East residential subdistrict,and this is a transmittal hearing to permit up to 350 multifamily dwelling units. That number originally was 420. We reduced to 350. There will be a companion--there is a companion PUD that is under review by staff,and as part of my presentation, I will share with you a number of the conditions and so forth that we're committing to as part of the PUD. I know this is always a bit of a challenge when you have a transmittal hearing that's limited to a Comprehensive Plan but,really,you-all have an interest in knowing more of the detail, and we're going to provide that to you. The density at 350 units is 9.74 units per acre. The existing De La Rosa PUD, 15.38 acres,allowed for up to 107 multifamily dwelling units,and those were approved to be constructed at a zoned height of 50 feet and a building height--excuse me--an actual height of 69 feet. The GMP provisions presently allow for up to seven units per acre, which would total 251.44 units. The additional units that we would be seeking would be 98.56. If you add those together, that totals 350 dwelling units at 9.74 units per acre. Page 28 of 79 January 17,2019 This exhibit-- I'll spend a few minutes on this--overlays the De La Rosa approved PUD and site plan provisions--there was a site plan for De La Rosa PUD-- in blue. So the boundaries of that are outlined in blue,and the location of the buildings proposed for De La Rosa are also outlined in blue. The overall property that is part of our petition actually shows--excuse me --the development area. The overall development area for our petition is outlined in red. So a couple of points. We have established a minimum setback for principal structures from our eastern property line or boundary of 125 feet at a minimum. So these buildings here and this building here would be a minimum and are a minimum of 125 feet as juxtaposed with the site plan for De La Rosa,which allowed for a 20-foot setback. I looked at the SDP,and this building was approximately 26 feet from the property line and four stories in height, 50 feet in height. So, obviously,we have looked at this as part of our planning,and I've shifted the development as far away as we possibly could from Barrington Cove. So if you look at this table here,this table provides for the setbacks of the approved De La Rosa PUD, which was approved,as I said previously,for a building height of 50 feet zoned,69 feet actual,with a 20-foot setback. Our proposal at present is four stories or three stories. These buildings here were originally proposed--these two buildings were originally proposed at four stories. We've reduced those to three stories. Zoned height 40 feet; actual height 50 feet. These buildings,these remaining buildings,two here and two here, in red, would be retained at four stories,with the original zoned and actual height. The brand and PUD,which is Barrington Cove,was approved at a zoned height of 50 feet, three stories, and an actual height of 55 feet and three stories. So I just want to point that out,that the brand and PUD,which you can see the development here shaded, right here and right here;that PUD was approved for zoned height at 50 feet. actual height of 55 feet,three stories. We've reduced these two buildings right here,which are the closest to this portion of the development,down to three stories. This is the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before we--can you stay on that again,just to clarify, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I'll go over that several more times, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to be--do you want to--we normally don't interrupt the presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to be sure he--the buildings in blue are not going to be built. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Those are approved SDP for De La Rosa. The point that we wanted to make was you can see how close they are to Barrington Cove at a height of 50 feet and four stories. I say they're not going to be built. It sort of depends on what happens. Obviously-- This is the master concept plan. The only thing I'd point out is you can see that we did spend a lot of time designing the site to move the development area into this area. This is a fairly large wetland preserve, a little over 15 acres in size,and this is a stormwater management lake with a--a significant landscape buffer around it. This is the revised site plan overlaid on an aerial. I'll point that out again. These buildings have been reduced from four down to three stories from a building height zoned of 50 down to 40. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't mean to interrupt again,but Joe may need this clarification;the two buildings that I think he asked about,the two on the south side,they're not darkened. Does that mean you're not building them? Page 29 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. MULHERE: No,those are being built. I'm not sure why that is the case. Those are--they should be darkened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I guess I don't-- I've already kind of covered some of this. I won't be repetitive. These arrows depict the buildings that will be three stories and four stories with this sort of quad--the buildings right here being three stories and these being four stories. I mentioned this,but I'll repeat it again. We did insert a minimum --a minimum setback for buildings from our eastern boundary of 125 feet for principal structures. There are garages--single-story garages closer than that,but the actual apartment buildings will be a minimum of 125 feet from the eastern boundary. And here is our proposed amendment regarding the building height which would be depicted on the PUD master plan to show those buildings that will be three story,which I've already pointed out to you,and those buildings which will be four story. We've met with--and I'll go over this in a little more detail. But we-- in addition to the NIM, we've met with representatives of both Barrington Cove and Mediterra north across Veterans Memorial from this property. And as a result of those meetings, we've gone back several times to the drawing board to develop landscape buffers that we thought would address some of their concerns. This exhibit shows you --this is just sort of the master key,but shows you the types of landscape designs that we're going to put in those locations,and I'll show you more detail here. So you can see right here--so this is the property right here. This parcel right here is zoned A ag. It's adjacent--the parcel on the corner is zoned C 1. We don't own those parcels, just for reference. If you look at the arrow here,this parcel is zoned Cl,this parcel is zoned ag. Presumably at some point in the future that would be rezoned to something,potentially zoning it commercial,who knows. But it's zoned ag right now. So there's two parcels right there;one Cl,one ag. So this exhibit shows you the landscape buffer treatment that we would do adjacent to that ag parcel. There's really not any great concern over that ag--over the relationship to that ag parcel. This shows the landscape buffer treatment to the south,also right here,also adjacent to the commercial parcel. It's a Type B--Type B buffer plan. There will be a decorative aluminum fence for security purposes around the property--that shows that decorative aluminum fence--and also around this lake portion, so that's a standard Type B. This one,of course, is more important because this buffer is the buffer that's adjacent to the closest developments in Barrington Cove,the closest development,period, with Livingston Road separating us--with Veterans Memorial separating us from Mediterra and Livingston here--right here. Excuse me. So this buffer is a significantly enhanced buffer. On the bottom right you see the single-story garage elevation. Those garages will be right in here. And what we've got here is an enhanced Type B buffer that has both canopy trees above the required minimum sizes;same thing with the shrubs. This you can see right here. And then there's sort of a mid-story palm row. In addition,there will be the aluminum decorative fence in there, but these are intended to create an opaque and substantial buffer,right in here,and so we've significantly increased the buffer requirements adjacent to our neighbors. Now,that's a 15-foot-wide buffer. We also intend to continue to work with the neighbors,and I'll get into that in just a moment. This is the buffer,the Type D buffer that's required adjacent to the roadway to the north along Veterans Memorial. This is a line-of-sight exhibit. I recognize this is a--there's a fair amount of detail here. Page 30 of 79 January 17,2019 and it may be a little hard to see. I'd like to just walk you through. The key here tells you what the perspective is. So A is looking from an individual standing at the back edge of their property in Mediterra looking south towards our project. They have a significant berm here with mature landscaping on top of the berm. As you're looking up across the top of that berm,with the reduced height now to three stories,which you can see in this exhibit right here,this--there will be no perspective. They will not see these buildings based on this berm,this landscaping,this wide-- it's a fairly wide-- I think it's a 200-foot-wide right-of-way there,and then additional distance here before you get to the one-story garages,and then the other buildings,and then --or other buildings,and then the three-story apartment building. B is this perspective right here from Barrington Cove looking west. And,again,with the reduced height here,really,you would not see these buildings with an enhanced landscaping buffer here both on their property and our property and then the single-story garage structure. Even at four stories you will not see them except, perhaps, a little bit of the roofline at three stories. And then these two perspectives also, I think, are from Barrington Cove property on the other side of our lake right here. You can see D and C right there. And I think we have a similar situation there with the landscaping and the distance of 125 feet. Someone standing on their property here would see a little bit of the edge treatment from this perspective looking sort of northwest, and this is the perspective looking from their due west. Our Traffic Impact Statement was analyzed,and it looked at the AUIR in 2023 buildout conditions. Ted Treesh is here. I'm just going to go over this briefly. I'm sure there may be some more detailed questions in which I certainly will defer to Ted as the expert. But there is capacity along all the surrounding roadways,except Immokalee Road west of Livingston in 2023, both with and without this. And the site's located in the Transportation Concurrency Management Area, which is the policy that allows up to seven units per acre with certain transportation demand management techniques being utilized. Our project at 350 dwelling units does not trigger the 85 percent threshold described in Policy 5.7. The intersection analysis conducted at Livingston and Memorial indicates that the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service again,both with and without the project trips. And as another observation,Logan extension,which will be another north/south option which will relieve some traffic from this north/south from Livingston,will be-- is under construction; will be completed and open this year,2019. And this exhibit here shows 1-75 right here, Livingston right here,the project is right here, and this is the extension of Logan to Bonita Beach Road from its present terminus up to Bonita Beach Road. There are a number of transportation stips in the PUD. We have a maximum trip generation that we can't exceed of 176 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. There's a payment that's required for--a fair-share payment for signalization. We are required to--or at least we were-- I'm not sure since there's no actual CAT system running past this property whether or not we need to do this immediately or it remains as a condition. That's perhaps something that could be something clarified. But we agreed to a condition to install a Collier Area Transit shelter if and when requested by the county. The access point onto Livingston Road is limited and is only an egress, so it's not an ingress/egress but just an exit,and that's separated from the intersection by a thousand--by at least a thousand feet. And we also agreed to construct vehicular,pedestrian,and bicycle stub-out to the adjacent Page 31 of 79 January 17,2019 property, so I did want to show you that. Let me just go back. So, again,there will be a connection to the adjacent property generally in this vicinity right here. This is the commercial property. And we've agreed to connect. That would be for all forms of,you know,pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular. I don't think there's any question but that there's a strong market demand for rental apartments in Collier County. Rates continue to increase and have since 2011. That's an indicator of a basic economic rule of demand exceeding supply. Additional supply will stabilize those rates and minimize further increases. Occupancy of existing projects is close to 95 percent,which is considered to be full occupancy. And the estimated demand for rental units by the end of 2022 is over 5,300 units. There are some unique elements that I'd like to point out with respect to management and demographic of tenants. As you know, Stock has constructed and manages several other rental apartments, luxury rental apartment projects. The typical demographics: The tenants are typically working professionals and empty nesters. The average household income ranges from 80-to 135,000. At Inspira at Lely, 40 percent of the tenants are empty nesters, folks that want to come down here perhaps full time, perhaps they'll rent it,but they won't be here all year. But they're not looking to buy a single-family home or a condominium. They're looking to rent. Stock employs professional on-site property management. The company is Greystar,the largest leasing property management firm in the United States. And the experience with them has been excellent thus far. Full background checks are required on all tenants. We have a seven-day eviction process for any criminal activity. Subleasing of units is prohibited. Airbnb and similar types of rental opportunities are prohibited. Renters insurance is required. All of the vehicles are registered with the property manager. There are restrictions on pets, size and types and requirement to show photos and proof of vaccination. The standard lease term--this question came up quite a bit. The standard lease term is 12 months. There are--there is a minimum lease term of seven months. There are certain circumstances where a lesser lease term is appropriate and,therefore,the lesser lease term is allowed. These are some photos. I'll go through them fairly quickly,but you may or may not know, but this project is developed and has been open for some time now,and this is Inspira at Lely Resort. The reason we're showing you these is because the intent is to build something of the same high, high quality on this property for this project. Some of the details may change, but--and you can see these are four-story products. You see we have garages. I want to show you some of the amenities. This is a perspective looking, I think it's from -- I think it's from the clubhouse looking out towards the pool or maybe from one of the units looking toward the pool. Very high quality and a very significant amenity package. That's a picture of the pool. Another picture of the pool. That is looking at the clubhouse,the main entry. And the second floor is a fitness facility. These are some interior amenity pictures. Meeting space,congregating space. There's a picture of the gym on the left-hand side,additional tenant gathering spaces. You can see that the design--the quality is very, very high. Additional perspective of the amenities. You can see the high ceilings in the front lobby,the foyer there. There's opportunities to,you know,do some work there if you like. Another picture of the pool looking out, sort of the central courtyard with the pool. That almost concludes my presentation. I did want to add that--I mentioned that we had Page 32 of 79 January 17,2019 met with representatives of Mediterra and Barrington Cove several times both before the Christmas holidays and then after the Christmas holidays after we had reduced the building height on the two buildings that are close to Barrington Cove from four to three stores. We also made a commitment--I just wanted to mention this. We also made a commitment at that point in time to work with those folks,those representatives, between transmittal,assuming that transmittal is-- moves forward by the Board of County Commissioners, and adoption to address a couple of concerns that they raised,one being the quality and quantity of the landscape buffer adjacent to Barrington Cove--and we're happy to work with the folks from Mediterra on that issue,too,as it relates to the perimeter buffers,but I don't know that there were any issues with those--and also the building architecture. There was some concerns about, I think,more color being sort of being only one option there,but to look at some other architectural elements that would--and color and elements that would make that more attractive. We've agreed to continue to work with them. That concludes my presentation. We're open for questions, unless I missed anything, which Rich will let me know what I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob,just one--not a question about what you presented, but how are you going to provide that for the record? MR. MULHERE: I have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll give that to the court reporter and make sure she has it for recordation? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do-- again, Rich Yovanovich, for the record, I guess,since this is a different petition. I would like to point out a couple of things as,kind of,why you're seeing so many Growth Management Plan amendments coming through for apartments in Collier County. As I know the Planning Commission is aware, but not everybody in the audience is aware.Collier County has a Comprehensive Plan that has a very low base density calculation of four units per acre. And even with the fact that we achieve three additional units per acre,apartment complexes are generally in the 10-to 12-unit-per-acre density in order for it to be a viable project to provide all of the nice amenities you see. So that's why we're here in need of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The only way to get to a density that we're asking for today under the current Comprehensive Plan regulations would be ask for an affordable housing density bonus,which we're not doing. That's why we're doing a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment to get to a density that makes sense for an apartment complex. I also-- since Stock is a known entity in developing in Collier County and has the Inspira project up and running,we're fortunate today to have Catherine Cordoza with Greystar,who is going to be managing that project as well as this project. So I thought it would be beneficial if she came up and shared with you her experience with the types of tenants, because in reviewing--I didn't attend the NIM,but I did watch the video of the NIM,and not just at this location,but in many locations, there's a concern about the quality and how will the project be fully maintained when people don't have an ownership interest in the actual building. And I think it would be helpful to have someone who's actually dealing with that on a day-to-day basis speak briefly about some of the things that Bob's already mentioned but give you the first-hand account. Her name's Catherine Cordoza with Greystar. I'll bring her up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said something though,and maybe she can answer it. You said that the reason we have so many Growth Management Plan amendments is because of the density that we allocate on a base density.and the apartments are needed at a higher density. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 33 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give me an example of another apartment complex in Collier County that has needed a Growth Management Plan amendment? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can name a few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did it for Pine Ridge Commons,which is the redevelopment of a shopping center. The Vincentian PUD along the East Trail,we did a Comprehensive Plan amendment for that. We're in,or shortly to be in,on Courthouse Shadows. We'll be coming in for a Growth Management Plan amendment for that. That also has a four-unit-per-acre limitation, and we're doing it--we had our pre-app the other day. So those are ones that are popping in my head right now. I'm pretty sure I've done others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand there are--there's actually 4,000 units that have come through in the last 12, 15 months-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on top of the 12,000 we already have. And I was trying to understand,when you said that--because,you know, I've told you my concern has always been -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the density change due to the Growth Management Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mentioned three. Vincentian was a partial--had a component for its increase based on affordable housing. The other two were commercial entities already approved swapping out commercial intensity for apartment intensity so that they became a wash; Pine Ridge Commons is one. Is there any one that you have similar to this one you're proposing today? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's one that Bob and I are both working on-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's across from Orchid Run? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. That one's in the process. I am not at liberty to talk about future projects,but I think that what we have in the urban area,especially west of 1-75,there are very few parcels left of any significant size that you can achieve enough critical mass for an apartment complex. And I'm not going to tell you this is the last one, but I'm sure it's pretty close in the urban area for undeveloped parcels that you can get to,you know, basically,the 350 range for an apartment complex,and they're going to require,you know,Comp Plan amendments to make that happen. So that's why I said what I said, Mr. Strain. And with this location, specifically, in the news recently is--and Mr. Eastman can address this is--this is an ideal location because you do have Veterans Memorial Elementary School,you have a middle school,and you have a soon-to-be constructed high school. So it would be an ideal location to provide housing for people working at all three of those school facilities. So with that, I'll -- unless there's further questions of me, I'll turn it over to Catherine, if--unless there's further questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just wanted to understand the clarification before we went past that point. MR.YOVANOVICH: Sure. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I know some of are you talking to one other. I can hear some of the whispering up here. I've got to ask you to refrain from that. Our court reporter listens only with her ears to type,and it gets mixed up sometimes to hear yours on top of the speakers. So please try to think of that when you're trying to whisper to one another. Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. CORDOZA: Hello. I do need to be sworn in. Page 34 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't here for swearing in? MS.CORDOZA: I did not stand for it. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'll need to state your name for the record. MS.CORDOZA: Catherine Cordoza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And could you just spell that just to be sure we've got the spelling right. MS. CORDOZA: C-a-t-h-e-r-i-n-e, last name C-a-r-d-o-z-a. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. MS. CORDOZA: Hi. I am just standing up here to say I have been managing--privileged with managing apartment communities for almost 14 years in both Lee and Collier Counties, latest project being Inspira in Lely Resort,as mentioned. I also would like to mention that I'm a current resident of Barrington Cove and have been for over a year now. I will be also-- if everything goes through, be managing the Allura project. I have two children. One goes to Veterans Memorial Elementary and one to North Naples Middle School right along near the project. So I have a very much--a vested interest in,you know,making sure that the community succeeds and that the resident base is a good one. Today's renter has changed drastically from what I think most people in this room and that have continued to own their homes think that the resident demographic is. In addition to the items that were mentioned as far as the screening process and what is required for an apartment community renter,to get approved at our communities we do a very thorough background check, credit check;all pets are screened, service animals, anything of that nature. The rules and regulations and lease agreements that are put into place and enforced by myself,my team,are pretty stringent. In fact,even more so than what a homeowner in Mediterra,Barrington Cove would be subject to. I don't believe that the apartment community is going to bring down home values. In fact, I believe there was some murmurings of that in Lely Resort and our previous project, Spectra,that people,you know,think that apartment renters are,you know,bad people or criminals or this,that, or the other. That's just not today. That's not who's renting apartments anymore. The people are renting by choice,they're great people,and I think that it's going to be a great addition to all the jobs coming to the area for working professionals,as mentioned,with,you know,not only the educational sector of it, teachers,the families. You have the Fire Department right there. And I think that that's going to be a good chunk of our demographic;working professionals just like anyone else that's in the community surrounding that are concerned. And I understand their concern, but the demographic of renters in today's market has changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before-- I guess this is the last member of your team,so before you sit down, let's see if we have any questions of you before we go back to Bob or Richard. Any questions of this lady? Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you educate me a little more about lnspira. What--how many buildings are there,what is the building height,and how many units are there? MS. CORDOZA: There's 304 units. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 304? MS. CORDOZA: 304,yeah. Very similar to the layout that was presented for Allura. They are all four-story buildings,four-story elevator buildings. There's five of them total. Thirteen six-bay garage, free-standing garage banks on site there,and very similar to the amenity package that was represented in the photos. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How close to lnspira is the next four-story building from some other development? Page 35 of 79 January 17,2019 MS. CORDOZA: I believe FSW is the closest four-story. I'm not -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Can you estimate approximately how far away it is. MS. CORDOZA: Maybe a mile or so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In that range? MS.CORDOZA: A mile. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--of her? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the density per acre of Inspira? MS.CORDOZA: That I'm not 100 percent sure on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's part of the Lely PUD,yeah. So it's-- MS. CORDOZA: Fifteen,so quite a bit more-- COMMISSIONER FRY: Fifteen? MS. CORDOZA: --at Inspira versus what Allura will be. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It would be about 20. COMMISSIONER FRY: Twenty. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just under 15 acres for 304 units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So higher density than this? MS.CORDOZA: Yes,at Inspira. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the range of rents at Inspira,and what is projected for Allura? MS.CORDOZA: As of right now,at Inspira we have rents ranged from high--mid to high 1,400s and up to the--just under 2,000 for a three-bedroom. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you have target ranges for the rents for Allura? MS.COOK: We don't have that available at this time. MR. YOVANOVICH: About the same. COMMISSIONER FRY: About the same. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of her? I have one. What's your-- based on your information on, I guess, Inspira then, what's your persons per household? MS.CORDOZA: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your persons per household? How many--what's your average persons per household in Inspira? MS.CORDOZA: Two;two or less,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two or less? MS. CORDOZA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you also have an age range? MS.CORDOZA: The demographic age range right now is, I want to say, late 30s up to mid 60s. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's all. Thank you. MS. CORDOZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess,Bob,you're going to take it from here? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm going to until Rich comes up and pushes me away from the podium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Bob? We'll go with Ned first. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The Allura site is surrounded on three sides by single-family dwellings, so that certainly prompts a concern over compatibility. And the site as planned,the project as planned.also raises a concern, for me at least,with respect to traffic. And my third Page 36 of 79 January 17,2019 major concern is the minimum length of lease that's being offered. So those three items comprise my concerns at the present time. My question--first question for you,Bob, is how proximate to the site is the next nearest four-story building? MR. MULHERE: There's--there are no four-story buildings in close proximity to this. I would say it's got residential--single-family residential on,really, in my opinion,two sides. To the south there's a 15-acre preserve, right here, right,and then you've got,you know, Livingston Road and on the north side of Veterans,yes, Mediterra. So really,to me,it's more like two sides, but that's just--maybe we look at that differently. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The size still seems to be excessive to me,and I would also like to see fewer stories on all the buildings. The TCMA discretionary bonus of three dwelling units per acre is that; it's a discretionary bonus. If you were to be granted that,you would come in at around 249 dwelling units per acre (sic), 1 believe. To me that seems to be more right-sized and also would facilitate less tall buildings. So that's just a comment that I would make at this point. Also,the traffic study was based upon the 2017 AUIR,which I understand. That was when all the work was done,but some fairly significant things have happened and show up in the 2018 AUIR Attachment F. And it--among other things,the deficiency of Segment 42-1,which is Immokalee,I believe, is projected to happen in 2022,sooner than it was under 2017 where it was projected to become deficient in 2023. And also the remaining capacity has increased significantly. I think it was 90-point something capacity in 2017. I believe it's 93 and some change percent capacity. So just in the last year the traffic situation that is close to this proposed project has gotten, I think, significantly worse,and it prompts me to want to ask for more concessions on the part of the developer to help mitigate the effects that have gotten surprisingly worse in just a short period of a year in the form of density and the effect that would have on traffic,and then compatibility. I think,would be enhanced if there were a minimum one-year lease provision so that people seem to, I think,at that duration or greater, have a greater concern for the property and for the upkeep of it and they take better care of property than shorter-term renters. So I just wanted to throw those considerations out. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming--a couple of things. We have our transportation consultant,Ted Treesh,here who can address your traffic concerns as well as I know Trinity Scott's here from the county. I know over the last several weeks I've had several discussions with Trinity and other members of your staff regarding the traffic analysis and what do or do we not trip as far as traffic impacts. And I do know that your staff is recommending approval. I think their one condition is that we interconnect with the commercial property, we stub out for whenever it's developed. But Ted can get into the greater detail about consistency with the traffic analysis and how this is all done. A couple things. One,Veterans Memorial, I'm assuming the high school's a go. Tom Eastman could tell you if it's not, it's pretty close to a go. When that happens--and I already know in the five-year plan -- is the expansion of Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the west-- I think I got my direction correct--all the way to 41;that's in the five-year plan to get built. I believe,just as a lawyer who's done a few of these things, but I'm sure Ted and Trinity will tell you,that that's going to provide some relief to Immokalee Road because right now,as people have pointed out,there's only-- if you're on Livingston Road,there's only two ways to get off. You either get off at Immokalee Road or you got off at Bonita Beach Boulevard if you're trying to get to,basically, 1-75 in that general area or to head--or you can go further south, obviously. But I think that's going to be a reliever. And Ted and Trinity can address that in Page 37 of 79 January 17,201*' greater detail. But that's already a factor that's going to happen and relieve some of the transportation issues that you're specifically raising regarding that segment of lmmokalee Road. Second, I did speak to my client about whether or not we still needed the seven-month lease. It would be nice to have for people who come to the area and would like to,you know,rent on a shorter period while they're figuring out where they ultimately want to live, but that's not critical to us. I mean, if it's important to the community and important to the Planning Commission that we go to a minimum I2-month lease to show that we really are going to have great-quality tenants,you know,we can go to a 12-month lease. The density is really--has been analyzed. We looked at 420, and when we laid out the site,420 was not really achievable,so 350 is the number that is a realistic achievable project that will support the level of amenities that we're proposing for this project and other projects. I think I've said this to you, Mr. Fryer--I know I've said it to others--but in today's market,all of my clients are looking,okay, if I get approved today, I'm really leasing in about two years, so it's a race to who's going to have the best amenities,who's going to have the best apartments, because they know that they're competing with each other,and we're fortunate in Collier County that we can support that level of competition in the rental space. So it's-- we've shown you--you've seen Inspira. This is going to be,you know,the best of the best out there,and we need to make sure that we can financially make that work. And we're not negatively impacting traffic based upon the traffic--we're putting traffic on the road. I'm not saying we're not, because I always hear that whenever I'm doing a NIM or whatever. Of course we're putting traffic on the road,but we're putting it in within the rules that apply in Collier County. So from a compatibility standpoint, I think we checked that box. We meet the criteria. The way we've reduced the height on the two buildings that are new properties, I think we checked the box. It's consistent with what was approved in De La Rosa. It's actually a little lower than what was approved in De La Rosa. And that was determined to be consistent with the community when that project was approved many years ago. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let me say that I do appreciate your efforts-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We've been trying. COMMISSIONER FRYER: --with respect to the one-year lease and your willingness to reduce your initial request from 420 to 350. But to me,both from a compatibility and traffic standpoint, I think it needs to be reduced further. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could tell you I don't believe 251 -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please. We're not here to do that. And I need to ask you to remain quiet. We need to move on with the hearing, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just for the record,the issues are for discussion. We certainly are not going to put into any kind of considered GMP amendment lease terms and stuff like that. So I think you ought to take it into consideration so that when we actually-- if it gets to the PUD stage,that's when it would all come up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I know the public doesn't do this every day.but generally whenever we do a Comp Plan amendment, it's very generic or general,and people are really concerned about what's really going to happen on the property. Fortunately,the state legislature several years ago now lets us do the PUD at the same time. We used to not be able to do that. So now we can do the PUD rezone at the same time, and that's why we're focusing so much on the PUD, so people truly understand what will happen if we're fortunate enough to get transmittal and we come back for the adoption hearing and the PUD hearing at the same time. That's why you're seeing the level of detail. Page 38 of 79 January 17,2019 And,Mr. Fryer,we absolutely will be addressing those,obviously, in the PUD but not in the GMP level. Usually you have density and other things. You don't get into the finer points, but those will all find their way into the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,just to clarify. And I want to make sure we all understand,we're here for the GMP amendment,not the PUD. We're not voting on the PUD. And even if you asked for—the current density you're asking for now is 350 units. Certainly, it can be adjusted,modified,or whatever once you come in with a PUD. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. We understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to make sure the public understands that this is not--this is a GMP amendment,Growth Management Plan amendment,not the specific zoning. MR.YOVANOVICH: And,ultimately,this is just transmittal. I mean,there's--even if we get transmitted,it doesn't mean it gets adopted the same way at the adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Just--I wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's team? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. When I saw those news reports on this project with all the people,one of them had an exhibit,and I just hit"Allura Naples"Google images,and it shows these buildings dwarfing the houses in the foreground. One of them is a WINK News,and another is a "Residents Against Allura"Go Fund Me page. They're well done, but I assume you didn't do them,right? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not part of one of your exhibits? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know what you're talking about. We've shown you all of our exhibits that are our exhibits. I don't know-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This isn't one of them. Okay. They're well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just not anybody's exhibits,but anyway. Go ahead. MR.YOVANOVICH: I can't attest to the accuracy of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember one time we actually had someone bring in a Letter to the Editor as evidence for the hearing. It's generally not acceptable,but anyway... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I remember one time we had somebody bring in a model but was not an architect,was not a certified engineer,was not a model maker,but brought in a model in an attempt to use that as an exhibit,which certainly could not be accepted because there was no professional competency behind it. So,again,I don't know who did these,but it would be nice to know-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Does somebody have a copy of them? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,this right here that was handed out. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can I look at those during the break? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'd just like to know from the standpoint of the professional competency of this,and could they attest as a signed or sealed engineer or whatever that did these,or an architect,or the scale,those kind of things. It is really fascinating. It's just I want to know who did it--and thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,is there anybody else that has any questions of the applicant's team? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do. And you have your traffic person here? MR.YOVANOVICH: Traffic,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 39 of 79 i January 17,2019 MR. TREESH: Good morning, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation Consultants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR.TREESH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a peak hour of 176,and you used ITE manual 221 to get there. MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got 350 units and you've got 2.46 persons per households,that's 861 persons. Now,this is supposed to be a working essential--or not essential, but working professional type operation,so I'm assuming all these people are going to go to work. And if they do,generally work hours are two hours in the morning for peak hour and two hours in the afternoon. So your peak hour is 176, which is only 25 percent of the 861 persons anticipated to move there by your calculations. So how do you get only 25 percent are hitting the road at peak hour? Because the traffic is one of the driving forces behind this. MR.TREESH: I wish I could say this is my calculations, but these are the Institute of Transportation Engineers'calculations which we're required to use per the county requirements in terms of trip generation for this use. ITE,which is Institute of Transportation Engineers,just came out with their 10th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report. And with that 10th edition,they split the multifamily uses into different land-use codes based on the height of the building because that was determined through the surveys that were conducted,and submitted to ITE to have an impact on the trip generation. So, again,we're not making these numbers up. These are numbers that were nationally accepted, locally accepted and the estimates that we're required to use at this time. And I would like to point out that a multifamily use generates--an apartment use generates significantly less traffic than a single-family use. I mean, it's a pretty common-sense assumption,but if you think about it,the number of vehicles per unit,the number of persons per unit are significantly less in a rental community than it is in a single-family detached home and on the realm of almost half in terms of the daily trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you use land-use 221,multifamily housing,mid-rise for your calculation? MR.TREESH: That's correct,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fourth paragraph of land-use 221 from the manual says, "For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available,there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling units." So, okay, if you've got two-and-a-half people,which is average, let's say you've got two working people. 1 mean,at the price range you're in,you probably would need two working people. That's still going to get you to 700 persons,which 25 percent of that is 176. What happens to the other 75 percent of the people who leave at the peak hour to go to work each day and come back in that apartment complex when you're only saying a quarter of them are on the road? I just don't know how you get there. And if you're the traffic expert and you can't answer it,then maybe our staff can when I bring them up. MR.TREESH: Perhaps. But,again,you're asking me to delve into data that was collected and assimilated by ITE, and they don't survey every single resident of a community. They survey the driveways going into and out,and these are the traffic characteristics that this type of use exhibits. Where those specific people go at what time of the day, I mean,there's many answers. I mean, people can work different shifts where they don't leave during the peak hours. There's all kinds of answers to that question that would --but as with any land use in ITE,the data that is in there is based on actual surveys of these land uses, and that's the data that is in there and what we Page 40 of 79 January 17,2019 use. So the specific answers as to how those trips are distributed throughout the day and into the peak hour can vary,and the answers could be very wide ranging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you realize that the traffic might be an issue for this project in its determination for today's hearing? MR.TREESH: What project-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Allura,the one we're talking about. MR.TREESH: What project is traffic not an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you expected traffic questions today. Obviously, that's why you're here. MR.TREESH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have wanted to know how you got to that number based on the population of that project and why it differs? I mean,you're looking at only a quarter of the people,and I'm just wondering what analysis you might have done to do that. And a second analysis I was wondering if you did,obviously,when we have apartments for working people,professionals,whatever you want to call them,living in the urban area closer to where they work,that's going to take traffic off other sections of our roads— MR.TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --which desperately needs that done. But did you do a survey to determine where your market is for these people and the distances that we--they're going to be driving,road segments affected by them,and things like that? Would anybody do an analysis of that magnitude to get there today? MR.TREESH: I did not as part of this application,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it fair to say that the 10th edition of the ITE tells us nothing whatsoever about Segment 42.1 of Immokalee Road and the real conditions that are on that segment,correct? MR.TREESH: ITE is the simply the resource we use to— COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know what it is. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR.TREESH: —estimate traffic generation. No,there's not data in ITE about-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It tells us nothing about that segment. Thank you. MR.TREESH: Correct. That's what the purpose of the Traffic Impact Statement is,to assimilate all the data together,and then analyze the roadway links pursuant to the county requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the county requirements,basically,accept the 221 and accept the 176 as a multiplier that you used to come to that conclusion that that's how many people will be on the road from that apartment complex-- MR.TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --during the peak time of day? MR.TREESH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then I'll have to ask staff how they come to that conclusion,because I'm kind of puzzled by it,one of the numbers,really. I didn't really understand what was going on as far as quantities go until I read the 221 TIS piece that was included in our report. And when I saw that persons per household,I got to think,well,how can that many people,all of them--just a quarter of them leave? I just don't know how you got there, and I didn't pick that up,and that's the piece I'll need explained. So thank you. MR.TREESH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does anybody else have anything? Page 41 of 79 January 17,2019 I have-- Bob,you know what spot zoning is? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tell me why this isn't. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think spot zoning is a term that's thrown out there an awful lot. It's my professional opinion-- I believe it's backed up by professional analysis-- is that spot zoning is taking a land use that isn't compatible with other land uses and not really mitigating for it. So, for example, residential is compatible with residential. Multifamily adjacent to single-family is compatible,although there may need to be some mitigation. We allow-- in our standard districts in Collier County,we allow multifamily use in the same proximity as this PUD does to single-family. Well, how is it mitigated? The height might be limited,the landscape buffers might be greater, the setbacks might be greater. And within our straight zoning districts for RMF6, 12, 16, there are limitations. But I can think of many examples in Collier County where you have five-, six-,eight-, 10-, 12-story buildings and higher in fairly close proximity to single-family residential development. Those two uses are not incompatible;therefore, it cannot be spot zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll ask staff the same question when we get to them. You're asking for--and then you --in the conversation I've had,you know my concern has been the additional density as a result of the request to change the GMP. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're asking what was consistent with the GMP,that's a different argument than if you want more. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the public benefit from providing an increase in the density for this project? MR. MULHERE: The public benefit is it's going to meet the market demand for rental housing, which is significant. It is also--which does--somebody mentioned it up here--we'll reduce the-- I think you mentioned it. We'll reduce the way that people travel to and from work. With this option here,there's lot of employment within close proximity to this,and so that changes the way people travel to and from work. If I have to live in Lee County because I don't have an option to rent something here that I want,then I take a different way to get to my workplace, for example,at these schools or anywhere else in Collier County. So we know there's a demand, so there is a public benefit to this. You know,we have to meet the demand;otherwise,we're pushing that issue into other locations. So it changes the driving patterns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what entices us to provide a density bonus with nothing in return for the taxpayers? I mean,you're not doing any improvements on the road system because you're eliminating yourself from that TM--whatever it is,TMCA improvement process. So what is it you're going to do to really suggest that this is the right thing to do for the additional density? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, a couple of things. Number one,the whole premise of having a Transportation Concurrency Management Area identified was because the county, by policy, has decided that they want to encourage greater density. I understand that's seven units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that gets you to seven units,not 10. MR. MULHERE: I understand that; I got that. And then,I think,as Rich said, in this scenario, it's necessary for an apartment to generally have,you know, 10 to 12 to 14 units per acre. We're at 9.74. So we've really reduced that below what our original request was. So that's--and what public benefit? I mean,we're providing adequate, safe, and reasonable housing for a significant segment of the market, both existing and future in Collier County. Page 42 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember yesterday when we talked I suggested if you could tell me why this is unique and it stands out, it would be helpful to understand it. I haven't heard anything yet that's gotten to that point,and I mentioned it yesterday purposely so you could think about it. What have you --but it doesn't sound like you've got any--anything that would address-- my concern is--and I'll be absolutely straight as I was yesterday. When we tend to approve something for the first time, it becomes almost a standard thereafter. We have a limited number of people that do land use in Collier County and,as a result,that limited number have memory. So other clients then come in and say, well,we all know we've done this before. Let's do it again. I'm wondering why this is unique enough that that's not going to happen,or if it's the trend that's going to happen,what's the benefit to the taxpayers out of it if it were to happen? That's kind of where I'm coming from. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let Bob go because he may say, but I have some-- MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess, the things that come to mind are,number one, I don't know about any other potential applicant that might come in in their location,but what's unique about this location, I think--and we've already tried to make that statement, put it on the record. Number one,you know, it's at the intersection of what will be two arterial roadways. I don't know if every other one that comes in is going to be in the same position as that. Number two, it's proximate to-- it's within the urban area and proximate to work opportunities for an awful lot of people. Number three,we don't trigger--we don't trigger--by the county's rules,we don't trigger any transportation deficiencies. So by the county's rules,we're able to go forward. I don't know if every other project that comes in and asks for 9.74 or above units per acre will be in the same situation. If they are, I think they should have the same opportunity to come in and provide site-specific mitigation to address neighbors'concerns. Whether we succeed in that,you know, is certainly--I can't speak for the neighbors, but we are attempting to do that. So the use is compatible,the location's appropriate,we don't trigger any transportation issues,there's demand for the use,and we've tried to mitigate the impacts of this development,both visually and otherwise,on the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your site specific mitigation are just your development standards? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any mitigation outside the project beneficial as a whole to-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,every project pays impact fees. So the--an additional benefit from this project is--and I believe David Weeks and I agree with this. is that we're not required to provide any TDM standards to get to the seven units per acre under the current Comprehensive Plan. To go above the seven,we're providing TDM standards for the additional 2.74 units per acre. So that's some additional benefit that we're doing. We are providing a--we are meeting a need that your Comprehensive Plan, frankly,doesn't address in its current form other than through an affordable housing density bonus program. And I'm fairly certain if I came in and asked for an adorable housing density bonus program on this piece of property,there would probably be three or four times the amount of people that are in this room right now than are here right now. So there's a--there's a gap, if you will,in our current Comprehensive Plan that doesn't address this market, and we are trying to address that market through a Comprehensive Plan amendment with a concurrent PUD to address compatibility and all those other things that are necessary. We're going to provide the additional TDMS that,otherwise, we would not be required Page 43 of 79 January 17,2019 to do unless things change. We might have to do it sometime in the future if traffics changes but, currently. right now we don't need to. So I would say we're not asking to do something for nothing, but we are also meeting a need. And, frankly,when you go back to the blue/red exhibit for what's De La Rosa and what's approved today for De La Rosa,that De La Rosa PUD,which Stock Development owns right now--so if this is turned down, we'll go in and we'll have to develop De La Rosa based upon the existing development standard, which is 50 feet zoned,69 feet actual,up to 26 feet--well, it's 20 in the thing,but the most recent site plan is 26, not 20. We'll have to do that. So what we've done is we've looked very thoughtfully at relocating those buildings further away from De La Rosa to create a 125-foot setback for these people with enhanced landscaping and some other visual barriers which are the garages. And you're going to get,you know,a world-class apartment complex on this site. So we're not doing something for nothing. We're meeting a need,we're providing additional transportation strategies,and we're addressing a shortfall in the current Growth Management Plan that has to be addressed. I mean,either change the code,which I know is not going to happen. We've been talking about this for a long time. So we're doing site-specific Growth Management Plans to address this. And each one is unique. Mr. Klatzkow will tell you,every zoning petition and every Growth Management Plan petition is unique,and we can never use it as a basis for another one, and I don't think I've ever done it. Maybe I'm wrong,but I don't think I've ever said, hey,you gave me this here,you've got to give it to me here. MR. KLATZKOW: You say that all the time. MR.YOVANOVICH: I only do it on -- I only do it on the road,only on the road right-of-way. But I'm not asking you to give me something that we got somewhere else. I'm saying,this is unique,and we think that we're meeting a need,and we've been responsive and responsible to the neighbors and have continued to meet with them and will continue to meet with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to--you're getting about 100 additional units than what you could request with the GMP as it is today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that 100 additional units,you're providing the following elements based on the TCMA: Transit shelter within the RPUD in a location design approved by Collier County. So you're going to put a transit shelter in. MR. KLATZKOW: Which no one will use based on the rentals that they're asking for, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the point is-- let me summarize. There's three of them: Bicycle pedestrian facilities with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you open up a pathway,okay; and then vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west,so the pathway becomes wide enough for a car. So that's it. That's what--that's the public benefit out of an extra 100 units for your project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're providing housing that the public needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Otherwise, we would not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me talk about that. (Multiples speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep saying we need housing. You're not-- I mean, if you were to ask what kind of housing we need of a lot of people--not saying that this is better or worse Page 44 of 79 January 17,2019 for this location-- it's affordable. Now,we've got a lot of new projects coming online,4,000 units, just about. The other project you alluded to today is like Briarwood. It's going to be high-end. It's going to be very expensive like this. It's going to be like Orchid Run. We seem to have a lot of that coming on,and that's fine,and I have no qualms about that. But I'm not sure the need is that high-end market-rate housing as much as it is other types of housing. So I'm not sure the need for this is necessarily proven. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well, I think we've provided a market analysis that shows you there is a shortfall of this type of housing in Collier County. So I think we have established,and your staff agrees that we have established,there's a need for this type of housing in Collier County. I'm not saying there aren't other needs, but there is a need for this type of housing in Collier County for a blend of people who are going to come here and they choose that type of housing,and for working people. There's a blend that is going to live in this community,and there's no question there's a need. And how do I know that is there's no way that Brian Stock is going to put that much money at risk if he doesn't think there's a need and people who desire that type of housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any more questions. I don't think,of staff--of the applicant. That's most of them right now. Let me double-check one other one. Oh, I'll have to do some research. I have another question, but I'll wait till after lunch. I need to look at some documents based on what you've said. So I'm finished with the applicant at this time. Does anybody else have anything they want of the applicant? Any other questions? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: One quick question. In the apartment studies that were provided, I noticed there was no mention of a rather sizable apartment complex on Vanderbilt Beach called TGM Bermuda Island, and I just wondered why that was not in the reports. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure. Michael Timmerman did our Collier County regional market analysis. I really can't answer that question. He's not here today. I don't know why they didn't include that. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I ask that,because part of the justification for this is the need for apartment housing. And so I would think that all the inventory of apartment housing would be included in that. There's--TGM Malibu Lakes in the report. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the sister property. MR. MULHERE: We can try to get an answer to that via email,you know,during the lunch break. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think the first slide you put up, Bob,showed an overlay of the De La Rosa PUD. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're--just to be clear,and I think for myself and everybody up here and everybody that's in the audience, if this is not approved,the De La Rosa PUD that's shown in blue is already approved and can be built as-is? The PUD is approved and ready to go? MR. MULHERE: The PUD's approved. There was an SDP. I'm sure that the SDP would be revised but,yes, it can be built and will be built, because Stock owns that property. So, obviously,they're going to come in and build if they don't do this,which we believe is a far better site plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: So part of your case is that you're actually providing larger setbacks, lower-- MR. MULHERE: Significantly. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- building heights than what would be got(sic)on part of that Page 45 of 79 January 17,2019 property--part of the full PUD? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and I think that affects primarily Barrington Cove,you know, because those are closer to Barrington Cove. It doesn't necessarily affect,you know,the neighbors to the north or any other directions. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I echo Commissioner Strain --Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fryer's concerns-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll respond to any name at all. COMMISSIONER FRY: --concerns--me,too. But I think the leap that I'm struggling with,and perhaps I know why we have a roomful of people here, is how we get from seven,which seems to be the magic number that would be permitted under the GMP, up to this 10 and what the-- MR. MULHERE: We like to say 9.74. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you--just what,you know,the overall benefit is. And I looked at the mitigation strategies,the bus stop,and I think there's no bus route to that location. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. We have a central bus stop right here in the county. I've yet to see anybody get off that bus and walk to the county. It's right here. The people who are using the bus would be the people who would want the affordable housing primarily,all right. It's not for this type of market. That's just my experience. I've yet-- I don't know a single county employee who uses the CAT system. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I guess that doesn't show a demonstrable benefit,and the stub outs to an existing commercial property that doesn't exist yet-- I assume that once that was built there would be some-- MR. MULHERE: Benefit. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- benefit that less traffic would have to go out on the main roads to get to that commercial development. MR.MULHERE: That's the idea. And, look,you know, I can't predict what-- I mean, I don't agree-- I don't necessarily disagree with what the County Attorney said. I mean, I don't--maybe Michelle Arnold could speak better to the demographics. I think there is a specific ridership on CAT. Who exactly they are, I don't necessarily disagree. But there is an idea to promote --there's only so many ways that we're going to reduce the level of traffic on our roadways. We can continue to widen roadways to eight or 10 lanes, and nobody wants that,or we can find ways to encourage people to use transit. That's one way. That's why we encourage transit. Now, if we're not doing it effectively,that is a different question. That is the question of how do we do it more effectively to encourage people to ride. MR. KLATZKOW: Or you keep the density. MR. MULHERE: People are not going to use transit if there isn't a transit stop there. MR. KLATZKOW: It's fascinating,because we've got a 30-year plan with our roads and everything else based on a certain density,yet we keep increasing density and wondering why the roads can't handle them. It's a fascinating conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're a fascinating county. Anybody--go ahead. Corby,you wanted to add something? MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. Mr.Chairman, before we break for lunch, I'd like to address one item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's good timing. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Yovanovich made some statements regarding how he achieves density on this property or hopes to, and I'd like to clarify something. When he talks about moving from four units per acre to seven and then beyond, I'd like to clarify something. And it's the urban designation in the FLUE which allows,as a base density, Page 46 of 79 ■ January 17,2019 four units per acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the three is discretionary, is it not? MR. SCHMIDT: The three units per acre is discretionary as offered by the Transportation Concurrency Management Area and when providing those transportation demand-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Corby,you said the base-- four is allowed,and that's-- MR. SCHMIDT: Four is allowed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- not my understanding,that the base density of four is eligibility. So I just want to clarify'that. MR. SCHMIDT: That's right. Your base is also an entitlement,and it's discretionary as well. It can be adjusted. And then to go from your four number to seven has to do with your transportation demand management strategies. And by offering those items up that he has in his subdistrict language would allow them to go from four to seven using their round numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, those items that he's offering up would apply if a project of any size was here, right? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. And then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean,this is a bigger project than what we were originally talking about. So I'm just saying that there should be something larger contributed to the cause to get it accomplished if that was the case. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not here to argue that at this moment. I'm just trying to make some thresholds understood clearly for the members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And then to move beyond those seven units per acre from 9.75 or 9.8, or whatever the calculation may be,then something else or simply as an ask offering up nothing more to move beyond that seven per acre up to what the density requested is is what's being asked of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks,manager in the Comprehensive Planning section. I just want to, I guess, put a fine point on something that Corby has stated. The requirement under the TCMA for the density bonus in the FLUE does not specifically require transportation demand management strategies unless the applicant wishes to be exempt from link-specific concurrency,which they are not. They're not asking for that so,therefore,they are not required to provide TDMS; however,there is a policy in the Future Land Use Element, Policy 6.1, specific to the TCMAs that does say--and here's the fine point,that does say that part of the requirement is that there's the--do take actions to promote public transit. bicycling,walking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. So it may in fact be TDM strategies that meet that policy requirement, but just--the fine point is just that it is not specifically a requirement that thou must do specific TDM strategies that are identified in a different FLUE policy that says you must do at least two of the following four. So there potentially could be some other strategy that the applicant could employ that would meet the requirement of this Policy 6.1. Again, it's a fine point,but I just wanted to get that clear on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Weeks,do you have any evidence or--well, do you have the belief that those particular TDM strategies,that any of them would be significant or meaningful? Impactful? MR. WEEKS: I think it's difficult to say until we see-- most particularly because two of them that they're proposing are the interconnections with the commercial development next door, Page 47 of 79 January 17,2019 and until we--unless and until we see exactly what that commercial development is going to be, I think that makes a big difference on how much that TDM strategy works. Right now the corner parcel is zoned Cl, which is limited to office and personal service type uses,which I would suggest would not be something that would be significantly of use by persons in this development. But if that zoning were to change in the future to allow retail uses, then I think there would be more use of that property and,therefore,those interconnections would have a greater benefit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But a bus stop that's not on a bus route is not typically useful,is it? MR. WEEKS: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in following that line of reasoning,the three TDM strategies that they're suggesting really aren't very useful. It's in the--based on the GMP language that you guys are putting forth. MR. WEEKS: It's of limited benefit,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of where I was concerned about as far as public benefit. Okay. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Let me make one more comment;just echoing what was stated earlier,and that is why they're here. They're here for a Comprehensive Plan amendment because they cannot achieve the density without the plan amendment. There's data and analysis required by Florida Statutes,and so they have to demonstrate that there is a need for what they're asking for and that this is the appropriate location to meet that need. Staff has determined that they have met the need;they demonstrated the need: that there's a need for more apartments. The whole range--you know,you go back to the study that the County Commission had commissioned and that was done in 2017, I believe,or early in 2018,that did identify the need for more apartments in Collier County,of the entire level,the entire spectrum, not just affordable but certainly includes affordable,but the whole spectrum. Anyway,they have demonstrated the need for apartments. To me,the focus of the discussion,appropriately, would be is this the appropriate location to fulfill that need,and that gets into the compatibility discussion and the infrastructure impact discussion. And the compatibility portion we're limited somewhat because we don't have the details here, and that's,of course, I think is why Bob showed you so much information from the proposed PUD,because that's where you'll get a lot of that detail of how to make a project or at least try to make a project compatible with its neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, I'd like to call a break. We will take a one-hour lunch. We'll come back at 1 o'clock and resume with the staff responses,questions,and then public testimony. (A luncheon recess was had.) (Mr. Klatzkow is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Welcome back from the lunch time. For those of us that are here,we're going to resume the meeting. And we left off with the applicant finishing up their presentation and questions from the Planning Commission,and we started on some staff reporting, and we'll move to staff right now, and Corby will--well, I guess,you're the beginning player for those. Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, good afternoon. Just to review-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Corby, state your name for the record. MR. SCHMIDT: Schmidt,Corby Schmidt, principal planner with the Comprehensive Planning section for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you relation to Joe Schmitt? Page 48 of 79 ( January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, he spells it different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just want to get off on tangents while we're at it. MR. SCHMIDT: Just extremely different. It's so distant it's spelled differently. The request before you today is for the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Livingston Veterans Memorial Parkway subdistrict. I may have the title-- it's long. The Allura companion rezone is not being considered today,but you did hear some details from that future proposal as part of the presentation from the applicant's agents. I've put on the visualizer for you the most recent changes with those highlighted. You also have them in handout form. In the past week you've received an email,at least one. With previous changes here,those last two,you'll see them in yellow highlighting. Changed reference to the FLUE policy that allows the offer to use those not-required TDM strategies,as the applicant has stated they would be doing,to move them from four units per acre to seven. If the requirement would have been to be exempt from link concurrency,that reference would have been 6.5. Here the reference has been changed to 6.1. And the statement at the bottom is a catch-all that we use in a number of other subdistricts. So if development strategies change within the subdistrict, it allows for the use of the property in the manner of the underlying subdistrict or district itself. Those are the only changes to the language since you received it previously. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Corby,you want to slide the--you've only got half of Line B,and I know there's a change there as well. So just so the public knows where the change is. Isn't that--no,the--above it. You didn't highlight in yellow, but it's from 420 to 350. MR. SCHMIDT: Oh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was on the previous. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe the public is aware of previous changes,the density change, the count change and other less significant numbers and so forth in anticipation of the--from the floor change associated with the companion item that we anticipated happening here today. Before lunch I went over the policies in the Future Land Use Element that provide for the four units per acre as part of the base density on this property,the allowance for the three additional units per acre,and then the ask by the applicants in this case for the additional acreage or the additional density for the nine-point sum total. The density rating system doesn't cover that. There are no provisions in the FLUE for that additional density that's happening, because it's an ask. It's just outside of any of the other bonuses that we have provisions for. And you are being asked for the first time to do something like that outside of the Transportation Concurrency Management Area provisions,outside of the density rating system and other provisions for the residential designations in the FLUE. There have been no further changes since the original staff report,and the findings haven't changed since December. So unless you have any questions of staff,that's all I've got for my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I do. Corby.you heard my question previously about spot zoning,and the applicant's planner attempted to provide their explanation what they thought spot zoning is. What do you think it is? I mean,does this-- let's put it this way: Does this qualify as spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: Spot zoning is something that would be so far out of context that it would be noticeable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they didn't ask for a GMP amendment, would this be considered spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: I think so. Page 49 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the GMP amendment makes a difference? MR. SCHMIDT: The GM--for the GMP amendment,to put this in some sort of context-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. SCHMIDT: -- it makes a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they came in just with a PUD and wanted to put this project there,your department.or you, would look at it as considered spot zoning; is that-- MR. SCHMIDT: No. I think it's a contributing factor to making a decision. It isn't the only one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was clear on it when you told me the answer yesterday. I'm not clear on it when you told me today in the public meeting. So David's standing behind you. Maybe he can clarify it for me. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners,David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section, Growth Management manager. First of all.we don't have a definition of spot zoning either in the LDC or in the Comprehensive Plan but,generally, it's a zoning that is very different than that which is around it, and usually it's thought of as being very small. That's my experience; those are the two determinates of what spot zoning is; however,the Land Development Code does have a minimum--which I think is relevant here to the question of spot zoning--does provide that for any property to be rezoned to a district to which it is not similar, for example, if a piece of property wants to be--applicant wants to rezone a piece of property to commercial and it is adjacent to commercial zoning,CI,2,3,4, 5, it doesn't matter,any of those,then there would be no minimum size requirement. It could be a quarter of an acre. But if a property is not abutting a district to which it is similar,then it has to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet, which is just under an acre, and there's also a width requirement. It's either 150 feet or 200 feet. So from my perspective, reading that minimum requirement that suggests that spot zoning would be a property that is smaller than that 40,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then on that basis,this wouldn't be considered spot zoning? MR. WEEKS: I do not believe so at all. And,furthermore, I'll go back to an earlier question,if I may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WEEKS: --about this. We have the density rating system in the Future Land Use Element that allows properties to be rezoned and determines what density a project is eligible for, and for most portions of the urban area,that base density of eligible but not entitled is four units per acre. The maximum density would be 16 units per acre. And,of course,the property has to qualify for enough bonus density to get up to that 16. And so,from my perspective, if a property comes in and it qualifies for bonuses,assume it qualifies for the maximum of 16,just because the project qualifies for the maximum density and that that density might be much higher than the surrounding zoning would allow, in my opinion that is not necessarily spot zoning. And one example,the biggest bonus that we have is the affordable housing bonus,which recently changed to 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That question was raised in several of the emails or letters I received,and I wanted to get a firm answer on it. While you're there,did your department review--the PUD's been in the works in the county for some time. Everybody knew it was there. So did you guys--since compatibility is an issue for the GMP level,did you guys look at the PUD and make any review of it to determine if,basically,the way they wanted to build this Page 50 of 79 January 17,2019 project met the consistency requirements of the GMP for compatibility? MR. WEEKS: Yes and no. Yes, we have--Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the rezone petition. Broadly speaking, our approach is,yes,this may be found consistent if the companion plan amendment is adopted and goes into effect because the rezone, what it's requesting right now,that density is not consistent with the existing future land-use designation on the property. That rezone is contingent upon this plan amendment being adopted and going into effect. Specifically,the question of compatibility,Comprehensive Planning staff has for many years,and we continue to,defer to the zoning services staff to determine compatibility. They look at the project in all of its detail. They look at all of the different development standards: Setbacks,building heights,building mass, if there is any,building orientation, buffers, landscape buffers, separation from surrounding properties,development on surrounding properties. They take all of that into account in determining whether or not a project is compatible. Comprehensive Planning usually has a higher-level review, so we defer the compatibility review to the zoning services staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in this particular case, if this project were to go to adoption, it would--they've already said it's going to be brought forward with adoption. So then that's when staff would weigh in on the compatibility, I would assume, based on history. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.okay. The other thing,we used to have--well,maybe we still do. We've got different-- I know we've got different bonuses. The bonus provisions,the transportation one that we're dealing with today,TCMA, has public-benefit processes that go with those that are affected or those that fall under that umbrella. This one I know doesn't.based on what has been resubmitted at the 350. Other density bonuses in the code. let's say it's--other than affordable housing. I know what that one does. Are there any other public-benefit requirements of those others? Because I'm still caught in this problem of trying to figure out what are we getting for the three additional units we're giving away,and that's got me a little bit perplexed. because even if they use the TDM strategies to get to seven,those strategies as we've discussed really aren't, realistically,going to do anything,at least it seems like they may not because it's just a matter of when and how. So I'm more worried about the size of this project and what kind of public benefit could be expected, if any. MR. WEEKS: First let me say there's no requirement that a project provide public benefit. That simply is not one of the criteria that's established in state statutes or,to my knowledge, in the Land Development Code,although I know oftentimes it is brought up. For the other density bonuses,most of them are simply if you are located within a certain area,you qualify. For example, if a project was within a residential density band or at an activity center,it's eligible for three-units-per-acre bonus,period. The applicant doesn't have to do anything extra. It's just based on location. There's another bonus that is based upon having an access to two or more arterial or collector roads. So the applicant does have to provide access from the project onto the external roads but,other than that,they're not actually doing anything;they're not offering up anything,per se. And that's typical of the density bonuses. Generally speaking, it's location based. And that would be the case here in the TCMA; just because you're within the TCMA, if you take some action to address transportation concerns. and it doesn't specifically have to be those TDM strategies,the project is eligible for the three-unit-per-acre bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you, David. And I have a question,Heidi,that I'd like to ask you to possibly answer. I know that the Page 51 of 79 January 17,2019 State of Florida has some rules about illegal exactions;can't do them. But is there a give and take allowed in the process of this kind of operation where a developer's asking for unallocated density, density that's not part of any bonus provision? I don't want to push an envelope where there isn't one but,at the same time, I know we do things--when Dan Summers'department reviews something,he'll look at it and say,well, I need 20 cots for hurricane preparedness to go into a shelter,and that's--a developer then will have that as part of his commitment. Is there anything that could be utilized in a case like this? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: At the Growth Management Plan level, I think you can request anything that you want or feel is reasonable that the developer would be willing to do. On the rezoning level,which is the PUD level,there has to be a nexus between what's requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the project? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And the impacts--yeah. But on the Growth Management Plan level, I think you can request anything reasonable the developer's willing to do in order to get the approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Toni needs a new high school right down the road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the developer can say no if it's not something he can do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to understand the limitations,because I know we do have some. And,Corby,that's the only questions I have at this time. I do need other staff members, but I want to make sure nobody else here--go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would--when the question of public benefit came up and there being no requirement or a standard to use in the nature of public benefit, I would think of Section 163.3177.and particularly GA8 of Florida Statutes which says--here's just an excerpt. "Also the state planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires, i.e., if the community has articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired,such as within a community development area and existing incompatibilities, i.e.. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions." I think that comes pretty close to public--making public benefit a relevant consideration. Just my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I sure have some questions of transportation staff. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. For the record,Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you were sworn in earlier? MS. SCOTT: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity,you heard some of the questions I asked. They're going to be the same process. I looked at multifamily 221,and in that dissertation about what it did,they talked about a persons per household, and you multiply that out either by the 420 or the 350 or by,the young lady earlier said,about two people per unit. So even if you use that number, if you use two people per unit instead of the 2.4 that 221 was based upon,you still have 700 bodies. Now, I know she said she's got herself and two kids,so in that household there's probably one car;unless she's got a husband,there might be two. But if you're a young professional trying to pay$2,000 a month, there might be two of you and there might be two cars. How is it logical that out of 700 people, let's say 90 percent of them, 75 of them have a car and they don't al I ride together,that only 25 percent are going out at the peak hour and Page 52 of 79 January 17,2019 coming--going out and coming back at the peak hour? And that's-- both of those are important. And I couldn't get an answer I even understood from their traffic engineer, so 1 thought maybe you could attempt it. MR. SCOTT: Well, first of all, let me say that the ITE is based on --just to echo what Mr.Treesh advised earlier-- is based on surveys that are nationwide,and so it is based on data. What I will tell you is, particularly in the p.m. peak people tend to trip chain. So I leave work at 5 o'clock. 1 might go have a drink with a friend. I may meet my husband for dinner. I may stop at the grocery store and pick something up. I may go to the gym. So there's a lot of things that people do, particularly after work and even before work; lots of folks go to the gym in the morning before they go,so they're not necessarily leaving at that a.m. or p.m.peak time. They're picking up children from an after-school program. So those time frames tend to expand out to where you may have a smaller percentage that are actually leaving during those p.m.(sic)peak times or coming home during those p.m. peak times, but it has to do with trip chaining,distance of commute,things of that nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any documentation that shows that has been the outcome of a serious study and people living in these kind of facilities showing that they confer-- it's concurred like you just said? MS. SCOTT: That that's specifically the reasons,no,but it is conferred based on the IT trip generation manual because this is years and years and years of data collection that goes into an industry-wide standard that we all use. All the counties in the state of Florida utilize IT trip generation as our level of standard to measure against. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to see some improvements with the east west link of Veterans Memorial. You had told me previously that's in the five-year plan. Is that right? MS. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when do you think the actual construction of that road will begin? MS. SCOTT: Based on our five-year plan--hold on. I have to pull it up and look across. It is in our Fiscal Year'22, which begins October 21st of'21. Now,what I'm going to state is is that the funding will be available as of October 1st of 2021. Typically, it takes us two years to build roadways;however, in this particular instance,you don't-- it's not a roadway where when we have maintenance of traffic that we need to deal with, so, typically,those time frames are shorter in that manner. Couple that with the fact that I have a high school that needs to open in August of'23, so I need to have the road done so Mr.Eastman can get those kids to school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you're pretty assured it's going to be done by 2023? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that link were to open,what would it--have you done any studies to see what kind of impact it's going to have on Livingston Road? MS. SCOTT: No, we have not. In our overall traffic model,we haven't taken that road out to take a look at what the alternates would be, but it is,overall, in our cost feasible plan network that we model all of our traffic on. It will have some relief to portions of Livingston Road, it will have some relief to portions of Immokalee Road,as well as Bonita Beach Road for folks who are currently traversing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take any analysis into effect for the extension of Logan up through and connected to Bonita Beach Road? And I think it's the end of this year Lee County thinks they'll have that done. MS. SCOTT: It will. It's also included in our cost feasibility plan network that we model based on. Page 53 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how much traffic is there-- is there expected to be traffic taken off Livingston Road because of that connection? MS. SCOTT: Yes,but we have not modeled it with and without. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you review the TIS for this project-- MS. SCOTT: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that's in front of us today? MS. SCOTT: I did not personally, but my staff did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the staff member here who reviewed it? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can he or she come up so we can ask them a question? MS. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or I can at least. MS. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I knew it was a he,but I wasn't sure anymore nowadays, so I didn't want to offend anybody by saying the wrong he or she. Could "it"come up? Hi, Mike. MR. SAWYER: It can definitely come up. For the record, Mike Sawyer.Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, knowing that traffic is always an issue in Collier County, and especially when we're asking for a higher density in an area that it typically wouldn't have this normally, in that road that there's--Livingston's pretty congested at times, but especially based on the traffic on 1-75. In the TIS,did you see any analysis for the impacts that would be either beneficial or negative as a result of the Veterans Memorial completion and/or Logan Boulevard being connected up to Bonita Beach Road? MR. SAWYER: No,quite honestly. And the issue is that we look at the existing road network that we have. We also take into certain considerations of the improvements that are going to be projected but,quite honestly, what we want to make sure is that the project within the five-year time frame of our review is consistent with the GMP. In other words, is there capacity currently and moving five years projected out into the future on the immediate adjacent network? We look to see if that network has a 2 percent or greater impact on the first immediate section. After that,then we go to the next--if it's over 2 percent at that point,then we look at the next road segments off of that. So you go to the first series of intersections,you look at 2 percent there. If you're tripping above 2 percent there,then you go to the next section of intersections. If you're above 2 percent at that point,then you go out to the third section,and then it's looked at at a 3 percent impact. In this case, there is a difference in the 420 units that was originally proposed as opposed to the 350 units that is now being proposed.and it really comes down to the immediate adjacent segments of Livingston. And we do, in fact, have capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you're calculating the capacity need for this project, though,you're using their generated peak-hour number,which is 25 percent--actually, it's lower than 25 percent. because I think that's based on the 420. So it's-- it might be wrong, but I could check that. But, still,you're looking at about 25 percent best-case scenario of the total number of persons that are estimated to be living in that facility because you're using their number, their peak number. MR. SAWYER: Correct. We're using their numbers that they're showing us,and we're confirming those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,the road system --we have this come up at every single meeting.every single hearing,every single zoning action. We all talk about traffic. And Page 54 of 79 January 17,2019 we're experiencing a lot greater traffic flow on the roads, I think,than some of us ever thought were going to be there. Have we ever looked back to see if the way were calculating this stuff was accurate? I mean, it's just--it's like the Racetrac and the convenience store combination,remember that, on-- it was on 41 and Palm. At that--just around that time frame,the State of Florida realized that the ITE manual probably wasn't addressing convenience stores with large numbers of pumps as accurately as maybe it was needed. They did their own study. And you may recall that study, because we talked about it way back then. And I'm just wondering, have we looked at others? Because something seems kind of odd when we only have 25 percent of the persons counted for-- I understand your explanation,but I've lived here 42 years,and I've never operated kind of the way you said. There might be one night a week I might stop somewhere on the way home, but usually not at all. I'm not sure everybody does that,but anyway. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Women do. MS. SCOTT: I was going to say, it's very rare in my household--and we have two licensed drivers and five vehicles--that either of us are ever home during the p.m.peak time frame. We're usually home about 15 minutes after, but that's my household. To answer your question, ITE looks through each of their generations that they've done through the years. If you go back to the first generation, it's much more limited in scale as far as the number of land uses,et cetera,and even with the 10th edition,they've added new land uses; they've split them up. So,yes,that is from an industry standard. They look at that through each generation. I think our last generation,the ninth generation,was done about three years ago or so, so we've just recently adopted the 10th generation. So,yes,someone does that,but then even specifically for Collier County transportation, I look at Long Range Transportation Plans and prior Long Range Transportation Plans to look at, say,what we had projected along Immokalee Road in our 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan versus what we're experiencing today and then what we're projecting out with our 2040 and now soon to be 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. So,yes,we do take a look back and kind of see what happened. I do that as part of my analysis in my background of the Annual Update and Inventory Report. So I'm looking at that just because I want to kind of see where those projections are. A lot of times we're higher. That's actually where we've been on-- I'm going to use Immokalee Road as the case. We were higher but we also had a downturn in the economy during that time frame. So things happen,and a model doesn't always pick those things up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this project were to go to the next step,which is the adoption hearing and PUD review, if it were to get that far,would it be reasonable for your department to request an analysis from the applicant as to how the two road segments.the new northeast section of Logan up to Bonita Beach Road and east/west over to 41 --Livingston Road would be--would affect the traffic flows on Livingston? Is that something that can be done,or is it too illogical or too difficult to even-- is it too much of a guess? MS. SCOTT: It's all based on a transportation model. It's not something that we would typically require for a development of this size. We are typically doing that type of--that level of analysis when we're looking at large towns where they're actually running the traffic model and having a "with"and "without"project. But I'm going to ask Mike to correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that this applicant directed any traffic down Veterans Memorial as part of the TIS. So they're taking a very conservative approach as far as how even they're directing their 25 percent that's coming in in the p.m. peak and how they're distributing the traffic. They did not utilize Veterans Memorial as a Page 55 of 79 January 17,2019 distribution. So they're either coming out and going north,or they're going south. So they're showing a larger impact to Livingston Road than probably what's really going to be realized in the end because Veterans Memorial will be in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Veterans Memorial dead-ends into a railroad track right now. So what good would it be to use that as a means of exit? MS. SCOTT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd go down,turn around,and come back and go right back to the same place they estimated it to be today. So, I mean, I don't see how that proves anything. MS. SCOTT: But when you're looking at the five-year period and you're asking,well, what impacts will that roadway have, et cetera. that roadway will be in place in the five years,as will the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the piece I was hoping that we could understand how--if there is relief to understand that now, it would help understand this application, but,okay. I understand where we're at. Thank you. Did you have something,Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Regarding the traffic study,did it look specifically at this GMP,or did they subtract what they are already authorized with the De La Rosa project? Was it the delta,or was it the entire project? MS. SCOTT: I'll let Mike answer that since he reviewed it himself. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or maybe the traffic engineer can ask that question, because they're certainly vested for what they had already in De La Rosa,correct? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I can go back and double-check, but I believe that it was done on the total number of units proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Total number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That number being the higher at 420. then; is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: We redid it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you redid it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, a quick question. In the TIS.how big of a factor did Talis Park rear entrance factor in on that? That's right by where the road dead-ends. Because I know they were doing a lot more multi-family in that community,and their density is increasing, I know. From what I've seen,the majority of Talis Park is coming out on that Veterans there on that road. So how big of a factor--did you-all factor that in your TIS? MR. SAWYER: Currently we do not track, in the AUIR,Veterans Memorial. So all of those existing trips,okay,are already on the link that we look at,which is Livingston. Right now Veterans Memorial is looked at as a local street. We don't check capacity on all of those road segments with local streets. What we're looking at are the major corridors that we've got through the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the traffic off of Veterans onto Livingston would be included? MR. SAWYER: Those are--all of the existing trips are being already counted on Livingston. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Trinity,the Veterans Memorial all the way through across the railroad to Old 41,that's all part of the plan for the expansion,correct? MS. SCOTT: Correct. We are proposing going to Old 41. So we're not just stopping at the high school. We are going to Old 41. Page 56 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you're already working to get the vacated-- MS. SCOTT: What we're working on currently is working with the railroad to have an easement across the railroad, but the construction is programmed within our five years. We've been working closely. We knew the school had a few options,and we wanted to make sure that we aligned. So we have that funded for construction within our five years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trinity,that spur only went to the Krehling plant, right? MS. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is it used at all? MS. SCOTT: To my knowledge. it has not been used south of--the rail has not been used south of Alico in over a decade; however, it is still owned. I believe,by CSX. I believe they--actually, I believe Seminole Gulf just recently purchased the rights to it. CSX used to be the underlying property owner with Seminole Gulf as an easement. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So I would assume you're asking them, is it necessary? Can we just pull it out? MS. SCOTT: That is not typically how it goes with the railroad. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I have one other question from you. You wrote the staff report,right? MR. SCHMIDT: Among others, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 7 of the staff report,the very bottom of the page, it reads the following: "The density rating system does not provide for any additional density if more than the minimum required two criteria are met. Staff was suggesting the petition go above and beyond and offer something extra to the benefit of the larger community rather than simply asking for additional density. Application materials did not offer any additional commitments rather than request a greater density via this GMPA." That is where I started my concern about public benefit. What did you have in mind when you wrote that? MR. SCHMIDT: Looked for something additional from the applicants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got that out of it-- MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but what kind of additional? In the past have you experienced any additional commitments to offset some of these concerns? MR. SCHMIDT: Well,planners look at the FLUE as, in this case,a starting point. These are examples of--the strategies are those fixed items. The FLUE--and those mitigation strategies don't provide for additional bonuses for density,yet I have applicants in front of you who want additional density. How do they get there? Staff offered up an idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the idea? MR. SCHMIDT: Offer up something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. So you don't have anything in mind. You suggested by this report that they should consider some additional commitment to get to where they want to go? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you may have had something in mind as to why Page 57 of 79 you wrote that there,and that's what I was-- January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It could be something as simple as the residents within the apartment complex form carpools. MR. SCHMIDT: I mean,other portions of the documents,both the Transportation Element and the FLUE,give us ideas of what's being looked for. There have to be effective and meaningful strategies that provide that capacity on the roads within a certain time period. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: What could those be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I get it now. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What we're going to do is go to public testimony. And the way this is going to work,we will take the speakers that have put out slips. When we get done, if someone wants to speak who has not put a slip in, I'll ask,would anybody else from the public like to speak? We ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes;that if there--we don't need the redundancy. It doesn't--we hear it once,we pretty much hear it. If you say that you just agree with the speaker before you,that works great. If you want to defer your time to somebody else in your crowd,that works great,too. We are going to break at 2:15 for the court reporter for 10 minutes,and then we're going to end up today at 3:30,and then we'll have to continue whatever's left until the February 7th meeting. And if we did that,this would be the first item up, so it would start at 9 o'clock in the morning. So that's the process we're going to go through,and we will start by calling out names. And we have two speakers. Feel free to go to either one that's most convenient to you. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: All right. The first two are Rosie Petisco--excuse me if I get the pronunciations wrong--but second is Sharon Griffith. MS. PETISCO: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the first thing you need to do is confirm with us that you were sworn in,and if you weren't,we need to--and also you need to state your name,and if it's more than something simple like Smith,you probably need to spell it out. MS. PETISCO: Not a problem. It's Rosie Petisco. You pronounced it wonderfully. Nobody ever gets that right,and I have been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better spell that last name. MS. PETISCO: It's P as in Paul,e-t as in Tom, i-s as in Sam,c as in cat,o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would never have figured that out. Thank you. MS. PETISCO: Thank you. So first I'd like to thank you for your time,and I see that this is something that you are seriously considering. And I'm just standing before you-- I'm not as well prepared as other people may be. I'm just here as a full-time working mom that moved away from the city that I was born and raised in. I had a very good job at the University of Miami. My kids probably could have gone to school there for free,and I left Miami because I wanted to give them a different life and a different lifestyle. I live in Barrington Cove. My backyard will actually be at the end of the lake. So I just recently built a pool never expecting the possibility of apartment buildings and people who could be looking down at my teenage daughter in her bikini. I really don't care how much of a buffer you put. If the building is high enough,they'll be able to look directly into my backyard. My other concern is my daughter is at North Naples Middle School. I have one in eighth Page 58 of 79 January 17,2019 grade,one in sixth grade. This year when they did the orientation for the sixth grade,the principal did announce that this is the first year where the sixth graders will have to be overflowing into the seventh and eighth grade locker areas because this was the biggest incoming sixth grade class they ever had,and they no longer fit just in the sixth grade area. I can tell you traffic is a concern for me. We-- I exit out the back of Barrington Cove because I do live closer to Barrington,to the back,so I come out through Veterans. Currently, there are mornings where at 8 o'clock in the morning, 8:30 in the morning, it's already kind of backed up pretty significantly on Veterans. So if the only exit for Allura is going to be on Veterans, I'm not really sure if anybody's really taking into consideration the impact that that will have in that little section. It's not like there's-- it's not a long road. It's a pretty small road to get to Livingston. Last night I took my girls to church. I make a right on Livingston,and I take it to Coconut Road. It took me, 1 timed it,eight minutes to get from Veterans to Bonita Beach Road at 5:30. What I find is that when I-75 is backed up, Livingston gets much worse,and it really takes a lot longer to get down Livingston. When I first moved here two years ago and we were trying to figure out where to live,we rented at an apartment building, so I get the need for rentals in good neighborhoods. I can tell you I was not put on a waiting list. It didn't take me a long time to find a three-bedroom in a good neighborhood for$1,800. And I do know that they're building an apartment building called Crest of Naples with 264 units on Bonita Beach Road by 75,and they are also finishing up Addison Place on Immokalee over by Collier,and that has 240 units,and it's managed by Greystar. So I'm really not sure,number one,why we would need 350 units to be approved in this area. I can tell you that in the year that I rented, we rented trying to decide where we were going to move. We didn't have trouble finding an apartment that we could afford. We had trouble finding a single-family home that we could afford. And so I'm not opposed to single-family homes that are affordable for families. I'm not opposed to something like Milano that's a townhouse or a condominium for people to purchase. I would be much more amenable to something where people are going to own a property there and be much more vested in the community. And those are my main concerns. And I think you will find that a lot of my neighbors feel the same way. And,again, I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Next speaker. please. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Mr.Chairman,the second speaker had left during lunchtime. The next name on the list is Cathy(sic)Wrede, I believe. MR. ROSENBLATT: Katy Wrede, she had to leave, but she asked me to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Come on up, sir,and identify yourself for the record, and let us know if you were sworn in. Thank you. MR. ROSENBLATT: I was sworn in. I was here early, first thing this morning. MR. SCHMIDT: Next name is-- MR. ROSENBLATT: Ivan Rosenblatt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: --Denise Cornillie. MR. ROSENBLATT: As I say, I'm here-- Katy prepared a thing. I'll try to do it as best as I can, putting my own twist on it as well as because I can't absolutely say all the things she said. As a--Katy, by the way, was a--is secretary of our master board in the Strand. As a resident of the Strand, she represented over a thousand residents,and she wanted to say that she would like to appeal to the county about this Stock Development request for rezoning. As we understood it, it was originally zoned for 170 single-family homes. We were a Page 59 of 79 r January 17,2019 little surprised when we heard about this De La Rosa PUD, because we didn't know anything about that. But this is a significant difference from the 170 single-family homes that we understood it was zoned for. Let's see. Obviously,we know that there are developments that go on all the time so,you know,we understand that developments are going to occur,but we can't understand how it came to pass that this request for rezoning should ever be considered given the fact that in the last four years alone,five new developments and a firehouse have been built on the same four-mile stretch of Livingston from Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,and now the consideration of this rezoning, I there are two more developments in progress, Serena Grove and the Enclave. The Enclave,by the way, is just north of Talis Park in between Talis Park and Mediterra on the northbound side of Livingston. They're both high-end, high-value homes. In the five-mile radius,we would say that 90 percent of the homes there are single-family homes,as this parcel has been zoned. When we all bought homes in this area,we assumed that would remain the case. We can appreciate the need for affordable housing in Collier County. Stock has repeatedly said this is not affordable housing but rather high-end luxury apartments. To consider such density in an area that has quickly become saturated makes us all wonder what can be gained other than a profit for Stock. Numerous communities in the area stand strongly opposed to this rezoning request for the following reasons: First and foremost is the untold traffic impact this will have on the stretch of Livingston between Vanderbilt Road and Bonita Beach Road. Currently all communities whose egress and ingress are on Livingston are virtually house-bound in the morning and afternoons from 3:30 to 6:30. Traffic does not move and is at a dead stop from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road. In addition, Immokalee Road, where our front gate is located, is backed up both east and west during those time periods. This is the current reality before the two new communities already underway along Livingston would be completed. And I would say that,you know,we heard from the traffic people earlier today, and if they're using criteria--the ITE is using criteria that they're using. all one has to do is go out and look at the traffic during the rush hours in the morning and in the afternoon during season,and you can clearly see that if they're saying there's no impact,somebody is using the wrong data because-- I would say,before you even consider it,you should do an extensive traffic survey,and you will find out that there's a real significant impact already on traffic. Let's see what else here. Veterans Memorial is an extremely short stretch of a narrow two-lane road with no bike lane or shoulder that dead-ends both east and west. Now, I guess we heard earlier that there is an intention to ultimately cut it through to Old 41. I don't know whether that'll have a significant impact or not but,you know, it certainly wouldn't hurt. In the morning,particularly when we go out our back gate--Talis Park is doing a lot of construction. They're using multifamily things in the back of Talis Park,and it's almost impossible to get out of our back gate because their construction traffic is coming through there, so that's an impact. And then in the afternoon now during season,as you head up Veterans to go on I Livingston,sometimes it could take you 20 minutes just to get to Livingston, and then you have to turn and go up. And if there's an accident on 75,what they always tell you to do is divert off and go on Livingston, so it's a disaster. I think that's pretty much,you know,the impact that we want to say, and I say that definitely the transportation standards that are being used to analyze these are certainly grossly deficient and should be really reconsidered,and we stand strongly opposed to this development as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Page January 17,2019 Next speaker, please. MR.CORNILLIE: Good afternoon. You can see that I'm not Denise. My name is Daniel Cornillie, spelled C-o-r-n-i-l-l-i-e. And thank you for the opportunity to present this afternoon on this project. I live in Secoya Reserve. which is approximately a halfa mile west of the site of this proposed apartment development. I attended public meeting regarding this proposal at the library on September 6th and was appalled by what was presented. Let me explain why. First,density. This over-400-unit development would add a population concentration to an area that is already facing serious in-season traffic issues. The delays at the intersection of Immokalee and with Livingston are well known,but a number of times last season at rush hour, traffic is also backed up on Livingston all the way from Veterans to Bonita Beach Road two miles to the north. High-density housing between these two bottlenecks would exacerbate these problems. More important is the compatibility with the existing development. The development along Livingston from Immokalee into Lee County is one-or two-story homes. The current drive along Livingston is attractive with housing subordinated to attractive landscaping on both sides of the street. The insertion of this four-story complex would be visibly out of place even if it was not of the undistinguished architecture pictured at the presentation. Take a drive by here and try to envision this. This is an aesthetic affront. Impact on property values. This out-of-place development would visually degrade the area to the point where it would negatively impact property values and the Collier County's tax base in the area as would the insertion of a concentration of rental units into an area of owner-occupied homes. This proposed development is so obviously out of place that it's an insult to the surrounding neighborhood,to the Naples brand,and to Collier County. The juxtaposition of this development with the elegant Mediterra is either careless or spiteful. Please preserve the zoning in a manner that precludes anything like this in this area. And just a closing comment,a veiled threat to if we don't get this,we'll revert to De La Rosa,which is worse in all respects in all of the above,really betrays Stock's contempt for the interest of the neighbors. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. SCHMIDT: Next two speakers are Tom Griffith and Attorney Robert Pritt. MR. GRIFFITH: Good afternoon. Tom Griffith,a homeowner in Barrington Cove. I think we talked traffic to death,but I did do a local traffic study last night. I have the data on my phone. I know where it came from. I was driving southbound on Livingston. Traffic was backed up from Bonita Beach Road to Mediterra. It's like that all of the time during season. As a family, unlike the traffic person,we come home from work,we get our kids,and then we take them out again during peak times several times during the day and night for practices, et cetera. So traffic is obviously an issue,and everyone knows it. The one thing that I think the management company mentioned was residential home values. If you have an opportunity to buy a home in all the thousands of communities in Collier County. would you pick one where your backyard looks over a four-story rental apartment building? Would you want this in your front yard or backyard in the communities that you live in? I'm sure the answer is no. So someone mentioned common sense. Common sense tells us I will not buy a home that backs up to a rental apartment. I have too many options. Why would I do that? Page 61 of 79 January 17,2019 So common sense tells us,traffic is a problem. You add 700 people to the area we're in, traffic's going to be worse. Commons sense tells us our home values will go down because people do not want to buy next to these apartments. And they may be great tenants, luxury apartments; the perception is it's a rental apartment. And I've got too many options to buy in other places instead of our area. Schools;they mentioned the school capacities. And then the aesthetics. Does a four-story or three-story, partial four, fit into the landscape of our community? No matter what it looks like, it's not going to fit. From Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,there's nothing like it. So why would it fit in our little area right there in our community? It doesn't fit. And,two, we talked about Livingston traffic. No one's brought up Old 41 traffic. It's a two-lane road,and it's just as bad. So what's going to happen when they extend VME? People are going to cut through VME,get on Old 41,and sit in traffic again. So common sense tells us--it doesn't matter what the national data says,common sense tells us that it doesn't work in our community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman,can I ask a question of this gentleman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,if you'd come back a minute. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tom,thanks for your statements. I have a quick question for you. When you bought in Barrington Cove,just out of curiosity,what'd they tell you? Obviously,that land was already--what'd they tell you,the developer,the developer when you bought your property? MR.GRIFFITH: You want me to be honest? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR.GRIFFITH: They told us a bunch of crap is what they told us. No one ever told us that Verona Pointe Estates was going to be built. I backed up to a preserve, so I was told your backyard is a preserve. Now it's 133 community-- is 133-home community. No one's ever told us that any of this was going to be developed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. And who was the builder/developer for Barrington Cove? MR.GRIFFITH: DR Horton. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: DR Horton. MR.GRIFFITH: And the other thing about the traffic study and that single-family homes have more traffic,yes, but not--in 350 apartments with 700 people,you're not going to get that density with a single-family home on that corner. So, nationally,statistics may speak that there's more cars,but you're not-- if--how many homes can you put on 35 acres? It's not going to be 700 people, I can tell you that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Good afternoon,Mr. Chairman,members of the Board. I'm Robert Pritt. I'm with Roetzel &Andress Law Firm. I represent the Mediterra Community Association. Alan Johnson was here this morning, but I think he had to leave,the president,so he won't be speaking today. Tim Richards,who is the manager,is here. I'm not sure if he's going to speak or just yield to me. Since I'm an attorney, I kind of look at things from that aspect. And we do have a planner, Dr. David Depew,who's going to be speaking here today also. I'll leave the details to him, if it's okay. But there are really two points I want to make,and they're related,and one is the question concerning spot zoning. As a matter of fact, I had prepared the spot zoning remarks before the Chair brought them up today,and I do think this is spot zoning. This is illegal spot zoning. It's Page 62 of 79 January 17,2019 actually spot planning leading to spot zoning,which, in my opinion, is even worse. You cannot legislate your way out of a spot zoning situation. That has been--that's judge-made law in the state of Florida. If anybody wants to see the cases on it, I can't remember the name or the--of all the cases,but probably one is--the biggest one's called Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association. I think it was a Dade County case. But that's where you plop something into an area that is incompatible with everything else in the area. And what you've heard most of the day, actually from everybody, is that we have a proposal to put a very highly--a high density development,apartment type of development into an area that is clearly low density single-family residential. In a county that's larger than at least two states,there are plenty of places to put something like this. You don't have to put it somewhere that is, under your Comprehensive Plan, incompatible certainly as it applies to density and also as it applies to-- in the zoning this applies to uses. So that's what's being done. That's what's being proposed. The idea of planning and zoning--and I certainly don't want to lecture you, because you know this and see this probably more than I do, but the idea of planning is that you spent--and this county spent a lot of time and a lot of effort coming up with its districts. Next thing you know, we have developers wanting to create subdistricts to suit their purposes,so we wind up with a certain number of subdistricts. Why? Because generally in an ad hoc manner there's an attempt to get around the Comprehensive Plan,the GMP. That's what's being done here. Now, it's one thing-- if it's really pretty close and it's really about the same and the uses are not too far off,that's one thing. And the densities are similar. but this is nowhere close, as you heard a lot of people say today on both sides. And the problem is--another problem that I see is that the PUDs,which are a great idea in their place--planned developments are a great idea in their place--are being used improperly as the means to accomplish illegal spot planning, spot zoning when you get to the zoning aspect of it, so you wind up with PUDs going around that. It's one thing for PUDs to say,well,we're going to have this mixture of uses or we're going to have this type of use,et cetera,and to give up some setbacks and some height and things like that exchanged for amenities for the PUD, but it's a totally different thing to plop a PUD into a place where it doesn't belong,and it's even worse to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate that. Mr. Mulhere, I think, said--at least gave the impression to me,maybe to you, that,well, it's residential. Residential's residential. Well,that's not really correct because at least going back-- if you go back into history far enough,all the way back to the first zoning case that everybody had to learn from the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a case having to do with putting apartments into residential districts. And if I may, let me quote this. Suspend your disbelief just long enough to pick out some nuggets that I think are relevant to this case,and then I'll open it up for questions, if you want. But the U.S. Supreme Court said, "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses,which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private-house purposes:that in such sections,very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover,the coming of one apartment house is followed by others interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which, otherwise,would fall upon smaller homes,and bringing as their necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business and the occupation by means of moving and parked automobiles, larger portions of street,thus detracting--almost Page 63 of 79 January 17,2019 done--from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open places for play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until,finally,the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. "Under these circumstances, apartment houses which in a different environment would not only be entirely unobjectionable,but highly desirable,come very near to being nuisances." This was Village of Euclid versus Amber Realty, 1926. It could have been written last month. That case is still a good case,and it's good law. Without that case,we would not all be here. That was the case that upheld that zoning in its proper place is okay. And so the point is that this is not a new issue. This is something--the issue of compatibility,even among--even between one type of residence and another type of residence has been recognized since the beginning, since the landmark case,and that is certainly something that should guide us in saying you have to follow--developer, new person coming in, buyer, whoever you are,you have to follow the rules that we have in our Comp Plan,and we're not going to bend our rules just to accommodate you. I spent 13 years on a--as City Attorney for a small area--a small city in Lee County. They have not increased density one unit except for affordable housing since 1988. So sometimes you just say no. This is not it. This is not the place, and this is not it. And all that stuff about trying to accommodate somebody when they really don't have the proper reason for it, is really kind of a waste of time, in my opinion. So I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Could you send me that case? MR. PRITT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just cited,the Euclid case. MR. PRITT: Oh,yes, Village of Euclid. We all know about Euclidian zoning;that's where that came from. Not from Euclid of old, but it's named after the city, and that was the beginning of zoning. That's the case that said zoning is allowable. And from that case, everything has--that we talk about in planning and zoning has come out of that. I'll be glad to send you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will -- MR. PRITT: And also Bird-Kendall-- I didn't think to bring it,but that's one that--on spot zoning that is relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, obviously, I'll give Mr.Yovanovich an opportunity to send any case that he wants to utilize to offset the one you've just mentioned. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick comment for you, Mr. Pritt. Would it be all right if I obtain a transcript of your remarks so that I can quote you to the Planning Advisory Board? MR. PRITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: I've said that, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another board besides ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amazingly enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. MR. PRITT: Well, until a couple days ago I was City Attorney for Naples, as most of you know,as many of you know,and I've turned that over to partner now, but I still am working on a lot of the planning and zoning issues. Page 64 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Mr. Pritt. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we talked earlier about the previously approved De La Rosa PUD, which I believe is seven units per acre. Are your clients--is there a line drawn where the clients would accept if this entire parcel was approved at seven units per acre,or is it just no to any kind of multifamily-type treatment? But you have De La Rosa already approved,so I'm just curious where you stand. MR. PRITT: Well,De La Rosa does not cover all of the parcel either; it's a smaller one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MR. PRITT: And I can't speak for my clients on that. We haven't really delved into that issue, but by our count it's four.not seven. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. PRITT: And,obviously,we understand if something is vested -- I don't know if De La Rosa is vested, but if it is vested,then it's vested. It would be hard to undo something that's already there but,as I recall,that was also single-family units. And what--if I may. one last point on that is,just because they might be approved for units that go within 20 feet of the perimeter of the property doesn't mean they have to build it,you know. They still could choose not to build it that close. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we finish, I have the De La Rosa document in front of me. I'll let you know right off the bat what the--they can do multi --they're actually--it isn't--they're a multifamily product. COMMISSIONER FRY: They're taller multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Multifamily product, and the setback--the height is zoned 50 feet,actual 69 feet. The side setback,which is where--the example the applicant used, is half the building height. So if they went--and the building height in this case would be the zoned, so they'd be 25-foot setback from the--from that other PUD that's already there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark,when was that approved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: '07. COMMISSIONER FRY: '07,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see you sitting there. Do you agree with my statements? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do,and I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not for more testimony from you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree that it's only approved for multifamily. It's not approved for any single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make that clarification. That's all. Corby,next speaker. MR. SCHMIDT: Your next speakers are David Depew and Tim Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Good afternoon. I'll be real quick. My name is Tim Richards. I'm the general manager of the Mediterra Community Association. And pretty much everything that I would cover has already been covered regarding traffic. compatibility, and things of that nature. I agree with everything that Mr. Pritt just commented on, and that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. DR. DEPEW: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in,sir? DR. DEPEW: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. Page 65 of 79 January 17,2019 DR. DEPEW: I am a principal with Morris Depew Associates. I'm a land planner. I have been practicing in Southwest Florida-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name? DR. DEPEW: David Depew. I've been practicing in Southwest Florida since 1980 and have been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1983. I was asked by the folks at Mediterra to take a look at this request,and what I reviewed was what's before you today,which is a request to transmit a plan amendment. And I found the plan amendment, in my opinion,to be deficient in a number of areas, not the least of which you've begun discussing here today. The traffic is certainly one, while the analysis that has not identified a particular problem with it, nevertheless, I think you've recognized it does not give you the full picture of what impacts the traffic are going to create for this particular area of the county,especially given the existing congestion and the question of whether or not and when completion of Veterans to the west will be finished. But, more importantly,the question of--as Mr. Pritt mentioned,of the surrounding uses, I think, is important to consider and whether or not this is something that is conducive to spot zoning. Densities in this area are fairly low. Mediterra to the north is slightly over six-tenths of a unit to the acre, and the other developments that are proximate and adjacent to this development are around four. One's actually a little bit under four. So you're looking at a request that is ranging from about two-and-a-half times up to almost 1,500 times the density that is characteristic of this particular area. And the question you have to ask is whether or not this is compatible. Objective 5 of the plan as well as Policy 5.6 talks about new developments being compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. And the question that becomes really evident is whether or not this is compatible with and complementary to the surrounding development in this particular area. The plan amendment and the plan itself currently provides for density that-- bonuses associated with affordable housing,workforce housing,residential infill. This project is proposing neither of those options. It's not affordable; it's not infill. The applicant provides no data whatsoever on why affordable housing is not necessary. There is--there are two studies in his application as to why the apartment need needs to be met. There's no study that shows why the affordable housing bonuses which you have as a public body suggested as an extremely important element,and an incentive to allow additional density is not being met. This is a data-and-analysis question I think needs to be addressed and represents a significant deficiency in this application. And,as such. I believe that it does not qualify for transmittal,and I would request that this board recommend against transmittal as a result of this deficiency and the lack of an explanation as to why this bonus would be requested without addressing affordable housing. And, finally, I'd like to simply echo the point that was made earlier,and that is that these are--and the application has.more or less,determined that this is kind of a given,that these densities are not a given. These densities are discretionary. The three units beyond the four is discretionary. and even the four is,to some extent,discretionary. So if you as a body, ultimately, when the zoning comes up,determines that those are not the right numbers, it's important to note that. And, in closing, I would say this plan amendment that's before you today is simply unnecessary. They have a reasonable,economically viable use for this property. There's no evidence whatsoever that's been provided to you here today that suggests that the existing use is somehow unbuildable or uneconomical to use or some sort of deficit for this property owner. Page 66 of 79 January 17,2019 In fact,the development that surrounds this property suggests that this is a reasonable use and that the activity that has been assigned under the current plan amendment is one that is economically viable and beneficial for the property owner. You simply don't need to advance this any further,and I would suggest to you that it's just not necessary. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think there's some questions. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question for you. I'm confused. Are you in support of affordable housing at this site? You stated there's been no study. Would you prefer that it be affordable housing? DR. DEPEW: What I would suggest to you is that the county's plan has stated that any bonus beyond this seven,the way to get that is through the provision of affordable housing. They're asking for roughly 3, 2.7 units per acre in addition, but they're not suggesting affordable housing. In fact,they've said specifically they're not going to provide that. And I think that's the real problem here,because the county's determined that that is a goal under its plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You dispute the analysis that Mr. Weeks presented earlier in regards to the density? DR. DEPEW: I didn't hear Mr. Weeks present an analysis earlier with regard to the density. What I said was that Mr. Weeks'comments that it was discretionary is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second question: Do you deem the De La Rosa project, as currently proposed, incompatible? DR. DEPEW: I haven't looked at the De La Rosa project, so I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We wouldn't be here on the Growth Management Plan amendment if they had asked for affordable housing because they would be able to achieve it without amending the Growth Management Plan. So you're here today'on a Growth Management Plan amendment,and staff explained to you that they would be eligible under the current Growth Management Plan, which is urban residential subdistrict,the density rating system of four base plus three TCMA. So that would get them to seven. So under our current density rating system,they cannot get to the number they're requesting,and that's why we're here today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. DEPEW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the next public speaker,Corby. I'd like to follow up on a question about these density bonuses. It would probably be a good time to understand it. This is in a TCMA and, for that reason, it qualifies for--to request three more density bonuses on top of the four that's under the base. MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The TCMA is a bigger piece a-- is a small--the piece here is a small piece of a bigger area that I think goes all the way down to Pine Ridge Road and over to another,but it's a large geographic chunk of that part of the county; is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMIDT: A large area,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason for the TCMA--and maybe Trinity can tell us that--is because of? Do you know? Why did we declare this area TCMA? Because that declaration has then afforded them the opportunity of a three-unit bonus. I thought TCMAs were driven because of traffic. And the TCMA says instead of looking at one failed road within a TCMA,you get to look at all of them collectively,and as long as you don't reach a certain percentage,you're not in violation. And kind of what that does is falsely tell us that everything Page 67 of 79 January 17,2019 can fail but a couple roads here,and as long as their percentage is low enough and averages out,the rest of them can stay failed because you're in a TCMA and you can move forward. Why would we offer three bonus units for an area that's acknowledged to have traffic congestion by the mere fact it's under a TCMA? MR. SCHMIDT: It provides the opportunity to all the properties within that large geographic area to contribute to relieving congestion within that large area if it can show that it will do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does three bonus units contribute to relieving congestion? MR. SCHMIDT: They're attempting to show you how. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who is? All we've seen today is three units. I've not seen anything that says these three units are going to relieve congestion. That's-- actually, I asked for--if they've done a survey,to show us something like that, and nobody has, including our Transportation Department. MR. SCHMIDT: And you've asked staff about why we asked them to show you even additional attempts to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the three-unit bonus is something they can request, but they've got to show in that request they're actually reducing traffic,not just adding more traffic that is below the threshold to the system? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have they shown you something that shows they're reducing the traffic on Livingston Road? MR. SCHMIDT: I'll let Trinity address that,because she's been reviewing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd rather get this resolved while we're still on the topic. I know the public's waiting to--well. actually,we need to take a break. Is Trinity still here? Oh, she's hiding in the back. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll answer part of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can stand up and say hi. Trinity,after we come back from break, I'd like you to respond to that question. We need to take a break for 10--well,we'll come back at 2:30,just about 10 minutes. So 2:30 we'll resume: give the court reporter a break. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) (Mr. Eastman was absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everyone,would you please take your seat so we can resume the meeting. And we left off trying to discuss the TCMA issue. And this map is one that I recall now. The area that's kind of in the center left of the map is the TCMA. It's all that light pinkish/orange color. It goes from Pine Ridge Road to I-75 all the way up to the Lee County line and out to the water, of course. So most of the northern district in Collier County, if not all of it except for that little piece by Bonita Beach Road, is in the TCMA. And,Trinity, I'd, first of all, like to know if you were around when the TCMA was formed. I didn't say born;around. MS. SCOTT': I was born. I worked at the county but in the Metropolitan Planning Organization,so not Transportation Planning at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know about what year the TCMA was put together? MS. SCOTT: My recollection, it was the early 2000s;2002/2003 time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you mean while this guy here was in charge? So now we can-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I only had the Community Development. I believe it Page 68 of 79 Taal 111,2019 was 2003/2004, Don Scott,Norm Feder and -- MS. SCOTT: Stan Litsinger. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --and Stan. David knows as well. The--my recollection,the TCMA was formed. Of course,we all failed--knew at that time,especially 2002 and'3 when almost every road in Collier County was failing because there was absolutely no Capital Improvement Program until the 2003/2004 time frame,but it was to create a mechanism to control traffic but yet still let development proceed,because we were looking for concurrency,had to pay impact fees, others were vested. So the TCMA was created and the mechanisms, of course, that you're familiar with to mitigate the impacts of various developments. David, I know you know as well the--but most of it was recognized, and there are failing roads but,yet,at the same time there were units to be--that were approved and vested,and this allowed for some development to take place. That's my recollection. I think it was 2003, David,wasn't it? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this was-- if this was originated because of the intensity of the development and the traffic that was already up in that northern area,how did we get to a point--and, David,you'd probably be the historian that would know this. How did we get to the point where we felt it was helpful to add three units as a bonus per acre? MR. WEEKS: Unfortunately. I don't know that history. I was here. Stan Litsinger was the staff member that took that through the process,and I was just on the periphery. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I honestly don't remember either why-- I believe some of it was just to try and force, I'll use the word--or maybe not force, but to incentivize cluster developments on major arterial roadways where you could use alternative transportation methods: Carpooling, bus services,and other types of mechanisms,and also to encourage development around business clusters. People would either bicycle to work or other methods to get to work. That was part of the process. But I really don't remember other than maybe it was just to incentivize development in a cluster development in and around our major road network. MR. WEEKS: If I may, let me read into the record Transportation Element Policy 5.6. "The county shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provides multiple viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Pretty much what I said,yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the assumption was is that we keep our roads up to date and keep the levels of service adequate. MR. SCOTT: Correct. When we present the Annual Update and Inventory Report each year, there is an inclusion in that document where we look at the level of service for all of the roadways, the collector and arterial roadway network,within the two TCMAs,and we report on an annual basis the number of lane miles that are achieving an acceptable level of service, which also. when we are doing our review,we look at the TCMA as a whole to see if 85 percent of the lane miles are achieving that level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that also allows for segments of the roads within that TCMA to fail independently of the others,but they still aren't considered failed because they're in a TCMA. And we still look at density bonuses for those areas where the road congestion may not be as desired as parts of the TCMA. MS. SCOTT: Yes. The applicant could come in and ask for exemption from link-by-link concurrency if they would impact a failing roadway segment,and they would trigger the TCMA requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That helps a little bit. Most of what and how this occurred would be somewhere in the record. Now it's just a matter of hunting it out and Page 69 of 79 January 17,2019 finding it,which that's stuff I like to do, so I'll probably look for it. And something during break,two planning commission members mentioned to me they really need to be out of here at 3 o'clock since it's obvious we're not going to finish today. So what we're going to do is allow some cross-examination by the applicant's attorney of Mr. Depew, and then we're going to go ahead and hear public speakers till 3 o'clock,then we're going to stop the hearing,continue it to the 7th of September--7th of February. It will the first thing up at 9 o'clock in the morning,and we'll expedite it through that morning and be done. So I know that's inconveniencing for all of you. I do hope that while you were sitting here today you picked up information that might be helpful in the things you were going to say or talk about,so at least something could be salvaged out of the day that we've had so far. And with that, Richard,do you want to-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't see Mr. Depew. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see Mr. Depew. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm assuming he's probably-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, is he your expert witness? MR. PRITT: Bob Pritt. Mr. Depew had to catch a plane,and he has left. This is legislative,so I don't know why we're cross-examining. Frankly, I'm not sure why we're being sworn,but this is clearly legislative,and there's no right of cross-examination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That is correct; it's legislative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an option that we can exercise, and I-- MR. PRITT: Well,with Mr. Depew. I'm not sure what his schedule is,but if it's going to be continued,then there would be that opportunity. We'll do everything we can to make him available. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have an issue with that. I'll wait. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob,could you make sure that Dave Depew-- Mr. Depew comes back for the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he just said. MR. PRITT: Well, I will try to do that but,again, I would object to any cross-examination in a legislative matter. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what, I'll tell you what, I'll just go ahead and in my closing I'll point out all the flaws of his testimony instead of him doing it through cross-examination. MR. PRITT: I will try to have him down here. I don't know what his schedule is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he may not now be cross-examined. If Rich decides to do it during his rebuttal,that's his option. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that,we'll move back into our speakers in the order of which they--the slips are called. Corby,would you call the next two speakers. MR. SCHMIDT: Elbert Lands and Andrew Kowalski. MR. LANDS: Good afternoon. My name is Elbert Lands. Last name, L-a-n-d-s. I'm a homeowner in Barrington Cove, bought several years ago from Horton,and I knew generally about the building that was taking place in the area,but my impression was that it was going to be single-family homes, not apartments. I have to agree with the majority of what's been said,and that is that it would be a negative impact for the community as a whole,due to the amount of traffic,number of people that are being placed in that small area,and I believe it would lower the overall home values. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. Page 70 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A question. You said you were expecting single-family. Did you--did you know-- I mean,the project behind you,De La Rosa,was zoned for only multifamily. MR. LANDS: That I was not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a higher height. Did you just not see--did someone not tell you about it or-- MR. LANDS: That's correct. I wasn't told about that. I was told about the building project that was taking place that would be to the east. And that did get developed, and those are very nice homes. And it just doesn't fit. Apartments don't fit. You know, I have to agree that the apartment complex that they have at Lely looks very nice, but no matter how much perfume you put on the pig, it's still a pig. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. KOWALSKI: Andrew Kowalski, K-o-w-a-I-s-k-i. I, like Mr. Lands, purchased a home in Barrington Cove,on his recommendation. I also was not informed that there were going to be De La Rosa coming into that area. I thought it was just--in fact,I was led to believe it is like a protected area where you shouldn't go in there. It was like a swamp in one particular area there,and I just thought,hey,that's great,you know.there will be no building there. And I just--like everybody else said,the traffic is unbearable. I see no good coming from it from the people that live in that area. Like I say, it's--your property values are going to go down,and I'm just against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just--on the project--you live in the project just to the east. MR. KOWALSKI: Barrington Cove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But what--Barrington Cove has several pieces. Where do you front with this project? Down on the south side of this project coming in today? Maybe-- MR.KOWALSKI: Yeah, it would be the south end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are aware the buildings are going to end up closer to your property line if the other project goes forward? MR. KOWALSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you still would rather see that other project, potentially,than the one that they're proposing today? MR. KOWALSKI: I would rather see it zoned single-family dwelling is what I'd rather see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,well,the toothpaste is out of the tube on that one. We have Bert Harris and other laws in the state of Florida that strongly protect existing property rights, and that particular project's there. It was approved in 2007, so I don't know how we'd undo that one. MR. KOWALSKI: I don't know either, but I wish it would happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speakers,Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Bill Arndt and Todd Rosenthal. MR. ARNDT: Hi. I'm Bill Arndt,A-r-n-d-t. I'm on the board at Barrington Cove, and I'm one of the guys that meets with the small group that you've heard referenced several times that met with Stock and Mediterra. First of all, I'd like to say that Stock does a wonderful job of building communities. They've built Secoya close to us down the way; single-family homes,they've built in Mediterra, and they're currently building, I think, in Mediterra. Doing a great job. Page 71 of 79 January 17,2019 They build communities all over Southwest Florida that are single-family-home communities,and that really is their forte;they do a great job with that. They built two other communities. One is Spectra in Fort Myers that was recently sold for $72 million. They had it for three years. And in the paper, the article that was written about that, Stock said that was the building model,that they were going to build properties and then sell them as they're able to. I'm not looking for a commitment for five or six years for them to hold onto property, but at some point in time the property's going to be sold. We don't know who the next owner's going to be or how they're going to treat the property,how they're going to treat some commitments made by Stock. We just don't know that. and we can't ask them to put that in writing for us,so we're okay with that. But we would prefer.the people--we have 2,700 roofs that have been contacted and have written on a petition, 1,200 signers on a petition,that said they're opposed, strongly opposed to this development. I can't see how 100 additional --because we're not talking about actually 350,we're talking plus 100-- is going to affect our community so positively that 2,700 residents have to be disregarded. In other words,there's 2,700 people out there that are saying,you know,build single-family homes. We understand there's going to he something built there. Please, build something there. Build something that we can be proud of, something that would fit the community, something that's consistent with the rest of the--in the surrounding area. We'll bring the shovels and break the first in dirt(sic),but apartment complexes four stories high-- I understand that Stock went in front of the Estero Village. I think,four years ago for a place called Corkscrew Crossings in Corkscrew,350 units just exactly like ours, four stories high, exactly like ours. And I understand that 2017 that was put on the table by their planning commission,and I believe this last Wednesday it was shot down. It was closed down. So one of the things that we're looking for,the 2,700 residents, is give us something compatible,give us something that we can enjoy the freedom and the peace and the compatibility that we've come to expect. We're there. We're your citizens. We're the ones that vote for you. We love where we live. We just want to make it nice. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir. Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sir. are you the official speaker on behalf of the board of Barrington Cove? MR.ARNDT: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there another speaker coming that is the official? MR. ARNDT: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: No? MR.ARNDT: We're in the middle of a transition phase,and so we'll have an official board like with a board president and all that in March--on March 29th. Until then we have a board. I'm on the board. I'm the resident member on the board, but I'm not an official speaker for that board. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I ask that because my background before joining this board is on the board of a homeowners'association being in a similar position,and one of the issues we always discuss is,well, if not this, what comes afterward,you know,what is going to be next. I guess--I want to kind of just generally ask the speakers from Barrington Cove-- because I know you're sensitive to what goes next to you. The very first slide that Mr. Mulhere put up showed the--with the existing PUD that's approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: De La Rosa. COMMISSIONER FRY: De La Rosa PUD, as if it is--could easily be a reality without Page 72 of 79 January 17,2019 Stock having to do anything. So I guess a general question I have for you as a resident of Barrington Cove and on the board, is this much larger,obviously with a greater footprint,more units--a lot larger property size,but they have built in farther setbacks, instead of looking at a four-story building that's 20 feet from that corner where you go up to the northern part of Barrington Cove,they have a large wetland preserve of four-story buildings;they're farther over. And it would seem to almost give you in that area less impact from at least the visible concerns you might have. Now, I'm only asking this--and this is not a statement of thinking this is a good idea or bad idea. I just-- I'm asking you, if this was not approved and Stock decided to go ahead and build De La Rosa,how would you feel about that? I mean, is that something you have discussed? MR. ARNDT: We haven't discussed that,but it's in place,and so,you know,as long as it fits the community, I would rather not have the property be built within 20 feet of the backyard of our neighbors,because that's really impositional. Currently within 120 feet of the backyard,and I know the home that will be sitting there on the corner,their house, 120 out will be a three-story structure. That's usually impositional. But you know something, Stock--the company is part of our community. They've done a great job in the past. They've communicated well with us. They told us--quite frankly, I asked them. I said, why can't we build townhomes or single-family homes or something like that,and they said,that is not happening;we can't afford it there. So they just shut that idea down totally, and they went on to propose other things. But we believe that they're acting in good faith. COMMISSIONER FRY: Final question. I know that this was continued from the December meeting so that Mr. Pritt and your association and Mediterra and others could meet with the applicants. They came back with some concessions,dropping from 420 to 350. The evidence of all the speakers from Barrington Cove and the Strand and other communities, I guess that would be clear indication that you're unable to come to any kind of mutually agreeable terms; is that correct? MR.ARNDT: Correct. I also want to make a clarification: They told us that the 420 was never on the table because the unit--PUD because it's 35.7 acres at a density of 10 whereas it was 350 all along. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR.ARNDT: If that makes sense. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Karl. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. And don't call another speaker for a minute because we've got a--Ned has a question of somebody in the past. MR. ROSENTHAL: Hello. Todd Rosenthal. Resident of Mediterra. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name so we get it right. MR. ROSENTHAL: R-o-s-e-n-t-h-a-l. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ROSENTHAL: I'm going to try to look at some notes as I speak. One thing 1 just want to bring up, an issue. It seems like as residents we're getting threatened; if we don't take this,we're going to have this other development there. If that's the case,that's the case. The biggest problem we have is the density there. I'd invite any of you or actually beg any of you,just drive home like a normal resident would. Try driving that road at 5 o'clock at night. I have two kids at my house that I can't wait to go home to see. and I'm already sitting in traffic sometimes for 45 minutes to one hour. It's not fair. We have developments that still haven't been built yet. So it's amazing that we're talking Page 73 of 79 January 17,2019 about putting in these new roads, but there's already a high school that hasn't been built yet. There is a development right in front of Mediterra and Talis Park that hasn't been built yet with lots more homes coming in there. I don't know what's going to happen to the traffic. Talis Park hasn't been fully developed yet. Mediterra still has homes that haven't been developed yet. A high school isn't there yet, so what is going to happen to the traffic that's there now? There's a grocery store at the corner of Livingston and Immokalee Road that hasn't opened up yet. I mean,the traffic-- 1 couldn't imagine. I still work. I have two kids. Last year in school I had to get up in the morning,take one daughter to school at seven in the morning,the high school, drive back,go back,get the other kid, take her to school. So. I mean,I'm doing four trips down that road in the morning. So I don't buy that traffic study. There's zero chance with 700 homes that there can be 170 trips during peak hours. Absolutely can't happen. So we can look at all these numbers,wherever they pull them from. Real world,we don't need to pay anybody. Just take an hour of your--actually, I can't say take an hour of your time. It's going to take you three hours to sit in that traffic. You know,that's, I think,the biggest thing. Other than threatening us with,you know,affordable housing. You know,what if--you know, I guess we have to talk about what impact or what does it do for the residents building over there. If it has to be affordable housing,then put it up. We know they're not going to do it. The only benefit is out for the developer making money on it. They are a great developer,but we just don't need the development there. We don't need-- I don't even understand how it went from four to seven,automatically, units if they have to build it. It's just not fair. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not automatic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why the process--this process would have still had to go on if they were asking for the seven but just at the PUD level,another rezone. MR. ROSENTHAL: And you've done a great job bringing up a lot of good points toward why are we already talking about seven. They haven't even gotten it yet. So maybe I'd say roll the dice and let them do the other development,because if they're going to do it,they would have done it, and they haven't done it. And I think, like some other people said, I don't think Stock would really put something up so close to other houses. If they do, they do. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hard to rent. MR. ROSENTHAL: It would be very hard to rent. But insinuating there's going to be a low-income development isn't fair to us. It's not right. If it's being approved,why--just to leave it at four acres. Why even talking(sic)about any more? But I think the biggest thing is the traffic study. We don't need to pay anybody to do it. We don't need to talk about it;just drive out there tonight. You'll see. You'll sit in traffic. I mean, I dread going home in season; I really do. Almost to the point of just, if you build it, I'm going to end up moving,and then where do I go? I'll be more traffic somewhere else. So that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: --coming from the heart. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Appreciate it. And, Mr. Pritt,Ned has had--got a question of you, if you don't mind coming back up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Pritt. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I--and you told us when you were up here before,but I've forgotten,who exactly are you representing? MR. PRITT: Mediterra Community Association. That's the master association for Page 74 of 79 January 17,2019 Mediterra. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And about how many homeowners would that be? MR. RICHARDS: Nine hundred twenty-six doors. MR. PRITT: Nine hundred twenty-six doors, I think he said. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So,obviously,there are limits and constraints on the extent to which you could speak for those people. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you are here in a representative capacity. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think it's important for us to hear what your impression of your client,your collective client,would--what would satisfy them that could happen up here,and then ultimately in front of the County Commission. And so my question has to do with the role that we play. One thing that we always try to do, I believe, in the first instance is see if we can achieve a win-win situation where most of the people are happy and the developer is also mostly happy. It's not always possible,and when it's not possible,then it's our possibility to vote up or vote down and then,of course, it goes to the Commission whose vote really matters. So my question to you is,is it your sense from among your clients that they would encourage us to try to achieve the best deal that we could in terms of what we believe is necessary for additional concessions to be made by the developer in order to achieve compatibility, or are they going to be flat up,down or--up or down on this? MR. PRITT: Well, it's kind of hard for me to say because this just changed as of the other day. It was 420. Now it's 350. I would have to have meetings with my client on that. I would remind the Board,though.that contract zoning's illegal,too,and so this is not negotiation of a contract. Our position is that you ought to not permit,right now anyhow,you ought not to permit this or you should recommend that it not go forward as it is proposed to you. I also said a little while ago that I think--this is me--and my recommendation would be that they have a potential right to up to four units, not up to seven,not up to 9 point--or 9.84, whatever it is;that that's what they have a right to do at the most. So that-- if you want to look for a position,that would be my recommendation to the board,to my board at this time. Having said that, if it's going to be continued anyhow,there will be some time for us to have further discussions if the applicant would wish to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I had in mind. MR. PRITT: And by the way,the applicant has,you know, in fairness to them, in fairness to us,we've had two meetings,and it was somewhat worthwhile. It might be worthwhile to do again. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to a time that we've got to consider what we're going to do next,and the item we're talking about is 9A3. And at this point, I'm going to suggest to this board that we need a motion to continue this to the September-- I mean February. September. I keep saying that-- February 7th meeting first item up in the morning,and will be at 9 o'clock in the morning. And so if you can come back to that meeting,we would appreciate it,and you'll be heard right up--right front up. The first thing up we'll start with public speakers, so-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --at least that way you know you can get your time set in. A motion made by Patrick to do that. Second? Page 75 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karl. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would only ask that the parties attempt,during this ensuing period of time, see if they can't work together and achieve more, perhaps,concessions,if you will, to make the project more palatable,more compatible with the surrounding areas so that when you come back,you come back with something that at least appears to a reasonable person as being better for the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At the next hearing or next meeting, I would ask that Trinity and maybe Mike Sawyer give us a little history on the TCMA forming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll actually probably, by then,have all the documents that enacted it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. If they could put it in a little concise format. I mean, I can go back and do the research,but I'm just curious as to what was on the record for that area. I vividly remember the whole thing, but I'd like to--just so, for the record,we have an idea of why the TCMA was formed and what the intent was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many speakers were left? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know,but we've got rebuttal and other issues that would have to be--go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: More than a dozen already have slips in that remain. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So--and are they the only ones going to be allowed to talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. any public person. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you haven't spoken already, anybody from the public shows up,they're going to be allowed to speak. That's what we're here for. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark, I think one of the great justifications that you've presented for this project in this location is that there are not a lot of good locations left for projects of this type and yet we need apartments,and nobody's arguing the need for apartments. I guess my hope or a gap that I have is really understanding-- seeing some evidence that that statement is true. That--so,you know, if we deny this,whoa,you know,what have we done. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could do that. I'll bring you the map of Collier County that shows what's currently zoned and what's available out there. It's not a secret. I mean, I've got clients calling me all the time saying, please find me a site,and I say, good luck. But I'll bring you documentary evidence of that. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think also justification-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it. COMMISSIONER FRY: --that as--having been a homeowner out here in the audience before and now sitting up here is going from four to seven to 10,what--you know, is the real concrete justification that-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER FRY: --you know,that makes that a reasonable request. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you have a map showing all the vacant parcels that can be developed over 10 acres this side of 951? Page 76 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: This side of 951? I'm sure we could put something together between now and February 7th. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because back in 2010,Tim Billings did one,and we thought we were pretty well built out then. I'm curious what it looks like now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, 10 acres, I think, is too small, Mr. Chrzanowski. I think we're probably going to be looking at--20 acres should be the minimum for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting off on rabbit trails. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but he asked me to bring information. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,no. I want to know if there are any big parcels out there that--how many big parcels out there can be developed with anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your market study was--supplies a lot of this information that both Karl and Stan are asking that was in the packet that was included in the first review. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll hopefully put it in an easier format that we'll throw up on the visualizer. If I may, Mr. Chairman,one thing. I don't want Mr. Pritt to bring Mr. Depew back for me. I'm going to deal -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've already acknowledged that. MR.YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that he's not feeling like he has to bring him here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're in the middle of a motion. Is that the only item that you wanted to bring up in regards to that motion? MR. YOVANOVICH: We were talking about--take the vote,and then I would like to address one thing that Mr. Fryer said after the vote. I didn't mean to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's finish the vote. You all heard the discussion. Is there any further discussion? If not, is there a vote to continue this to the February 7th meeting at--first item up on that date? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,everybody in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. We have other line--order of business. Richard,did you have something you had to get off your chest right now? MR. YOVANOVICH: One thing--and we always try; what Mr. Fryer suggested is that we reach out again. In fairness to Mr.Arndt--and I'm blanking for a second on the other gentleman who was there. I know Tim's name--but it's very difficult for them to get a consensus within their communities. So we're trying to deal with the representatives,and we'll continue to do that. It's. I think,a yeoman's task to ask them to figure out what their community would support between now and the 7th, but we will continue to reach out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. Next item to--for continuation is 9A4. It's the Page 77 of 79 January 17,2019 water pollution control prevention ordinance. That will go up second on the agenda on the 7th. It will go before the LDC amendments we have to hear that day as well. Is there a motion to continue that to that date? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned and seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Is there any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public comment on something other than the item before us? MR. BORK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You'll need to go to the speaker, identify yourself, and we'll be glad to hear you, sir. MR. BORK: My name is Arthur Bork. I don't want to take any time. Is it possible to preserve the list of speaker requests from this meeting so that we go to the top of the pile on the 7th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,we'll do that. Absolutely. MR. BORK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. And with that,no other public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, seconded by Joe. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 78 of 79 January 17,2019 There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Aj cvLit (2A1 MARIS STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K.KINZEL,CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT&COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected v . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 79 of 79 GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 5:47 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Planning minutes from Jan. 17th RE:Allura Attachments: 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes.pdf;ATT00001.htm Hi Commissioner, here are 2 pages from the minutes regarding the effect of the traffic from Allura according to the developer. Elsewhere they stated that there would be no significant increase in traffic from Allura. Basically it says that only 25%of the 600+ residents will leave during the 2 hour rush hour. Commissioner Strain debated this with the representative and never received a credible answer. He and others voted against Allura. For some reason,others voted for it probably due to personal reasons. Thanks, Tim Diegel 1 f5 op-A iiip'A T ANSPORTAT10N4'' 5` 5 �v � 4 ISTRIBUTION v 1-_apc 4- --G-- r� /c ` - _h O S a r ed development was detennined by referencing the C((�� / :'s (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 1O Edition. S c rr i ltci __C@,(C [ousing Mid-Rise) was utilized for the trip generation —_ 0 _L(*_-5 A-1 I ur. lily dwelling units. Land Use Code 221 was utilized -Z- l- ``,a S on ldings as shown on the site plan, are proposed to have --_____ 3 ) a-c). ( ( i'( ") utlines the anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak oposed. The daily trip generation is also indicated in this table. uth- Table 2 ®O ? Trip Generation C-MS Miura Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise 29 83 112 87 55 142 1,829 (336 Dwelling Units) _ . The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate were assigned to the site access drives and the surrounding roadway network. The project traffic distribution was determined in the methodology and is illustrated on Figure 2. Figure 2 also illustrates the assignment of the total project trips to the site access drives based upon the project traffic distribution. C� min I s s i o N 4 2 '114/z'0-*- 5 1-(2--A" 0 �2V ‘A.,G,p A6At0ST_114,5 LGNC.-Lk4S10 o V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY iepz-- C C to C et C�-rr G In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table IA, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test. The trips generated as a result of the proposed SDP application were 1. compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour-Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Page 4 J TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Based on the information contained within Table 1A, no roadway segments are anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, Concurrency analysis was only required on the roadway link directly accessed by the proposed development. Attached to the Appendix of this report is also the Collier County Hurricane Evacuation Routes Map TR-7. As illustrated on this map, Immokalee Road within the vicinity of the subject site is labeled as a Hurricane Evacuation Route. The Collier County's Growth Management Plan (GMP), Transportation Element Policy 5.8, states that a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required should the proposed development impact the designated hurricane evacuation route by more than 1% of the maximum service volumes at the adopted LOS. Based on the information contained within Table f, 1A, Immokalee Road is shown to be impacted by less than 1% of the of the maximum ' 1 �.� service volumes at the adopted LOS. Therefore, no proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required as a result of the proposed development. Lis In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 2A includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2017 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). A two-year planning analysis was also conducted. In order to estimate the projected 2021 background traffic volumes, the existing 2017 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2017 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2017 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2017 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2021 background traffic volume. The concurrency analysis was performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes that will result with the SDP Amendment from the 2021 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the traffic associated with the proposed SDP Amendment approval. Based on the information contained within Table 2A, there will be sufficient capacity on all Page 6 7/ TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2021 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2021 background volumes to estimate the future 2021 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. The SYNCHRO© summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.11/1 P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is ,k-)L, shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the g intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a \Y� LOS "B"both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Based on the .1j1 HCS results, the intersection of Veterans Memorial Boulevard with the proposed site 1-1 access drive is shown to operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. 13( , VII. CONCLUSION The proposed SDP application for the subject site would allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 336 multifamily residential units. The site, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding 6 roadway network was analyzed based on the 2017 Collier County Annual Update > Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2021 build-out traffic conditions. As a result, r9 3 sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways in 2021 both with and k� without the proposed SDP approval. Page 9 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2021 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2021 background volumes to estimate the future 2021 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. The SYNCHROC summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "B"both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Based on the HCS results, the intersection of Veterans Memorial Boulevard with the proposed site access drive is shown to operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed SDP application for the subject site would allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 336 multifamily residential units. The site, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2021 build-out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways in 2021 both with and without the proposed SDP approval. Page 9 So the specific answers as to how those trips are distributed throughout the day and into the peak hour can vary, and the answers could be very wide ranging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you realize that the traffic might be an issue for this project in its determination for today's hearing? MR. TREESH: What project -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN:Allura, the one we're talking about. MR. TREESH: What project is traffic not an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you expected traffic questions today. Obviously, that's why you're here. MR. TREESH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have wanted to know how you got to that number based on the population of that project and why it differs? I mean, you're looking at only a quarter of the people, and I'm just wondering what analysis you might have done to do that. And a second analysis I was wondering if you did, obviously, when we have apartments for working people, professionals, whatever you want to call them, living in the urban area closer to where they work, that's going to take traffic off other sections of our roads -- MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which desperately needs that done. But did you do a survey to determine where your market is for these people and the distances that we --they're going to be driving, road segments affected by them, and things like that? Would anybody do an analysis of that magnitude to get there today? MR. TREESH: I did not as part of this application, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it fair to say that the 10th edition of the ITE tells us nothing whatsoever about Segment 42.1 of Immokalee Road and the real conditions that are on that segment, correct? MR. TREESH: ITE is the simply the resource we use to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know what it is. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. TREESH: -- estimate traffic generation. No, there's not data in ITE about -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It tells us nothing about that segment. Thank you. MR. TREESH: Correct. That's what the purpose ofthe Traffic Impact Statement is, to assimilate all the data together, and then analyze the roadway links pursuant to the county requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the county requirements, basically, accept the22I and accept the 176 as a multiplier that you used to come to that conclusion that that's how many people will be on the road from that apartment complex-- MR. TREESH:That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- during the peak time of day? MR. TREESH:That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I'll have to ask staff how they come to that conclusion, because I'm kind of puzzled by it, one of the numbers, really. I didn't really understand what was going on as far as quantities go until I read the 221 TIS piece that was included in our report. And when I saw that persons per household, I got to think, well, how can that many people, all of them --just a quarter of them leave? I just don't know how you got there, and I didn't pick that up, and that's the piece I'll need explained. So thank you. MR.TREESH: Thank you. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN:And does anybody else have anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got 350 units and you've got2.46 persons per households, that's 861 persons. Now, this is supposed to be a working essential -- or not essential, but working professional type operation, so I'm assuming all these people are going to go to work. And if they do, generally work hours are two hours in the morning for peak hour and two hours in the afternoon. So your peak hour is 176, which is only 25 percent of the 861 persons anticipated to move there by your calculations. So how do you get only 25 percent are hitting the road at peak hour? Because the traffic is one of the driving forces behind this. MR. TREESH: I wish I could say this is my calculations, but these are the Institute of Transportation Engineers' calculations which we're required to use per the county requirements in terms of trip generation for this use. ITE, which is Institute of Transportation Engineers, just came out with their 10th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report. And with that 10th edition, they split the multifamily uses into different land-use codes based on the height of the building because that was determined through the surveys that were conducted, and submitted to ITE to have an impact on the trip generation. So, again, we're not making these numbers up. These are numbers that were nationally accepted, locally accepted and the estimates that we're required to use at this time. And I would like to point out that a multifamily use generates --an apartment use generates significantly less traffic than a single-family use. I mean, it's a pretty common-sense assumption, but if you think about it, the number of vehicles per unit, the number of persons per unit are significantly less in a rental community than it is in a single-family detached home MR. TREESH: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fourth paragraph of land-use 221 from the manual says, "For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling units." So, okay, if you've got two-and-a-half people, which is average, let's say you've got two working people. I mean, at the price range you're in, you probably would need two working people. That's still going to get you to 700 persons, which 25 percent of that is 176. What happens to the other 75 percent of the people who leave at the peak hour to go to work each day and come back in that apartment complex when you're only saying a quarter of them are on the road? I just don't know how you get there. And if you're the traffic expert and you can't answer it, then maybe our staff can when I bring them up. MR. TREESH: Perhaps. But, again, you're asking me to delve into data that was collected and assimilated by ITE, and they don't survey every single resident of a community. They survey the driveways going into and out, and these are the traffic characteristics that this type of use exhibits. Where those specific people go at what time of the day, I mean, there's many answers. I mean, people can work different shifts where they don't leave during the peak hours. There's all kinds of answers to that question that would -- but as with any land use in ITE, the data that is in CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep saying we need housing. You're not -- I mean, if you were to ask what kind of housing we need of a lot of people -- not saying that this is better or worser this location -- it's affordable. Now, we've got a lot of new projects coming online, 4,000 units, just about. The other project you alluded to today is like Briarwood. It's going to be high-end. It's going to be very expensive like this. It's going to be like Orchid Run. We seem to have a lot of that coming on, and that's fine, and I have no qualms about that. But I'm not sure the need is that high-end market-rate housing as much as it is other types of housing. So I'm not sure the need for this is necessarily proven. MORRIS 2914 Cleveland Avenue I Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I DEPEW Phone (239) 337-3993 I Toll Free (866) 337-7341 www.morris-depew.com ENGINEERS • PLANNERS •SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Analysis:SD Livingston, LLC-Allura 7 ✓ (i PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26, 2018 Revised:January 16, 2019 - y v Introduction and Background The requested GMPA would add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Residential Subdistrict category to the Future Land Use Element, allowing up to 12 units per acre on the 35.57-acre subject property. (A companion rezoning request would change the zoning from the A, Rural Agricultural and Residential Planned Unit Development (Della Rosa) zoning districts to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)to develop a multi-family residential project of 3681 dwelling units, a clubhouse and accessory uses on the±35.57-acre site.) The GMPA request, however, would allow up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The subject site is located on the east side of Livingston Road, and south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. According to the documents accompanying the Site Development Plan request, the maximum building height would be 50', zoned, and 60', actual. Buildings would be four stories in height, and buffers would range from a 10'Type A up to a 20'Type C. There would be 15' Type B buffer adjacent to approved single- family residential uses to the east of the subject property. Approximately 42%of the site qualifies as wetlands of varying quality. The subject property is currently designated Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition,the Urban Residential Subdistrict provisions allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per acre (DU/A) as a base density.The subject property is located within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, and TCMA and Affordable Housing bonuses could increase that number to a total of 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant, however, is not requesting bonus density, but rather a GMPA that would increase the total allowable density per acre up to 9.84 dwelling units. The proposed amendment states: "The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57±acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard.The purpose of this Documents for the accompanying submittals variously describe the subject property as between 35.57 acres up to 35.91 acres,and the final development plan between 336 up to 368 multi-family units.The boundary survey lists the total acreage as 35.566 acres.As noted above,the GMPA,if approved,would allow up to 12 units per acre. Fort Myers Tallahassee Destin Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 12 Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 9.84 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 350 units. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.3 by providing two or more of the following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west: and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. d.The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses." --1 -.cy . .� -R: •x1 t \ rwh �• Subr- Tuparfy - • 'ri I �--�- r. h6c;n-_ 1 r ._- l ��`d - �i/l ith.mun c mw.i, Pu � U � c!"+" � ��. ,47.'4:01:543r l C. Gno 4Eartti'; r c I A-- 9 ,-L �,:` t`11�1- -• Figure 1:Subject with Surrounding Development Surrounding land uses include the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development to the east and south, Royal Palm Academy to the southeast,The Enclave Residential Planned Unit Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allure PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page I 3 Development to the southwest, undeveloped C-1 zoning to the west,Agriculture zoned property to the west, and the Mediterra Planned Unit Development to the northwest, north, and north east. The C-1 parcel located to the west of the subject property is designated as the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Blvd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Discussion and Analysis Objective 5 of the Future Land Use Element indicates that the County will promote sound planning that ensures, among other things,the compatibility of land uses. Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element states, "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Development Acres Units Units per Acre FLUM Category Mediterra 1,168 750 0.64 Urban Residential Brandon 51.1 204 3.99 Urban Residential • The Enclave 28.38 114 4.02 Urban Residential • Royal Palm Academy 162.7 . 550 , 3.38 Urban Residential L. Table 1:Surrounding Development Summary Based upon the surrounding land uses,the requested density of 9.84 units per acre represents an increase ranging between 245% up to 1,538%of the existing densities. The plan amendment does not provide for any incentives for density beyond those that would normally be available for the additional 3 units per acre available for proposed TCMA improvements. Under the existing designation,there would normally be a requirement for provision of affordable housing, but the current request eliminates that necessity. The property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) which potentially makes it eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus, potentially increasing the total density for 4 units per acre to 7 units per acre, without a change in land use designation. Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element indicates that a TCMA will be designated to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. In order for a development to be exempt from link-specific concurrency requirements, developments within the TCMA must provide not less than 2 Transportation Demand Management(TDM) strategies as detailed in the Land Development Code (LDC).According to LDC Section 6.02.02(L)states, "In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least 2 of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a. Including neighborhood commercials uses within a residential project. b. Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c. Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d. Including Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allure PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page j 4 affordable housing (minimum of 25%of the units)within the development. e.Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties."This language echoes that found in FLUE Policy 6.5. The applicant has indicated an intention to provide a transit shelter and connection to the adjoining commercial development, once that development is undertaken. The latter commitment is dependent upon the ultimate design of the commercial property and may be outside the applicant's ability to guarantee. The applicant has not committed to any of the other TDM strategies. The applicant has submitted studies regarding demand for the proposed development as a rental community. The first study, by Axiometrics, indicates that the property would consist of 320 units- 144 one-bedroom units (45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%) and 32 three-bedroom units (10%).This is 106 dwelling units less than that which would be allowed under the proposed GMPA. Further,this study indicates that the proposed development should have luxurious interior amenities to be competitive within the market and command higher rental rates. Thus, the proposed analysis is not targeting affordable or workforce housing. 02 Additionally, an analysis by Myers Research was provided discussing demand and supply of new 5\ market based rental property.That study concluded that net demand by 2022 would reach 'N 2,672 units, with supply amounting to 2,732 units (including the proposed Allura development). vv The Myers study includes rental units with monthly rates up to$2,500;this is clearly not paffordable/workforce housing, and there is no discussion regarding the socioeconomic status of 7 the proposed renters for the subject property. Further, the increase in demand for renter occupied housing units projected between 2018 and 2023 is only 645 units for the County' /There appears to be little support for the need to increase overall density on the subject property to a level between 2.5 times up to over 15 times the properties in the area. J The Myers Research report does note that the employment centers are located to the west and south of the subject property. A review of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) accompanying the request suggests that traffic on Immokalee Road, west of the intersection with Livingston, is problematic. Since that is the direction of the majority of employment and support services, it is clear that increased traffic resulting from the approval of the proposal will impact that situation.The TIS also indicates that the improvements to Veterans Memorial Blvd. will not be undertaken until 2022, an does not indicate when those improvements will be completed. Chapter 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS indicates that plan amendments must be based upon data and analysis including the amount of land necessary to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected seasonal and permanent population, and the character of the undeveloped land. The request for a GMPA adds 171 dwelling units to the subject property that it could not achieve without provision of affordable housing. At 7 units per acre,the density with the proposed TDM strategies met on site, the total number of units to be permitted would be 249. No GMPA would be required, and there has been no indication that the existing land use designation is Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page I 5 somehow burdensome to the land owner. There are economically viable development options for the subject property as shown both by the market studies provided as well as by the existing development patterns in the area. There is no compelling necessity to provide for such a significant increase in development density on the subject property. Further,there has been no data and analysis provided that would suggest a compelling reason for waiving the requirement of providing affordable/workforce housing as an incentive for added density. Staff indicates that at a macro level,the proposed GMPA may well be compatible with the area in which it is located. The Staff Report goes on to note that the rezoning petition must by analyzed with regards to specific compatibility measures. The proposed Site Development Plan shows buffers of 15' between existing single-family residences and the development. The proposed rezoning allows heights of up to 50' (zoned) and 60' (actual), for a series of massive, four-story buildings, all of which are necessary to place the 350 dwelling units on a property with significant wetlands that encompass over 40% of the site. Conclusion 6 The GMPA requested is unnecessary and fails to demonstrate any kind of deficiency which it is intended to address. The subject property has an economically viable and reasonable use, the applicant can achieve a reasonable density through the utilization of existing provisions of the c.i` Growth Management Plan, and the documents submitted for the companion requests 'r demonstrate that compatibility with adjoining and proximate development will not be achieved v based upon the current development plans. Although the traffic analysis has not identified any specific problems associated with the development, it is noted that the employment centers �j and corn-rnercia1 development servicing the sub-WE-property are located primarily south and west of the subject property. The additional traffic proposed by the development will certainly add to congestion of the roadways in the area, and the east-west improvements to Veterans are not scheduled to commence until FY 2022. opp, David W. Depew, PhD,AICP, LEED AP Principal &Co Founder Morris-Depew Associates, Inc. S c ,t t 15- l/f /I R cc Pc January 17,2019 6- So common sense tells us,traffic is a problem. You add 700 people to the area we're in, traffic's going to be worse. Commons sense tells us our home values will go down because people do not want to buy next to these apartments. And they may be great tenants,luxury apartments; the perception is it's a rental apartment. And I've got too many options to buy in other places instead of our area. Schools;they mentioned the school capacities. And then the aesthetics. Does a four-story or three-story, partial four,fit into the landscape of our community? No matter what it looks like, it's not going to:fit. From Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,there's nothing like it. So why would it fit in our little area right there in our community? It doesn't fit. And,two,we talked about Livingston traffic. No one's brought up Old 41 traffic. It's a two-lane road,and it's just as bad. So what's going to happen when they extend VME? People are going to cut through VME,get on Old 41,and sit in traffic again. So common sense tells us-- it doesn't matter what the national data says, common sense tells us that it doesn't work in our community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr.Chairman,can I ask a question of this gentleman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,if you'd come back a minute. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Toni, thanks for your statements. I have a quick question for you. When you bought in Barrington Cove,just out of curiosity,what'd they tell you? Obviously,that land was already--what'd they tell you,the developer,the developer when you bought your property? MR. GRIFFITH: You want me to be honest? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR.GRIFFITH: They told us a bunch of crap is what they told us. No one ever told us that Verona Pointe Estates was going to be built. I backed up to a preserve,so I was told your backyard is a preserve. Nov it's 133 community-- is 133-home community. No one's ever told us that any of this was going to be developed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. And who was the builder/developer for Barrington Cove? MR. GRIFFITH: DR Horton. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: DR Horton. MR.GRIFFITH: And the other thing about the traffic study and that single-family homes have more traffic,yes,but not--in 350 apartments with 700.people,you're not going to get that density with a single-family home on that corner. So, nationally,statistics may speak that there's more cars,but you're not--if--how many homes can you put on 35 acres? It's not going to be 700 people, I can tell you that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Next speaker. Mr.Pritt? MR. PRITT: Good afternoon,Mr.Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Robert Pritt. I'm with Roetzel &Andress Law Firm. I represent the Mediterra Community Association. Alan Johnson was here this morning, but I think he had to leave,the president,so he won't be speaking today. Tim Richards, who is the manager, is here. I'm not sure if he's going to speak or just yield to me: Since I'm an attorney.I kind of look at things from that aspect. And we do have a planner, Dr. David Depew,who's going to be speaking here today also. I'll leave the details to him, if it's okay. But there are really two points I want to make,and they're related,and one is the question concerning spot zoning. As a matter of fact,I had prepared the spot zoning remarks before the Chair brought them tip today,and I do think this is spot zoning. This is illegal spot zoning. It's Page 62 of 79 .. s ... � January 17,2019 actually spot planning leading to spot zoning,which,in my opinion, is even worse. You cannot legislate your way out of a spot zoning situation. That has been--that's judge-made law in the state of Florida. If anybody wants to see the cases on it, I can't remember S"the name or the--of all the cases, but probably one is--the biggest one's called Bird Kendall , Homeowners Association. I think it was a Dade County case. But that's where you plop something into an area that is incompatible with everything else in the area. And what you've heard most of the day, actually from everybody, is that we have a proposal to put a very highly--a 13/IP( high density development,apartment type of development into an area that is clearly low density single-family residential. In a county that's larger than at least two states,there are plenty of places to put something like this. You don't have to put it somewhere that is,under your Comprehensive Plan, incompatible certainly as it applies to density and also as it applies to-- in the zoning this applies to uses. So that's what's being done. That's what's being proposed. The idea of planning and zoning--and I certainly don't want to lecture you,because you know this and see this probably more than I do, but the idea of planning is that you spent--and this county spent a lot of time and a lot of effort coming up with its districts. Next thing you know,we have developers wanting to create subdistricts to suit their purposes,so we wind up with a certain number of subdistricts. Why? Because generally in an ad hoc manner there's an attempt to get around the Comprehensive Plan,the GMP. That's what's being done here. Now, it's one thing-- if it's really pretty close and it's really about the same and the uses are not too far off,that's one thing. And the densities are similar,but this is nowhere close,as you heard a lot of people say today on both sides. And the problem is--another problem that I see is that the PUDs,which are a great idea in their place--planned developments are a great idea in their place--are being used improperly as the means to accomplish illegal spot planning,spot zoning when you get to the zoning aspect of it, so you wind up with PUDs going around that. Ifs one thing for PUDs to say,well, we're going to have this mixture of uses or we're going to have this type of use,et cetera,and to give up some setbacks and some height and things like that exchanged for amenities for the PUD,but it's a totally different thing to plop a PUD into a place where it doesn't belong,and it's even worse to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate that. Mr. Mulhere,I think, said--at least gave the impression to me,maybe to you,that, well, it's residential. Residential's residential. Well,that's not really correct because at least going back--if you go back into history far enough, all the way back to the first zoning case that everybody had to learn from the U.S. Supreme Court,it was a case having to do with putting ," apartments into residential districts. (5 And if I may,let me quote this. Suspend your disbelief just long enough to pick out some ./ nuggets that I think are relevant to this case,and then I'll open it up for questions, if you want. But the U.S. Supreme Court said, "With particular reference to apartment houses,it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses,which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private-house purposes;that in such sections,very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover,the coming of one apartment house is followed by others interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which, otherwise,would fall upon smaller homes,and bringing as their necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business and the occupation by means of moving and parked automobiles, larger portions of street,thus detracting--almost Page 63 of 79 January 17,2019 done--from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open places for play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until,finally,the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed, "Under these circumstances, apartment houses which in a different environment would not only be entirely unobjectionable,but highly desirable,come very near to being nuisances." This was Village of Euclid versus Amber Realty, 1926. It could have been written last month. That case is still a good case,and it's good law. Without that case,we would not all be here. That was the case that upheld that zoning in its proper place is okay. And so the point is that this is not a new issue. This is something--the issue of compatibility,even among--even between one type of residence and another type of residence has been recognized since the beginning, since the landmark case,and that is certainly something that should guide us in saying you have to follow--developer,new person coming in,buyer,whoever you are,you have to follow the rules that we have in our Comp Plan,and we're not going to bend our rules just to accommodate you. I spent'13 years on a--as City Attorney for a small area--a small city in Lee County. They have not increased density one unit except for affordable housing since 1988. So sometimes you just say no. This is not it. This is not the place,and this is not it. And all that stuff about trying to accommodate somebody when they really don't have the proper reason for it, is really kind of a waste of time, in my opinion. So I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Could you send me that case? MR. PRITT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just cited, the Euclid case. MR. PRITT: Oh,yes, Village of Euclid. We all know about Euclidian zoning;that's where that came from. Not from Euclid of old,but it's named after the city, and that was the beginning of zoning. That's the case that said zoning is allowable. And from that case, everything has--that we talk about in planning and zoning has come out of that. I'll be glad to send you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will -- MR. PRITT: And also Bird-Kendall-- I didn't think to bring it,but that's one that--on spot zoning that is relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,obviously,I'll give Mr. Yovanovich an opportunity to send any case that he wants to utilize to offset the one you've just mentioned. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick comment for you, Mr. Pritt. Would it be all right if I obtain a transcript of your remarks so that I can quote you to the Planning Advisory Board? MR.PRITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR.PRITT: I've said that,so.., COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another board besides ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amazingly enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Karl. MR.PRITT: Well, until a couple days ago.I was City Attorney for Naples,as most of you know, as many of you know,and I've turned that over to partner now,but I still am working on a lot of the planning andzoningissues. Page 64 of 79 r t+. HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Floridair — ? fid ,__ - _.. _ ... .._ ---_---.-::::".7.----:----- __, .-...-._�.�� . illi 1 I I I I ii ' . ,-�' ? - 1 -, - ' I ! t . r SSS �' '� --__ - . ,-,� om -„ .u :,.,..' '-F f , ..-,:. By Diana Villavicencio I As of March 1,2017 Current sales market conditions: balanced. Current apartment market conditions: balanced. OVerVieW The Naples-lmmokalee-Marco Island(hereafter, Naples)metropol- Tourism is the primary catalyst of economic itan area is coterminous with Collier County on the southwestern activity in the metropolitan area, which is known coast of Florida.The temperate climate and more than 90 golf as the "Paradise Coast” with nearly 30 miles of courses in the metropolitan area(The Greater Naples Chamber beaches on the Gulf of Mexico and the Ever of Commerce)have supported tourism and transformed the glades National Park. In 2016, more than 1.79 metropolitan area into a major retirement destination. People aged million people visited the metropolitan area, 65 and older accounted for nearly 29 percent of all out-of-state generating nearly$2 billion in economic actio arrivals to the metropolitan area during 2015(most recent data ity, up from the 1.38 million visitors and$1.17 available,American Community Survey 1-year estimates). billion economic impact in 2010 (Research Data Services, Inc.). • As of March 1, 2017,the estimated population of the metropol- �__ itan area is 368,800, an average increase of 7,275,or 2.1 per- cent,a year since 2011 (Census Bureau population estimates ,_ ,-` i ' as of July 1). Improving economic conditions during the period r ` ;, = contributed to average annual net in-migration of 7,200 people L and accounted for nearly 99 percent of population growth. ' _ • From 2006 to 2011, population growth averaged 2,975 people, 1 or 0.9 percent,annually when weak economic conditions _ i---i - J slowed net in-migration to an average of 1,925 people a year. { T. • During the peak growth period from 2000 to 2006, population growth averaged 9,800 people,or 3.6 percent,annually.Strong job growth during the period contributed to average net 0AENi 0Fy �''� III�III o�c in-migration of 8,525 people a year. % ill Ilh i ry:jAR 2,,,_.„,.,..„,„.,,, '94N DEVOP '''AT" - [ — Li 1 i : I 11 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research 0 HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles As of March 1,2017 The mining, logging, and construction sector ac:0:6 nted for 71 percent of total job gains in the Naples area during the 3 months ending February 2017. nths EndingYear-Over-Year Change February February 2017 Absolute (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) Percent Total nonfarm payrolls 143.9 145.6 1.7 1.2 Goods-producing sectors 17.8 19.5 1.7 9.6 Mining,logging,and construction 14.3 15.5 1.2 8.4 Manufacturing 3.5 3.9 0.4 11.4 Service providing sectors 126.1 126.1 0.0 0.0 Wholesale and retail trade 25.7 25.5 -0.2 -0.8 F ' Transportation and utilities 2.0 1.9 -0.1 -5.0 Information 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 Financial activities 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Professional and business services 15.9 16.0 0.1 0.6 Education and health services 21.0 21.7 0.7 3.3 Leisure and hospitality 29.1 28.1 -1.0 -3.4 Other services 9.1 9.4 0.3 3.3 Government 13.7 13.8 0.1 0.7 (percent) (percent) Unemployment rate 4.6 4.7 Note:Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding. Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics During the 3 months ending February 2017, nonfarm payroll growth in the Naples area slowed to a rate lower than the national rate for the first time since Economic Conditions 2010. Naples area The economy of the Naples metropolitan area has strengthened -Southeast/Caribbean region -Nation since 2011. From 2011 through 2013,nonfarm payroll growth o 6.0 averaged 3.3 percent a year before accelerating to an average of -5 o� 4.0 • - 5.1 percent a year from 2014 through 2016.Although job growth 0- 2.0 .go has moderated during the 3 months ending February 2017,current 2 co 0. t• nonfarm payrolls total 145,600 jobs,surpassing the prerecession o -2.0 peak of 135,600 in 2007 by more than 7 percent. m E -4.0 (%) During the 3 months ending February 2017- -.._ -6.0��t • mm • Nonfarm payrolls increased 1,700 jobs,or 1.2 percent,corn - pared -8.0 ��s spared with the average number of jobs during the same 3-month o • -10.0 period in 2016.This year was the first since 2011 that the rate OCP r c rO rO (O (O (O c10 (0 of job growth in the metropolitan area was lower than the rate in ��'0 �0� ��'0 ��'0 ��� ��No ��� �mNo ��� (e'0 the Southeast/Caribbean region and the nation,which were up Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics 2.1 and 1.6 percent,respectively. • The mining,logging,and construction sector added the most Largest employers in the Naples area jobs,expanding by 1,200,or 8.4 percent,to 15,500 jobs.The Name of Employer Nonfarm Number of sector benefited from increased residential,commercial,and in- Payroll Sector Employees dustrial development projects and has been the fastest-growing NHC Healthcare System Education and health services 4,000 sector in the metropolitan area since 2011.The number of jobs Publix Super Markets,Inc. Wholesale and retail trade 2,800 in the sector, however, remains 35 percent below the prereces- Collier County(excluding Government 2,125 Sheriff's Office) sion high of 23,900 during 2006. Note:Excludes local school districts. ow�tMENT �L continued on page 3 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,2016 0 * °q�v.,- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research c QHUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-InunokoI<e-Ma,co ksIand. Fl As of March 1,2017 continued from page 3 C • Since 2011,approximately 89 percent of single-family home • Del Webb,an age-restricted subdivision in the Ave Maria corn- construction has occurred in the unincorporated portion of munity,will have 2,000 homes at buildout and includes a golf the metropolitan area. One of the largest developments in the course. Home prices start at$204,990 for a two-bedroom, unincorporated area is Ave Maria,a 4,000-acre master-planned two-bathroom home and$318,990 for a three-bedroom,three- community,35 miles northeast of the city of Naples.Construction bathroom home.The Ave Maria community also includes Coquina of the 8 subdivisions in the Ave Maria community has been in Maple Ridge,a subdivision that will have 277 homes at buildout; ongoing since 2007,with approximately 1,300 of the 11,000 prices start at$196,990 for a two-bedroom,two-bathroom home. homes completed that are planned at buildout. Existing home sales prices in the Naples area Existing home sales in the Naples area have de- increased slightly in the past year partially because clined since early 2016, whereas new home sales of a 44-percent reduction in the number of REO have decreased since February 2017. properties sold. ®New home sales y ® New home sales prices -Existing home sales o -Existing home sales prices 50.0 > & 20.0 c'o 40.0 aa) 10.0 r. . �� > 30.0 0 E c° 0.0 `=L,.•. ° r " N.•_; g rn 20.0 � 0 -10.0' �A�' a 10.0 t c E �. c ..,' `e' as Ea' 0.0 ° N � ° c -. ..-30.0 0 c -10.0 • T-40.0 NO Ni ,,`L ,\`� ,\t,\ ,\b ,\ro ,('l _c cEE -20.0 O O O O O O O O a- ci• . rL rl. q, cL (L cL rL cL `L °= -30.0 0° «6° (<6° F «oo F (<6) (<6) OP (<6) c -40.0 REO=real estate owned. d -50.0 Note:Includes single-family homes,townhomes,and condominiums. Source:Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by analyst -60.0 %% e ONTO 6:\ ONq, 99 N,b ONR Oih 0co 0,(1 The rate of seriously delinquent mortgages and REO Faso F�sO ��'0 X60 0 X60 F60 q',0 F�'0 ���� properties in the Naples area has been below the national rate since 2015. Note:Includes single-family homes,townhomes,and condominiums. Source:Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by analyst Naples area -Florida -Nation Single-family home permitting increased in the Naples 60 20.0 area from 2010 through 2015 and remained elevated. c cc 18.0 D Z.-c 16.0 3,500 aa) 14.0 11.11111& it 3,000 o P 12.0 m 2,500 E0 1s6 Al p 4 min NE a wiiiiilaiNalk E2'� ' T 1,500 0 _ 8.0 6Alir uuy6.0 cu E 1,000 (I 500 o �i 4.0 m m4tV .' c o 2.0 Cl)in , ,0 4 ,\\ ,•`L Nrb Nb' N<° N0 <l ( ti (O9O (O (O (O (O (O (0 a) c 0.0. co CS ,\p �\ \�. ,\n5 \p, ON 6\ rp �l Note:Includes preliminary data from January 2016 through February 2017. ,�q., q,, q/ J` c10,meq, �0 q, q, q, ,��O Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Building Permits Survey 0\ f REO=real estate owned. Source:CoreLogic,Inc. �,,,.EN,„ ‘ I r ggno ,.., 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research r © HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Napes-Immokalee-Marco Island. FI_ As of March 1,2017 Apartment Market Conditions The apartment market in the Naples metropolitan area currently is Multifamily construction activity,as measured by the number of balanced compared with soft conditions in 2007. Increased renter multifamily units permitted,has increased since 2013 in response household growth contributed to the absorption of excess units to increased rental demand but remains below construction levels since the late 2000s. before the recession. During the fourth quarter of 2016- • During the 12 months ending February 2017, 1,025 multifamily • The apartment vacancy rate was 4.6 percent,up from 2.7 percent units were permitted, up from 940 units permitted during the during the fourth quarter of 2015(Axiometrics, Inc.). Relatively previous year(preliminary data). high levels of multifamily construction,from 2013 through 2016, • Multifamily permitting averaged 2,750 units annually from 2000 contributed to the recent increase in the apartment vacancy rate. through 2007, before slowing to average 360 units permitted • The apartment vacancy rate is much lower than the 19.2-percent annually from 2008 through 2012,the lowest level in recent peak during the fourth quarter of 2007.High levels of newly history. From 2013 through 2015,multifamily permitting rose to constructed units,from 2000 through 2007,contributed to soft an average of 1,000 units annually. apartment market conditions. • In south Naples,the 296-unit Milano Lakes Apartments is currently • The average monthly rent for an apartment was$1,350, up under construction.The property will comprise eight buildings 5 percent from the fourth quarter of 2015 and up an average with one-,two ,and three-bedroom units.The first four buildings 5 percent annually from the fourth quarter of 2007. are expected to be completed during the fall of 2017,and the project is expected to be complete by April 2018. Rents have Although apartment vacancy rates declined during not yet been released. the fourth quarter of 2016, increased apartment • Luxury developments intended for retirees are currently under construction in the Naples area has contributed to construction,including 4 properties combining 460 apartments relatively elevated vacancy rates and slowing rent and assisted living units for seniors.The All Seasons Naples, growth since the second quarter of 2016. currently under construction in the city of Naples,will have 100 -Asking rent independent living and 62 assisted living one-and two-bedroom Vacancy rate project ro ect is scheduled to be completed in the summer 0, 16.0 20.0 units. j P N14.0 18.0 of 2017. Proposed rents have not yet been released. Cil 16.0 E. Developers have responded to rent growth and low 8, 10.0 14.0 vacancy rates with increased multifamily permitting 2 8.0 12.0 . in the Naples area since 2013. t 6.0 10.0 -o 0 m 1,200 a4.0 8.0 c E 1,000 2.0 6.0 zs, w a) 0.0 4.0 > 800 2.0% 2.0 3 600 400 } -4�b r0 orb oma\ o�� o\5 o\rk oN� o\C0.0 200 0 0 0'ti anti 0< 0 0., 0' 0" 0 5 e Q4=fourth quarter. ( rtq, �O (1/O q, q, q, q9 O ( Source:Axiometrics,Inc. Note:Includes preliminary data from January 2016 through February 2017. Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Building Permits Survey vs4NENT0,, m L L,a9NDEv£DF" RD,RU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ! Office of Policy Development and Research MORRIS 2914 Cleveland Avenue l Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I y.... ` l e ' 'k" aVai¢.y IR4144 k... ,.r1g,a x. ,N V'.rti„ niU 4 M VO DEPEW Phone (239) 337-3993 I Toll Free (866) 337-7341 www.morris-depew.com ENGINEERS • PLANNERS •SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Analysis: SD Livingston, LLC-Allura P L20170004419/C P-2018-1 November 26, 2018 Revised:January 16, 2019 Introduction and Background The requested GMPA would add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Residential Subdistrict category to the Future Land Use Element, allowing up to 12 units per acre on the 35.57-acre subject property. (A companion rezoning request would change the zoning from the A, Rural Agricultural and Residential Planned Unit Development (Della Rosa) zoning districts to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to develop a multi-family residential project of 3681 dwelling units, a clubhouse and accessory uses on the±35.57-acre site.)The GMPA request, however, would allow up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.The subject site is located on the east side of Livingston Road, and south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 13,Township 48 South, Range 25 East. According to the documents accompanying the Site Development Plan request, the maximum building height would be 50', zoned, and 60', actual. Buildings would be four stories in height, and buffers would range from a 10'Type A up to a 20'Type C.There would be 15'Type B buffer adjacent to approved single- family residential uses to the east of the subject property. Approximately 42%of the site qualifies as wetlands of varying quality. The subject property is currently designated Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict provisions allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per acre (DU/A) as a base density.The subject property is located within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, and TCMA and Affordable Housing bonuses could increase that number to a total of 15 dwelling units per acre.The applicant, however, is not requesting bonus density, but rather a GMPA that would increase the total allowable density per acre up to 9.84 dwelling units. The proposed amendment states: "The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57±acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard.The purpose of this 1 Documents for the accompanying submittals variously describe the subject property as between 35.57 acres up to 35.91 acres,and the final development plan between 336 up to 368 multi-family units.The boundary survey lists the total acreage as 35.566 acres.As noted above,the GMPA,if approved,would allow up to 12 units per acre. Fort Myers I Tallahassee ( Destin r s00033 Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 2 Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 9.84 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 350 units. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.3 by providing two or more of the following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit& Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west: and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multi-family units (a density of 7.0 units per acre) until the applicable facilities and/or interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. d. The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses." a 1 , u 11�+ d` . + i41ri 1 jj 3' mob— y � 'yy'."-,. ' '�f.� 't �d I ;: i p 4, /' r 'S .-. = 1 - -----J Figure 1:Subject with Surrounding Development Surrounding land uses include the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development to the east and south, Royal Palm Academy to the southeast,The Enclave Residential Planned Unit Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 13 Development to the southwest, undeveloped C-1 zoning to the west, Agriculture zoned property to the west, and the Mediterra Planned Unit Development to the northwest, north, and north east.The C-1 parcel located to the west of the subject property is designated as the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Blvd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Discussion and Analysis Objective 5 of the Future Land Use Element indicates that the County will promote sound planning that ensures, among other things,the compatibility of land uses. Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element states, "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Development LAcres Units Units per Acre FLUM Category Mediterra 1,168 750 0.64 Urban Residential Brandon 51.1 204 3.99 Urban Residential The Enclave 28.38114 4.02 _ Urban Residential Royal Palm Academy _ 162.7 550 7 _ 3.38 Urban Residential Table 1:Surrounding Development Summary Based upon the surrounding land uses, the requested density of 9.84 units per acre represents an increase ranging between 245% up to 1,538%of the existing densities.The plan amendment does not provide for any incentives for density beyond those that would normally be available for the additional 3 units per acre available for proposed TCMA improvements. Under the existing designation, there would normally be a requirement for provision of affordable housing, but the current request eliminates that necessity. The property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) which potentially makes it eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus, potentially increasing the total density for 4 units per acre to 7 units per acre, without a change in land use designation. Policy " 5.6 of the Transportation Element indicates that a TCMA will be designated to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. In order for a development to be exempt from link-specific concurrency requirements, developments within the TCMA must provide not less than 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as detailed in the Land Development Code (LDC). According to LDC Section 6.02.02(L) states, "In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAS) shall utilize at least 2 of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a. Including neighborhood commercials uses within a residential project. b. Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c. Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d. Including Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 4 affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the development. e. Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties."This language echoes that found in FLUE Policy 6.5. The applicant has indicated an intention to provide a transit shelter and connection to the adjoining commercial development, once that development is undertaken. The latter commitment is dependent upon the ultimate design of the commercial property and may be outside the applicant's ability to guarantee. The applicant has not committed to any of the other TDM strategies. The applicant has submitted studies regarding demand for the proposed development as a rental community.The first study, by Axiometrics, indicates that the property would consist of 320 units- 144 one-bedroom units (45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%) and 32 three-bedroom units (10%).This is 106 dwelling units less than that which would be allowed under the proposed GMPA. Further, this study indicates that the proposed development should have luxurious interior amenities to be competitive within the market and command higher rental rates.Thus,the proposed analysis is not targeting affordable or workforce housing. Additionally, an analysis by Myers Research was provided discussing demand and supply of new market based rental property. That study concluded that net demand by 2022 would reach 2,672 units, with supply amounting to 2,732 units (including the proposed Allura development). The Myers study includes rental units with monthly rates up to $2,500; this is clearly not affordable/workforce housing, and there is no discussion regarding the socioeconomic status of the proposed renters for the subject property. Further,the increase in demand for renter occupied housing units projected between 2018 and 2023 is only 645 units for the County. There appears to be little support for the need to increase overall density on the subject property to a level between 2.5 times up to over 15 times the properties in the area. The Myers Research report does note that the employment centers are located to the west and south of the subject property. A review of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) accompanying the request suggests that traffic on Immokalee Road, west of the intersection with Livingston, is problematic. Since that is the direction of the majority of employment and support services, it is clear that increased traffic resulting from the approval of the proposal will impact that situation.The TIS also indicates that the improvements to Veterans Memorial Blvd. will not be undertaken until 2022, an does not indicate when those improvements will be completed. Chapter 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS indicates that plan amendments must be based upon data and analysis including the amount of land necessary to accommodate anticipated growth,the projected seasonal and permanent population, and the character of the undeveloped land.The request for a GMPA adds 171 dwelling units to the subject property that it could not achieve without provision of affordable housing. At 7 units per acre, the density with the proposed TDM strategies met on site, the total number of units to be permitted would be 249. No GMPA would be required, and there has been no indication that the existing land use designation is I Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allure PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 15 somehow burdensome to the land owner.There are economically viable development options for the subject property as shown both by the market studies provided as well as by the existing development patterns in the area.There is no compelling necessity to provide for such a significant increase in development density on the subject property. Further, there has been no data and analysis provided that would suggest a compelling reason for waiving the requirement of providing affordable/workforce housing as an incentive for added density. Staff indicates that at a macro level, the proposed GMPA may well be compatible with the area in which it is located.The Staff Report goes on to note that the rezoning petition must by analyzed with regards to specific compatibility measures.The proposed Site Development Plan shows buffers of 15' between existing single-family residences and the development.The proposed rezoning allows heights of up to 50' (zoned) and 60' (actual),for a series of massive, four-story buildings, all of which are necessary to place the 350 dwelling units on a property with significant wetlands that encompass over 40%of the site. Conclusion The GMPA requested is unnecessary and fails to demonstrate any kind of deficiency which it is intended to address.The subject property has an economically viable and reasonable use, the applicant can achieve a reasonable density through the utilization of existing provisions of the Growth Management Plan, and the documents submitted for the companion requests demonstrate that compatibility with adjoining and proximate development will not be achieved based upon the current development plans. Although the traffic analysis has not identified any specific problems associated with the development, it is noted that the employment centers and commercial development servicing the subject property are located primarily south and west of the subject property.The additional traffic proposed by the development will certainly add to congestion of the roadways in the area, and the east-west improvements to Veterans are not scheduled to commence until FY 2022. David W. Depew, PhD, AICP, LEED AP Principal & Co Founder Morris-Depew Associates, Inc. 60 se ' g \ . , # , ( 1;t-''• p yo M OMR ( ., / \ ger" �/ 1 < __ . k ., , ., . 0.1.5, a as ....._ ..„ ( f„i ,. , .,, ,.,),$,..it --.:, ,(i . Li \ '''''‘''' A . • i �.;, `:�, • �` !tr l s fi• i_ y' • I \ 'i ,' fY 1 4 .11'r. L . ''''t ''• ' „... / 1 a t l' qtr .- , :ki,-..!:- / \ - % rAII 1111), P-11' 44 E- awl :° .. \ , , fo=v4 . ....: , -'' 11 1 a . i „xM FF x' 6 a f 1 , 1 1 ' i 4/111111"11111\) . x } ) 1 . fi / / I i ..w4 !!fes a f '. a (j _ Illi11!!! y tfp 1S ! kq s > aliiY }!�. t ¢ - .YY! m { 1 1 t`febw Vr�. 11 _ v f ` MVP 1 ) VpY1 \ it t , or \ ,\ Ilk ... Ir N.. imi , A if.. s Robert Walczak 16285 Aberdeen Way Naples Fl 34110 Penny Taylor Collier County Commissioner District 4 Dear Commissioner Taylor, "I am sending this email in regard to the Allura Project proposed to be literally built in my back yard. I am a firefighter in Naples and my wife is a nurse. We have 3 small boys and I am very disappointed this project has even been considered. We moved to Barrington Cove for a better sense of community and safety. This project is going to be a eye sore to me as my backyard will be facing the buildings. My pool faces the parking area. I promise you that the safety concerns are very real for me. I have been in many similar buildings in the county and nothing I want in my back yard! This is NO sense of community and very upsetting for us. I worked very hard to get my family into our neighborhood. This all will change if this project is approved. Serve your citizens! Put our communities/families first and not someone's pockets! s t ' ' K v a, VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD o (.0 BARRINGTON 5 GnmL�J COVE gJS � akt I r- z t tr. rp "Sincerely, Rob Walczak Arthrice RECEIVED September 6, 2019 SEP 12 2019 OFFICIO OF COWER COUNTY Collier County Board of County Commissioners BOARD OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner William McDaniel Commissioner Penny Taylor Commissioner Burt Saunders Commissioner Andy Solis Commissioner Donna Fiala RE: Allura RPUD PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 Dear Commissioners: I would like to thank you again for inviting me to speak at the July 9, 2019, Commission Meeting. Please accept this letter of support for Stock Development's proposed Allura project scheduled for final adoption at the September 24, 2019 BOCC meeting. As you are aware, Arthrex has long been a proponent of expanding the housing options within Collier County. While I only have a high level knowledge of this project, I believe it will be an attractive housing option for young professionals and essential service personnel. I ask the Commission to consider approving this project and consider additional measures in the future to allow Collier County, Collier Schools, and all other employers to attract and retain its employees. Si�cerely„�� David Bumpous Senior Director of Operations Arthrex Inc. ,.rthrex Inc.1370 Creekside Boulevard,Naples,Florida 34108-1945•Tel:800-933-7001 or 239-643-5553•Fax:239-591-6980•www.arthrex.com GrecoSherry Subject: Allura - Mark Strain Location: 2950 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 202-1 Naples, FL 34103 Start: Thu 7/25/2019 2:00 PM End: Thu 7/25/2019 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: TaylorPenny RT 9.6 miles 1 GrecoSherry From: Alice O'Shea <aliceo57@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 11:57 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Do your homework on the Allura project. If you vote yes, myself and at least 5,000 neighbors will not vote for you. Alice O'Shea The Strand Sent from my iPad 1 GrecoSherry From: JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 4:16 PM To: SolisAndy; 1982SWM@gmail.com;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; arnold@saslaysky.com Subject: ALLURA Meeting - March 26,2019 Andy: My wife attended the meeting yesterday at the Collier County Offices on behalf of the residents in The Strand. After she filled me in on the results, I took the time to review the video on Comcast this morning. In my 40 years of Real Estate transactions in the Delaware and Pennsylvania area I have attended my fair share of these type of meetings. I cannot believe that you allowed both representatives of Stock as well as the person (Katherine Cordoza) who works for Stock's interest, actually make a veiled threat to the audience. As I replayed the video today and heard Ms. Cordoza remind us that "this is the way things go today".Sounding like we had no other choice. When she continued to use the word "criminal" when referring to tenant and employee review, I wondered what experiences she has had with other tenants she has already come in contact with at previous developments.She also admitted that "yes, things are dangerous now" which I assume meant the current traffic issues. I don't know how she plans to fix the dangerous situation with the addition of a new High School and 8.5 residents per acre if this is approved. She also tried to sell the audience on Allura "allowing the surrounding developments to use their Amenities" ??? Why would we when we have larger and better facilities. While I did appreciate the slides and description put forward by Stock, I think they miss the point by trying to sell us on how much time and money they are going to spend on Landscaping- types of trees and bushes. Also appreciate how they are "amenable" to allow us to comment on design and type of buildings. We don't care what they do within their boundaries. The REAL issue is TRAFFIC and they tried to make us believe that the Traffic Study is 100% accurate and we will have absolutely no problems over time. Never going to happen with there numbers. I speak for myself when I say that I would never prevent any Developer from putting a lot of people to work building a project. Good for the economy and families who need a paycheck. New Homes mean more tax dollars for Collier County. A much smaller group of Single Family homes would fit very nicely on this corner. I hope and your team make a good decision. That is NOT a veiled threat, just a "good luck"and thanks for your service. We love Naples. 2 JIM WELDING The Strand 3 GrecoSherry From: Joe Huntt <j.huntt@live.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:18 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: allura meeting Commissioner Taylor, I wish to thank you for your patience and time at the Allura meeting yesterday. I am glad that you had the insight to express your concerns that reflect what many of us here in Barrington Cove believe. I especially liked your analogy to the fact that a 125 foot buffer is the equivalent of a defensive back on the 40-yard line looking at the quarter back on the goal line. I feel the meeting went well even though the motion was sent on to Tallahassee. Thank you for your service, Joe H. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 N 4 GrecoSherry From: Kelly Marie Dainiak <kkmdsm@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 10:04 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Development -please read Dear Commissioner, I have a unique perspective and understanding of my neighborhood. I have been in this pocket of Naples since 2004. I currently own I both Mediterra and Barrington Cove.We are one of the families that started Veterans Memorial Elementary School (VME). My daugr entering kindergarten class-she is now a junior in high school. I would like you to understand my personal perspective of the Allura D There are two main concerns: 1.overloading vehicles on an already dangerous road and intersection 2.community development planning I was in a motor vehicle accident leaving VME in 2007. There is a dangerous curve coming from the south on Lig cautiously stopped in the Livingston median (before there was a street light) and was rear ended. My physical I suffered as a result of the rear end collision. Jump ahead 12 years to a year ago: there was a fatality when someone stopped at the streetlight at Veterans R was hit head on by a driver that could not navigate the odd left turn from the southbound direction of Livingstc Veterans Road today (the east side from Livingston to the dead end vehicles go from zero to 50-70mph from 6: 10:00pm (often later). It's a fun place for vehicles to see how fast their vehicle can go. These are dump truck, sl well as the minivans and sedans. This goes on daily despite bikers, runners, dog walkers and children walking tc killed my cat 2 weeks ago. Next time it could be a person. I am only mentioning the accidents I know of and my small experience. I am sure you will be able to find more ( records. Roads can be widened, lanes added but there is no way to redirect hundreds of extra vehicles on an already ov roadway. Case in point, drive up Livingston any Friday afternoon. The traffic is stopped from Mediterra to Bonii better yet, when 75 shuts down the entire road is stopped. The roads cannot handle a High Density Communit' Livingston Road, by a dangerous curve. High density poputlations should be able to leave their community sevE multiple roads (like The Strand, Mediterra and Imperial Golf Club). A high density community would do better c so they are better able to navigate their daily routes. Planning communities and roadways should surpass the desire to collect tax revenue by our county or allow a increase profit margins. The excessive vehicles released onto Livingston would be more dangerous to those wh adjacent communities and any vehicle that uses Livingston Road for travel. There is no plus side to a High Dens this location on Livingston Road. Please understand these common sense points from a person who has lived here for many years and seen the Livingston expand year after year, community after community. A High Density Community (which was never it plans as I believe) cannot be added to this area,the roads would be overwhelmed and traffic accidents would s 5 Please do not allow this developer (Stock) to build a high density community (Allura). Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Dr. Kelly M. Dainiak 6 GrecoSherry From: JoAnn Devlin <joann.devlin@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:15 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Project As a resident of The Strand, I have witnessed the increase in traffic both on Veterans Memorial Highway and especially Livingston Road over the past 3 to 4 years, and how congested these roads become especially during the morning and afternoon rush hours. I am very concerned about the dramatic increase of cars that will be using these roads, if this project is approved. I am writing to urge you to either vote against the Allura proposal, or vote to seriously limit the number of units allowed on a lot of that size. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jo Ann Devlin Sent from my iPad 7 GrecoSherry From: Doug Cousins <rdoug.cousins@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 11:44 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Susan Mulgrew; Katy Wrede; 'Ivan L. Rosenblatt; 'Mr.Victor Cintron'; 'Advanced Property'; 'Rick Tessmer; StrainMark Subject: Allura Development by Stock at the southeast corner of Livingston &Veterans Memorial Blvd To The Board of Collier County Commissioners: RE:Stock request to increase density of their Allura Development I am a concerned resident living in the Strand Community and I understand on March 26th you will be voting on a Stock request to increase the density of their Allura development at the southeast corner of Livingston &Veterans Memorial Blvd. I implore you to vote a resounding NO to this request. I attended the Planning Commission sessions on this topic and Stock did not provide any evidence or articulate the benefits to the community for an increase in density beyond what is already zoned for this parcel of land. In fact there was unanimous vocal opposition to this request from the surrounding communities for the following main reasons: 1. Increased Congestion Already Immokalee Rd, Livingston Rd and Veterans Memorial Blvd have intolerable traffic congestion during in- season peak periods.Traffic is routinely stop and go on Livingston Rd during in-season peak periods and Immokalee is continuously congested during in-season. To make matters worse there are the following population increases already in plan for this area: - New Enclave community on Livingston Rd, which just started construction -Talis Park, Mediterra and Barrington Cove still building and selling units - New School to be built on Veterans Memorial Blvd in the next two years Therefore increasing the density for Allura would only exacerbate the already worsening traffic congestion problem and increase the strain on existing community facilities in the area!! 2. Not Compatible The surrounding communities are a majority of single family residences and there is a valid concern that introducing multi-story rental units would lower the surrounding property values for the following reasons: -The apartment architecture is not compatible with the neighbouring communities and the requested increase in density will require multiple 3 to 4 story buildings. As well,these apartment units would abut the backyards of single family residents,which would be a clear intrusion of their privacy. -The proposed apartment complex will have no standards or controls such as the surrounding developments, which have control of the operation, maintenance and behaviour of the owners by a Board of Directors -Although Stock is a reputable developer in all likelihood they will eventually sell the property to an investor since running apartments is not their core business.There would be no control over the investor who could just maximize income by foregoing upkeep and maintenance. All of the surrounding property has been developed in compliance with current zoning bylaws.The residents who purchased in the surrounding neighbourhoods did so relying on the fact that neighbouring projects would be of like kind. I realize that the existing Della Rosa PUD allows for multi-family dwellings but you should not 8 compound what I consider was an erroneous decision in 2007 with increasing the density for the Allura Development. 3. No Need As reported at the Planning Commission hearings by the Collier County Planning department the County is already well served with the existing inventory of"Luxury" apartment units.The vacancy rate for this category is healthy and increasing the density to allow additional units will not fix a problem that does not exist!! Therefore, since there is no need to increase the number of"Luxury" apartments in Collier County then there is no justification for approving a density increase to Stock. In summary and for the reasons articulated above I urge you to vote against the request from Stock to increase the density.You are elected as representatives for your constituents and your constituents strongly oppose the Stock request to increase the density beyond what is already zoned for this parcel of land. Sincerely, R Doug Cousins A Strand Community Owner 9 GrecoSherry From: Thomas Griffith <thomasm.griffith@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 11:33 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Expansion Dear Commissioner Taylor, I'm writing in my opposition to the Allura expansion. I have attended 3 meetings regarding the project and am opposed to the rezoning of the additional acreage from single family homes to a multi-use high density project. Stock Development should proceed with the previously approved smaller project and not invade more space and views of the current Barrington Cove homeowners and surrounding communities for a project that doesn't'fit the landscape of this area, in addition to adding additional traffic to an already congested area. Myself, as well has all my neighbors and friends are not against community growth but we are opposed to rezoning single family land to a project for high density rental apartments.To quote Cormac Giblin, Manager Housing& Grant Development from the last meeting, "Market is adequately addressing the needs of moderate &GAP income levels in Collier County, the need is in the extremely low,very low and low income households." He also stated "Market is taking care of units renting over$2,000 per month,for the public benefit we would want to see units at less than 80%." In the previous meeting there was no evidence provided that these types of rental apartments are needed in this area. The traffic data provided by both Stock Development and Collier County is inadequate.Stock presented that only 25%of the professional apartment renters will travel during peak travel times as well as used national statistics for a local traffic issue.They are targeting professionals as renters, but due to no public transportation in this area all of them will be driving. What are the other 75%of professional, career oriented renters going to do for transportation that Stock didn't account for in their study?Collier County also does a disservice to its current homeowner's in the area by not being forward thinking of future traffic for the expansions in Talis Park, Mediterra,The Enclave Community and the addition of a high school on Veterans Memorial Blvd. Livingston from Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road can't handle the current traffic, as well as Immokalee East and West of Livingston. A easy, cost effective travel study would be to travel these areas in peak travel times as I do on a daily basis. Stock's PR team has stated it would not hurt our current property values. I think common sense tells you it will. For example, if I have the option to purchase in similar communities in age and price point, such as Camden Lakes,Verona Point Estates or Barrington Cove with 4 story rental apartments overlooking your back yard,which community would you chose?The abundance of supply and options to purchase and lack of demand for homes that have rental apartments looking in your backyard will drive down the price of our community.This is also supported by a study from the National Realtors Association.As they say location, location, location....and a view. I have made a significant investment in my home, love our community and neighbors and the schools my children attend. But my wife and I have been prepping our home to put on the market if the expansion is approved. It's really sad 10 because this is the first home we have built and really made it our own but we know if we don't get out if this project is approved we could lose a large part of our investment we put in our home. Unfortunately this will be a manmade decline in our property values and not a market correction. The thousands of tax paying,voting homeowners in this area do not want the parcels rezoned and the Allura project expanded.We hope our elected officials will support the will of the community and vote no for the expansion. Thanks for your consideration in voting no to support your community. Tom 11 Kevin R McIntosh 6090 Pinnacle Lane Naples, FL 34110 July 10, 2019 Dear Colleagues, I have been a property owner in Collier County FL for the last 15 years. I have seen unprecedented growth in the County most of which has been managed well and appreciated. The current revised application by Stock ie: The ALLURA development is not in keeping with the previous careful development. The proposed development is totally incompatible with the immediate surrounding neighborhoods consisting of single family homes. I purchased my home in the Strand relying on the fact that the neighboring communities would be like in style and density, a quiet place with manageable traffic and congestion. We enjoy all the amenities that Collier County provides wonderful beaches, a great place to retire and enjoy with my grandchildren, who love the waterpark. The proposal by Stock would diminish the afore mentioned careful development and housing values in the immediate community as well. Thank you for your further consideration in this important matter and I look forward to the commissioners using their careful and considerate management style as in the past. Cordially, Kevin P. McIntosh GrecoSherry From: Frank <frankjperpiglia@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday,July 13, 2019 10:13 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: VOTE NO ON ALLURA PROJECT Dear Commissioner Taylor: My wife and I are writing you about the proposed ALLURA project because we, along with other owners living in the nearby communities including THE STRAND,TALIS PARK, MEDITERRA AND VASARI are worried you'll help STOCK succeed in their zest to introduce commercial rental housing into this neighborhood. Although we are but one couple,we are representative of the many many others who live here,vote here and call the North Naples area Home. And our appeal to you to vote NO to STOCK'S zoning change requests is quite simple: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF SOMEONE CHANGED THE RULES OF THE GAME ON YOU AND OPENED UP YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN A WAY THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED? Granting ALLURA'S zoning changes to allow an apartment project is simply unfair to existing home owners in the area and we're hopeful you'll vote NO. Sincerely, Frank& Carol Perpiglia 1 THE STRAND 2 GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 6:49 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: WIN -WIN -WIN Dear Commissioner Taylor, Instead of luxury apartments at Allure,the Commissioners should approve moderate price houses(under 500K). 1.The neighbors would get compatible construction 2. Employers (Arthrex) would get more affordable housing for a large section of employees 3. Stock will get a profitable development for the Allura property(but probably less than the apartments). Over 4000 new apartments are approved now in Collier and About 500 lower rent apartments are being developed in Lee County about 2-3 miles away from Allura. TimDiegel@mac.com. 16229 Aberdeen Avenue, Barrington Cove. 3 GrecoSherry From: Sent: To: JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Thursday,July 11, 2019 11:13 AM TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: ALLURA PROJECT PENNY: Please redirect the project at the Veterans and Livingston intersection to an area of Naples that can handle the projected traffic flow. New High School to open soon off of Veterans. I sit at this light and see the heavy traffic at rush hour both morning and night.The PM traffic backs up from Bonita Beach Road to Veterans. Traffic study is definitely flawed and tilted toward the Developers wishes.Just come out and sit there for an hour and you can see for yourself. Please make the correct decision and we as voters will do the same. Jim and Rosemarie Welding 6035 Pinnacle Lane Naples, FL 34110 4 GrecoSherry From: Susie Cell Phone <susiepieky@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 4:03 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Penny, As a resident of The Strand, I am deeply concerned about many aspects of the Allura Project and strongly urge you to vote no. Sincerely, Susan Piekenbrock 5740 Grande Reserve Way Sent from my iPhone 5 GrecoSherry From: Anne Hayes <loft6@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 2:42 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote NO on ALLURA Attachments: next steps to oppose allura.pdf;ATT00001.txt Vote NO on ALLURA, or you will lose our vote. Sincerely, Anne Hayes Resident of The Strand 6 GrecoSherry From: kevin mcintosh <kpmintosh@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 11:37 AM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Kevin McIntosh Subject: ALLURA Proposal Attachments: Allura#2 PDF.pdf Please open the attached PDF file, Thank you 7 GrecoSherry From: Diane Field <diane@fieldlm.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:38 PM To: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; FialaDonna Subject: RE: Opposition to Allura To the Members of the Collier County Board of Commissioners: Thank you for your time and dedication to making Collier County the most beautiful area in Florida. For the past twelve years, I have been coming to Naples during the winter. I enjoy it so much, that I have recently purchased my second home here. Both are located in North Naples. My most recent purchase is in Talis Park. Like most of you, I have noticed that each year the population grows,the traffic slows, it takes longer to get from place to place, and without an advance reservation, you may be able to dine at your favorite restaurant. Nonetheless, Collier County is a desirable place to get away from the winter cold. I write to you to voice my opposition to Stock Development's petition to rezone the 15 acre parcel of land, known as De La Rossa, so that it can build a 304 unit,three story apartment buildings, to be known as Allura. As you are well aware,for density purposes,the property is currently zoned for four units per acre. Stock Development is seeking to increase it to ten units per acre, a 150% percent increase! In reviewing the relevant considerations in determining whether or not the Planning Commission should recommend rezoning, it appears that Stock's application fails. The "existing land use pattern" consists of neighborhoods of primarily single family homes and minimal multi-family units, such as low density condos and townhouses or coach homes. Allura, by its' sheer size and increase in population will disrupt the flow and harmony of these neighborhoods. It's possible creation,will result in an" isolated district unrelated to the adjacent and nearby districts" of Talis Park, Mediterra and Barrington Cove. It will negatively impact the quiet neighborhoods where we have chosen to live. In short, Allura is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally,Allura will "adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood". The density of the housing and its' accompanying population will exceed the size of these larger, low volume neighborhoods, even though it is much smaller in actual acreage. Under the current zoning regulations, if Stock wants to build 304 units, it will be required to have 76 acres of land. Yet,the proposed Allura site is 35 acres, less than half of the mandated acreage. I am certain there are experts who can provide accurate information on their area of speciality, but,the power grids, water supply, drainage systems, schools, police and emergency services and roads will all be adversely affected by increase in population of this magnitude. Finally,the increase in traffic will adversely affect the already overburdened Livingston Rd. Beginning mid-afternoon until early evening the northbound traffic on Livingston from Veterans Memorial Parkway and Bonita Beach Rd is at a standstill. If often takes me 15 minutes to get from the front entrance of Talis Park to Bonita Beach Rd (approximately one mile). While I expect to encounter traffic like that in Chicago with its' population of 2.7 million, it is unreasonable to deal with this type of traffic delays in a community of 320,000(in season). To add an additional 600 plus cars from Allura will overwhelm the ingress/egress of the existing neighborhoods residents. Bicycle clubs and groups frequent Livingston Rd because of its'traffic flow and to avoid 41. Their safety will be at issue if Allura is allowed to be developed as Stock proposes. 8 In sum, Stock should be permitted to build according to the existing zoning ordinances,that is 4 units per acre. Their request to build an apartment complex does not fit into the existing neighborhoods,will increase traffic and adversely impact the services and systems that have been designed for a lesser number of housing units and population. Please act responsibly and vote NO. Thank you, Diane Field 16390 Viansa Way#101 Naples, FL. 34110 847-727-7284 9 GrecoSherry From: Diane Field <diane@fieldlm.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:38 PM To: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; FialaDonna Subject: RE: Opposition to Allura To the Members of the Collier County Board of Commissioners: Thank you for your time and dedication to making Collier County the most beautiful area in Florida. For the past twelve years, I have been coming to Naples during the winter. I enjoy it so much,that I have recently purchased my second home here. Both are located in North Naples. My most recent purchase is in Talis Park. Like most of you, I have noticed that each year the population grows,the traffic slows, it takes longer to get from place to place, and without an advance reservation, you may be able to dine at your favorite restaurant. Nonetheless, Collier County is a desirable place to get away from the winter cold. I write to you to voice my opposition to Stock Development's petition to rezone the 15 acre parcel of land, known as De La Rossa, so that it can build a 304 unit,three story apartment buildings,to be known as Allura. As you are well aware,for density purposes,the property is currently zoned for four units per acre. Stock Development is seeking to increase it to ten units per acre, a 150% percent increase! In reviewing the relevant considerations in determining whether or not the Planning Commission should recommend rezoning, it appears that Stock's application fails. The "existing land use pattern" consists of neighborhoods of primarily single family homes and minimal multi-family units, such as low density condos and townhouses or coach homes. Allura, by its' sheer size and increase in population will disrupt the flow and harmony of these neighborhoods. It's possible creation,will result in an" isolated district unrelated to the adjacent and nearby districts" of Talis Park, Mediterra and Barrington Cove. It will negatively impact the quiet neighborhoods where we have chosen to live. In short,Allura is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, Allura will "adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood". The density of the housing and its' accompanying population will exceed the size of these larger, low volume neighborhoods, even though it is much smaller in actual acreage. Under the current zoning regulations, if Stock wants to build 304 units, it will be required to have 76 acres of land. Yet,the proposed Allura site is 35 acres, less than half of the mandated acreage. I am certain there are experts who can provide accurate information on their area of speciality, but,the power grids, water supply, drainage systems, schools, police and emergency services and roads will all be adversely affected by increase in population of this magnitude. Finally,the increase in traffic will adversely affect the already overburdened Livingston Rd. Beginning mid-afternoon until early evening the northbound traffic on Livingston from Veterans Memorial Parkway and Bonita Beach Rd is at a standstill. If often takes me 15 minutes to get from the front entrance of Talis Park to Bonita Beach Rd (approximately one mile). While I expect to encounter traffic like that in Chicago with its' population of 2.7 million, it is unreasonable to deal with this type of traffic delays in a community of 320,000 (in season). To add an additional 600 plus cars from Allura will overwhelm the ingress/egress of the existing neighborhoods residents. Bicycle clubs and groups frequent Livingston Rd because of its'traffic flow and to avoid 41. Their safety will be at issue if Allura is allowed to be developed as Stock proposes. i0 In sum,Stock should be permitted to build according to the existing zoning ordinances,that is 4 units per acre. Their request to build an apartment complex does not fit into the existing neighborhoods,will increase traffic and adversely impact the services and systems that have been designed for a lesser number of housing units and population. • Please act responsibly and vote NO. Thank you, Diane Field 16390 Viansa Way#101 Naples, FL. 34110 847-727-7284 11 Kevin R McIntosh 6090 Pinnacle Lane Naples, FL 34110 July 10, 2019 Dear Colleagues, I have been a property owner in Collier County FL for the last 15 years. have seen unprecedented growth in the County most of which has been managed well and appreciated. The current revised application by Stock ie: The ALLURA development is not in keeping with the previous careful development. The proposed development is totally incompatible with the immediate surrounding neighborhoods consisting of single family homes. I purchased my home in the Strand relying on the fact that the neighboring communities would be like in style and density, a quiet place with manageable traffic and congestion. We enjoy all the amenities that Collier County provides wonderful beaches, a great place to retire and enjoy with my grandchildren, who love the waterpark. The proposal by Stock would diminish the afore mentioned careful development and housing values in the immediate community as well. Thank you for your further consideration in this important matter and I look forward to the commissioners using their careful and considerate management style as in the past. Cordially, Kevin P. McIntosh GrecoSherry From: JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 11:13 AM To: TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: ALLURA PROJECT PENNY: Please redirect the project at the Veterans and Livingston intersection to an area of Naples that can handle the projected traffic flow. New High School to open soon off of Veterans. I sit at this light and see the heavy traffic at rush hour both morning and night.The PM traffic backs up from Bonita Beach Road to Veterans. Traffic study is definitely flawed and tilted toward the Developers wishes.Just come out and sit there for an hour and you can see for yourself. Please make the correct decision and we as voters will do the same. Jim and Rosemarie Welding 6035 Pinnacle Lane Naples, FL 34110 1 GrecoSherry From: Susie Cell Phone <susiepieky@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 4:03 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Penny, As a resident of The Strand, I am deeply concerned about many aspects of the Allura Project and strongly urge you to vote no. Sincerely, Susan Piekenbrock 5740 Grande Reserve Way Sent from my iPhone 2 GrecoSherry From: Anne Hayes <loft6@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 2:42 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote NO on ALLURA Attachments: next steps to oppose allura.pdf;ATT00001.txt Vote NO on ALLURA, or you will lose our vote. Sincerely, Anne Hayes Resident of The Strand 3 GrecoSherry From: kevin mcintosh <kpmintosh@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 11:37 AM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Kevin McIntosh Subject: ALLURA Proposal Attachments: Allura #2 PDF.pdf Please open the attached PDF file, Thank you 4 GrecoSherry From: Diane Field <diane@fieldlm.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:38 PM To: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; FialaDonna Subject: RE: Opposition to Allura To the Members of the Collier County Board of Commissioners: Thank you for your time and dedication to making Collier County the most beautiful area in Florida. For the past twelve years, I have been coming to Naples during the winter. I enjoy it so much,that I have recently purchased my second home here. Both are located in North Naples. My most recent purchase is in Talis Park. Like most of you, I have noticed that each year the population grows,the traffic slows, it takes longer to get from place to place, and without an advance reservation,you may be able to dine at your favorite restaurant. Nonetheless,Collier County is a desirable place to get away from the winter cold. I write to you to voice my opposition to Stock Development's petition to rezone the 15 acre parcel of land, known as De La Rossa, so that it can build a 304 unit,three story apartment buildings,to be known as Allura. As you are well aware,for density purposes,the property is currently zoned for four units per acre. Stock Development is seeking to increase it to ten units per acre, a 150% percent increase! In reviewing the relevant considerations in determining whether or not the Planning Commission should recommend rezoning, it appears that Stock's application fails. The "existing land use pattern" consists of neighborhoods of primarily single family homes and minimal multi-family units, such as low density condos and townhouses or coach homes. Allura, by its' sheer size and increase in population will disrupt the flow and harmony of these neighborhoods. It's possible creation,will result in an" isolated district unrelated to the adjacent and nearby districts" of Talis Park, Mediterra and Barrington Cove. It will negatively impact the quiet neighborhoods where we have chosen to live. In short,Allura is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally,Allura will "adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood". The density of the housing and its' accompanying population will exceed the size of these larger, low volume neighborhoods, even though it is much smaller in actual acreage. Under the current zoning regulations, if Stock wants to build 304 units, it will be required to have 76 acres of land. Yet,the proposed Allura site is 35 acres, less than half of the mandated acreage. I am certain there are experts who can provide accurate information on their area of speciality, but,the power grids, water supply, drainage systems, schools, police and emergency services and roads will all be adversely affected by increase in population of this magnitude. Finally,the increase in traffic will adversely affect the already overburdened Livingston Rd. Beginning mid-afternoon until early evening the northbound traffic on Livingston from Veterans Memorial Parkway and Bonita Beach Rd is at a standstill. If often takes me 15 minutes to get from the front entrance of Talis Park to Bonita Beach Rd (approximately one mile). While I expect to encounter traffic like that in Chicago with its' population of 2.7 million, it is unreasonable to deal with this type of traffic delays in a community of 320,000(in season). To add an additional 600 plus cars from Allura will overwhelm the ingress/egress of the existing neighborhoods residents. Bicycle clubs and groups frequent Livingston Rd because of its'traffic flow and to avoid 41. Their safety will be at issue if Allura is allowed to be developed as Stock proposes. 5 In sum,Stsmd g n ,thp request to build too an hould apartmentbepercomplex permitted does not according fit intoto thethe existingexisting neighborhoodszoing ordinances will increaseatis4units trafficer and adacre.verseTheirly impact the services and systems that have been designed for a lesser number of housing units and population. Please act responsibly and vote NO. Thank you, Diane Field 16390 Viansa Way#101 Naples, FL. 34110 847-727-7284 6 GrecoSherry From: Diane Field <diane@fieldlm.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:38 PM To: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; FialaDonna Subject: RE: Opposition to Allura To the Members of the Collier County Board of Commissioners: Thank you for your time and dedication to making Collier County the most beautiful area in Florida. For the past twelve years, I have been coming to Naples during the winter. I enjoy it so much,that I have recently purchased my second home here. Both are located in North Naples. My most recent purchase is in Talis Park. Like most of you, I have noticed that each year the population grows,the traffic slows, it takes longer to get from place to place, and without an advance reservation,you may be able to dine at your favorite restaurant. Nonetheless, Collier County is a desirable place to get away from the winter cold. I write to you to voice my opposition to Stock Development's petition to rezone the 15 acre parcel of land, known as De La Rossa, so that it can build a 304 unit,three story apartment buildings,to be known as Allura. As you are well aware,for density purposes,the property is currently zoned for four units per acre. Stock Development is seeking to increase it to ten units per acre, a 150% percent increase! In reviewing the relevant considerations in determining whether or not the Planning Commission should recommend rezoning, it appears that Stock's application fails. The "existing land use pattern" consists of neighborhoods of primarily single family homes and minimal multi-family units, such as low density condos and townhouses or coach homes. Allura, by its' sheer size and increase in population will disrupt the flow and harmony of these neighborhoods. It's possible creation,will result in an" isolated district unrelated to the adjacent and nearby districts" of Talis Park, Mediterra and Barrington Cove. It will negatively impact the quiet neighborhoods where we have chosen to live. In short,Allura is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally,Allura will "adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood". The density of the housing and its' accompanying population will exceed the size of these larger, low volume neighborhoods, even though it is much smaller in actual acreage. Under the current zoning regulations, if Stock wants to build 304 units, it will be required to have 76 acres of land. Yet,the proposed Allura site is 35 acres, less than half of the mandated acreage. I am certain there are experts who can provide accurate information on their area of speciality, but,the power grids,water supply, drainage systems, schools, police and emergency services and roads will all be adversely affected by increase in population of this magnitude. Finally,the increase in traffic will adversely affect the already overburdened Livingston Rd. Beginning mid-afternoon until early evening the northbound traffic on Livingston from Veterans Memorial Parkway and Bonita Beach Rd is at a standstill. If often takes me 15 minutes to get from the front entrance of Talis Park to Bonita Beach Rd (approximately one mile). While I expect to encounter traffic like that in Chicago with its' population of 2.7 million, it is unreasonable to deal with this type of traffic delays in a community of 320,000 (in season). To add an additional 600 plus cars from Allura will overwhelm the ingress/egress of the existing neighborhoods residents. Bicycle clubs and groups frequent Livingston Rd because of its'traffic flow and to avoid 41. Their safety will be at issue if Allura is allowed to be developed as Stock proposes. 7 In sum, Stock should be permitted to build according to the existing zoning ordinances, that is 4 units per acre. Their request to build an apartment complex does not fit into the existing neighborhoods, will increase traffic and adversely impact the services and systems that have been designed for a lesser number of housing units and population. Please act responsibly and vote NO. T , Dianehank Fieldyou 16390 Viansa Way#101 Naples, FL. 34110 847-727-7284 8 GrecoSherry From: Audrey McBride <aamcbride@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 10:15 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Fwd:Allura apartment zoning Sent from my iPad From:Audrey McBride <aamcbride@comcast.net> Date:July 14, 2019 at 10:04:34 AM EDT To: donna.fiata@colliercountvfl.gov Subject: Fwd:Allura apartment zoning Subject:Allura apartment zoning I am so tired of zone changing that only considers the amount of money the owner or developer will make with an original property zoning and proposed change. The property was purchased with the original zoning. I also bought my property with the consideration of zoning around me.So why should I have to be the brunt of lowering my property values because the owner and developer want to increase their value at my expense Yes,you have lowered the density of the proposed development, big deal!! Doesn't even make a dent in the density, let alone the traffic problem it will create. I'm sure you work on the premise that's so many people here are seasonal and are not here to Voice opinion when you hold hearings in the summertime and/or constantly delaying the time or day of the hearings. Shame on you! Audrey McBride 5896 Three Iron Dr Naples 34110 1 GrecoSherry From: Frank <frankjperpiglia@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 10:13 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: VOTE NO ON ALLURA PROJECT Dear Commissioner Taylor: My wife and I are writing you about the proposed ALLURA project because we, along with other owners living in the nearby communities including THE STRAND,TALIS PARK, MEDITERRA AND VASARI are worried you'll help STOCK succeed in their zest to introduce commercial rental housing into this neighborhood. Although we are but one couple, we are representative of the many many others who live here,vote here and call the North Naples area Home. And our appeal to you to vote NO to STOCK'S zoning change requests is quite simple: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF SOMEONE CHANGED THE RULES OF THE GAME ON YOU AND OPENED UP YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN A WAY THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED? Granting ALLURA'S zoning changes to allow an apartment project is simply unfair to existing home owners in the area and we're hopeful you'll vote NO. Sincerely, Frank&Carol Perpiglia 2 yg - t -"-„t'-'--- }x, - a k�d+ •, ;;; s • • emi, as, st z't ham ,aur ,srro ' r s;y .,, t '-.--5,'7."4.,4'-',"-"'. a x' r- a F ' „;',.,#.4'.,4,*.'- b �' ,' ro*s_W:' - Z.a j,- m 'sl .. .. . a .7 Fh. 3+E r s ' 4,� �qy`8j : � e ` • 'a a 7-1''''''„'""', " W. , ' i ? . -," •• .17 , f n- It-.. b dta '-.,r r 4 t T(µT $5s , �k E'-'.';'::"'":: ::'!'-'1;'',4,14,,_440:';:4';'-';f;';„':., R f i "S{ Pil '. s. ;. . s2 �� c f ? y i F : ''JP ', 17 ','' t #jk . 3 ; `yam; `"Y _ 7t r,� i,42hta `` ," ' . ` 4Fy° 1 ,x y; 4 t„ :rs. '.,•.:,•:-.4", • s `4i ..'".-:-.'--,1, .'„4„` � ' �-*' ''. : xa i ikt • j', € % ,'i-._.-;•,.;-•...'-,--:":'-•,•-••-.1'.;•-,,,' 4 •. , #:' ai 5 § �°' x . r S # ol '' r € 4 k xi i .ir. # i' ,-r � ���`k l-�Wa tS � § ,' ..i4g _a f ,-' • i''tC 9 e ° fL � t .-,. '::# gr RC. C , �� u1� � �4,..„,;,,,,..„-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,-.•,a, ' F . zA, 3 .''i< • kxu .* ' d�2e } . , � #t #; ,' ` 4� � A -i:.�, 3i °} . � � , � r � ..•-•,i-4--7, + 4�f'ms # 2n 'Tf�Xkas --��lt - ggi ,� rAf3d � dYt ' ;_��z�s p � �x� u � � I �y �� ��� 3 3 w V�� � t & �� ��� .� # i!, t ' i” A: � ; .. z - • • itcir • • TI ¢ . ;° ...,..-;t4,•!:, , fi � � �7} fi '€ ----1 :raa', s 4 , �h4 :+ ;x ^c r ,, ir; r 10Aia 4 r r , r ' r \,: �- � rfi z.• : hg • i. £e 3rtf ":-:,,.,,,..,7,m--,,,,•4'374.',•,-..., - �..o- _R4 +`: k 7 ,� . un.. • • -a y'' 4a�' F S'# p Yfit,,. 17',4,;, 1,-.,;,‘,1:%.,-:.,v. a ._ -;-,_:._-•,:.;;.47.7;_-..-:.-.„!c - r 4 s ` f A? a.. si • rzp �• �-rsf s 41' s r ' R U4� 1f • `, ix: •:•=.r:,';''"-':'•'::::41'.%,•;•'-'k'41, ' , `3 # g s���: T t .s k � h jA -L ' t t k� fis n i { GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 6:49 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: WIN -WIN -WIN Dear Commissioner Taylor, Instead of luxury apartments at Allure,the Commissioners should approve moderate price houses(under 500K). 1.The neighbors would get compatible construction 2. Employers(Arthrex) would get more affordable housing for a large section of employees 3.Stock will get a profitable development for the Allura property(but probably less than the apartments). Over 4000 new apartments are approved now in Collier and About 500 lower rent apartments are being developed in Lee County about 2-3 miles away from Allura. TimDiegel@mac.com. 16229 Aberdeen Avenue, Barrington Cove. • 4 GrecoSherry From: Robert Cherry <rdcherry09@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,July 18, 2019 2:11 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Please take note of our objection to the Allura project now being considered. Not only is it a serious detriment to our community at The Strand, it also sets a dangerous precedent for future high density projects in Collier County.The traffic conditions on Livingston Road are already very busy. Late afternoon traffic can sometimes be backed up from Bonita Beach Road to Veterans Memorial Blvd.There are numerous residential communities as well as several school all vying for the same roadway. Please vote NO to the current development plans for the Allura site. Sincerely, Robert& Marsha Cherry 6061 Ashford Lane Unit 503 Naples 1 GrecoSherry From: Madeleine Gunderson <madeleine.gunderson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:33 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Ben Gunderson Subject: STOP Allura Project I live at The Strand near the proposed Allura Project and am very concerned about the negative impact building a huge apartment complex will have at this location. Livingston Road & Veteran's Memorial Parkway cannot handle the additional increase in traffic, quality of life and environmental issues this Project will bring. As it is, the traffic on Livingston Road already backs up from Veterans Memorial Parkway to Bonita Beach Rd every rush hour. The proposed Allura apartment complex will cause an already intolerable situation to become even worst. In addition, buildings at this site does not fit the neighborhood private residential environment. This massive complex DOES NOT FIT! Unfortunately, the land was incorrectly zoned and is being taken advantage of by Stock Development. Times have changed since the 2007 zoning approval.. Don't ruin beautiful North Naples by approving the Allura Project. I strongly ask that you vote against this proposed project. If this project goes through don't expect my vote come next election. Sincerely, Madeleine Gunderson Florida and Collier County Resident 2 GrecoSherry From: Madeleine Gunderson <madeleine.gunderson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:33 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Ben Gunderson Subject: STOP Allura Project I live at The Strand near the proposed Allura Project and am very concerned about the negative impact building a huge apartment complex will have at this location. Livingston Road & Veteran's Memorial Parkway cannot handle the additional increase in traffic, quality of life and environmental issues this Project will bring. As it is, the traffic on Livingston Road already backs up from Veterans Memorial Parkway to Bonita Beach Rd every rush hour. The proposed Allura apartment complex will cause an already intolerable situation to become even worst. In addition, buildings at this site does not fit the neighborhood private residential environment. This massive complex DOES NOT FIT! Unfortunately, the land was incorrectly zoned and is being taken advantage of by Stock Development. Times have changed since the 2007 zoning approval.. Don't ruin beautiful North Naples by approving the Allura Project. I strongly ask that you vote against this proposed project. If this project goes through don't expect my vote come next election. Sincerely, Madeleine Gunderson Florida and Collier County Resident 3 GrecoSherry From: Rochelle Dowling <rsdd6@optimum.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 1:23 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA PROJECT HEARING JULY 18, 2019 Dear Commissioner Taylor, I I am a resident/owner of Clubside in The Strand. I am TOTALLY AGAINST the zoning change amending Ordinance 89-05 specifically adding the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East residential subdistrict to urban mixed use district to allow the ALLURA RPUD to build a huge rental apartment complex. I also resent that such an important matter to the residents is set for Wednesday,July 18 in the heat of summer when so many residents are not here and not even aware of such an important matter. To hold such an important hearing in summer when people are away is not allowed on Long Island, New York as many residents complained it was deliberate. By allowing this zoning change, a complex of this size drastically alters the quality of life for residents of the Strand and the surrounding homes as there are no buildings here only homes. Also the Strand back gate accesses this road because Immokolee Road is so crowded and now this gate will be also and it will affect our and others entering or leaving our community.This complex if passed will result in huge traffic jams in an area already servicing schools and many private homes. The size of the projected complex will result in many children who rent the apartments flooding our schools resulting in overcrowding and affecting the education of our children, Our emergency and fire vehicles will have problems reaching us in a timely manner because of the traffic, especially at certain times; I fear for our water and sewer capabilities and our garbage disposal which will be compromised and diminished in order to service this huge complex. Our Commissioners are bound by the Oath of Office they took to uphold their fiduciary duty to protect the needs of their constituents, not to bow to the demands of the developers. They should remember it is the votes of their residents who get them elected. I I respectfully ask that you, Commissioner Taylor,vote NO on the ALLURA project. Sincerely yours, Rochelle Dowling 5917 Three Iron Drive#2701 Naples, FL 4 GrecoSherry Subject: Allura - Rich Yovanovich & Brian Stock(Stock Development) Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Fri 9/13/2019 1:00 PM End: Fri 9/13/2019 1:30 PM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: TaylorPenny Required Attendees: Dianna Quintanilla This will confirm your appointment with Commissioner Taylor. S6erry greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter 1 GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:51 AM To: GrecoSherry Subject: RE: Meeting Request:Allura Confirmed! Dianna Quintanilla CYK Legal Assistant The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 Pui3nt niIla@3y1 Fawfir 435.1218 COLEMAN I YOVANOVICH ! KOESTER d�c uintanilla(�cyklawfirm.com Visit cvklawfirm.com to learn more about us. ioirto 1404, M =Trusted & Verified r �{ artt•Po P Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. From: GrecoSherry [mailto:Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:50 AM To: Dianna Quintanilla Subject: RE: Meeting Request: Allura Good morning, Let's do Friday September 13th at 1 PM. Please confirm and I will send out an invitation. Thank you. SIierrj &eco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter 2 From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:18 AM To: GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Meeting Request:Allura Good morning, I know the BCC is still a while out(9/24) but Brian Stock and Rich's calendars have been filling up quickly. Both would like to meet with the Commissioner. Availability: Wednesday, September 11th—1:00—5:00 Friday,September 13th—anytime Monday, September 16th 9:00—3:00 Tuesday,September 170 1:00—5:00 Friday, September 20th 11:00—4:00 Monday, September 23rd 10:00—3:00 Thank you in advance. Dianna Quintanilla Legal Assistant The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 239.435.35351 F: 239.435.1218 dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com COLEMAN ` YOYANOVICH KOESTER Visit cvklawfirm.com to learn more about us. stir d;s e r Trusted & Verified i{iosed *- Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla@cvklawfirm.com or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3 GrecoSherry From: GrecoSherry Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:50 AM To: Dianna Quintanilla Subject: RE: Meeting Request: Allura Good morning, Let's do Friday September 13th at 1 PM. Please confirm and I will send out an invitation. Thank you. sherry c reco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent:Tuesday,August 20, 2019 10:18 AM To: GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Meeting Request:Allura Good morning, I know the BCC is still a while out(9/24) but Brian Stock and Rich's calendars have been filling up quickly. Both would like to meet with the Commissioner. Availability: Wednesday, September 11th—1:00—5:00 Friday,September 13th—anytime Monday,September 16th 9:00—3:00 Tuesday, September 17th 1:00—5:00 Friday, September 20th 11:00—4:00 Monday, September 23rd 10:00—3:00 Thank you in advance. Dianna Quintanilla Legal Assistant 4 The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 P: 239.435.35351 F: 239.435.1218 CYK dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com COLEMAN YOVANOVICH ( KOESTER Visit cyklawfirm.com to learn more about us. .,wcr� Trusted & Verified Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you hove received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla(acyklawfirm.com or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. 5 GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:18 AM To: GrecoSherry Subject: Meeting Request: Allura Good morning, I know the BCC is still a while out (9/24) but Brian Stock and Rich's calendars have been filling up quickly. Both would like to meet with the Commissioner. Availability: Wednesday, September 11th— 1:00—5:00 Friday, September 13th—anytime Monday, September 16th 9:00—3:00 Tuesday, September 17th 1:00—5:00 Friday, September 20th 11:00—4:00 Monday, September 23rd 10:00—3:00 Thank you in advance. Dianna Quintanilla CYK Legal Assistant The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 P23F5.1218 COLEMAN I YOVANOVICH KOESTER dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com Visit cyklawfirm.com to learn more about us. yttEld 04 :Trusted Verified 111 Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla(acyklawfirm.com or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. 6 GrecoSherry Subject: Allura - Rich Yovanovich & Brian Stock (Stock Development) Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Fri 9/13/2019 1:00 PM End: Fri 9/13/2019 1:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: TaylorPenny Required Attendees: Dianna Quintanilla This will confirm your appointment with Commissioner Taylor. Sherry t reco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter 1 GrecoSherry From: Catherine kuzmishin <ckuzmishin@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:24 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Mega Building Please don't allow the destruction of this area by building asphalt towns. Please do maintain the natural habitat and agricultural lands in question. Sincerely,Catherine Kuzmishin. Sent from my iPad 1 GrecoSherry From: minaxiu@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 9:54 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote No to Proposed Apartment Complex/North Naples Dear Commissioner Taylor: I would like to voice my concern over the proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I live in the Camden Lakes community, off Livingston at Learning Lane. I am confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me to add my name to the list of people who are concerned over the additional traffic,the overcrowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities. I stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage in the streets.The addition of an extra, minimum of 300, cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets, and services.The area is already busy with cars, school buses, and pedestrians, including children on their bikes. We occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Livingston is already extremely busy and when the Bonita Springs exit on 175 closes or traffic slows down, motorists exit the highway at Bonita and take Livingston back to Immokalee to join back on to 175. There are times that Livingston is at a crawl. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not allow this large unit apartment complex to be built. Thank you and please vote NO. Kindly, Minaxi Upadhyaya North Naples Resident 1 GrecoSherry From: greg pryer <gulfcrest@centurylink.net> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 9:02 PM To: SolisAndy Cc: TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; Bill McDaniel Subject: Adverse to Proposed Apartment Complex 1 Dear Commissioner, We would like to voice our concern over the apartment complex proposed for the corner of Livingston Rd. and Veterans Memorial Blvd. We purchased our single family home in the Camden Lakes community because it did not contain any multiple living units. Livingston Rd's traffic has already exceeded it's planned capacity. When traffic on 1-75 at Bonita Beach Rd and or Immokalee Rd. becomes bumper to bumper, Livingston Rd becomes a parking lot. And on most week day nights during season the commuter traffic on Livingston Rd heading North becomes a parking lot from Veterans to Bonita Beach Rds. Apartments normally require spaces for 2 autos so this additional traffic being added to the current use will further exasperate our current conditions. The current zoning laws, (for good reason} were in affect when the owners bought the property. Every property owner wants to maximize his profit so what do they do, request a zoning change to increase the density. This type of zone change has been allowed in Collier County much too often and it adversely affects the multitude of current owners to the benefit of one owner. Please vote No on the proposed zoning change. Gregory W. Pryer , C.P.A Eric J. Palm 16202 Camden Lakes Cir. 1 f GrecoSherry From: Keith Kauffman <kkauffman39@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 4:18 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Proposed Construction at Livingston Rd. and Veterans Memorial Blvd Registered herewith is my opposition to the construction of high-density housing near the intersection of Veterans Memorial Blvd. and Livingston Rd.,North Naples. Livingston is already overcrowded and overtaxed as a north/south alternative to I75 for automobile traffic. The Veterans/Livingston area already has three schools (and a potential fourth), a fire/ambulance station, bicyclists, many busses, child and adult walkers and wildlife trying to peacefully and safely live together. It cannot take an influx of the number of people from such a large unit apartment complex, nor can it handle the addition of 300 or more automobiles. Please vote "NO"on the proposed apartment complex near the intersection of Veterans Memorial Blvd. and Livingston Road. Your consideration will be greatly appreciated. Keith L. Kauffman Property Owner 16341 Camden Lakes Circle Naples, FL 34110 ?t� 1FF GrecoSherry From: Bill Young <wwmyoung@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 3:12 PM To: SolisAndy; Bill.Mcdaniels@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Alura Project on Veterans Pkwy This invades on the traffic on Veterans Pkwy and invades the next door neighbors and their privacy PLESE VOTE AGAINST Bill Young 239-566-2384 Home 239-248-2978 Cell 1 GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 2:50 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Minutes of the Jan 17th Planning Meeting with the discussion by Mr Pritt and Chairman Strain who voted against Allura Attachments: 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes (dragged).pdf;ATT00001.htm; 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes (dragged) 3.pdf;ATT00002.htm; 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes (dragged) 2.pdf; ATT00003.htm Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello again Commissioner,Attached are more Planning meeting minutes by Mr. Pritt with is discussion with Chairman Strain in regard to a Supreme Court decision with spot zoning. It discusses why a large dense apartment complex should not be in a single family homes neighbor.Thanks, Tim Diegel January 17,2019 actually spot planning leading to spot zoning, which, in my opinion, is even worse. You cannot legislate your way out of a spot zoning situation. That has been--that's judge-made law in the state of Florida. If anybody wants to see the cases on it, I can't remember the name or the--of all the cases,but probably one is--the biggest one's called Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association. I think it was a Dade County case. But that's where you plop something into an area that is incompatible with everything else in the area. And what you've heard most of the day,actually from everybody, is that we have a proposal to put a very highly--a high density development,apartment type of development into an area that is clearly low density single-family residential. In a county that's larger than at least two states,there are plenty of places to put something like this. You don't have to put it somewhere that is,under your Comprehensive Plan, incompatible certainly as it applies to density and also as it applies to-- in the zoning this applies to uses. So that's what's being done. That's what's being proposed. The idea of planning and zoning--and I certainly don't want to lecture you, because you know this and see this probably more than I do, but the idea of planning is that you spent--and this county spent a lot of time and a lot of effort coming up with its districts. Next thing you know, we have developers wanting to create subdistricts to suit their purposes,so we wind up with a certain number of subdistricts. Why? Because generally in an ad hoc manner there's an attempt to get around the Comprehensive Plan,the GMP. That's what's being done here. Now, it's one thing-- if it's really pretty close and it's really about the same and the uses are not too far off,that's one thing. And the densities are similar,but this is nowhere close,as you heard a lot of people say today on both sides. And the problem is--another problem that I see is that the PUDs,which are a great idea in their place--planned developments are a great idea in their place--are being used improperly as the means to accomplish illegal spot planning, spot zoning when you get to the zoning aspect of it, so you wind up with PUDs going around that. It's one thing for PUDs to say,well,we're going to have this mixture of uses or we're going to have this type of use,et cetera, and to give up some setbacks and some height and things like that exchanged for amenities for the PUD,but it's a totally different thing to plop a PUD into a place where it doesn't belong,and it's even worse to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate that. Mr.Mulhere,I think, said—at least gave the impression to me,maybe to you,that,well, it's residential. Residential's residential. Well,that's not really correct because at least going back-- if you go back into history far enough,all the way back to the first zoning case that everybody had to learn from the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a case having to do with putting apartments into residential districts. And if I may, let me quote this. Suspend your disbelief just long enough to pick out some nuggets that I think are relevant to this case,and then I'll open it up for questions, if you want. But the U.S. Supreme Court said, "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses,which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private-house purposes;that in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover,the coming of one apartment house is followed by others interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which, otherwise,would fall upon smaller homes,and bringing as their necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business and the occupation by means of moving and parked automobiles, larger portions of street,thus detracting--almost Page 63 of 79 January 17,2019 done--from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open places for play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until, finally,the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. "Under these circumstances,apartment houses which in a different environment would not only be entirely unobjectionable, but highly desirable,come very near to being nuisances." This was Village of Euclid versus Amber Realty, 1926. It could have been written last month. That case is still a good case,and it's good law. Without that case,we would not all be here. That was the case that upheld that zoning in its proper place is okay. And so the point is that this is not a new issue. This is something--the issue of compatibility,even among--even between one type of residence and another type of residence has been recognized since the beginning, since the landmark case,and that is certainly something that should guide us in saying you have to follow--developer,new person coming in, buyer,whoever you are,you have to follow the rules that we have in our Comp Plan,and we're not going to bend our rules just to accommodate you. I spent 13 years on a--as City Attorney for a small area--a small city in Lee County. They have not increased density one unit except for affordable housing since 1988. So sometimes you just say no. This is not it. This is not the place,and this is not it. And all that stuff about trying to accommodate somebody when they really don't have the proper reason for it, is really kind of a waste of time, in my opinion. So I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Could you send me that case? MR. PRITT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just cited,the Euclid case. MR. PRITT: Oh,yes, Village of Euclid. We all know about Euclidian zoning;that's where that came from. Not from Euclid of old,but it's named after the city,and that was the beginning of zoning. That's the case that said zoning is allowable. And from that case, everything has—that we talk about in planning and zoning has come out of that. I'll be glad to send you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will-- MR. PRITT: And also Bird-Kendall--I didn't think to bring it, but that's one that--on spot zoning that is relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,obviously, I'll give Mr. Yovanovich an opportunity to send any case that he wants to utilize to offset the one you've just mentioned. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick comment for you,Mr. Pritt. Would it be all right if I obtain a transcript of your remarks so that I can quote you to the Planning Advisory Board? MR. PRITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: I've said that,so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another board besides ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amazingly enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Karl. MR. PRITT: Well,until a couple days ago I was City Attorney for Naples,as most of you know,as many of you know,and I've turned that over to partner now, but I still am working on a lot of the planning and zoning issues. Page 64 of 79 January 17,2019 So common sense tells us,traffic is a problem. You add 700 people to the area we're in, traffic's going to be worse. Commons sense tells us our home values will go down because people do not want to buy next to these apartments. And they may be great tenants, luxury apartments; the perception is it's a rental apartment. And I've got too many options to buy in other places instead of our area. Schools;they mentioned the school capacities. And then the aesthetics. Does a four-story or three-story, partial four, fit into the landscape of our community? No matter what it looks like, it's not going to fit. From Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,there's nothing like it. So why would it fit in our little area right there in our community? It doesn't fit. And,two,we talked about Livingston traffic. No one's brought up Old 41 traffic. It's a two-lane road,and it's just as bad. So what's going to happen when they extend VME? People are going to cut through VME,get on Old 41,and sit in traffic again. So common sense tells us--it doesn't matter what the national data says,common sense tells us that it doesn't work in our community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr.Chairman,can I ask a question of this gentleman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,if you'd come back a minute. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tom,thanks for your statements. I have a quick question for you. When you bought in Barrington Cove,just out of curiosity,what'd they tell you? Obviously,that land was already--what'd they tell you,the developer,the developer when you bought your property? MR.GRIFFITH: You want me to be honest? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR.GRIFFITH: They told us a bunch of crap is what they told us. No one ever told us that Verona Pointe Estates was going to be built. I backed up to a preserve,so I was told your backyard is a preserve. Now it's 133 community-- is 133-home community. No one's ever told us that any of this was going to be developed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. And who was the builder/developer for Barrington Cove? MR.GRIFFITH: DR Horton. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: DR Horton. MR.GRIFFITH: And the other thing about the traffic study and that single-family homes have more traffic,yes, but not--in 350 apartments with 700 people,you're not going to get that density with a single-family home on that corner. So,nationally,statistics may speak that there's more cars,but you're not--if--how many homes can you put on 35 acres? It's not going to be 700 people,I can tell you that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Pritt? MR.PRITT: Good afternoon,Mr.Chairman,members of the Board. I'm Robert Pritt. I'm with Roetzel&Andress Law Firm. I represent the Mediterra Community Association. Alan Johnson was here this morning, but I think he had to leave,the president,so he won't be speaking today. Tim Richards,who is the manager,is here. I'm not sure if he's going to speak or just yield to me. Since I'm an attorney, I kind of look at things from that aspect. And we do have a planner, Dr. David Depew,who's going to be speaking here today also. I'll leave the details to him, if it's okay. But there are really two points I want to make,and they're related,and one is the question concerning spot zoning. As a matter of fact,I had prepared the spot zoning remarks before the Chair brought them up today,and I do think this is spot zoning. This is illegal spot zoning. It's Page 62 of 79 GrecoSherry Subject: Allura - representing Homeowners in Mediterra (Robert D. Pritt, 239-649-2714) &Tim Richards—Mediterra Manager Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Wed 2/27/2019 11:00 AM End: Wed 2/27/2019 11:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: TaylorPenny Required Attendees: Bob Pritt;Tim Richards (TimR@mediterraca.com) This will confirm your meeting with Commissioner Taylor on the above mentioned date and time. 1 GrecoSherry Subject: Allura - Rich Yovanovich, Keith Gelder and Brian Stock Location: Taylor office Start: Thu 3/7/2019 10:00 AM End: Thu 3/7/2019 10:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: TaylorPenny Required Attendees: Dianna Quintanilla • 2 GrecoSherry Subject: Zannos Grekos- Representative from Barrington Cove opposing the Allura project (239-498-9114), Anne-Marie Arndt, Willian Arndt, Tim Diegel, Joe Hunt, Laurent Millour Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Sutie 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Wed 3/20/2019 9:30 AM End: Wed 3/20/2019 10:00 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: TaylorPenny Required Attendees: marylou@regencemedical.com Optional Attendees: Zannos Grekos, MD Importance: High Sorry the address was incorrect of the meeting location, please forward to all parties attending. This will confirm your appointment with Commissioner Taylor. Thank you. Sherry greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter 3 GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:01 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Allura - Rich Yovanovich, Keith Gelder and Brian Stock GrecoSherry From: Tim Richards <TimR@mediterraca.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:34 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Allura - representing Homeowners in Mediterra (Robert D. Pritt, 239-649-2714) &Tim Richards—Mediterra Manager • 2 GrecoSherry From: Pritt, Robert <RPritt@ralaw.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:12 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Allura - representing Homeowners in Mediterra (Robert Pritt -239-649-2714) 3 GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:45 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Allura - Rich Yovanovich, Keith Gelder and Brian Stock • 4 GrecoSherry From: Google Calendar <calendar-notification@google.com> on behalf of zannosgrekos@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 2:31 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Zannos Grekos- Representative from Barrington Cove opposi... @ Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:30am - 10am (EDT) (TaylorPenny) Attachments: invite.ics 1 Zannos Grekos has accepted this invitation. Zannos Grekos- Representative from Barrington Cove opposing the Allura project (239-498- 9114) When Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:30am— 10am Eastern Time - New York Where 3299 Tamiami Trial East, Suite 303, NAples, FL 34112 (map) Calendar TaylorPenny Who • TaylorPenny-organizer • Zannos Grekos-creator Your meeting was found to be out of date and has been automatically updated. Updated meeting details: Start Time Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Invitation from Gooqle Calendar You are receiving this courtesy email at the account penny.taylor@colliercountyfl.gov because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event.Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More. 1 GrecoSherry From: Pritt, Robert <RPritt@ralaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:06 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: Tim Richards (TimR@mediterraca.com) Subject: Allura (Mediterra) meeting with Commissioner Taylor 2-27-11 a.m Dear Ms. Greco: My attendees will be: Robert D. Pritt Tim Richards—Mediterra Manager Thank you. Bob Pritt ROBERT D. PRITT, Esq. Board Certified City, County & Local Government Lawyer ROETZEL 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Center–3rd Floor Naples, FL 34103 Direct Phone No.: 239.649.2714 Main Phone No.: 239.649.6200 Cell Phone No.: 239.292.2147 Fax No.: 239.261.3659 Email: rpritt@ralaw.com www.ralaw.com Roetzel &Andress, A Legal Professional Association Both Robert D. Pritt and Roetzel&Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Robert D. Pritt immediately at 239.649.2714. Thank you. �� r _ ; 4 r :, ',:'7,":4,-.::,-:,,,:',:..::-.:::::;:x:...,,.."..,:,z`, r .4 Act n_ < E 3 F i Y Nil f .. �p - Ink 0 , z: _ ,,...„--::421,-.1::: ,:- I iI a r r - ii....,,,,,,o. ji, 4 a jj , ".,t.''''--.1,1,'N;,ILV-vol,L67;‘,:,, 14 4,k, NI a ;,' i ,� #• fit` ,.0.,:t' 1 1 ' 44, \ 1:1; ' i 44 - 1:41 kk** . ,, .,-„.\ ' .. ,--. ,;;,..:?0,:,,,.., ,, : I .,..,,;..,rtot, , .,..„ , ,,,......t. , .,„.... .i.,,,,,, ,t. .. E ,, _ .,-_:. s p.i. '4i'';'''''.7-11,10.,'''Ili,;:-e. 17'" 11 11'11'1 kt. .. Vii. .- '� ,* pfi 5 4 "* 4 1 -- ' et - <r, d„a fl ,_ � x [5, . jiii fle+ . s 'a 'i is' 's S a4 p 14 10,...,;.: z= ., .° T, q'41. u l $ mea , ATT00002.txt Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 4, 2019, at 8:25 AM, Traci Dutton <tlpdblue@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Penny, >>> I am a full time resident and registered voter. I am asking for you to vote no to Allura. It will create a hardship for myself and neighbors. The traffic is already backed up by 3pm from Bonita rd to Talus park and the road can't handle additional traffic. We do we not have enough protected land in Naples or parks. If you or anyone vote for this I assure you myself, my partner and our neighbors will not vote for you. Please do the right thing keep Naples a great place to live. >>> Traci Dutton >>> >>> Page 1 GrecoSherry From: PHILIP GEORGE <philipwilliam@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:13 AM To: McDanielBill Cc: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt Subject: Fwd: Commissioners Meeting 3/26 Good morning Chairman and Commisioners; My name is Phil George, I have been a Mediterra resident for the last six years and a Naples resident since 2009. In reference to the Allura project, and as a homeowner, I have concerns about the impact this will have on both housing and congestion on the Livingston corridor; because of those concerns, I have been monitoring this entire process closely. To insure that Mediterra residents are aware of project progress, Mediterra BOD has forwarded video from your Commissioner's 3/26/19 meeting. (Ms. Taylor, thank you for your vocal concern around this project. As someone who has seen traffic exponentially grow over these 10 years, I have no idea how Livingston will handle the increased traffic volume. However,that's not why I send this.) I viewed the meeting video, and listened to the comments from each of you as Commissioners for our city. I would be remiss if I didn't thank you for you time and guidance. I was an executive with a Fortune 200 company, and learned quickly when leaders speak, the entire organization becomes a reflection of their words.The same holds true for you as Commissioners. Although each of you may hold differing opinions, the quality of your remarks and actions speak to your body of work as a group. That's why I was appalled when Donna Fiala made the statement (referencing her POV that Arthrex interns will be the folks renting these Allura units) "the people who will be staying in these places are doctors and students.These aren't people shoveling dirt. These are people who have educated themselves." Wouldn't it simply be enough to say ... "the people who will be staying in these places are doctors and students?" Like it or not, Commissioner Fiala's words come across as completely elitist and tone deaf, and reflects on the Commission Board as a whole that one of the five can't find a better way to eloquently, professionally and concisely make their point. Late last week, I sent the attached letter to Ms Fiala. As I thought about it, I felt my comments needed to find their way to you as well. Surely we can do better communicating our beliefs than this. Quite insensitive to say the least. Thanks again for your time and dedication. Keep up the good work, with much appreciation. Sincerely, Phil George > Original Message > From: Phil George <philipwilliam@comcast.net> >To: Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov > Date: March 27, 2019 at 3:33 PM >Subject: Commissioners Meeting 3/26 > Good afternoon Commissioner Fiala, 1 > My name is Phil George, and I am a Mediterra resident. My hopes are >you take the time to read my comments, as they are the first time in >my 66 years that have seen me write to a public official. > I have owned in Naples for the past 10 years, and have watched >traffic grow while in season to a point where, at rush hour, it takes >close to an hour to drive the 13 miles from Twin Eagles, where I am a member,to my home. >The Allura project,with the additional residency and traffic >challenges it will bring, is of great interest to me. Because of that, > I watched the Altura portion of the meeting yesterday, coupled with >the Commissioner discussion that followed. > I was struck by your comments within the commissioner discussion I > mention. In particular, I refer to the portion where you described the >type of people that Arthrex would be bringing in to rent these units. > I believe you mentioned doctors and students and then followed that >with "these aren't people who shovel dirt.These are educated people." > Do you realize how out of touch and tone deaf you sound when making a >statement like that? In a town as wealthy as Naples, where we have so > much privilege and so many gifts to be thankful for, we should say >thank you to the folks who have come here to shovel the dirt you speak >of and make these developments, parks and shopping areas so beautiful >through their manual labor. > Surely you must realize how utterly cold and callous your comments sound. > You come across like one of the elitist and high brow residents that >some people feel Naples is known for. > In the future, there surely must be a way to make your point without > insulting those who do an honest days work like the "shoveling dirt" >that you mimicked. Let's get to the 21st century Commissioner. > Unbelievable. > Sincerely, > Phil George >Sent from my iPhone 2 r GrecoSherry From: JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 4:16 PM To: SolisAndy; 1982SWM@gmail.com; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; arnold@saslaysky.com Subject: ALLURA Meeting - March 26,2019 Andy: My wife attended the meeting yesterday at the Collier County Offices on behalf of the residents in The Strand. After she filled me in on the results, I took the time to review the video on Comcast this morning. In my 40 years of Real Estate transactions in the Delaware and Pennsylvania area I have attended my fair share of these type of meetings. I cannot believe that you allowed both representatives of Stock as well as the person (Katherine Cordoza) who works for Stock's interest, actually make a veiled threat to the audience. As I replayed the video today and heard Ms. Cordoza remind us that "this is the way things go today".Sounding like we had no other choice. When she continued to use the word "criminal" when referring to tenant and employee review, I wondered what experiences she has had with other tenants she has already come in contact with at previous developments.She also admitted that "yes, things are dangerous now" which I assume meant the current traffic issues. I don't know how she plans to fix the dangerous situation with the addition of a new High School and 8.5 residents per acre if this is approved. She also tried to sell the audience on Allura "allowing the surrounding developments to use their Amenities" ??? Why would we when we have larger and better facilities. While I did appreciate the slides and description put forward by Stock, I think they miss the point by trying to sell us on how much time and money they are going to spend on Landscaping- types of trees and bushes. Also appreciate how they are "amenable" to allow us to comment on design and type of buildings. We don't care what they do within their boundaries. The REAL issue is TRAFFIC and they tried to make us believe that the Traffic Study is 100% accurate and we will have absolutely no problems over time. Never going to happen with there numbers. I speak for myself when I say that I would never prevent any Developer from putting a lot of people to work building a project. Good for the economy and families who need a paycheck. New Homes mean more tax dollars for Collier County. A much smaller group of Single Family homes would fit very nicely on this corner. I hope and your team make a good decision. That is NOT a veiled threat, just a "good luck"and thanks for your service. We love Naples. 3 I A JIM WELDING The Strand 4 ter■► GrecoSherry From: Joe Huntt <j.huntt@live.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:18 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: allura meeting Commissioner Taylor, I wish to thank you for your patience and time at the Allura meeting yesterday. I am glad that you had the insight to express your concerns that reflect what many of us here in Barrington Cove believe. I especially liked your analogy to the fact that a 125 foot buffer is the equivalent of a defensive back on the 40-yard line looking at the quarter back on the goal line. I feel the meeting went well even though the motion was sent on to Tallahassee. Thank you for your service, Joe H. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 N 5 GrecoSherry From: Kelly Marie Dainiak <kkmdsm@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 10:04 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Development -please read Dear Commissioner, I have a unique perspective and understanding of my neighborhood. I have been in this pocket of Naples since 2004. I currently owl both Mediterra and Barrington Cove. We are one of the families that started Veterans Memorial Elementary School (VME). My dauE entering kindergarten class-she is now a junior in high school. I would like you to understand my personal perspective of the Allura There are two main concerns: 1. overloading vehicles on an already dangerous road and intersection 2. community development planning I was in a motor vehicle accident leaving VME in 2007. There is a dangerous curve coming from the south on Li cautiously stopped in the Livingston median (before there was a street light) and was rear ended. My physical suffered as a result of the rear end collision. Jump ahead 12 years to a year ago: there was a fatality when someone stopped at the streetlight at Veterans was hit head on by a driver that could not navigate the odd left turn from the southbound direction of Livingstc Veterans Road today (the east side from Livingston to the dead end vehicles go from zero to 50-70mph from 6: 10:00pm (often later). It's a fun place for vehicles to see how fast their vehicle can go. These are dump truck, as well as the minivans and sedans. This goes on daily despite bikers, runners, dog walkers and children walkin vehicle killed my cat 2 weeks ago. Next time it could be a person. I am only mentioning the accidents I know of and my small experience. I am sure you will be able to find more records. Roads can be widened, lanes added but there is no way to redirect hundreds of extra vehicles on an already ov roadway. Case in point, drive up Livingston any Friday afternoon. The traffic is stopped from Mediterra to Bon Road. Or better yet, when 75 shuts down the entire road is stopped. The roads cannot handle a High Density middle of Livingston Road, by a dangerous curve. High density poputlations should be able to leave their com ways on multiple roads (like The Strand, Mediterra and Imperial Golf Club). A high density community would d corner so they are better able to navigate their daily routes. Planning communities and roadways should surpass the desire to collect tax revenue by our county or allow a increase profit margins. The excessive vehicles released onto Livingston would be more dangerous to those wF adjacent communities and any vehicle that uses Livingston Road for travel. There is no plus side to a High Deni this location on Livingston Road. 6 Please understand these common sense points from a person who has lived here for many years and seen the Livingston expand year after year, community after community. A High Density Community (which was never plans as I believe) cannot be added to this area, the roads would be overwhelmed and traffic accidents would s Please do not allow this developer (Stock)to build a high density community (Allura). Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Dr. Kelly M. Dainiak 7 GrecoSherry From: JoAnn Devlin <joann.devlin@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:15 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Project As a resident of The Strand, I have witnessed the increase in traffic both on Veterans Memorial Highway and especially Livingston Road over the past 3 to 4 years, and how congested these roads become especially during the morning and afternoon rush hours. I am very concerned about the dramatic increase of cars that will be using these roads, if this project is approved. I am writing to urge you to either vote against the Allura proposal, or vote to seriously limit the number of units allowed on a lot of that size. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jo Ann Devlin Sent from my iPad 8 GrecoSherry From: Doug Cousins <rdoug.cousins@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 11:44 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Susan Mulgrew; Katy Wrede; 'Ivan L. Rosenblatt'; 'Mr. Victor Cintron'; 'Advanced Property'; 'Rick Tessmer'; StrainMark Subject: Allura Development by Stock at the southeast corner of Livingston &Veterans Memorial Blvd To The Board of Collier County Commissioners: RE: Stock request to increase density of their Allura Development I am a concerned resident living in the Strand Community and I understand on March 26th you will be voting on a Stock request to increase the density of their Allura development at the southeast corner of Livingston &Veterans Memorial Blvd. I implore you to vote a resounding NO to this request. I attended the Planning Commission sessions on this topic and Stock did not provide any evidence or articulate the benefits to the community for an increase in density beyond what is already zoned for this parcel of land. In fact there was unanimous vocal opposition to this request from the surrounding communities for the following main reasons: 1. Increased Congestion Already Immokalee Rd, Livingston Rd and Veterans Memorial Blvd have intolerable traffic congestion during in- season peak periods. Traffic is routinely stop and go on Livingston Rd during in-season peak periods and Immokalee is continuously congested during in-season. To make matters worse there are the following population increases already in plan for this area: - New Enclave community on Livingston Rd, which just started construction -Talis Park, Mediterra and Barrington Cove still building and selling units - New School to be built on Veterans Memorial Blvd in the next two years Therefore increasing the density for Allura would only exacerbate the already worsening traffic congestion problem and increase the strain on existing community facilities in the area!! 2. Not Compatible The surrounding communities are a majority of single family residences and there is a valid concern that introducing multi-story rental units would lower the surrounding property values for the following reasons: -The apartment architecture is not compatible with the neighbouring communities and the requested increase in density will require multiple 3 to 4 story buildings. As well, these apartment units would abut the backyards of single family residents, which would be a clear intrusion of their privacy. -The proposed apartment complex will have no standards or controls such as the surrounding developments, which have control of the operation, maintenance and behaviour of the owners by a Board of Directors -Although Stock is a reputable developer in all likelihood they will eventually sell the property to an investor since running apartments is not their core business. There would be no control over the investor who could just maximize income by foregoing upkeep and maintenance. All of the surrounding property has been developed in compliance with current zoning bylaws. The residents who purchased in the surrounding neighbourhoods did so relying on the fact that neighbouring projects would be of like kind. I realize that the existing Della Rosa PUD allows for multi-family dwellings but you should not 9 compound what I consider was an erroneous decision in 2007 with increasing the density for the Allura Development. 3. No Need As reported at the Planning Commission hearings by the Collier County Planning department the County is already well served with the existing inventory of"Luxury" apartment units. The vacancy rate for this category is healthy and increasing the density to allow additional units will not fix a problem that does not exist!! Therefore, since there is no need to increase the number of"Luxury" apartments in Collier County then there is no justification for approving a density increase to Stock. In summary and for the reasons articulated above I urge you to vote against the request from Stock to increase the density. You are elected as representatives for your constituents and your constituents strongly oppose the Stock request to increase the density beyond what is already zoned for this parcel of land. Sincerely, R Doug Cousins A Strand Community Owner 10 GrecoSherry From: Thomas Griffith <thomasm.griffith@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 11:33 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Expansion Dear Commissioner Taylor, I'm writing in my opposition to the Allura expansion. I have attended 3 meetings regarding the project and am opposed to the rezoning of the additional acreage from single family homes to a multi-use high density project. Stock Development should proceed with the previously approved smaller project and not invade more space and views of the current Barrington Cove homeowners and surrounding communities for a project that doesn't' fit the landscape of this area, in addition to adding additional traffic to an already congested area. Myself, as well has all my neighbors and friends are not against community growth but we are opposed to rezoning single family land to a project for high density rental apartments. To quote Cormac Giblin, Manager Housing& Grant Development from the last meeting, "Market is adequately addressing the needs of moderate &GAP income levels in Collier County,the need is in the extremely low,very low and low income households." He also stated "Market is taking care of units renting over$2,000 per month,for the public benefit we would want to see units at less than 80%." In the previous meeting there was no evidence provided that these types of rental apartments are needed in this area. The traffic data provided by both Stock Development and Collier County is inadequate. Stock presented that only 25% of the professional apartment renters will travel during peak travel times as well as used national statistics for a local traffic issue. They are targeting professionals as renters, but due to no public transportation in this area all of them will be driving. What are the other 75%of professional, career oriented renters going to do for transportation that Stock didn't account for in their study? Collier County also does a disservice to its current homeowner's in the area by not being forward thinking of future traffic for the expansions in Talis Park, Mediterra,The Enclave Community and the addition of a high school on Veterans Memorial Blvd. Livingston from Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road can't handle the current traffic, as well as Immokalee East and West of Livingston. A easy, cost effective travel study would be to travel these areas in peak travel times as I do on a daily basis. Stock's PR team has stated it would not hurt our current property values. I think common sense tells you it will. For example, if I have the option to purchase in similar communities in age and price point, such as Camden Lakes,Verona Point Estates or Barrington Cove with 4 story rental apartments overlooking your back yard,which community would you chose? The abundance of supply and options to purchase and lack of demand for homes that have rental apartments looking in your backyard will drive down the price of our community. This is also supported by a study from the National Realtors Association. As they say location, location, location....and a view. I have made a significant investment in my home, love our community and neighbors and the schools my children attend. But my wife and I have been prepping our home to put on the market if the expansion is approved. It's really 11 • sad because this is the first home we have built and really made it our own but we know if we don't get out if this project is approved we could lose a large part of our investment we put in our home. Unfortunately this will be a manmade decline in our property values and not a market correction. The thousands of tax paying, voting homeowners in this area do not want the parcels rezoned and the Allura project expanded. We hope our elected officials will support the will of the community and vote no for the expansion. Thanks for your consideration in voting no to support your community. Tom 12 14,GrecoSherry From: Javier Munoz <javieromunoz@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 7:55 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: NO NO TO ALLURA! Dear Ms. Taylor, My name is Javier Munoz. I am a homeowner at the Barrington Cove subdivision at the corner of Livingston Rd. and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I am writing to you to protest the proposed Allura construction by Stock Development in the aforementioned corner in North Collier. As a full-time resident of Collier County and tax payer for the past 12 years, I feel that this proposed development will bring several detriments such as: > Increased traffic and pollution > Overcrowding of our local schools > Unappealing multi-family high rise buildings which are out place with the surrounding single-family developments I appeal to you to vote against the proposed Allura development and help us keep North Naples an attractive area. Thank you, Javier Munoz 16289 Aberdeen Way Naples FL 34110 13 GrecoSherry From: Janina Munoz <janinamunoz@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 7:50 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: NO TO ALLURA! Dear Ms. Taylor, My name is Janina Munoz. I am a homeowner at the Barrington Cove subdivision at the corner of Livingston Rd. and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I am writing to you to protest the proposed Allura construction by Stock Development in the aforementioned corner in North Collier. As a full-time resident of Collier County and tax payer for the past 12 years, I feel that this proposed development will bring several detriments such as: > Increased traffic and pollution > Overcrowding of our local schools > Unappealing multi-family high rise buildings which are out place with the surrounding single-family developments I appeal to you to vote against the proposed Allura development and help us keep North Naples an attractive area. Thank you, Janina Munoz 16289 Aberdeen Way Naples FL 34110 14 GrecoSherry From: Brenda Fitzgerald <brenjfitzgerald@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:32 AM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Donna.Fiaia@colliercountyfl.gov; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Project.b We can only appeal your consideration to the horrendous impact on traffic and residential property values if the Allura project is approved. Veterans Parkway is already heavily traveled by residents of Barrington Cove, Tallis Park and The Strand. This road is also used by service and construction vehicles for Medditerra and Talis Park. When does the madness stop with the overbuilding of Collier County. Since 1966 we have witnessed the evolution of Naples into another Paradise lost - Miami! Your vote against this project is a vote for some sanity in the population explosion in North Naples. Brenda & John Fitzgerald 5997 Trophy Drive - 1104 34110 4 15 r GrecoSherry From: jackie cook <jackiecookl @comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 12:15 PM To: SolisAndy Cc: SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; donna.fiola@colliercountyfl.gov; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; timr@mediterraca.com; jackiecook1@comcast.net Subject: Allura Project Dear Mr. Solis, I have lived in Naples for 20 years. I, as well as many others in our community—Mediterra-are extremely upset about the proposed allura project to be built on Livingston and Veteran's memorial Blvd. I understand that you used to be on the planning commission for Collier county. I also understand that you are committed to ensuring responsible management of the county's growth. Allowing the allura project to go forward, we believe, is totally irresponsible and not in the best interest of the property owners that live in communities along Livingston road. The traffic on Livingston has become a nightmare—not only at rush hour in the morning and evening—but heavy traffic during the rest of the day as well. I encourage you to check out Livingston during the morning rush hour and also between 4:30 and 6 pm . It is grid lock! At a minimum a traffic study needs to occur and recommendations published and the cost associated with these changes to the tax payers needs to occur. To assume that very few of the residents of the Allura project--total number possibly 600 people—would not be travelling on Livingston during rush hour is absurd and very short sighted. Would they walk to work?? Please check out the situation for yourself and assure your constituents that you are for responsible growth in Collier county. Vote NO on the allura project! Thank you for your time and consideration, Jackie Cook 16 GrecoSherry From: Jen Moen <jrkuzie@aol.com> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 11:14 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Commissioner Taylor, As a citizen of Collier County and a resident of Barrington Cove, I want to let you know my concerns with the Allura project. I am one of the homes in Barrington Cove that abuts to the De La Rosa PUD. As many have stated (including Planning Commissioner Strain, Fry, and Fryer), the Allura project consisting of four story apartment buildings would not be compatible with this area, not needed, and will impact the current traffic conditions we encounter during peak times. The Allura project consisting of 4 story buildings along Livingston Road (Stock only reduced some buildings to three stories) is not compatible with this area. I agree with what some of the planning commissioners said that single family and multi-family units can be compatible together. My concern is that there are multiple four story buildings planned. When I drive down Livingston Road, both north and south, I do not see any four story buildings in this area. I only see one story, two story, and three story buildings. I believe the four story apartment buildings would stick out like a sore thumb. In fact, I take Livingston Road/Three Oaks Parkway to Fort Myers frequently and do not even see more than three story buildings along this road. I believe a building three stories or less will better fit the area. The Allura project is not currently needed in Collier County. More rentals are not needed. Do we need affordable housing rentals below the 80% of the median income? Yes. Do we need 300 of Allura's market rate rentals? No. I know you are aware that there are currently over 4,000 apartments under construction in Collier County, with plans of more apartments in the future, along with all of the current apartments available for rent that Commissioner Donna Fiala discovered and wrote about in the Naples Daily News on February 20, 2019 (and Commissioner Fiala only drove around looking for affordable rentals during peak season- and we know there are plenty of market rate rentals available). The 4,000 apartments currently under construction isn't even counting all of the apartments being built or approved to be built along and near Livingston Road in Bonita Springs and Estero. Finally, I am concerned with 300 more units in the area and the impact it will have on traffic. During the peak rush hour times, particularly if there is an accident on 1-75 and in season when we have an influx of people in this area, and particularly the evening rush hour, there are cars backed up from Bonita Beach Road all the way to where the Allura project is planned. I realize that bringing people closer to their jobs will help alleviate the traffic issues. But, the many people that are living farther away from their places of employment cannot afford to live closer and, the Allura project, with their market rate rentals, will NOT help bring those people any closer to their areas of employment. So, traffic will only be worse than the current conditions. When voting for this proposal, as a citizen of Collier County, I ask that you thoroughly take everything in consideration, make sure you know all of the correct most up to date facts, and listen to the concerns of Planning Commissioners Strain, Fry, and Fryer stated at the meetings. This project does not belong here, the four stories would not be compatible with the area, more market rate 17 rentals are not needed in Collier County, and 304 units would add to the already problematic traffic during the morning and evening commutes. I am writing this as a concerned resident of Collier County who will not be able to speak at the meeting this Tuesday, March 26th, 2019. I will be there at the very beginning, but not able to stay due to having to pick up my daughter from school. This letter is taking place of my presence at the meeting. Thank you. Jennifer Moen • 18 GrecoSherry From: Jane <jcarroo@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:42 PM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Cc: jcarroo@comcast.net Subject: RE:Allura Apartments Hello Commissioners, I realize you are busy and receive many emails regarding various property and projects. However, I would like you to know that there are many of us that feel strongly against the proposal to build 4 story apartment buildings in the area of Livingston and Veterans in north Naples. It does not fit in this area of mostly single family homes. As you know, this area has so much going on already and in the master plan there are many new things coming, i.e. new High School, Oakes Farm store, extension of Veterans, the property across from the fire department which is still to be developed, and the extension of Livingston/Imperial/Three Oaks Road. Livingston will be going all the way to Daniels Parkway (Ft. Myers) and is in the works now as reported on the news recently, which will bring much more traffic. Please understand that when 75 has an issue near Bonita or Immokalee many cars exit and take Livingston, which bogs the traffic down. This happens fairly often. Sometimes, when that happens, Livingston is completely gridlocked and Delasol is adversely affected as well as other subdivisions nearby. Please take notice of our already congested area roads and stand up for the regular taxpayers that want quality of life as Naples has been known to provide for the residents. Thank you for your consideration! Jane Carroo 239.325.8745 19 GrecoSherry From: Vincent Tormey <vincent@dksnaples.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:15 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Apartment Complex Good afternoon—and thank you for taking the time to read my email. I wish to express my opposition to the proposed Stock Development Allura project on the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd in north Naples. My opposition is based on the following— - This area already has a number of established single family residences and a multi housing project is not a good fit for the existing area - Schools in this area are already at capacity—and a multi-family development will bring additional students who cannot be properly accommodated - Traffic flow along Livingston Road would be greatly affected by a significant increase in the number of residences - A section of the Stock property intrudes into a section of the Barrington Cove subdivision and multi-story buildings if allowed would severely compromise the privacy of Barrington Cove residents located adjacent to the proposed Allura development While I agree that more "affordable cost" housing is required in Collier County—I strongly feel that the location of the aforementioned development is not the right one. Vincent & Bernadette Tormey 16356 Aberdeen Way Naples, FL34110 20 GrecoSherry From: Ashley Nebbia <anebbia@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 9:22 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Planning commission -ALLURA Dear Penny, I am writing to express my greatest concern with the Allura development proposal near Barrington Cove. I recently purchased a beautiful home in Barrington Cove off Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway. The new development would significantly affect the neighborhood and community and decrease my property value and also impact traffic on the already busy Livingston Road. With my small children and other children in this family dense neighborhood, I worry about their safety with an increased number of cars and also safety with the number of proposed buildings going in at Allure. I am against this proposed development and hope that you take the time to think about the impact of this apartment complex in an existing safe and residential area. I chose to buy in this area, as many others did,for the safety and quaintness of the area. Such a large apartment complex would change the dynamic of the entire area and would not increase the value of the property and homes in the area. I appreciate your time and consideration for this extremely important issue for North Naples residents. Thank you, Ashley Nebbia 21 GrecoSherry From: Vincent Tormey <vincent@dksnaples.com> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:48 PM To: FialaDonna; andy.solis@coliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Vincent Tormey Subject: Allura Apartment Complex Good afternoon—and thank you for taking the time to read my email. I wish to express my opposition to the proposed Stock Development Allura project on the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd in north Naples. My opposition is based on the following— - This area already has a number of established single family residences and a multi housing project is not a good fit for the existing area - Schools in this area are already at capacity—and a multi-family development will bring additional students who cannot be properly accommodated - Traffic flow along Livingston Road would be greatly affected by a significant increase in the number of residences - A section of the Stock property intrudes into a section of the Barrington Cove subdivision and multi-story buildings if allowed would severely compromise the privacy of Barrington Cove residents located adjacent to the proposed Allura development While I agree that more "affordable cost" housing is required in Collier County—I strongly feel that the location of the aforementioned development is not the right one. Vincent & Bernadette Tormey • 16356 Aberdeen Way Naples, FL34110 22 .ter' GrecoSherry From: Arnisas <arnisas@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 12:28 PM To: SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; TaylorPenny Subject: Proposal to allow Allura Apartments construction (corrected) Dear Commissioners: (Please note an incomplete version of this email was accidentally sent.) I respectfully request each of you to personally respond to the following: • Why would you vote in favor of the amendment that would allow Stock Development to construct 304 apartments at the intersection of Livingston Rd. and Veteran's Memorial Blvd? • If you do vote in favor, would you: O Require Stock Development to be financially responsible for: • Making Veteran's Memorial Blvd east of Livingston Rd a four-lane roadway with a median and appropriate turn lanes onto Livingston • Installing new traffic lights that would be needed o Require completion of the above prior to allowing the issuance of any certificate(s) of occupancy? • If you wouldn't, why? Thank you for your cooperation. Arnold Saslaysky The Pinnacle at The Strand 23 inemmummi Land lying further to the southeast is zoned Royal Palm International Academy PUD and developed with a private school and residential units. The Royal Palm PUD was approved as a residential and educational project with private schools, recreation, single-family detached, single- family patio, zero lot line, single-family attached, two-family, and multiple-family homes as permitted uses. Amenity uses were approved as accessory uses. The density was approved at 3.37 d.u. per acre, The maximum number of dwelling units is 600 with a minimum floor area of 750 sf for multiple-family and 1,000 s.f for single-family dwellings. The maximum allowable actual height is 45 feet and 3-stories for multiple-family dwellings. A small property lying immediately south is zoned A,Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped The allowable uses and densities are listed above. Another small property lying to the southwest (on Livingston Rd.) is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for a fire station; it is developed with the North Collier District 48 Fire Station. West: The Future Land Use Map designates a small property lying immediately west of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. Adjacently north of this parcel, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is another small property, designated Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict; it is zoned C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office, and is undeveloped. The C-1 district allows general commercial type uses, such as office and personal services like hair and nail salons. Schools,banks,parking, and churches are permitted only with conditional use approval. The maximum allowable height is 35 feet. Land to the west (and northwest and southwest) of the subject property, across Livingston Road, is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict. These lands are zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and undeveloped - except for the entrance road to Veterans Memorial Elementary School, and is zoned RMC-Enclave RPUD, but has not been developed. The RMC-Enclave PUD was approved as a residential project with group housing for seniors, including assisted living and continuing care. The project includes single-family detached, attached, zero lot line, duplex, townhouse two-family, and multiple-family as permitted uses. Amenity uses were approved as accessory uses. The density was approved at 4 d.u.per acre. The maximum number of dwelling units is 162 residential dwelling units and 500 group housing units for seniors. The project is limited to residents 55 years or older. The minimum floor area of 1,000 s.f. for multiple-family. The maximum allowable actual height is 45 feet for multiple-family dwellings. Further to the west, along the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, lies the North Naples Middle School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural, then the Sandlewood RPUD, developed residentially. The Sandlewood PUD was approved under a settlement agreement as a residential project with single-family detached homes as a permitted use. Amenity uses were approved as accessory uses. The density was approved at 3.1 d.u. per acre. The maximum number of dwelling units is 60 with a minimum floor area of 1,000 s.f. The maximum allowable actual height is 35 feet. Further to the southwest, across Livingston Road, lies Veterans Memorial Elementary School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural. — 2 — C:\Users\sherrygreco\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\ContentOutlook\IU4EK5MI\ALLURA-land use narrative-update-3-7-19.doa Land to the northwest of the subject property, across Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard,is zoned PUD,Mediterra, and is developed with a residential/golf course community and density and uses are listed above. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and zoning, in the area surrounding the subject property are primarily urban residences or residential lots in all directions, with public services and schools located nearby, and one small commercial parcel. Compatibility Analysis: The Allura project site is proposed as multiple-family residential with 304 units and a density of 8.55 d.u. per acre. Allowed Uses: Multiple-family use is allowed on nearly all the surrounding project areas, except for the agriculturally and commercially zoned parcels. However, none of the surrounding land areas were constructed as multiple-family residential development projects. Mediterra has the lowest overall density at 0.56 d.u. per acre and is mostly single-family detached units. Brandon has the highest density at 3.99 d.u.per acre and is mostly zero lot line single-family units. RMC-Enclave has not yet been constructed but was approved as assisted living senior group housing. Use Intensity: Allura; proposed-304 dwelling units Brandon; existing-204 dwelling units Mediterra; existing-950 dwelling units Royal Palm; existing-600 dwelling units Agricultural; existing-undeveloped RMC-Enclave; undeveloped-162 residential; 500 group housing Sandlewood; existing-60 dwelling units Nearly all the surrounding land use intensity was developed as single-family residential dwelling units. Mediterra PUD is the only surrounding project that was developed with a golf course amenity. Use Density: Allura;proposed-8.55 d.u. per acre Brandon; existing-3.99 d.u. per acre Mediterra; existing-0.56 d.u. per acre Royal Palm; existing-3.37 d.u. per acre Agricultural; existing-0.2 d.u. per acre RMC-Enclave; undeveloped-4.0 d.u. per acre Sandlewood; existing-3.1 d.u. per acre - 3 — C.\Users\sherrygreco\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\ContentOutlook\IU4EK5M1\ALLURA-land use narrative-update-3-7-19.docx Regarding intensity and density, the Allura project is proposed at 8.55 d.u. per acre. It will add to the total density in the immediate area. It is substantially more dense and more than double that of Brandon PUD. However,Mediterra PUD and Royal Palm PUD have substantially higher total unit numbers. (600 +950). Development Standards (height): Allura; proposed-69 feet actual Brandon; existing-40 feet actual Mediterra; existing-50 feet actual multiple-family Royal Palm; existing-45 feet actual multiple-family Agricultural; existing-35 feet zoned RMC-Enclave; undeveloped-45 feet actual multiple-family Sandlewood; existing-35 feet actual Most of the surrounding land uses have similar development standards based on single-family dwelling development patterns. The landscape buffer standards for the existing residential single-family projects complies with the LDC standards The building massing and architectural features are all reasonably similar and are consistent with lower density single-family housing styles and types. - 4 — C\Users\sherrygreco\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\ContentOutlook\IU4EK5MI\ALLURA-land use narrative-update-3-7-19.docx m 13 . . iii, ! _ ... ,, Fellcita CT r Cellml LN x ' Monterosso LN #r , }t t -:,: y sem„ i f.p s.„a 6. Y2®n.nq 1`' ' '„d , Al�F ' may " i.1.S yk a-.': j , , pr .. I =„ `_ _ € It: ta Buonasera CT''' r , _ 4 Veterans Memorial BLVD I -' Barclay CT- i PUD B ZONING:'ti, 'r ..Landlew000 , ... .....„ ..a. , i �Density:,1 per 5 ac. �r'enstty:31 /, .c t 4, ..• SUBJECT PROPERTY: � ,is t_ . ALLURA RPUD '!! + � R .d. 8.55 d.u /'1%%� `2, '' - Zoning ?RPUD! ,, . rA Ck Density:1 per,5 ac. '/� '��j/� Delia Rosa., Zoning: A j Density 1, ZONING: c i, l 1 4 Density:'1 per 5 ac . i 6, . . /./1. '', ` RMC-Enclave \' Density:4.02 �k, Zoning: RRUD '��`\ M I. 4-24.1112:‘44' -.- ---. ,,..,Li,./;44, . .. Aberdeen AVE RMC-Enciave� v� , Density: - . „ tt r---------- , ; __ � ., � ,��� �- t W Zonin :Zoning: RPUD,` _ g _ Royal Palm International Academy r„ j Density,3 37 *-— ---------_ � 1 mrJ wertrl4 wRn► Learning LN "6'.2;t4'. - ��YRavinaWAY l,t� `' '..1-2.--,;.-:1",, 7 - '.'",:.'---,..:-----,-,--4 r ��• ,t � //Winfield LN -7,1:----.'-. .-:-...4.,/,'1"' , � �-- F ' r # + k Zoning: PUD ;t ti ■ g� c 844 �` , t•_ r Royal Palm inter atonal Academy s c [ � , r -E Y« tom. 1;_t � ii, i '� .�' 4 Camden�Lakes 'CIR PV ° -�; � El Col er County GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) e Growth Management Department ALLURA RPUD AND Allure RPUD Operations&Regulatory Management Division SURROUNDING PROPERTIES (PL-2017-4385) Feet Map Date:3/5/2019 0 162.5325 650 Document Path.C:\GIS\Data Request\GIS Request\Density MaptAllura RPUD Density Map.mxd January 17,2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 17,2019 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 Joseph Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt,Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 79 January 17,2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the 9 a.m.January 17th 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: Would you-all please remain standing for a moment. Joe Schmitt was our previous developmental services administrator,and he worked with a lady who just passed away. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'd just like to take a moment of silence to recognize an employee who was with us for 15 years,just the consummate professional planner. Unfortunate circumstances, she passed away this past week, Kay Deselem. And, unfortunately, again, I will not be able to attend the ceremonies. I have to head out of town after the meeting. but I'd just like to take some time and each of us can, in our own way,take a moment of silence for Kay Deselem. Thank you. (A moment of silence was taken.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again,thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Joe. With that, we'll move to roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. 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 HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr.Chairman, we have a quorum of seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a-- it will probably be a lengthy agenda today, so I talked to some of the members. I heard that some people need to leave at 3 o'clock or close to three,or I think it was 3:30 would work for quite a few of us or all of us. So with that in mind, I'd like to suggest that wherever we are in the process today,at about 3 o'clock we start weighing whether we should continue or break, and break no later than 3:30 and continue whatever is left for the following meeting. Does that work for you guys? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's-- Ray, I don't have any changes to the agenda. We have three--four advertised items. Basically, items have come back to us,the first three, and then we've got a pollution control ordinance at the end. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Page 2 of 79 NA January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. A couple issues to clear up. First of all,January 31st,we're meeting in Immokalee at 10 o'clock. I think all of you have been notified about transportation to get out there. So if you've not responded,you might want to do that. Does anybody know if they're not going to make the January 31st meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then on the 7th of February,we have a regular meeting. There was some confusion about moving that entire meeting to the evening. It's an LDC meeting,and not all of it needed to be an evening meeting, and there was too much there to be able to finish in an evening meeting, so we're going to retain the February 7th meeting, and it will be held in this room as normal for those items that can be discussed during the daytime. And then an evening meeting had to be held for two items,and those two items and any cleanup items will be heard on the 28th of February,and that evening meeting will start at 5:05 in this boardroom. And if you haven't been notified by that, I think Ray's going to put it together to make sure we get that on the calendar. Is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. I'll coordinate with the staff,,and we'll make sure that that notice is done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 28th of February. Does anybody know if--and it's a long ways in advance,but do you all plan to be there? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question. I, for some reason.have the 21st of February in my calendar. Are we meeting that day,too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,our regular meeting would be the first and third Thursday, so the third Thursday would probably be the 21st. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would meet then unless there's no cases. But right now I can't tell you that information. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we've got three February meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now,yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for those of you who haven't been on the Board too long, we periodically will have special meetings for numbers of things. including the AUIR and other special topics like that. Now,as far as the 7th meeting,does everybody know if they're not--anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the 3rd and the 28th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll keep everything on the schedule,then,as we just discussed. Approval of the minutes. We were sent two sets of minutes electronically. November 15th,we'll take that first. Are there any changes to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded. Discussion? And I imagine Mr. Fry, you're abstaining because you weren't here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So discussion? Page 3 of 79 January 17,2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Six with one abstention. The next item was the December 6th meeting. Same question: Any changes? If none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. Is there--you're abstaining again,Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were here on the 6th. I forgot what day you started. Okay. With that in mind,all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. Ray, BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners held a meeting on January 8th, but there were no land use on that agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report: To be expeditious today,there is none. We're just going to move right into our hearings. The consent agenda, we have no items for that. ***So that takes us to the first public hearing. These are two items that have been sent back to the Planning Commission. They will be discussed together. The vote today will be a little different than what we're used to. The advertised--the items are PL-20160002584/CPSS2017-1 and PL20160002577. Both of those are for a change to--the first one is for the change to the Comp Plan, the second one is for a conditional use for the same location, both for the Grace Romanian Church on Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures? We'll start with Tom. Page 4 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. EASTMAN: I had a brief conversation with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. Some emails with Anna Weaver,and I think I saw something on Channel 2, 5,and 7,and I didn't watch CNN,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I spoke with staff and with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure,plus a telephone conversation with Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I--all the same plus I did talk with the applicant's team as a whole,not just Anna,and I've also talked to some of the people in Golden Gate Estates, the Golden Gate Civic Association and some of the neighbors. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen,just emails. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Email with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, before we start. I'm going to restate what the Planning Commission--not the Planning Commission--what the Board has asked us to do,and it basically--Mr. Klatzkow summed it up before the Board voted to send it back to us,and it was that we would ask the Planning Commission to look at it again to see if they can tighten,you know, somewhat the uses to make it more compatible with the community and then bring it back. So what we're doing here today is reviewing some additional compatibility standards as requested by the Board,and then this body will determine if they want to send that to the Board of County Commissioners as we discuss. And with that.Anna,we'll leave it up to you to start out. MS. WEAVER: Okay. Good morning. My name is Anna Weaver,and I'm a planner with Davidson Engineering representing the Grace Romanian Baptist Church. My presentation will include Companion Items 9A1 and 2. This is the third presentation to the Board,so you may be well aware of the project. but I'm going to briefly review, for the record.and include any revisions that we've made since our last hearing. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. It consists of two parcels and is approximately 6.25 acres. The applicant has two land-use petitions under review for this property. The first is a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. This is to include the site as an exception to the locational criteria for a church in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The second request is for a conditional-use approval to allow a church in the Estates zoning district. The conditional use is reliant upon the approval of the Growth Management Plan amendment,which is why we've requested them concurrently. So first I'll go over the Growth Management Plan amendment. Here's an excerpt of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan map with the subject property identified with a star right here. Florida Statutes identify review criteria for these small-scale amendments,which are listed here. County planning staff has found our application to be consistent with all the criteria and recommended approval for the amendment. So next I'll go through the conditional-use petition. Currently, the site is within the Estates zoning district. This is not a rezone request. Permitted uses in the district include single-family dwellings, family-care facilities,essential services,and educational plants. Churches are listed in the Estates district as an allowable conditional use. This means that Page 5 of 79 C January 17,2019 churches have always been contemplated in this district, but each request is reviewed individually and approved on a conditional basis. So here's the conceptual site plan for the project. We've identified one ingress/egress point north on Golden Gate Boulevard. The development area will include up to 24,000 square foot of primary building to hold the sanctuary and other typical ancillary rooms for the church. Just south of that is an area reserved for outdoor recreation and the possibility of a pastor's residence, which is limited in size in the conditions of approval that I'll go through in a few slides. Highlighted in green are the conceptual areas for preserve and stormwater retention, and we've also identified that a minimum of 129 parking spaces will be required and provided based on the 300-seat sanctuary. So next I'll go through the proposed conditions of approval. As Chairman Strain already went over,at the Board of County Commissioners'meeting on November 13th.we presented a list of conditions to include recommendations by this board. The county commissioners asked if we would return in order to write more detailed language in the conditions to address compatibility. So in preparation for this morning's hearing, we met with the Chair and discussed revised language to alleviate any remaining concerns. I've identified in red lines today for you the changes suggested and agreed to since we presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Number one limits church service hours to the following: Maximum of one service on Saturdays between 8 a.m.and 10 p.m.; a maximum of three services on Sundays between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.; maximum of three services on recognized holidays;Thursday evening services between 6 p.m.and 9 p.m.; weekday church-related meetings and gatherings between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. for up to 50 parishioners except for weddings and funerals. Weekday meetings and gatherings between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. will be up to 100 parishioners except for weddings and funerals, and we've also included Easter Sunrise and New Year's Eve services will be permitted limited to indoor activity only. Number 2 limits the floor area of the primary structure to 2,400 square feet and up to 300 seats. Number 3 states that the church shall provide a maximum of 140 parking spaces. Number 4 limits prohibited uses. So we've included daycare. food services, like soup kitchens or catering open to the public. Exceptions to that include church-related food services associated with activities like fellowship, weddings, funerals,or other similar events. Other prohibited uses are educational services and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Number 5 lists permitted accessory uses in conjunction with the church, and so we've included outdoor multi-purpose play area,gazebos,and covered pavilions,a pastor's residence no larger than 3,500 square feet, storage sheds collectively no more than 1,800 square feet,and counseling services similar to AA or NA. So we've added language to differentiate between drug and alcohol rehab and counseling services. Drug and alcohol rehab we would say is a medical facility, which we never intend to be, and fellowship-type counseling services are typical to a neighborhood church and provide a safe space for those needing guidance. Number 6 is a condition relating to the location of signage for the property. It states that signs must be within 350 feet of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate and are prohibited along Weber Boulevard. Number 7 allows for leasing of the facility only under certain circumstances. A representative from the church must operate and staff any event leasing--and leasing must be limited to charitable events: Weddings, funerals,educational events,events associated with holidays, and governmental events. We've added language to say that leasing to other congregations shall be prohibited. Page 6 of 79 minionownisulow January 17,2019 Number 8 limits special events to a maximum of 12 per year. Carnivals and outdoor amplified sound are prohibited. This was revised per the decision that we had at the Board of County Commissioners'meeting in November. Number 9 specifically prohibits all outdoor amplified music or sounds. Number 10 provides prohibition --prohibits lighting to the outdoor recreation area and allows typical residential lighting for the pastor's residence. And then No. 11 specifies detailed lighting conditions on the property to allow for minimal impact to surrounding properties. Number 12 prohibits any church steeple lighting. Number 13 specifies that an enhanced 15-foot Type B buffer shall be provided along the abutting residential property to the southeast. This buffer was reviewed and confirmed with the property owner who requested this enhanced vegetation rather than a wall. Number 14 is the actual building height for roof types,appurtenances,and screening shall be a maximum of 50 feet, and actual building height for the steeple is limited to a maximum of 60 feet. Number 15 states that in the event that a dumpster is needed, it must be placed on the western edge of the preserve,and the church can coordinate with Waste Management to determine if roll-out receptacles are acceptable. Number 16 limits the project to 12 weekdays p.m. peak-hour trips and 240 Saturday and Sunday peak-hour trips per the ITE manual trip generation rates for a church in effect at time of SDP. Seventeen is the typical language used for places of worship to indicate that if a specific event is predicted to or creates significant traffic,the owner will be required to hire law enforcement to direct the traffic. And, finally,No. 18 requires a wall along the south property line adjacent to First Avenue Southwest. That condition came out of our last hearing with the Planning Commission,and it is also required by code. So I'd like to conclude by saying that the applicant would like to request the Planning Commission move to recommend approval of the conditional use and small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment consistent with staff's recommendations and the previous recommendation from this board. So with that, I'll take any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission members? I know we've heard this a couple times before. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you go back-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add one thing real quickly before that? For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I spoke to Mr. Fryer yesterday,and I wanted to confirm for him on the record --his question was about the steeple. Was it 50 feet plus 60 feet for a steeple for a potential of 110 feet, and it's not. It's 60 feet total for the steeple. So whatever language we need to clarify in the record, steeple height is 60 feet for the actual height, not 60 feet on top of the 50-foot building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The steeple's 10 feet? MR.YOVANOVICH: Basically, it can be at 10 feet above the 50-foot building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCI-IMITT: Yeah. Just for the record, I did speak to Mr. Yovanovich about the weddings and funerals,and I sent an email. My only concern is that the language--and I understand that funerals and weddings are unique and not a set schedule. Page 7 of 79 January 17,2019 I just want to make sure that the language doesn't put you in a predicament that you can be found not in compliance with the language by holding a wedding on Saturday morning and then a service on Saturday morning. So can you put that section of the language back up again? MS. WEAVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or a funeral on Friday night and another service. Because you have the exception of weddings and funerals. Again,as I pointed out, I think, in my email, for clarity,do you want to say wedding and funerals are unique circumstances? The question I rose is because, like I said,you have here shown you'll have a minimum of one service. Okay, that's fine. That works. If there's a wedding, that's another service on Saturday, and that fulfills the requirement. It doesn't put you in a box of being accused of violating the conditions of this conditional use. MR.YOVANOVICH: Our intention was by having"A"deal with worship services and then "C"deals with other church-type meetings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: A wedding would be another church-type meeting. And our intention was to say, if we had a wedding during the day,the 50-person cap wouldn't apply, or a funeral during the day,the 50-person cap wouldn't apply,and if we had a wedding at night,the 100-person cap wouldn't apply. So we put it under the"other meetings" so it wouldn't be confused with worship services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I'm fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: So hopefully that addresses your concern on our behalf. and we appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the Planning Commission have any questions? Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just have one. And I remember when this was here before,and maybe it was asked before. On that same page,just curious,you use the reference of "Bible study,"which I attend a Bible study weekly that happens to start at 8:30. I was just curious as to a Bible study or a networking meeting or things of those natures why the 10 a.m. Was that to appease drive times and traffic? MS. WEAVER: Yep. We wanted to stay out of the peak hour. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So 10 a.m. is--after 9 isn't after peak hour. MS. WEAVER: Well,the peak hour is 7 to 9 a.m.,and I think we were trying to make sure that people aren't trying to get to site in time, so we tried to stay as--keep it as outside of the peak hours but also using the typical meetings that they have today. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will also, I'm sure, have some comments or questions after the public speaks, but just to tee up some of my basic concerns with respect to this. First of all, I take it that we are--the charge that has come to us from the Board is to look at the limitations on use. So I'll confine my comments to that; however, I must say that I am not at all comfortable with the level of any government intrusion into the holding of church services,and it makes me uncomfortable. If an agreement can be reached of some kind to satisfy most of the residents that is on that basis, I won't stand in the way,but it strikes me as not exactly the way we should be proceeding. Now,the other comment that I'm not sure is part of what our charge has been from the County Commission--and, Mr. Chairman, if I'm outside that charge,please stop me. But to me the issue of compatibility is most offended by the overall size of the facility; 24,000 square feet is a very large church. Page 8 of 79 January 17,2019 And I did some research online and found some references to comparisons, numbers of square feet versus numbers of communicants or seats in the nave of a church,and also bearing allowances for how many square feet per person in the nave. And the numbers that I found pointed more to a size--for 300 members, pointed more to a size of 12,000 to 18,000 square feet than 24-. So to me that would have been a way of accomplishing a lot of this. I don't know if that's part of our charge or not,Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that relates to compatibility and building size certainly does. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that would be the way I would prefer to see than intruding into when services can be held and what kinds of services and the like. MR. YOVANOVICH: We talked about this in our call,and I have had a chance to talk to our client on that. We are not going to go away from the commitment we made on when we will have--or how many worship services we can have within the time frame. So that's--that is a commitment we've made,and we can live with that commitment. I've also--we could also limit the size of the building to the 18.000 square feet upper end, because here's Fellowship Hall.there's classrooms,you know, for Sunday school,and there's space. So we think that the 18,000 square feet--although we think 24,000 is a number that is legitimate, I understand the research you've done, and if 18,000 will make the community more comfortable with it.fine,we'll go down to the 18,000. We do think that the real generator for activity on the property is the 300 seats in the sanctuary, but certainly we don't want to have an overabundance of accessory space. So if 18,000 is what will satisfy the community for further compatibility, we will agree to that change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have for now, Mr.Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I would think there might be other limiting factors. You know,the size of the building doesn't really put a limit on the people that can come in as much as the parking does, so-- I think a lot of this-- I don't care about the size of the building,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, if the applicant's willing to consider a different size, it doesn't hurt. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No problem. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And we were really trying to be sensitive to the community by putting in the limit of the number of people who can be there during the day to a reasonable number. and then in the evenings,to a reasonable number,and the times that they can be there to address concerns about people going to work and kids going to school;that's why you have,you know,those hours of operation for during the week in there. So we believe that we have--we've attempted to make sure we address compatibility with the community and address all of their concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm going to withhold any comments till I hear the-- I guess there's some public speakers. And so, with this,we'll move next to the staff and then the public speakers. James? MR. SABO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. James Sabo, for the record. Zoning Division has no issues with the revised conditions. We recommend approval. There are a number of speakers as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? Page 9 of 79 January 17,2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. James, would these conditions,that has been put forth by the applicant, make this more compatible for the neighborhood than the previous conditions that were submitted to the Commission? MR. SABO: Yes,question mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SABO: That's not really our call. I mean, I don't have a problem with it. I said that there's no issues. I think it's compatible. We think it's compatible but, ultimately,you set the policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is this more compatible? I mean,you're the zoning people. You're telling me you don't have an opinion as an expert member of the zoning department? Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. Those changes make it more compatible, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was looking for. Thank you. Sue? MS. FAULKNER: Sue Faulkner.Comprehensive Planning. I wanted to just let you know that I handed out some emails that I received after your packets were sent out,so you have those before you,and if you had any questions-- I can put any individual email up on the screen if you felt you needed to show anything else. And the staff has reviewed this project,and we find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Sue. Anybody have any questions of Sue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,the public speakers,please limit your discussion to five minutes. The redundancy is not necessary. If you agree with the speaker in front of you, if you want to just get up and say we agree with the previous speaker,that's great. And as your name is called,please come to either one of the mikes. They'll probably call out two names; if the second person is ready to speak after the first one. And with that,James,do you want to--who's going to make this--Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: My only comment is I know sonic people came in late and weren't sworn in, so let's make sure if they haven't been sworn in,we do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be the first question you're asked. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the first two speakers, Sharon Griffith and Tom Griffith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If each of you will come up to the microphones. And, Sharon Griffith, if you'd take one of microphones you can start and,Tom Griffith, stand ready at the second one. MS.GRIFFITH: We're here for the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Wrong case. This is the Grace Romanian Church. Is there any members of the public here wishing to speak on the Grace Romanian Church? MR. SABO: Sorry. I had the wrong number on the agenda item. Sony. Is Mr. Schortemeyer here? Are you here for the church? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Yes. MR. SABO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you call the next speaker so they're ready to come up. MR. SABO: Mr.John Kelly. Page 10 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I am sworn in,thank you. Good morning,honorable commissioners. The first thoughts I had --my name is Jim Schortemeyer,and I'm a resident of Unit 4,which is the location of the proposed church. I have several issues and concerns with that. Before I start, I'd like to thank you all for your service on this board. I can tell just by the few minutes that I've been in here how trying and intensive your work is, so I do appreciate your work. I have four issues that I'd like to touch on briefly regarding the church. The first of those would be traffic patterns and problems; the general lifestyle and compatibility issues that have been raised;wildlife concerns that I have not heard in this brief time. I'm sure they've been addressed in the proposal:and then perhaps some other considerations perhaps following up on what the size of the structure might be and some other compatibility issues that might be addressed in the proposal. At the present time, I would recommend that the proposal--that the proposal be denied. The traffic patterns and problems that we already have within Unit 4 are well known. Anybody that travels that area,and Weber Boulevard in particular,knows what those patterns are and how they've changed with projects. The speed limit's been reduced from 35 to 30 on Weber Boulevard already,and there's very confusing and limited access to Unit 4 from the other-- from other roads. So adding traffic to that particular area that's already a problem coupled with we are in a growth phase and we are continuing to grow out within Unit 4,there are several new homes under construction,all of those things will make it an incompatible traffic load within Unit 4. Lifestyle within Unit 4 it's the same as all of the Estates,and people that have moved to the Estates have moved there for the peace and tranquility. I had the peace and tranquility in my particular neighborhood within Unit 4. The first time that it was disturbed significantly was when Big Cypress Elementary School was constructed, and lo and behold,the first night that the water plant was in operation, from approximately a half a mile away. that was my first disturbance from an audio standpoint,and that has just increased. This church and other types of uses of that nature will only make that worse in the future. So--and the general lifestyle,the remote Estates lifestyle is also dependent on the fact that we have lots of wildlife that uses the area,as you well know. Unit 4 is one of those areas being considered for bear-proof garbage cans being provided throughout the area. So we have a bear population; we have occasional panthers;we have a deer population. All of those animals have been hit on Weber Boulevard with existing traffic patterns. If, in fact,the area's going to remain compatible to all of the wildlife in the area,we have to consider other restrictions. And then the church and provisional uses,we already have a cluster development of provisional uses within Unit 4,and it's considerable. It consists of a church--two churches. actually,a school,and a park, Max Hasse Park, which adds,again,considerable traffic,especially on First Avenue. Thank goodness I don't live on First Avenue. I do feel for the folks that do live on First Avenue,but their lifestyle has already been compromised. This would only further compromise that. So the only thing I have in terms of other considerations and sort of looking into my crystal ball and seeing how far along this process is,the other key thing that we have is, if you're familiar with Weber Boulevard in that vicinity,there is a walkway/bicycle path on Weber Boulevard. Unlike other areas where that pathway might be 10 or 15 feet from the road, it's only about five feet from Weber Boulevard which doesn't make it real safe with existing traffic patterns. But that is a popular walkway and bikeway within the Estates, and it also provides access,ultimately,to Max Hasse Park and to the school. For people who are just using that for a recreational purpose. it's not any kind of a loop Page 11 of 79 January 17,2019 system or anything else. One of the things that would make this more compatible would be perhaps a trail that encircled the subject property;would allow for walking and biking activity with some enhancements on the canal side and on the First Avenue side. There would actually be a loop trail that people could use and enjoy in the area,and that would actually enhance the current use,and perhaps with additional safety improvements on Weber Boulevard, we would actually be increasing the compatibility. With that. I thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan,and then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been retired a long time. Where do I know you from? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did work for the State of Florida for a number of years with the Fish and Wildlife Commission. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's why. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: And so that's probably where we have met. Good to see you again. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you for mentioning the loop trail, because that's exactly the kind of thing that I. for one,want to hear from the public today about,because my understanding of our charge is is that we're to try to identify other points of connection where we could come up with a win-win or closer to a win-win. and so I appreciate your mentioning that. I'm going to ask you this question: Are there any other restrictions, limitations,or changes of a reasonable nature that you believe would make the residents happier about having this church in the neighborhood? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Well, as I listened to your comments this morning,the size of the facility is of great concern to me, and I think not just for this development but going forward. Within the Estates zoning and compatibility issues,a typical Estates home on two-and-a-half acres might put a footprint of about 10.000 square feet. Now,that sounds like a lot,but on two-and-a-half acres,that's 10,000 square feet of roughly-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 100,000. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: -- 100,000,thank you. So it's a 90 percent retention of either natural areas or at least green space. So if exceptional uses are planned--and they do have some buffer zones in there, but I think they ought to even be held, perhaps,to a higher standard in terms of setbacks and things of that nature: whereas, for an Estates house, I think there's 105-foot setback from the roadway. Perhaps--so that would force a traditional --a conditional use to have a larger tract of land with more green space, more protected area,and greater setbacks, and that would promote compatibility with the existing nature of the area,at least in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I think that would be important. Your size--the size limit on the church, I would go along with that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, question. Did you attend the first two meeting on this church? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did not. My first involvement was to write the County Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a yes or no. Page 12 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. SCHORTEMEYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; Okay. Did you see the language that was put on the overhead by the applicant today in the black and red writing? She walked through the changes they were proposing to make. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did get a chance to look at those. That really was first exposure to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let me tell you why that's important. This panel previously recommended approval for the church without that red writing. The Board got that,and there was discrepancies on the Board as to is this the right thing to do? Should it be more compatible? Is there a way to get it so that some of the residents aren't so opposed? So the Board sent it back to us and said, see if you can find other issues that could be modified to make this more compatible, tightening it up. So the question from us today is not is the church--should the church go there or not go there. It's what on that black-and-white lettering can be changed to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. And that's how I'm looking at this. And so what we came out with is suggestions by the applicant where they would reduce the activities;they would reduce the number of people;they would reduce now the size of the facility;they were going to limit the amount of days they can operate to be more compatible than it was before it was sent back to us today. And so,really,we're trying to find out, from your perspective,now that you've spoken so eloquently on the whole issue,are the red lettering and the red changes that are being proposed, in your opinion,more compatible for the neighborhood or less? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did not get a chance to look at all of them closely but,general speaking, it seemed to be that those were honest attempts to make it more compatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the task we've been charged with reviewing, and that's what I'm trying to stick to as far as understanding what we can do today, and that's why I was asking you that question. So thank you. I wanted to understand that. I appreciate it. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: You're welcome. And thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. SABO: John Kelly is the next speaker,and David Meffen can come up to the other mike. MR. KELLY: Hello. I'm John Kelly,resident at 221 Weber Boulevard South. And I would like to echo the words of my neighbor and note that traffic is a sincere impact on Weber Boulevard South. And we're most concerned that the same thing that happens on this corner will happen on the opposite corner,and if the use--any use greater than that of a single-family residence really isn't appropriate,as we already have a number of uses on First Avenue Southwest which were mentioned,the primary ones being Max Hasse Community Park. the Big Cypress Elementary School,the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall with two worship services,and what was the Cypress Woods Presbyterian Church,which has since been purchased by Grace Romanian,and I believe services are being offered there. At the time this proposal initially came before you all,that church was pretty much a failed church and there were no services being held. At this time there are services being held, and it brings to question in my mind whether or not another traffic impact analysis might not be warranted,as there is increased traffic now,and with their second church coming up within the neighborhood,just very concerned. Being as this is likely to move forward given the Board's--the Commission's charge. 1 Page 13 of 79 diiimfi • January 17,2019 would ask that you also look at the height of the steeple. I would ask that it be no higher than the allowed building height in the area,not in excess of 50 feet. And then I would also like you to look at prohibiting on-street parking and seeing if there's not an enforcement mechanism for that. Much of what I heard earlier that the applicant has said, I don't see how much of that is enforceable. It's a nice thought,but I don't see how it is enforceable. But,anyway,that's what I have to say to you today. Thank you for your guidance and assistance to the community,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Ned has a question for you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I do when he's finished. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr.Kelly, I want to be sure I understand your position with respect to this parcel. Are you unable to accept any kind of a church on that parcel? MR. KELLY: Anything other than a single-family residence. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all you'd be willing to accept? MR. KELLY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,John,you're a planner with Collier County; is that correct? MR. KELLY: I am. I'm not here today in that capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but that's what your background is; is it fair to say? MR. KELLY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a planner,you're looking at the changes suggested by the applicant, do you see those as better in an attempt to seek compatibility? I know in your long run you don't believe it's compatible under any condition, but are these better than what was there before? MR. KELLY: They are. I would only ask for the two changes that I offered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just wanted to make sure I understood that point, because that's the task that we're here to look at. MR. KELLY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,John. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you do also understand that the steeple's 10 feet, the proposed steeple? MR. KELLY: Correct,that's above the church. I assume that would be 60 feet. I would like things to remain at the 50 feet,exceptions to the code notwithstanding. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there other speakers,James? MR. SABO: Yes. Mr. David Meffen is next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And who's after Mr. Meffen? MR. SABO: Don Ward is after that. He can come up to the other podium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Ward,you're up next,so be prepared to use this podium, if you don't mind. Go ahead, sir. Were you sworn in when we started out? MR. MEFFEN: Yes, I was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MEFFEN: Looking at the changes, I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to identify yourself for the record,even though they announced your name. MR. MEFFEN: David Meffen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. MEFFEN: Meffen. Page 14 of 79 • January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you spell that for the court reporter. MR. MEFFEN: M-e-f-f-e-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MEFFEN: I was at the original meetings for this church,and everything seemed to be in order, as a matter of fact. You know, what-- I didn't really give much input,and I left. And these changes just seem to be incompatible. I think it should be denied. It looks like they're increasing the hours. There's--and I know the game. The game is you try and get the permit in,and then you do changes. And I think we need to stick with the original agreement,what we did in the first NIM. And you see that the hours are going to be different. And I know that there's--there are changes coming down the road which,once this is okayed,then no one can fight with the changes. And I thought we had a really good plan in the beginning. But I can't see how increasing the hours would be in our interest. Now, again. I don't abut the property,so I don't have the same concerns that these other people do,but I don't think that,you know,ramming this through this Planning Commission is the way to go. I think sit down with the neighbors and see if we can alleviate all the concerns there. You know,a neighborhood meeting,you know, where it seems like they were snowing us just to get the permit,and then come back with the changes-- I don't think that's the way to go--and then ram it through here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I don't see how the hours have been expanded, and I did listen to the NIM. Could you be more specific on that point? MR. MEFFEN: Yeah, initially it was-- I think it was till 9 p.m.,and it's increased where they're going to have two services Sunday morning,one service Sunday night. I don't have the original in front of me, but here you have drug and alcohol rehab was prohibited. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It still is. MR. MEFFEN: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It still is. MR. MEFFEN: Okay. And then down lower,counseling services for Alcoholics Anonymous,Narcotics Anonymous. You know, like the gentleman said before, I just don't think it can be enforced. And if you're going to allow it,you know,they're going to be bringing drug rehab into the center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's prohibited. MR. MEFFEN: Ifs prohibited,but it's not enforceable. And here you're allowing drug and rehab counseling,okay, but you're not allowing drug and alcohol rehab. You know,you could get federal funds. I'm sure it will help the church. You know,they'll bus people in. I just think it's a can of worms. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but is there a word other than "counseling"that you would find more appropriate,a way of describing AA and NA? MR. MEFFEN: Well. I mean,you know,at the initial meeting,you know,we wanted them to prohibit soup kitchens,you know,homeless at the site,et cetera,et cetera,and there was a reason for that. This is a residential area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me, sir. But my specific question is, is there a word that you would prefer to the word "counseling"that you think would take it farther away from the possibility of becoming something like rehabilitation? MR. MEFFEN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Page 15 of 79 f January 17,2019 MR. MEFFEN: I don't know. I'm just saying that this short time that we have here,you know, we might be able to hammer out the differences if we got together and sat down, but--you know, it just seems like they got the permit. and now they're going to make changes to it. I think it should be denied. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our next speaker? MR. SABO: Next speaker is Don Ward. Last speaker, Michael Ramsey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Ward, were you sworn in? MR. WARD: No. I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The court reporter will take care of that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WARD: I do. My name is Don Ward. I reside at 4055 First Ave. Southwest. I just purchased my home less than a year ago,and it's, unfortunately,going to be directly across the street a five-story church that's going to be basically, from what I can see, operating the hours--although they're limiting the services--excuse me, limiting the church services, it looks like church-related services can go on almost all day except for two hours a day during traffic-- peak traffic patterns, if I'm reading this right. They're not limiting church-related service. They're only limiting the actual service; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they're--I mean, could you put that red --the first paragraph back on the overhead. MS. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that will help. They're going to have one service on Saturdays,three services on --up to three services on Sundays, and then the recognized holidays. And then in evenings,they're going to have--they can have, I guess. Bible studies or things like that. During the day, they can have up to 50 parishioners attend things,with the exception of weddings and funerals. MR. WARD: Okay. I guess where I'm missing it is the church-related meetings and gatherings. It basically can happen at any time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,to be honest with you, if they didn't put it here,they most likely could still do it because that's considered a typical accessory use to a church,and most churches have daytime operations. They don't just shut--a lot of them,you know,they go on and have smaller gatherings which is--you know, that's what this is, so... MR. WEEKS: So it's basically going to be a full operation except for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not full. Fifty parishioners is--what is it,a sixth of the total parishioners that could be there. MR. WARD: Well, my main concern is is this is a residential area. I purchased my home. I'm on two-and-a-half acres, private. I have all kinds of wildlife in my yard, like the first gentleman was speaking. I had a bald eagle on my property the other day, both the male and the female. I have deer in the yard all the time. We don't need another big, basically, a commercial business right across the street at the main gateway to Golden Gate Estates. The other issue is the traffic. We've mentioned it over and over. This is supposed to be a small neighborhood church, is what it's--my understanding. One,you know, I appreciate limiting the size. That's at least going to help, but the--as far as it servicing the neighborhood,the fact when they closed Weber--the crossover at Weber,the people from Golden Gate Estates east of Collier Boulevard can't even get to the church. The only way they can get to the church is to come all the way to Collier Boulevard, head south on Collier Boulevard.and make a U-turn to come back Page 16 of 79 January 17,2019 to Golden Gate Boulevard to get into the church. There's no other access other than going Max Hasse. So.you know,even being a small neighborhood church,they can't even get to it. I mean, the access is very limited, I should say,to get to this church that's supposed to be servicing our community. Then we have the whole access issue in general. This main primary entrance into the church is within maybe 300 feet of two lanes turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard. Even when you're limiting the time that the church can operate,this is going to be a traffic nightmare. As soon as people are turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard,there are going to be entrances into this church and people exiting the church. And,you know,this is just-- it's a bad idea all along. There's tons of places in Collier County they can put a church. The other thing-- I didn't realize that they just opened the same church,just started services at another church right down the street. Do they really need another church within a couple miles from an existing church that they already have? I mean, I just think this is a bad idea for our community in general,and I think we should deny--you-all should deny the petition, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And there's a question from one of the commissioners. MR. WARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, this has been in front of us it feels like a year,maybe not a full year, but a long time,and early on the plans called for ingress and egress off of Weber. and by popular demand that was approved. Are you saying that there needs to be more ingress and egress for local access? MR. WARD: I would say yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want traffic on Weber,directly-- MR. WARD: It's got to be somewhere or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is. It's on Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. WARD: But as soon as all of the traffic going out to the Estates,everyone that works out in the Estates--and I know they're not going to be open during peak hours.but there's traffic on that road all the time. There's tons of construction going on out in the Estates right now. There's constant traffic turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard. As soon as you turn onto Golden Gate Boulevard,you're going to have an entrance to the church. Why don't they look at the same traffic study that Collier County used to shut the cut-through that they go from Weber north to Weber south? There was a reason they stopped that--cut off that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They wanted to stop me from going to civic association meetings. They succeeded. MR. WARD: I bet it was. No. But there's a reason that they must have looked at the traffic pattern and said there's too much traffic in the area to allow that cut-through,and that's even further down--further east on Golden Gate Boulevard than this intersection will be. So,you know,that's my main issue with it: One, it being across the street from my home that I just purchased and,two,the traffic issue that it's going to cause for the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Last speaker,Michael Ramsey. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning. My name's Michael Ramsey. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Page 17 of 79 January 17,2019 We've spent a lot of time-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: One more time on your name, sir. I'm sorry. Your last name? MR. RAMSEY: Michael R. Ramsey. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ramsey,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, were you sworn in? MR. RAMSEY: Yeah, I was sworn in and sworn out. Okay. So we've spent a lot of time. Our group has been out talking to the residents around this area,and I get feeling from talking to the Planning Commission and some others you don't really understand the area. This church will affect every person that lives on every road south down Weber: First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth. Because of the traffic pattern,all the residents that live down at the end of each of these roads will be affected by this church,or this operation, let's put it that way. All of--the way the traffic pattern will operate, it affects the quality of life for everyone in that area, not just at that corner. The way the road is constructed,and I think the five roads,they all dead-end,and they all come out and exit through Weber, and most of them go down to Pine Ridge or White. That's the way the pattern flows. This will affect all of those people,and there's not just a quarter mile around it. Second --and it's been made clear in here,Golden Gate Estates is zoned and was created to be a residential area. Residential quality of life is extremely important out here. Everyone in this area moved there around this location for the quality of life. Now,on First Avenue Southwest. which abuts right--or exits right across the from the church, it is also an exit point for the other two churches mentioned; Max Hasse Park. The thing that's not been brought out,and there's guidelines for traffic studies and other issues out here, is that most of the operation or traffic issues will occur on holidays,after work hours,after peak hours, and on the weekends. So two churches,a park, and the school out there,there's no guidelines in Collier County's traffic studies for the cumulative effect of these issues on weekends and holidays. They don't consider it to be that important, so it's not really measured. Residents here are complaining. The ones we talk to are complaining about that because they see it. When Max Hasse Park has an event, let's take, for example, Halloween,there are cars parked on both sides of the road all the way down First Avenue Southwest from the park to Weber. That is an intrusion on the residential quality of life. This, cumulatively,will add to it. Last,the thing that was especially interesting is that if Grace Romanian Baptist Church has bought the other church down there across from --on Golden Gate Boulevard. why hasn't that been explored for expansion of future services? Because the traffic impacts would be way less. Most of all,the last thing that we saw on there that was especially a change from the previous, leasing to outside entities shouldn't be allowed. I know in the new one it said that leasing to outside congregations is prohibited,but leasing to outside operations is an issue,because you're getting in on more operations, sound, noise,and traffic. So, basically,Golden Gate Estates after talking with all these people out here, we think that the residential quality of life out here is more important than having this operation at this location, and it's especially dangerous,we think, for traffic. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike. Ned,again. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You've been before us previously,correct? Page 18 of 79 • January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Yes,sir. I love being up here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I know. And you represent a large group of people, do you not? You're president of-- MR. RAMSEY: Pretty wide variety,yes. Mostly Estates residents. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay,good. Our charge,as I understand it from the County Commission, was--and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.Chairman--not so much whether we're going to revote on church versus no church,but what's before us is can we try to find more ways of bringing the community and the church together. In other words--at least that's my understanding of what is in front of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's basically what I read that they assigned to us,yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So my question. specifically. for you, sir, not only you. individually,but your best sense of what the folks whom you represent would be interested in having,you've seen the redlining of the conditions that shows how it has been updated. Would you add any other provisions or points to that,or would you care to comment on -- MR. RAMSEY: Well, I just did comment on one. I do understand the charge here before you. I just think it's important to bring up this other stuff, because if you're going to operate within a very narrowly confined set of rules that doesn't apply to the whole subdivision,you're making me give you a recommendation to give us a bad project for the community? I don't think that's a very good thing for me to do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well,that's certainly your prerogative,but within the scope of our charge we're trying to find other points where,perhaps,the church could be asked to make concessions that would make having a church there more palatable to the neighborhood. Now's your chance to say that either for yourself or, perhaps,on behalf of the other community members with whom you're familiar. MR. RAMSEY: After studying this issue for quite some time.there is no compatible--this operation at that corner and location with traffic is not compatible with the residential quality of life that we expected to have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike,were you at the board hearing when this was discussed? MR. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you spoke? MR. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why they sent it back to us for negotiation instead just doing it themselves. Why? MR. RAMSEY: It was our opinion that--we've been going through this with Grace Romanian for this property for about two-and-a-half years. We had an initial application, and we went through a set of negotiations. We came up with what we thought was a very good compatible use with it. They went away for about six months and came back with a second application that had almost doubled all the activities and the hours of operation and was completely different from the first one. So we spoke that it shouldn't be approved because there was no attempt to be compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR. RAMSEY: So they sent it back and said,see if you can make it better. We still contend the location is a problem. Even though I do understand your narrowly confined set of rules that you're operating on the recommendations, it's a bad location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the best solution,then,that you would see is that it just not exist at all? Page 19 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Stay residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's not one of the issues we were-- MR. RAMSEY: I know, but it needs to be said; it needs to be understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know how the first meeting of--the first recommendation to the Board went. It was a recommendation of approval of the language that wasn't struck in red 6-1. MR. RAMSEY: Yes. And most of the people I talked to out there,they still feel like most of the members of the Planning Commission,even the Board of County Commissioners, don't understand the Estates'quality-of-life issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think I don't understand the Estates, Mike? MR. RAMSEY: That was a general comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: This is the issue we fight most of the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've probably lived out there longer--maybe pretty long--what, 40 years. How long you been out there for? MR. RAMSEY: Thirty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just trying to make sure that everything's clear, Mike. And I have tried and--as you know by the last vote,tried to go a different direction,but we're not here tasked with that today,and that's why I'm trying to keep it focused on what we were supposed to do. And I appreciate your comments. MR. RAMSEY: Well, let's take an example of a cumulative effect,all right. So we're going to put a bridge on Eighth Street Northeast and connect Randall to Golden Gate Boulevard. We're going to divert traffic from the north end of the Estates down to Golden Gate Boulevard coming through this intersection. That's going to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that got to do with this church? MR. RAMSEY: That's traffic; cumulative traffic issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Mike,we're back to what we were assigned today. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have some followup questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there any other speakers,James? MR. SABO: No more speakers for this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody here-- COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a question for Mr. Ramsey-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- if it's not too late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike. No, it's never too late,especially for somebody brand new. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Mr. Ramsey, I live in an Estates area as well. You mentioned that you had. I think. negotiated with Grace Romanian Church and arrived at something you said would be acceptable. As Chairman Strain has said, we're here to try to define what improvements in the conditions might make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Not so much to possibly reject it.but to send it back with additional conditions. What was initially agreed to with the church in terms of scope and size and activities and number of people and that type of thing? Page 20 of 79 maimmenzimommi January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Well, I think the square footage of the building was smaller,the parking area was smaller,the operations--proposed operations was less,the hours of time of operation were shorter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a-- like this one is, like,three pages,there was about a page and a half previously of stipulations that were--this goes back months that we started with, and then when it got to the Planning Commission,the applicant's team brought some amendments to those,and through the Planning Commission, it got changed again to a point where the traffic had to increase. So they had to go back out and do a NIM. They came back for another hearing. That got recommended for approval to the Board of County Commissioners, and then the Board sent it back to us today. So that's kind of like a real short history of what happened. It's been going on for quite a while. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other speakers,James? MR. SABO: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Joe,you had some followups. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had some followup questions. I'm going to ask the applicant-- I don't care which represents but, Mr. Yovanovich,you're standing there. We heard from the public issues about,basically,the critters that are out in the-- I'm talking animals and other things out in the Estates. Did you have any requirement for a determination--jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Section 7 consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife regarding this property? MR.YOVANOVICH: No, we did not--we don't have any technical permitting issues for listed -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So there's no listed species or endangered species identified? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was there a requirement through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for a biological assessment or follow-on biological opinion? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So I guess that pretty much clears any requirement dealing with any identified listed or endangered species. Regarding traffic,regarding the county, I guess, Mike,you may have to answer this. Have you determined that the traffic pattern and the impact to be compatible with the existing road network,are there any issues been identified? MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. We have studied it. The amount of traffic during the week,which is our criteria for judging whether the petition is consistent with the GMP, is that the impacts are reasonable and are actually quite low in this case. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it meets the concurrence requirements? MR. SAWYER: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My last comment has to do with what John raised. I'll go back to the county-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Mike leaves,Mike,did you do a staff review for the staff report? MR. SAWYER: Yes.we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you recommend approval on that review? MR. SAWYER: Yes,we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take all the considerations you were just asked before you wrote that approval? Page 21 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. SAWYER: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The last one having to do with the height of the structure. John brought up the steeple. I've pretty much traveled the world. I think I've been in 96 countries throughout the world regarding places of worship. whether it is a mosque.a church,a Buddhist temple,typically the structures on a religious building are higher than the surrounding community so it can be identified by the people in the community. It's been that way since the Middle Ages. Is the steeple deemed compatible,and does it meet all the requirements as far as appurtenances on the building with regards to the county? MR. SABO: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well,those issues were raised. Again, I see no requirement to deny this or-- I cannot find any reason to deny this petition,and I recommend it move forward as written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does--now,we've had public testimony, staff response, and--to it. Richard,do you have any rebuttal that you'd like to have? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I think that what we've done is what the Board tasked us with doing,which was try to make this better than what was originally presented to you all and to the Board,and I think we've done that. I just would like to say one thing,that this petition. like most church petitions, if traffic becomes an issue, we are required to employ off-duty police officers to be there to direct traffic. So if there are cumulative impacts from our project,that is addressed in the provisions that are already existing--we didn't change that. That's been there for a while. So I just wanted to put that on the record for the community so they know that we've had that commitment in there to provide off-duty police officers if the county says we're having a traffic issue related to our operation of the property. With that, I don't have anything else to add to the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan, and then Ned. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, we've heard some suggestions for further concessions, if you will,and 1 want to go back to those and ask you and your client to what extent some or all of them might be acceptable to you. The first thing that was mentioned was the loop trail. Is that something that the church would consider doing? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll turn to Anna. I don't know what the loop trail is. MS. WEAVER: I think I need further clarification on what loop trail they're asking for. I think-- I know he said maybe a trail around the property or-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: What he said,yeah,around the periphery. MS. WEAVER: Well, I can tell you we're going to build sidewalks as required in the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fryer, we need to look at how that would interface with the back of the property. I believe there's a canal there,too,right? MS. WEAVER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a canal. So I don't know. To the extent that we can work that into our site plan,we're willing to look at it. I don't want to make it a formal commitment as part of the application materials right now. Frankly, it's something new to us to even consider. I'm not prepared to say yes; I'm not prepared to say we can't work it in, but I don't want it to be part of the approval. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The building size, I mentioned that my rather brief research turned up for a 300 congregation size,between 12,000 and 18,000. Would you consider splitting the difference on that,a compromise at 15,000? Page 22 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll be honest with you, it took me some arm twisting to bring it down. I mean.there's--Fellowship Hall takes up space and kitchens in Fellowship Hall. That all adds up. And we think what we've done by the limits on who can come and when they can come and --we think we've addressed the concerns about compatibility plus the reduction of that 6,000 square feet. I think that's a fair compromise. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then it was mentioned to some degree through confusion, I think,on the part of the people who were trying to interpret the latest version of the compromise, 9 p.m.versus 10 p.m. Would the church be willing to conclude all activities at 9 p.m.? MR. YOVANOVICH: The preference would be to-- 10 p.m. has been in there for a while,and we'd like to keep it at the 10 p.m. I think the red is just--was the clarification of the how many services we can have on Saturday and the hours for that. But the 10 p.m. has been in there for a while for our worship services. And,again,the limitation on the number of individuals that can come,I think it addresses the concerns for the community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the 10 p.m. later limit,the one hour later limit would be exclusively for worship services? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,you have it under a couple of places. I've got to get a new pair of glasses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich.just to clarify,the 9 p.m.came about because of the first draft of the conditions. I have them. I'm looking at them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're looking at-- if we're looking at church-related meetings, they end at 9, if I'm reading that correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Church operating hours,a,(1)(a),original submittal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are the worship services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Church services shall be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m.and 9 p.m. That's why I think it's coming up for a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the related--meetings--church-related meetings in C end at 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Worship services have been 10 o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Originally, in the original submittal -- MR. YOVANOV ICH: Oh,way back when.before I got involved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Way back when. before you got involved--well,you got involved at the hearing level, but before that they were limit to 9 o'clock. That's why that's coming up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Worship, Mr. Strain? For worship services? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says right there, 1(a),church services will be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m.and 9 p.m. That was produced by the applicant's planner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just have one moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. And,Joe.as soon as Ned finishes. I'll go to you next. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So after this answer he's done,then we'll go to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have services end by 9. Now,that means there will be people,obviously, leaving, but they'll be leaving an hour earlier if we had services ending at 10. Is that your-- is that what you're asking for,Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It sounds like that's what was on the table. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe--and I don't have the history all the way back to the beginning,but if we originally said 8 to 9 for worship services,then we can agree with that. We just don't want anybody to say every vehicle needs to be off that property by 9. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. Page 23 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the concern we have, but we don't mind. We'll make that change back on the worship services. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then -- I did have one more clarification, then,on this very point. The way it is currently worded, what kinds of activities can continue until 10 p.m.? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if we make the change we just made-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: --nothing can happen after 9-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. We can shorten that,can't we,and just say no activities after 9 p.m.? MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than the cars leaving property,yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah,other than that;other than that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I had. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand the concept. We'll have to write it. but I understand the concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And the only thing I was going to ask Ned is to ask to put this pathway around the church on the fly, it may adversely impact the neighboring properties,and I think we really would have to look at that before we recommend that as a change, because there are buffers,there's other things around the church. And to basically do that on the fly is certainly going to have adverse effect on some of the homes surrounding the church. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that--Richard. is there anything else you want to-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just have a little--all right. Here's our issue. Thursdays--well, it didn't matter. We were limited at 9 anyways. Let me--can I have one minute,or do you want to take a break for Terri? Is it about her time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we'll take a full break then,we'll go into the second case after we finish up with this one. I was going to let this one get done first, but-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I just need two seconds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a break till 10:30 and resume at 10:30. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats,we'd like to resume the meeting. Okay. Thank you. We left off with final comments on the Grace Romanian Church application and, Mr. Yovanovich,you had time to meet with your client? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. Yeah,thank you. And I put on the visualizer-- I know it's old tech,but I don't know how to do it in PowerPoint. What I understood was we were going to make A,the hours would be 9 p.m.--for A as well as B and C,and then I understand 18,000 square feet is what we committed to during the discussion. And then it came up. and we heard--we were discussing during the break--and we committed to this at the Board of County Commissioners, so I just think we should add it. and I think this is the right place to put it under 3 regarding the parking to make it clear that would be no off-street--or no on-street parking permitted. Because there was concern that people would come to an event at the church and somehow would park on the local neighborhood streets. We've already committed that that Page 24 of 79 January 17,2019 wouldn't happen,so we thought we'd maybe want to add that to the commitments as well. That wasn't discussed,but we wanted to add that during the break. So I think those are the changes that were discussed in addition to what we previously presented. So that's it. I think I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only thing I have to ask is that Mr. Fryer--we have a Fry and a Fryer. I have to keep them straight. Mr.Fryer had asked to consider limiting all activities--no activities after 9 p.m., and that was why you wanted the break. So did you discuss that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Yeah,we did. And what happened is the only service that goes past 9 o'clock is the New Year's Eve service,and that's what I --and I spoke to Mr. Fryer about that on the break,that every other service except New Year's Eve has to stop before 9,and that's why we had that separate--we had that separate in D, because Easter Sunrise obviously happens before the normal hours that we had discussed in No. 1,and the limitation on when we had to end,and that's why we separated,originally, Easter Sunrise and New Year's Eve services, because those would be the two exceptions to the worship service hours in Number A--or Letter A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 9 o'clock change to the 10 p.m. up top-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --fixes that. Basically you've got no activities after 9. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you,Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any other comments or questions from the Hearing Examiner I mean,from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: How is a wall defined? We had the southern adjacent property owner,and in the writeup it mentions a wall is to be constructed, but what are the parameters of a wall? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let Anna--because you don't want me to answer. MS. WEAVER: The code requirement for that area is that because it's adjacent to residential zoning across the street, it states that we have to construct a 4-foot wall. And I believe it says--well,don't-- I don't want to quote what it says exactly, but it's going to be a concrete or prefab solid wall. COMMISSIONER FRY: Four feet in height? MS. WEAVER: Four feet in height to help with headlights. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is a 4-foot wall--and what is the purpose of that wall in terms of-- I mean,at four feet, it does not obstruct the view of the church for the adjacent property owner. So what about the possibility of a taller structure? MS. WEAVER: The purpose, I believe, because it's right on the roadway. is for lights to affect the adjacent residential property. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's never been intended to be a security feature. It's always been intended to be a"stop headlights from bothering neighbors" feature. COMMISSIONER FRY: And has it been requested by the adjacent neighbors that it be tall enough to obstruct the view? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You guys don't do a Christmas midnight mass? Page 25 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: We will end it at the 9 p.m. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah,we--midnight could be at 9 p.m. for us older people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll --anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing,and then we'll go into a motion. If there's-- if anybody wants discussion on this before we go to motion-- if not, I'd like to suggest that if someone would want to make a motion, it would be a motion to send the changes to the Board of County Commissioners recommended as additional compatibility considerations, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, so moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be including the handwritten-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And what I'll do is, if you want to second it, I'll go ahead and read-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. The changes would be those in red that were presented with the amendments that are noted here in blue on this particular page. And I don't believe there were any past this section of that page. MS. WEAVER: Oh,not written. MR. YOVANOVICH: No further changes other than the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, more red ones. but no further written ones. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,the motion maker and the second accept that. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now,the next item up, I must--it's the only item left, so it must be why everybody's here. PL20170004419. It's the Collier County Growth Management Plan amendment for the Livingston Road-- MR. SABO: Mr.Chairman,we, I think,need action on the Comp Plan as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's not what the Board assigned us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The Comp Plan goes forward-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Comp Plan and the other motions go forward as they were. This just tells the Board what they asked for us to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. That was my understanding. MR. SABO: Very good. Page 26 of 79 • January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me start over again,then. ***The next item up is Item 9A3,PL20170004419. It's an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to add the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard located on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard just east of Livingston Road. 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,please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the Planning Commission. Let's start with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich,and I saw the news stuff on Channels 2. 5,and 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get any emails? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,yeah. I did; from the public,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we all got copied on some of them. Some of them went to the staff,and then they distributed them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious,do we have to--everybody sees those. Do we have to disclose that? MR. KLATZKOW: Technically,you should be bringing with you all the ex parte communications you have in a folder, which we give the applicant or anybody else the ability to look at them and to ask questions about it. That's what you're supposed to do. Customarily, I can't remember the last time an applicant actually asked for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In our case-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,anyway, I got copies of emails from a bunch of people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I,as well,received all the emails and the materials in the packet, which I --are a part of the public record and available to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And that's what I would suggest to all of you. If you get emails,always copy them back to staff,as I do. That way they're always part of the staffs record. Staff puts in the packet,or as Corby's done today, he passed them back out. So they do get them;they become available to everybody. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If he'd remember to say it, I'd remember to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Emails,phone call with Yovanovich prior to the December 6th meeting before this was continued,and I'm appointed(sic)with some homeowners in the Barrington Cove neighborhood. Do I need to name their names? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,just-- COMMISSIONER FRY: And I've had a brief conversation with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Conversations with staff,emails;conversations with Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had conversations with staff. I've had a slough of emails. I forwarded them all to staff. They're either in the packet or in front of us in the packages today. I've had meetings with Mr.Yovanovich and the applicant team as a whole I think once--almost all of them in December,and a group of them,again,yesterday,and that's--other than that,that's it. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have had emails.and I spoke with Mr.Yovanovich. Page 27 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Mulhere, numerous emails that came into my official Collier.gov address, so I have to assume that they're in the archive and part of the official record. I did not forward those to staff,but I certainly can,and additional information that was--I guess, was handed out by staff just came in. I got an email from Corby last-- I think yesterday or the day before regarding some language,changes in language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Similar emails,communication with staff,and a brief phone call with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That wraps it up. Bob,we'll turn it over to you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here this morning on behalf of the applicant. Also in attendance with me this morning is Brian Stock,Keith Gelder,Chris Johnson,all with Stock Development. Rich Yovanovich is our land-use attorney; Chris Mitchell is the professional civil engineer with JR Evans Engineering;and Ted Treesh. Ted Treesh is our transportation planner with TR Transportation Consultants. I have a PowerPoint presentation. I'd like to go through that. I'll be as succinct as possible. I realize there's a lot of folks here,and I don't want to take any more time than is necessary with my presentation,but there are some-- I think there is some information that will be significant. So let me just begin that,and I'll try to get through it as succinctly as possible. What you have before you is an aerial of the neighborhood and shows the subject property. Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's shifted north more than it is, right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There's another outline. That's over a zoning map. The property has two zoning districts on it. Fifteen-and-change acres is part of the De La Rosa RPUD, and the balance of the property's presently zoned agricultural;about 20 acres. All of the property is in the urban residential subdistrict; none of the property is in the coastal high hazard area. Total size is 35.92 acres. So the property's located,as you know,at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial. This amendment seeks to establish the Veterans Memorial Boulevard East residential subdistrict,and this is a transmittal hearing to permit up to 350 multifamily dwelling units. That number originally was 420. We reduced to 350. There will be a companion-- there is a companion PUD that is under review by staff,and as part of my presentation, l will share with you a number of the conditions and so forth that we're committing to as part of the PUD. I know this is always a bit of a challenge when you have a transmittal hearing that's limited to a Comprehensive Plan but,really,you-all have an interest in knowing more of the detail, and we're going to provide that to you. The density at 350 units is 9.74 units per acre. The existing De La Rosa PUD, 15.38 acres,allowed for up to 107 multifamily dwelling units,and those were approved to be constructed at a zoned height of 50 feet and a building height--excuse me--an actual height of 69 feet. The GMP provisions presently allow for up to seven units per acre,which would total 251.44 units. The additional units that we would be seeking would be 98.56. If you add those together, that totals 350 dwelling units at 9.74 units per acre. Page 28 of 79 January 17,2019 This exhibit--I'll spend a few minutes on this--overlays the De La Rosa approved PUD and site plan provisions--there was a site plan for De La Rosa PUD-- in blue. So the boundaries of that are outlined in blue,and the location of the buildings proposed for De La Rosa are also outlined in blue. The overall property that is part of our petition actually shows--excuse me--the development area. The overall development area for our petition is outlined in red. So a couple of points. We have established a minimum setback for principal structures from our eastern property line or boundary of 125 feet at a minimum. So these buildings here and this building here would be a minimum and are a minimum of 125 feet as juxtaposed with the site plan for De La Rosa,which allowed for a 20-foot setback. I looked at the SDP, and this building was approximately 26 feet from the property line and four stories in height, 50 feet in height. So, obviously,we have looked at this as part of our planning,and I've shifted the development as far away as we possibly could from Barrington Cove. So if you look at this table here,this table provides for the setbacks of the approved De La Rosa PUD, which was approved,as I said previously,for a building height of 50 feet zoned,69 feet actual,with a 20-foot setback. Our proposal at present is four stories or three stories. These buildings here were originally proposed--these two buildings were originally proposed at four stories. We've reduced those to three stories. Zoned height 40 feet; actual height 50 feet. These buildings,these remaining buildings,two here and two here, in red, would be retained at four stories,with the original zoned and actual height. The brand and PUD, which is Barrington Cove,was approved at a zoned height of 50 feet, three stories, and an actual height of 55 feet and three stories. So I just want to point that out,that the brand and PUD,which you can see the development here shaded,right here and right here;that PUD was approved for zoned height at 50 feet,actual height of 55 feet,three stories. We've reduced these two buildings right here.which are the closest to this portion of the development,down to three stories. This is the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT': Before we--can you stay on that again,just to clarify, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I'll go over that several more times, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to be--do you want to--we normally don't interrupt the presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to be sure he--the buildings in blue are not going to be built. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Those are approved SDP for De La Rosa. The point that we wanted to make was you can see how close they are to Barrington Cove at a height of 50 feet and four stories. I say they're not going to be built. It sort of depends on what happens. Obviously-- This is the master concept plan. The only thing I'd point out is you can see that we did spend a lot of time designing the site to move the development area into this area. This is a fairly large wetland preserve,a little over 15 acres in size,and this is a stormwater management lake with a--a significant landscape buffer around it. This is the revised site plan overlaid on an aerial. I'll point that out again. These buildings have been reduced from four down to three stories from a building height zoned of 50 down to 40. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't mean to interrupt again,but Joe may need this clarification;the two buildings that I think he asked about,the two on the south side,they're not darkened. Does that mean you're not building them? Page 29 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. MULHERE: No,those are being built. I'm not sure why that is the case. Those are--they should be darkened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I guess 1 don't -- I've already kind of covered some of this. I won't be repetitive. These arrows depict the buildings that will be three stories and four stories with this sort of quad--the buildings right here being three stories and these being four stories. I mentioned this,but I'll repeat it again. We did insert a minimum --a minimum setback for buildings from our eastern boundary of 125 feet for principal structures. There are garages-- single-story garages closer than that, but the actual apartment buildings will be a minimum of 125 feet from the eastern boundary. And here is our proposed amendment regarding the building height which would be depicted on the PUD master plan to show those buildings that will be three story,which I've already pointed out to you.and those buildings which will be four story. We've met with--and I'll go over this in a little more detail. But we-- in addition to the NIM, we've met with representatives of both Barrington Cove and Mediterra north across Veterans Memorial from this property. And as a result of those meetings, we've gone back several times to the drawing board to develop landscape buffers that we thought would address some of their concerns. This exhibit shows you --this is just sort of the master key, but shows you the types of landscape designs that we're going to put in those locations,and I'll show you more detail here. So you can see right here-- so this is the property right here. This parcel right here is zoned A ag. It's adjacent--the parcel on the corner is zoned Cl. We don't own those parcels, just for reference. If you look at the arrow here,this parcel is zoned Cl,this parcel is zoned ag. Presumably at some point in the future that would be rezoned to something,potentially zoning it commercial,who knows. But it's zoned ag right now. So there's two parcels right there;one C l. one ag. So this exhibit shows you the landscape buffer treatment that we would do adjacent to that ag parcel. There's really not any great concern over that ag--over the relationship to that ag parcel. This shows the landscape buffer treatment to the south,also right here,also adjacent to the commercial parcel. It's a Type B--Type B buffer plan. There will be a decorative aluminum fence for security purposes around the property--that shows that decorative aluminum fence--and also around this lake portion, so that's a standard Type B. This one, of course, is more important because this buffer is the buffer that's adjacent to the closest developments in Barrington Cove, the closest development. period, with Livingston Road separating us--with Veterans Memorial separating us from Mediterra and Livingston here--right here. Excuse me. So this buffer is a significantly enhanced buffer. On the bottom right you see the single-story garage elevation. Those garages will be right in here. And what we've got here is an enhanced Type B buffer that has both canopy trees above the required minimum sizes;same thing with the shrubs. This you can see right here. And then there's sort of a mid-story palm row. In addition,there will be the aluminum decorative fence in there, but these are intended to create an opaque and substantial buffer,right in here,and so we've significantly increased the buffer requirements adjacent to our neighbors. Now,that's a 15-foot-wide buffer. We also intend to continue to work with the neighbors,and I'll get into that in just a moment. This is the buffer,the Type D buffer that's required adjacent to the roadway to the north along Veterans Memorial. This is a line-of-sight exhibit. I recognize this is a--there's a fair amount of detail here, Page 30 of 79 January 17,2019 and it may be a little hard to see. I'd like to just walk you through. The key here tells you what the perspective is. So A is looking from an individual standing at the back edge of their property in Mediterra looking south towards our project. They have a significant berm here with mature landscaping on top of the berm. As you're looking up across the top of that berm,with the reduced height now to three stories,which you can see in this exhibit right here,this --there will be no perspective. They will not see these buildings based on this berm,this landscaping,this wide-- it's a fairly wide-- I think it's a 200-foot-wide right-of-way there,and then additional distance here before you get to the one-story garages, and then the other buildings,and then--or other buildings,and then the three-story apartment building. B is this perspective right here from Barrington Cove looking west. And,again,with the reduced height here,really,you would not see these buildings with an enhanced landscaping buffer here both on their property and our property and then the single-story garage structure. Even at four stories you will not see them except, perhaps, a little bit of the roofline at three stories. And then these two perspectives also, I think,are from Barrington Cove property on the other side of our lake right here. You can see D and C right there. And I think we have a similar situation there with the landscaping and the distance of 125 feet. Someone standing on their property here would see a little bit of the edge treatment from this perspective looking sort of northwest, and this is the perspective looking from their due west. Our Traffic Impact Statement was analyzed,and it looked at the AUIR in 2023 buildout conditions. Ted Treesh is here. I'm just going to go over this briefly. I'm sure there may be some more detailed questions in which I certainly will defer to Ted as the expert. But there is capacity along all the surrounding roadways,except Immokalee Road west of Livingston in 2023, both with and without this. And the site's located in the Transportation Concurrency Management Area,which is the policy that allows up to seven units per acre with certain transportation demand management techniques being utilized. Our project at 350 dwelling units does not trigger the 85 percent threshold described in Policy 5.7. The intersection analysis conducted at Livingston and Memorial indicates that the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service again,both with and without the project trips. And as another observation, Logan extension,which will be another north/south option which will relieve some traffic from this north/south from Livingston,will be-- is under construction; will be completed and open this year,2019. And this exhibit here shows 1-75 right here, Livingston right here,the project is right here, and this is the extension of Logan to Bonita Beach Road from its present terminus up to Bonita Beach Road. There are a number of transportation stips in the PUD. We have a maximum trip generation that we can't exceed of 176 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. There's a payment that's required for--a fair-share payment for signalization. We are required to--or at least we were-- I'm not sure since there's no actual CAT system running past this property whether or not we need to do this immediately or it remains as a condition. That's perhaps something that could be something clarified. But we agreed to a condition to install a Collier Area Transit shelter if and when requested by the county. The access point onto Livingston Road is limited and is only an egress, so it's not an ingress/egress but just an exit,and that's separated from the intersection by a thousand-- by at least a thousand feet. And we also agreed to construct vehicular, pedestrian,and bicycle stub-out to the adjacent Page 31 of 79 January 17,2019 property,so I did want to show you that. Let me just go back. So,again,there will be a connection to the adjacent property generally in this vicinity right here. This is the commercial property. And we've agreed to connect. That would be for all forms of,you know,pedestrian, bicycle,and vehicular. I don't think there's any question but that there's a strong market demand for rental apartments in Collier County. Rates continue to increase and have since 2011. That's an indicator of a basic economic rule of demand exceeding supply. Additional supply will stabilize those rates and minimize further increases. Occupancy of existing projects is close to 95 percent,which is considered to be full occupancy. And the estimated demand for rental units by the end of 2022 is over 5,300 units. There are some unique elements that I'd like to point out with respect to management and demographic of tenants. As you know, Stock has constructed and manages several other rental apartments, luxury rental apartment projects. The typical demographics: The tenants are typically working professionals and empty nesters. The average household income ranges from 80-to 135,000. At Inspira at Lely, 40 percent of the tenants are empty nesters, folks that want to come down here perhaps full time. perhaps they'll rent it,but they won't be here all year. But they're not looking to buy a single-family home or a condominium. They're looking to rent. Stock employs professional on-site property management. The company is Greystar, the largest leasing property management firm in the United States. And the experience with them has been excellent thus far. Full background checks are required on all tenants. We have a seven-day eviction process for any criminal activity. Subleasing of units is prohibited. Airbnb and similar types of rental opportunities are prohibited. Renters insurance is required. All of the vehicles are registered with the property manager. There are restrictions on pets, size and types and requirement to show photos and proof of vaccination. The standard lease term--this question came up quite a bit. The standard lease term is 12 months. There are--there is a minimum lease term of seven months. There are certain circumstances where a lesser lease term is appropriate and,therefore,the lesser lease term is allowed. These are some photos. I'll go through them fairly quickly,but you may or may not know, but this project is developed and has been open for some time now,and this is Inspira at Lely Resort. The reason we're showing you these is because the intent is to build something of the same high, high quality on this property for this project. Some of the details may change, but--and you can see these are four-story products. You see we have garages. I want to show you some of the amenities. This is a perspective looking, I think it's from -- I think it's from the clubhouse looking out towards the pool or maybe from one of the units looking toward the pool. Very high quality and a very significant amenity package. That's a picture of the pool. Another picture of the pool. That is looking at the clubhouse,the main entry. And the second floor is a fitness facility. These are some interior amenity pictures. Meeting space,congregating space. There's a picture of the gym on the left-hand side, additional tenant gathering spaces. You can see that the design --the quality is very, very high. Additional perspective of the amenities. You can see the high ceilings in the front lobby,the foyer there. There's opportunities to,you know,do some work there if you like. Another picture of the pool looking out,sort of the central courtyard with the pool. That almost concludes my presentation. I did want to add that-- I mentioned that we had Page 32 of 79 January 17,2019 met with representatives of Mediterra and Barrington Cove several times both before the Christmas holidays and then after the Christmas holidays after we had reduced the building height on the two buildings that are close to Barrington Cove from four to three stores. We also made a commitment-- I just wanted to mention this. We also made a commitment at that point in time to work with those folks,those representatives, between transmittal,assuming that transmittal is--moves forward by the Board of County Commissioners, and adoption to address a couple of concerns that they raised,one being the quality and quantity of the landscape buffer adjacent to Barrington Cove--and we're happy to work with the folks from Mediterra on that issue,too,as it relates to the perimeter buffers. but I don't know that there were any issues with those--and also the building architecture. There was some concerns about, I think, more color being sort of being only one option there, but to look at some other architectural elements that would --and color and elements that would make that more attractive. We've agreed to continue to work with them. That concludes my presentation. We're open for questions, unless I missed anything, which Rich will let me know what I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob,just one--not a question about what you presented, but how are you going to provide that for the record? MR. MULHERE: I have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll give that to the court reporter and make sure she has it for recordation? MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do-- again, Rich Yovanovich, for the record, I guess, since this is a different petition. I would like to point out a couple of things as, kind of,why you're seeing so many Growth Management Plan amendments coming through for apartments in Collier County. As I know the Planning Commission is aware, but not everybody in the audience is aware,Collier County has a Comprehensive Plan that has a very low base density calculation of four units per acre. And even with the fact that we achieve three additional units per acre,apartment complexes are generally in the 10-to 12-unit-per-acre density in order for it to be a viable project to provide all of the nice amenities you see. So that's why we're here in need of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The only way to get to a density that we're asking for today under the current Comprehensive Plan regulations would be ask for an affordable housing density bonus, which we're not doing. That's why we're doing a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment to get to a density that makes sense for an apartment complex. I also--since Stock is a known entity in developing in Collier County and has the Inspira project up and running,we're fortunate today to have Catherine Cordoza with Greystar,who is going to be managing that project as well as this project. So I thought it would be beneficial if she came up and shared with you her experience with the types of tenants, because in reviewing-- I didn't attend the NIM,but I did watch the video of the NIM,and not just at this location, but in many locations, there's a concern about the quality and how will the project be fully maintained when people don't have an ownership interest in the actual building. And I think it would be helpful to have someone who's actually dealing with that on a day-to-day basis speak briefly about some of the things that Bob's already mentioned but give you the first-hand account. Her name's Catherine Cordoza with Greystar. I'll bring her up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said something though,and maybe she can answer it. You said that the reason we have so many Growth Management Plan amendments is because of the density that we allocate on a base density,and the apartments are needed at a higher density. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 33 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give me an example of another apartment complex in Collier County that has needed a Growth Management Plan amendment? MR. YOVANOVICH: 1 can name a few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did it for Pine Ridge Commons, which is the redevelopment of a shopping center. The Vincentian PUD along the East Trail,we did a Comprehensive Plan amendment for that. We're in,or shortly to be in,on Courthouse Shadows. We'll be coming in for a Growth Management Plan amendment for that. That also has a four-unit-per-acre limitation. and we're doing it--we had our pre-app the other day. So those are ones that are popping in my head right now. I'm pretty sure I've done others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand there are--there's actually 4,000 units that have come through in the last 12, 15 months-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --on top of the 12,000 we already have. And I was trying to understand,when you said that--because,you know, I've told you my concern has always been-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the density change due to the Growth Management Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mentioned three. Vincentian was a partial--had a component for its increase based on affordable housing. The other two were commercial entities already approved swapping out commercial intensity for apartment intensity so that they became a wash; Pine Ridge Commons is one. Is there any one that you have similar to this one you're proposing today? MR.YOVANOVICH: There's one that Bob and I are both working on-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's across from Orchid Run? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. That one's in the process. I am not at liberty to talk about future projects,but I think that what we have in the urban area,especially west of 1-75.there are very few parcels left of any significant size that you can achieve enough critical mass for an apartment complex. And I'm not going to tell you this is the last one, but I'm sure it's pretty close in the urban area for undeveloped parcels that you can get to,you know, basically,the 350 range for an apartment complex,and they're going to require,you know. Comp Plan amendments to make that happen. So that's why I said what I said, Mr. Strain. And with this location, specifically, in the news recently is--and Mr. Eastman can address this is--this is an ideal location because you do have Veterans Memorial Elementary School,you have a middle school,and you have a soon-to-be constructed high school. So it would be an ideal location to provide housing for people working at all three of those school facilities. So with that, I'll --unless there's further questions of me, I'll turn it over to Catherine, if--unless there's further questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just wanted to understand the clarification before we went past that point. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I know some of are you talking to one other. I can hear some of the whispering up here. I've got to ask you to refrain from that. Our court reporter listens only with her ears to type, and it gets mixed up sometimes to hear yours on top of the speakers. So please try to think of that when you're trying to whisper to one another. Thank you. Go ahead. ma'am. MS. CORDOZA: Hello. I do need to be sworn in. Page 34 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't here for swearing in? MS.CORDOZA: I did not stand for it. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'll need to state your name for the record. MS. CORDOZA: Catherine Cordoza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And could you just spell that just to be sure we've got the spelling right. MS.CORDOZA: C-a-t-h-e-r-i-n-e, last name C-a-r-d-o-z-a. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. MS. CORDOZA: Hi. I am just standing up here to say I have been managing--privileged with managing apartment communities for almost 14 years in both Lee and Collier Counties, latest project being Inspira in Lely Resort,as mentioned. I also would like to mention that I'm a current resident of Barrington Cove and have been for over a year now. I will be also--if everything goes through, be managing the Allura project. I have two children. One goes to Veterans Memorial Elementary and one to North Naples Middle School right along near the project. So I have a very much--a vested interest in,you know, making sure that the community succeeds and that the resident base is a good one. Today's renter has changed drastically from what I think most people in this room and that have continued to own their homes think that the resident demographic is. In addition to the items that were mentioned as far as the screening process and what is required for an apartment community renter,to get approved at our communities we do a very thorough background check, credit check;all pets are screened,service animals,anything of that nature. The rules and regulations and lease agreements that are put into place and enforced by myself,my team,are pretty stringent. In fact,even more so than what a homeowner in Mediterra,Barrington Cove would be subject to. I don't believe that the apartment community is going to bring down home values. In fact, I believe there was some murmurings of that in Lely Resort and our previous project. Spectra,that people,you know,think that apartment renters are,you know,bad people or criminals or this,that, or the other. That's just not today. That's not who's renting apartments anymore. The people are renting by choice,they're great people,and I think that it's going to be a great addition to all the jobs coming to the area for working professionals,as mentioned,with,you know,not only the educational sector of it. teachers,the families. You have the Fire Department right there. And I think that that's going to be a good chunk of our demographic; working professionals just like anyone else that's in the community surrounding that are concerned. And I understand their concern, but the demographic of renters in today's market has changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before-- I guess this is the last member of your team,so before you sit down, let's see if we have any questions of you before we go back to Bob or Richard. Any questions of this lady? Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you educate me a little more about Inspira. What--how many buildings are there,what is the building height,and how many units are there? MS. CORDOZA: There's 304 units. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 304? MS.CORDOZA: 304,yeah. Very similar to the layout that was presented for Allura. They are all four-story buildings, four-story elevator buildings. There's five of them total. Thirteen six-bay garage,free-standing garage banks on site there, and very similar to the amenity package that was represented in the photos. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How close to Inspira is the next four-story building from some other development? Page 35 of 79 January 17,2019 MS. CORDOZA: I believe FSW is the closest four-story. I'm not-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Can you estimate approximately how far away it is. MS.CORDOZA: Maybe a mile or so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In that range? MS.CORDOZA: A mile. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--of her? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the density per acre of Inspira? MS.CORDOZA: That I'm not 100 percent sure on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's part of the Lely PUD,yeah. So it's-- MS. CORDOZA: Fifteen, so quite a bit more-- COMMISSIONER FRY: Fifteen? MS. CORDOZA: --at Inspira versus what Allura will be. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It would be about 20. COMMISSIONER FRY: Twenty. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just under 15 acres for 304 units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So higher density than this? MS. CORDOZA: Yes, at Inspira. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the range of rents at Inspira,and what is projected for Allura? MS.CORDOZA: As of right now,at Inspira we have rents ranged from high --mid to high 1,400s and up to the--just under 2,000 for a three-bedroom. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you have target ranges for the rents for Allura? MS. COOK: We don't have that available at this time. MR. YOVANOVICH: About the same. COMMISSIONER FRY: About the same. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of her? I have one. What's your--based on your information on, I guess, Inspira then. what's your persons per household? MS. CORDOZA: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your persons per household? How many--what's your average persons per household in Inspira? MS.CORDOZA: Two;two or less,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two or less? MS. CORDOZA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you also have an age range? MS.CORDOZA: The demographic age range right now is, I want to say, late 30s up to mid 60s. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's all. Thank you. MS.CORDOZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess,Bob,you're going to take it from here? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm going to until Rich comes up and pushes me away from the podium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Bob? We'll go with Ned first. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The Allura site is surrounded on three sides by single-family dwellings, so that certainly prompts a concern over compatibility. And the site as planned,the project as planned,also raises a concern,for me at least,with respect to traffic. And my third Page 36 of 79 January 17,2019 major concern is the minimum length of lease that's being offered. So those three items comprise my concerns at the present time. My question--first question for you,Bob, is how proximate to the site is the next nearest four-story building? MR. MULHERE: There's--there are no four-story buildings in close proximity to this. I would say it's got residential--single-family residential on,really, in my opinion,two sides. To the south there's a 15-acre preserve, right here, right,and then you've got,you know,Livingston Road and on the north side of Veterans,yes,Mediterra. So really,to me, it's more like two sides, but that's just--maybe we look at that differently. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The size still seems to be excessive to me,and I would also like to see fewer stories on all the buildings. The TCMA discretionary bonus of three dwelling units per acre is that; it's a discretionary bonus. If you were to be granted that,you would come in at around 249 dwelling units per acre (sic), I believe. To me that seems to be more right-sized and also would facilitate less tall buildings. So that's just a comment that I would make at this point. Also,the traffic study was based upon the 2017 AUIR,which I understand. That was when all the work was done,but some fairly significant things have happened and show up in the 2018 AUIR Attachment F. And it--among other things,the deficiency of Segment 42-1,which is Immokalee, I believe, is projected to happen in 2022,sooner than it was under 2017 where it was projected to become deficient in 2023. And also the remaining capacity has increased significantly. I think it was 90-point something capacity in 2017. I believe it's 93 and some change percent capacity. So just in the last year the traffic situation that is close to this proposed project has gotten, I think, significantly worse,and it prompts me to want to ask for more concessions on the part of the developer to help mitigate the effects that have gotten surprisingly worse in just a short period of a year in the form of density and the effect that would have on traffic,and then compatibility. I think,would be enhanced if there were a minimum one-year lease provision so that people seem to, I think, at that duration or greater. have a greater concern for the property and for the upkeep of it and they take better care of property than shorter-term renters. So I just wanted to throw those considerations out. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming--a couple of things. We have our transportation consultant.Ted Treesh,here who can address your traffic concerns as well as I know Trinity Scott's here from the county. I know over the last several weeks I've had several discussions with Trinity and other members of your staff regarding the traffic analysis and what do or do we not trip as far as traffic impacts. And I do know that your staff is recommending approval. I think their one condition is that we interconnect with the commercial property,we stub out for whenever it's developed. But Ted can get into the greater detail about consistency with the traffic analysis and how this is all done. A couple things. One,Veterans Memorial, I'm assuming the high school's a go. Tom Eastman could tell you if it's not, it's pretty close to a go. When that happens--and I already know in the five-year plan-- is the expansion of Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the west-- I think I got my direction correct--all the way to 41;that's in the five-year plan to get built. I believe,just as a lawyer who's done a few of these things,but I'm sure Ted and Trinity will tell you,that that's going to provide some relief to Immokalee Road because right now,as people have pointed out,there's only--if you're on Livingston Road,there's only two ways to get off. You either get off at Immokalee Road or you got off at Bonita Beach Boulevard if you're trying to get to,basically, 1-75 in that general area or to head--or you can go further south, obviously. But I think that's going to be a reliever. And Ted and Trinity can address that in Page 37 of 79 _.. , January 17,2019 greater detail. But that's already a factor that's going to happen and relieve some of the transportation issues that you're specifically raising regarding that segment of Immokalee Road. Second, I did speak to my client about whether or not we still needed the seven-month lease. It would be nice to have for people who come to the area and would like to,you know,rent on a shorter period while they're figuring out where they ultimately want to live, but that's not critical to us. I mean, if it's important to the community and important to the Planning Commission that we go to a minimum 12-month lease to show that we really are going to have great-quality tenants,you know, we can go to a 12-month lease. The density is really--has been analyzed. We looked at 420,and when we laid out the site,420 was not really achievable,so 350 is the number that is a realistic achievable project that will support the level of amenities that we're proposing for this project and other projects. I think I've said this to you, Mr. Fryer-- I know I've said it to others--but in today's market,all of my clients are looking, okay, if I get approved today, I'm really leasing in about two years, so it's a race to who's going to have the best amenities,who's going to have the best apartments, because they know that they're competing with each other,and we're fortunate in Collier County that we can support that level of competition in the rental space. So it's--we've shown you --you've seen Inspira. This is going to be,you know,the best of the best out there, and we need to make sure that we can financially make that work. And we're not negatively impacting traffic based upon the traffic--we're putting traffic on the road. I'm not saying we're not, because I always hear that whenever I'm doing a NIM or whatever. Of course we're putting traffic on the road,but we're putting it in within the rules that apply in Collier County. So from a compatibility standpoint, I think we checked that box. We meet the criteria. The way we've reduced the height on the two buildings that are new properties, I think we checked the box. It's consistent with what was approved in De La Rosa. It's actually a little lower than what was approved in De La Rosa. And that was determined to be consistent with the community when that project was approved many years ago. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let me say that I do appreciate your efforts-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. We've been trying. COMMISSIONER FRYER: --with respect to the one-year lease and your willingness to reduce your initial request from 420 to 350. But to me, both from a compatibility and traffic standpoint, I think it needs to be reduced further. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could tell you I don't believe 251 -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please. We're not here to do that. And I need to ask you to remain quiet. We need to move on with the hearing, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just for the record,the issues are for discussion. We certainly are not going to put into any kind of considered GMP amendment lease terms and stuff like that. So I think you ought to take it into consideration so that when we actually-- if it gets to the PUD stage,that's when it would all come up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I know the public doesn't do this every day,but generally whenever we do a Comp Plan amendment, it's very generic or general,and people are really concerned about what's really going to happen on the property. Fortunately,the state legislature several years ago now lets us do the PUD at the same time. We used to not be able to do that. So now we can do the PUD rezone at the same time,and that's why we're focusing so much on the PUD, so people truly understand what will happen if we're fortunate enough to get transmittal and we come back for the adoption hearing and the PUD hearing at the same time. That's why you're seeing the level of detail. Page 38 of 79 January 17,2019 And, Mr. Fryer, we absolutely will be addressing those,obviously, in the PUD but not in the GMP level. Usually you have density and other things. You don't get into the finer points, but those will all find their way into the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,just to clarify. And I want to make sure we all understand, we're here for the GMP amendment,not the PUD. We're not voting on the PUD. And even if you asked for--the current density you're asking for now is 350 units. Certainly, it can be adjusted, modified,or whatever once you come in with a PUD. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. We understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to make sure the public understands that this is not--this is a GMP amendment, Growth Management Plan amendment,not the specific zoning. MR. YOVANOVICH: And,ultimately,this is just transmittal. I mean,there's--even if we get transmitted. it doesn't mean it gets adopted the same way at the adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Just-- I wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's team? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. When I saw those news reports on this project with all the people,one of them had an exhibit,and I just hit"Allura Naples"Google images,and it shows these buildings dwarfing the houses in the foreground. One of them is a WINK News, and another is a "Residents Against Allura" Go Fund Me page. They're well done, but I assume you didn't do them, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not part of one of your exhibits? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know what you're talking about. We've shown you all of our exhibits that are our exhibits. I don't know-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This isn't one of them. Okay. They're well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just not anybody's exhibits,but anyway. Go ahead. MR.YOVANOVICH: I can't attest to the accuracy of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember one time we actually had someone bring in a Letter to the Editor as evidence for the hearing. It's generally not acceptable, but anyway... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I remember one time we had somebody bring in a model but was not an architect,was not a certified engineer,was not a model maker, but brought in a model in an attempt to use that as an exhibit,which certainly could not be accepted because there was no professional competency behind it. So,again, I don't know who did these,but it would he nice to know-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Does somebody have a copy of them? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, this right here that was handed out. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can I look at those during the break? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'd just like to know from the standpoint of the professional competency of this,and could they attest as a signed or sealed engineer or whatever that did these,or an architect,or the scale,those kind of things. It is really fascinating. It's just I want to know who did it--and thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, is there anybody else that has any questions of the applicant's team? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do. And you have your traffic person here? MR. YOVANOVICH: Traffic,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 39 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. TREESH: Good morning, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation Consultants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR.TREESH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a peak hour of 176,and you used ITE manual 221 to get there. MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got 350 units and you've got 2.46 persons per households,that's 861 persons. Now,this is supposed to be a working essential--or not essential, but working professional type operation, so I'm assuming all these people are going to go to work. And if they do,generally work hours are two hours in the morning for peak hour and two hours in the afternoon. So your peak hour is 176, which is only 25 percent of the 861 persons anticipated to move there by your calculations. So how do you get only 25 percent are hitting the road at peak hour? Because the traffic is one of the driving forces behind this. MR. TREESH: I wish I could say this is my calculations, but these are the Institute of Transportation Engineers'calculations which we're required to use per the county requirements in terms of trip generation for this use. ITE,which is Institute of Transportation Engineers,just came out with their 10th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report. And with that 10th edition,they split the multifamily uses into different land-use codes based on the height of the building because that was determined through the surveys that were conducted, and submitted to ITE to have an impact on the trip generation. So,again,we're not making these numbers up. These are numbers that were nationally accepted, locally accepted and the estimates that we're required to use at this time. And I would like to point out that a multifamily use generates--an apartment use generates significantly less traffic than a single-family use. I mean, it's a pretty common-sense assumption, but if you think about it,the number of vehicles per unit, the number of persons per unit are significantly less in a rental community than it is in a single-family detached home and on the realm of almost half in terms of the daily trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you use land-use 221, multifamily housing.mid-rise for your calculation? MR.TREESH: That's correct,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fourth paragraph of land-use 221 from the manual says, "For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available,there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling units." So,okay, if you've got two-and-a-half people,which is average, let's say you've got two working people. 1 mean, at the price range you're in,you probably would need two working people. That's still going to get you to 700 persons,which 25 percent of that is 176. What happens to the other 75 percent of the people who leave at the peak hour to go to work each day and come back in that apartment complex when you're only saying a quarter of them are on the road? I just don't know how you get there. And if you're the traffic expert and you can't answer it,then maybe our staff can when I bring them up. MR. TREESH: Perhaps. But,again,you're asking me to delve into data that was collected and assimilated by ITE,and they don't survey every single resident of a community. They survey the driveways going into and out,and these are the traffic characteristics that this type of use exhibits. Where those specific people go at what time of the day, I mean,there's many answers. I mean, people can work different shifts where they don't leave during the peak hours. There's all kinds of answers to that question that would --but as with any land use in ITE,the data that is in there is based on actual surveys of these land uses,and that's the data that is in there and what we Page 40 of 79 January 17,2019 use. So the specific answers as to how those trips are distributed throughout the day and into the peak hour can vary,and the answers could be very wide ranging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you realize that the traffic might be an issue for this project in its determination for today's hearing? MR.TREESH: What project-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Altura.,the one we're talking about. MR. TREESH: What project is traffic not an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you expected traffic questions today. Obviously, that's why you're here. MR.TREESH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have wanted to know how you got to that number based on the population of that project and why it differs? I mean,you're looking at only a quarter of the people,and I'm just wondering what analysis you might have done to do that. And a second analysis I was wondering if you did,obviously,when we have apartments for working people, professionals,whatever you want to call them, living in the urban area closer to where they work,that's going to take traffic off other sections of our roads-- MR.TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --which desperately needs that done. But did you do a survey to determine where your market is for these people and the distances that we--they're going to be driving,road segments affected by them.and things like that? Would anybody do an analysis of that magnitude to get there today? MR.TREESH: I did not as part of this application,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it fair to say that the 10th edition of the ITE tells us nothing whatsoever about Segment 42.1 of Immokalee Road and the real conditions that are on that segment,correct? MR.TREESH: ITE is the simply the resource we use to-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know what it is. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR.TREESH: --estimate traffic generation. No,there's not data in ITE about-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It tells us nothing about that segment. Thank you. MR.TREESH: Correct. That's what the purpose of the Traffic Impact Statement is,to assimilate all the data together,and then analyze the roadway links pursuant to the county requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the county requirements, basically,accept the 221 and accept the 176 as a multiplier that you used to come to that conclusion that that's how many people will be on the road from that apartment complex-- MR.TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --during the peak time of day? MR.TREESH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then I'll have to ask staff how they come to that conclusion,because I'm kind of puzzled by it,one of the numbers,really. I didn't really understand what was going on as far as quantities go until I read the 221 TIS piece that was included in our report. And when I saw that persons per household.I got to think,well,how can that many people,all of them --just a quarter of them leave? I just don't know how you got there, and I didn't pick that up,and that's the piece I'll need explained. So thank you. MR.TREESH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does anybody else have anything? Page 41 of 79 January 17,2019 I have-- Bob,you know what spot zoning is? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tell me why this isn't. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think spot zoning is a term that's thrown out there an awful lot. It's my professional opinion-- I believe it's backed up by professional analysis-- is that spot zoning is taking a land use that isn't compatible with other land uses and not really mitigating for it. So, for example, residential is compatible with residential. Multifamily adjacent to single-family is compatible,although there may need to be some mitigation. We allow-- in our standard districts in Collier County,we allow multifamily use in the same proximity as this PUD does to single-family. Well, how is it mitigated? The height might be limited,the landscape buffers might be greater, the setbacks might be greater. And within our straight zoning districts for RMF6, 12, 16, there are limitations. But I can think of many examples in Collier County where you have five-,six-,eight-, 10-, 12-story buildings and higher in fairly close proximity to single-family residential development. Those two uses are not incompatible;therefore, it cannot be spot zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll ask staff the same question when we get to them. You're asking for--and then you -- in the conversation I've had,you know my concern has been the additional density as a result of the request to change the GMP. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're asking what was consistent with the GMP,that's a different argument than if you want more. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the public benefit from providing an increase in the density for this project? MR. MULHERE: The public benefit is it's going to meet the market demand for rental housing, which is significant. It is also--which does-- somebody mentioned it up here--we'll reduce the-- I think you mentioned it. We'll reduce the way that people travel to and from work. With this option here, there's lot of employment within close proximity to this, and so that changes the way people travel to and from work. If I have to live in Lee County because I don't have an option to rent something here that I want,then I take a different way to get to my workplace,for example,at these schools or anywhere else in Collier County. So we know there's a demand, so there is a public benefit to this. You know,we have to meet the demand; otherwise,we're pushing that issue into other locations. So it changes the driving patterns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what entices us to provide a density bonus with nothing in return for the taxpayers? I mean,you're not doing any improvements on the road system because you're eliminating yourself from that TM--whatever it is.TMCA improvement process. So what is it you're going to do to really suggest that this is the right thing to do for the additional density? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean,a couple of things. Number one,the whole premise of having a Transportation Concurrency Management Area identified was because the county, by policy, has decided that they want to encourage greater density. I understand that's seven units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that gets you to seven units, not 10. MR. MULHERE: I understand that; I got that. And then, I think,as Rich said, in this scenario, it's necessary for an apartment to generally have,you know, 10 to 12 to 14 units per acre. We're at 9.74. So we've really reduced that below what our original request was. So that's--and what public benefit? I mean, we're providing adequate, safe, and reasonable housing for a significant segment of the market, both existing and future in Collier County. Page 42 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember yesterday when we talked I suggested if you could tell me why this is unique and it stands out, it would be helpful to understand it. I haven't heard anything yet that's gotten to that point, and I mentioned it yesterday purposely so you could think about it. What have you--but it doesn't sound like you've got any--anything that would address-- my concern is--and I'll be absolutely straight as I was yesterday. When we tend to approve something for the first time, it becomes almost a standard thereafter. We have a limited number of people that do land use in Collier County and,as a result,that limited number have memory. So other clients then come in and say,well,we all know we've done this before. Let's do it again. I'm wondering why this is unique enough that that's not going to happen,or if it's the trend that's going to happen,what's the benefit to the taxpayers out of it if it were to happen? That's kind of where I'm coming from. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let Bob go because he may say,but I have some-- MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess,the things that come to mind are, number one, I don't know about any other potential applicant that might come in in their location, but what's unique about this location, I think--and we've already tried to make that statement, put it on the record. Number one,you know, it's at the intersection of what will be two arterial roadways. I don't know if every other one that comes in is going to be in the same position as that. Number two, it's proximate to--it's within the urban area and proximate to work opportunities for an awful lot of people. Number three,we don't trigger--we don't trigger--by the county's rules,we don't trigger any transportation deficiencies. So by the county's rules,we're able to go forward. I don't know if every other project that comes in and asks for 9.74 or above units per acre will be in the same situation. If they are, I think they should have the same opportunity to come in and provide site-specific mitigation to address neighbors'concerns. Whether we succeed in that,you know, is certainly--I can't speak for the neighbors, but we are attempting to do that. So the use is compatible,the location's appropriate,we don't trigger any transportation issues,there's demand for the use,and we've tried to mitigate the impacts of this development, both visually and otherwise,on the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your site specific mitigation are just your development standards? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any mitigation outside the project beneficial as a whole to-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,every project pays impact fees. So the--an additional benefit from this project is--and I believe David Weeks and I agree with this, is that we're not required to provide any TDM standards to get to the seven units per acre under the current Comprehensive Plan. To go above the seven,we're providing TDM standards for the additional 2.74 units per acre. So that's some additional benefit that we're doing. We are providing a--we are meeting a need that your Comprehensive Plan, frankly,doesn't address in its current form other than through an affordable housing density bonus program. And I'm fairly certain if I came in and asked for an adorable housing density bonus program on this piece of property,there would probably be three or four times the amount of people that are in this room right now than are here right now. So there's a--there's a gap, if you will,in our current Comprehensive Plan that doesn't address this market, and we are trying to address that market through a Comprehensive Plan amendment with a concurrent PUD to address compatibility and all those other things that are necessary. We're going to provide the additional TDMS that,otherwise, we would not be required Page 43 of 79 January 17,2019 to do unless things change. We might have to do it sometime in the future if traffics changes but, currently, right now we don't need to. So I would say we're not asking to do something for nothing, but we are also meeting a need. And,frankly,when you go back to the blue/red exhibit for what's De La Rosa and what's approved today for De La Rosa,that De La Rosa PUD,which Stock Development owns right now--so if this is turned down, we'll go in and we'll have to develop De La Rosa based upon the existing development standard,which is 50 feet zoned,69 feet actual,up to 26 feet--well, it's 20 in the thing,but the most recent site plan is 26,not 20. We'll have to do that. So what we've done is we've looked very thoughtfully at relocating those buildings further away from De La Rosa to create a 125-foot setback for these people with enhanced landscaping and some other visual barriers which are the garages. And you're going to get.you know,a world-class apartment complex on this site. So we're not doing something for nothing. We're meeting a need, we're providing additional transportation strategies,and we're addressing a shortfall in the current Growth Management Plan that has to be addressed. I mean,either change the code,which I know is not going to happen. We've been talking about this for a long time. So we're doing site-specific Growth Management Plans to address this. And each one is unique. Mr. Klatzkow will tell you,every zoning petition and every Growth Management Plan petition is unique,and we can never use it as a basis for another one, and I don't think I've ever done it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever said, hey,you gave me this here,you've got to give it to me here. MR. KLATZKOW: You say that all the time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only do it on-- I only do it on the road,only on the road right-of-way. But I'm not asking you to give me something that we got somewhere else. I'm saying,this is unique,and we think that we're meeting a need, and we've been responsive and responsible to the neighbors and have continued to meet with them and will continue to meet with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to--you're getting about 100 additional units than what you could request with the GMP as it is today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that 100 additional units,you're providing the following elements based on the TCMA: Transit shelter within the RPUD in a location design approved by Collier County. So you're going to put a transit shelter in. MR. KLATZKOW: Which no one will use based on the rentals that they're asking for, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the point is-- let me summarize. There's three of them: Bicycle pedestrian facilities with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you open up a pathway,okay; and then vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west,so the pathway becomes wide enough for a car. So that's it. That's what--that's the public benefit out of an extra 100 units for your project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're providing housing that the public needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Otherwise,we would not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me talk about that. (Multiples speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep saying we need housing. You're not-- I mean, if you were to ask what kind of housing we need of a lot of people--not saying that this is better or worse Page 44 of 79 January 17,2019 for this location-- it's affordable. Now,we've got a lot of new projects coming online,4,000 units. just about. The other project you alluded to today is like Briarwood. It's going to be high-end. It's going to be very expensive like this. It's going to be like Orchid Run. We seem to have a lot of that coming on,and that's fine,and I have no qualms about that. But I'm not sure the need is that high-end market-rate housing as much as it is other types of housing. So I'm not sure the need for this is necessarily proven. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well. I think we've provided a market analysis that shows you there is a shortfall of this type of housing in Collier County. So I think we have established,and your staff agrees that we have established,there's a need for this type of housing in Collier County. I'm not saying there aren't other needs, but there is a need for this type of housing in Collier County for a blend of people who are going to come here and they choose that type of housing,and for working people. There's a blend that is going to live in this community,and there's no question there's a need. And how do I know that is there's no way that Brian Stock is going to put that much money at risk if he doesn't think there's a need and people who desire that type of housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any more questions. I don't think,of staff--of the applicant. That's most of them right now. Let me double-check one other one. Oh, I'll have to do some research. I have another question,but I'll wait till after lunch. I need to look at some documents based on what you've said. So I'm finished with the applicant at this time. Does anybody else have anything they want of the applicant? Any other questions? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: One quick question. In the apartment studies that were provided, I noticed there was no mention of a rather sizable apartment complex on Vanderbilt Beach called TGM Bermuda Island, and I just wondered why that was not in the reports. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure. Michael Timmerman did our Collier County regional market analysis. I really can't answer that question. He's not here today. I don't know why they didn't include that. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I ask that,because part of the justification for this is the need for apartment housing. And so I would think that all the inventory of apartment housing would be included in that. There's--TGM Malibu Lakes in the report. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the sister property. MR. MULHERE: We can try to get an answer to that via email,you know,during the lunch break. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think the first slide you put up, Bob,showed an overlay of the De La Rosa PUD. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're--just to be clear, and I think for myself and everybody up here and everybody that's in the audience, if this is not approved,the De La Rosa PUD that's shown in blue is already approved and can be built as-is? The PUD is approved and ready to go? MR. MULHERE: The PUD's approved. There was an SDP. I'm sure that the SDP would be revised but.yes, it can be built and will be built, because Stock owns that property. So, obviously,they're going to come in and build if they don't do this,which we believe is a far better site plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: So part of your case is that you're actually providing larger setbacks, lower-- MR. MULHERE: Significantly. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- building heights than what would be got(sic)on part of that Page 45 of 79 January 17,2019 property--part of the full PUD? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and I think that affects primarily Barrington Cove,you know, because those are closer to Barrington Cove. It doesn't necessarily affect,you know,the neighbors to the north or any other directions. COMMISSIONER FRY: 1 think I echo Commissioner Strain --Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fryer's concerns-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll respond to any name at all. COMMISSIONER FRY: --concerns--me,too. But I think the leap that I'm struggling with,and perhaps I know why we have a roomful of people here, is how we get from seven, which seems to be the magic number that would be permitted under the GMP. up to this 10 and what the-- MR.MULHERE: We like to say 9.74. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you--just what,you know,the overall benefit is. And I looked at the mitigation strategies,the bus stop,and I think there's no bus route to that location. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. We have a central bus stop right here in the county. I've yet to see anybody get off that bus and walk to the county. It's right here. The people who are using the bus would be the people who would want the affordable housing primarily,all right. It's not for this type of market. That's just my experience. I've yet-- I don't know a single county employee who uses the CAT system. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I guess that doesn't show a demonstrable benefit,and the stub outs to an existing commercial property that doesn't exist yet-- I assume that once that was built there would be some-- MR. MULHERE: Benefit. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- benefit that less traffic would have to go out on the main roads to get to that commercial development. MR. MULHERE: That's the idea. And, look,you know, I can't predict what-- I mean, I don't agree-- I don't necessarily disagree with what the County Attorney'said. I mean, I don't --maybe Michelle Arnold could speak better to the demographics. I think there is a specific ridership on CAT. Who exactly they are, I don't necessarily disagree. But there is an idea to promote--there's only so many ways that we're going to reduce the level of traffic on our roadways. We can continue to widen roadways to eight or 10 lanes,and nobody wants that,or we can find ways to encourage people to use transit. That's one way. That's why we encourage transit. Now, if we're not doing it effectively, that is a different question. That is the question of how do we do it more effectively to encourage people to ride. MR. KLATZKOW: Or you keep the density. MR. MULHERE: People are not going to use transit if there isn't a transit stop there. MR. KLATZKOW: It's fascinating,because we've got a 30-year plan with our roads and everything else based on a certain density,yet we keep increasing density and wondering why the roads can't handle them. It's a fascinating conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're a fascinating county. Anybody--go ahead. Corby,you wanted to add something? MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. Mr. Chairman,before we break for lunch, I'd like to address one item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's good timing. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Yovanovich made some statements regarding how he achieves density on this property or hopes to,and I'd like to clarify something. When he talks about moving from four units per acre to seven and then beyond, I'd like to clarify something. And it's the urban designation in the FLUE which allows,as a base density. Page 46 of 79 January 17,2019 four units per acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the three is discretionary,is it not? MR. SCHMIDT: The three units per acre is discretionary as offered by the Transportation Concurrency Management Area and when providing those transportation demand-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Corby,you said the base-- four is allowed,and that's-- MR. SCHMIDT: Four is allowed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --not my understanding,that the base density of four is eligibility. So I just want to clarify'that. MR. SCHMIDT: That's right. Your base is also an entitlement, and it's discretionary as well. It can be adjusted. And then to go from your four number to seven has to do with your transportation demand management strategies. And by offering those items up that he has in his subdistrict language would allow them to go from four to seven using their round numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see,those items that he's offering up would apply if a project of any size was here, right? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. And then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean,this is a bigger project than what we were originally talking about. So I'm just saying that there should be something larger contributed to the cause to get it accomplished if that was the case. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not here to argue that at this moment. I'm just trying to make some thresholds understood clearly for the members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And then to move beyond those seven units per acre from 9.75 or 9.8, or whatever the calculation may be,then something else or simply as an ask offering up nothing more to move beyond that seven per acre up to what the density requested is is what's being asked of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks,manager in the Comprehensive Planning section. I just want to, I guess, put a fine point on something that Corby has stated. The requirement under the TCMA for the density bonus in the FLUE does not specifically require transportation demand management strategies unless the applicant wishes to be exempt from link-specific concurrency, which they are not. They're not asking for that so,therefore,they are not required to provide TDMS; however,there is a policy in the Future Land Use Element, Policy 6.1,specific to the TCMAs that does say--and here's the fine point,that does say that part of the requirement is that there's the--do take actions to promote public transit, bicycling,walking. and other alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. So it may in fact be TDM strategies that meet that policy requirement, but just--the fine point is just that it is not specifically a requirement that thou must do specific TDM strategies that are identified in a different FLUE policy that says you must do at least two of the following four. So there potentially could be some other strategy that the applicant could employ that would meet the requirement of this Policy 6.1. Again, it's a fine point,but I just wanted to get that clear on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Weeks,do you have any evidence or--well, do you have the belief that those particular TDM strategies,that any of them would be significant or meaningful? Impactful? MR. WEEKS: I think it's difficult to say until we see--most particularly because two of them that they're proposing are the interconnections with the commercial development next door, Page 47 of 79 January 17,2019 and until we--unless and until we see exactly what that commercial development is going to be, I think that makes a big difference on how much that TDM strategy works. Right now the corner parcel is zoned Cl,which is limited to office and personal service type uses,which I would suggest would not be something that would be significantly of use by persons in this development. But if that zoning were to change in the future to allow retail uses, then I think there would be more use of that property and,therefore,those interconnections would have a greater benefit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But a bus stop that's not on a bus route is not typically useful, is it? MR. WEEKS: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in following that line of reasoning,the three TDM strategies that they're suggesting really aren't very useful. It's in the--based on the GMP language that you guys are putting forth. MR. WEEKS: It's of limited benefit,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of where I was concerned about as far as public benefit. Okay. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Let me make one more comment;just echoing what was stated earlier,and that is why they're here. They're here for a Comprehensive Plan amendment because they cannot achieve the density without the plan amendment. There's data and analysis required by Florida Statutes, and so they have to demonstrate that there is a need for what they're asking for and that this is the appropriate location to meet that need. Staff has determined that they have met the need; they demonstrated the need;that there's a need for more apartments. The whole range--you know,you go back to the study that the County Commission had commissioned and that was done in 2017, I believe,or early in 2018, that did identify the need for more apartments in Collier County.of the entire level,the entire spectrum, not just affordable but certainly includes affordable, but the whole spectrum. Anyway,they have demonstrated the need for apartments. To me,the focus of the discussion, appropriately,would be is this the appropriate location to fulfill that need,and that gets into the compatibility discussion and the infrastructure impact discussion. And the compatibility portion we're limited somewhat because we don't have the details here,and that's,of course, I think is why Bob showed you so much information from the proposed PUD,because that's where you'll get a lot of that detail of how to make a project or at least try to make a project compatible with its neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, I'd like to call a break. We will take a one-hour lunch. We'll come back at 1 o'clock and resume with the staff responses,questions,and then public testimony. (A luncheon recess was had.) (Mr. Klatzkow is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Welcome back from the lunch time. For those of us that are here,we're going to resume the meeting. And we left off with the applicant finishing up their presentation and questions from the Planning Commission,and we started on some staff reporting, and we'll move to staff right now, and Corby will --well, I guess,you're the beginning player for those. Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, good afternoon. Just to review-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Corby,state your name for the record. MR. SCHMIDT: Schmidt,Corby Schmidt, principal planner with the Comprehensive Planning section for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you relation to Joe Schmitt? Page 48 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,he spells it different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just want to get off on tangents while we're at it. MR. SCHMIDT: Just extremely different. It's so distant it's spelled differently. The request before you today is for the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Livingston Veterans Memorial Parkway subdistrict. I may have the title-- it's long. The Allura companion rezone is not being considered today,but you did hear some details from that future proposal as part of the presentation from the applicant's agents. I've put on the visualizer for you the most recent changes with those highlighted. You also have them in handout form. In the past week you've received an email,at least one. With previous changes here,those last two,you'll see them in yellow highlighting. Changed reference to the FLUE policy that allows the offer to use those not-required TDM strategies,as the applicant has stated they would be doing,to move them from four units per acre to seven. If the requirement would have been to be exempt from link concurrency.that reference would have been 6.5. Here the reference has been changed to 6.1. And the statement at the bottom is a catch-all that we use in a number of other subdistricts. So if development strategies change within the subdistrict, it allows for the use of the property in the manner of the underlying subdistrict or district itself. Those are the only changes to the language since you received it previously. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Corby.you want to slide the--you've only got half of Line B,and I know there's a change there as well. So just so the public knows where the change is. Isn't that--no,the--above it. You didn't highlight in yellow, but it's from 420 to 350. MR. SCHMIDT: Oh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was on the previous. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe the public is aware of previous changes,the density change, the count change and other less significant numbers and so forth in anticipation of the--from the floor change associated with the companion item that we anticipated happening here today. Before lunch I went over the policies in the Future Land Use Element that provide for the four units per acre as part of the base density on this property,the allowance for the three additional units per acre,and then the ask by the applicants in this case for the additional acreage or the additional density for the nine-point sum total. The density rating system doesn't cover that. There are no provisions in the FLUE for that additional density that's happening, because it's an ask. It's just outside of any of the other bonuses that we have provisions for. And you are being asked for the first time to do something like that outside of the Transportation Concurrency Management Area provisions,outside of the density rating system and other provisions for the residential designations in the FLUE. There have been no further changes since the original staff report,and the findings haven't changed since December. So unless you have any questions of staff,that's all I've got for my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well.1 do. Corby,you heard my question previously about spot zoning, and the applicant's planner attempted to provide their explanation what they thought spot zoning is. What do you think it is? I mean,does this-- let's put it this way: Does this qualify as spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: Spot zoning is something that would be so far out of context that it would be noticeable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they didn't ask for a GMP amendment, would this be considered spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: I think so. Page 49 of 79 maim January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the GMP amendment makes a difference? MR. SCHMIDT: The GM--for the GMP amendment,to put this in some sort of context-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. SCHMIDT: -- it makes a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they came in just with a PUD and wanted to put this project there,your department,or you,would look at it as considered spot zoning; is that-- MR. SCHMIDT: No. I think it's a contributing factor to making a decision. It isn't the only one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 was clear on it when you told me the answer yesterday. I'm not clear on it when you told me today in the public meeting. So David's standing behind you. Maybe he can clarif it for me. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section, Growth Management manager. First of all.we don't have a definition of spot zoning either in the LDC or in the Comprehensive Plan but, generally, it's a zoning that is very different than that which is around it, and usually it's thought of as being very small. That's my experience;those are the two determinates of what spot zoning is; however,the Land Development Code does have a minimum --which I think is relevant here to the question of spot zoning--does provide that for any property to be rezoned to a district to which it is not similar, for example, if a piece of property wants to be--applicant wants to rezone a piece of property to commercial and it is adjacent to commercial zoning, CI,2,3,4,5, it doesn't matter,any of those,then there would be no minimum size requirement. It could be a quarter of an acre. But if a property is not abutting a district to which it is similar,then it has to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet,which is just under an acre, and there's also a width requirement. It's either 150 feet or 200 feet. So from my perspective, reading that minimum requirement that suggests that spot zoning would be a property that is smaller than that 40,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then on that basis,this wouldn't be considered spot zoning? MR. WEEKS: I do not believe so at all. And,furthermore, I'll go back to an earlier question, if I may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WEEKS: --about this. We have the density rating system in the Future Land Use Element that allows properties to be rezoned and determines what density a project is eligible for, and for most portions of the urban area,that base density of eligible but not entitled is four units per acre. The maximum density would be 16 units per acre. And,of course,the property has to qualify for enough bonus density to get up to that 16. And so,from my perspective, if a property comes in and it qualifies for bonuses,assume it qualifies for the maximum of 16,just because the project qualifies for the maximum density and that that density might be much higher than the surrounding zoning would allow, in my opinion that is not necessarily spot zoning. And one example,the biggest bonus that we have is the affordable housing bonus,which recently changed to 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That question was raised in several of the emails or letters I received, and I wanted to get a firm answer on it. While you're there,did your department review--the PUD's been in the works in the county for some time. Everybody knew it was there. So did you guys--since compatibility is an issue for the GMP level, did you guys look at the PUD and make any review of it to determine if, basically,the way they wanted to build this Page 50 of 79 January 17,2019 project met the consistency requirements of the GMP for compatibility? MR. WEEKS: Yes and no. Yes,we have--Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the rezone petition. Broadly speaking,our approach is,yes, this may be found consistent if the companion plan amendment is adopted and goes into effect because the rezone,what it's requesting right now,that density is not consistent with the existing future land-use designation on the property. That rezone is contingent upon this plan amendment being adopted and going into effect. Specifically,the question of compatibility,Comprehensive Planning staff has for many years,and we continue to,defer to the zoning services staff to determine compatibility. They look at the project in all of its detail. They look at all of the different development standards: Setbacks,building heights,building mass, if there is any,building orientation. buffers, landscape buffers,separation from surrounding properties,development on surrounding properties. They take all of that into account in determining whether or not a project is compatible. Comprehensive Planning usually has a higher-level review, so we defer the compatibility review to the zoning services staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in this particular case, if this project were to go to adoption, it would--they've already said it's going to be brought forward with adoption. So then that's when staff would weigh in on the compatibility, I would assume,based on history. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,okay. The other thing, we used to have--well,maybe we still do. We've got different-- I know we've got different bonuses. The bonus provisions,the transportation one that we're dealing with today.TCMA. has public-benefit processes that go with those that are affected or those that fall under that umbrella. This one I know doesn't,based on what has been resubmitted at the 350. Other density bonuses in the code, let's say it's--other than affordable housing. I know what that one does. Are there any other public-benefit requirements of those others? Because I'm still caught in this problem of trying to figure out what are we getting for the three additional units we're giving away,and that's got me a little bit perplexed, because even if they use the TDM strategies to get to seven,those strategies as we've discussed really aren't,realistically, going to do anything,at least it seems like they may not because it's just a matter of when and how. So I'm more worried about the size of this project and what kind of public benefit could be expected, if any. MR. WEEKS: First let me say there's no requirement that a project provide public benefit. That simply is not one of the criteria that's established in state statutes or,to my knowledge, in the Land Development Code,although I know oftentimes it is brought up. For the other density bonuses,most of them are simply if you are located within a certain area,you qualify. For example, if a project was within a residential density band or at an activity center, it's eligible for three-units-per-acre bonus,period. The applicant doesn't have to do anything extra. It's just based on location. There's another bonus that is based upon having an access to two or more arterial or collector roads. So the applicant does have to provide access from the project onto the external roads but,other than that.they're not actually doing anything;they're not offering up anything,per se. And that's typical of the density bonuses. Generally speaking, it's location based. And that would be the case here in the TCMA; just because you're within the TCMA, if you take some action to address transportation concerns, and it doesn't specifically have to be those TDM strategies,the project is eligible for the three-unit-per-acre bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you,David. And I have a question,Heidi.that I'd like to ask you to possibly answer. I know that the Page 51 of 79 January 17,2019 State of Florida has some rules about illegal exactions;can't do them. But is there a give and take allowed in the process of this kind of operation where a developer's asking for unallocated density, density that's not part of any bonus provision? I don't want to push an envelope where there isn't one but.at the same time. I know we do things--when Dan Summers'department reviews something,he'll look at it and say,well, I need 20 cots for hurricane preparedness to go into a shelter,and that's--a developer then will have that as part of his commitment. Is there anything that could be utilized in a case like this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: At the Growth Management Plan level, I think you can request anything that you want or feel is reasonable that the developer would be willing to do. On the rezoning level,which is the PUD level,there has to be a nexus between what's requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the project? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And the impacts--yeah. But on the Growth Management Plan level, I think you can request anything reasonable the developer's willing to do in order to get the approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Tom needs a new high school right down the road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the developer can say no if it's not something he can do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to understand the limitations,because I know we do have some. And,Corby,that's the only questions I have at this time. I do need other staff members, but I want to make sure nobody else here--go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would--when the question of public benefit came up and there being no requirement or a standard to use in the nature of public benefit, I would think of Section 163.3177.and particularly GA8 of Florida Statutes which says-- here's just an excerpt. "Also the state planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires, i.e., if the community has articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired,such as within a community development area and existing incompatibilities. i.e.,presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions." I think that comes pretty close to public--making public benefit a relevant consideration. Just my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I sure have some questions of transportation staff. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. For the record,Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you were sworn in earlier? MS. SCOTT: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity,you heard some of the questions I asked. They're going to be the same process. I looked at multifamily 221,and in that dissertation about what it did,they talked about a persons per household,and you multiply that out either by the 420 or the 350 or by,the young lady earlier said,about two people per unit. So even if you use that number, if you use two people per unit instead of the 2.4 that 221 was based upon,you still have 700 bodies. Now, I know she said she's got herself and two kids,so in that household there's probably one car; unless she's got a husband,there might be two. But if you're a young professional trying to pay$2,000 a month,there might be two of you and there might be two cars. How is it logical that out of 700 people, let's say 90 percent of them, 75 of them have a car and they don't all ride together,that only 25 percent are going out at the peak hour and Page 52 of 79 January 17,2019 coming--going out and coming back at the peak hour? And that's-- both of those are important. And I couldn't get an answer I even understood from their traffic engineer, so I thought maybe you could attempt it. MR. SCOTT: Well, first of all, let me say that the ITE is based on --just to echo what Mr. Treesh advised earlier-- is based on surveys that are nationwide,and so it is based on data. What I will tell you is,particularly in the p.m. peak people tend to trip chain. So I leave work at 5 o'clock. I might go have a drink with a friend. I may meet my husband for dinner. I may stop at the grocery store and pick something up. I may go to the gym. So there's a lot of things that people do,particularly after work and even before work; lots of folks go to the gym in the morning before they go. so they're not necessarily leaving at that a.m. or p.m. peak time. They're picking up children from an after-school program. So those time frames tend to expand out to where you may have a smaller percentage that are actually leaving during those p.m. (sic)peak times or coming home during those p.m. peak times, but it has to do with trip chaining,distance of commute,things of that nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any documentation that shows that has been the outcome of a serious study and people living in these kind of facilities showing that they confer-- it's concurred like you just said? MS. SCOTT: That that's specifically the reasons,no,but it is conferred based on the IT trip generation manual because this is years and years and years of data collection that goes into an industry-wide standard that we all use. All the counties in the state of Florida utilize IT trip generation as our level of standard to measure against. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to see some improvements with the east/west link of Veterans Memorial. You had told me previously that's in the five-year plan. Is that right? MS. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when do you think the actual construction of that road will begin? MS. SCOTT: Based on our five-year plan--hold on. I have to pull it up and look across. It is in our Fiscal Year'22,which begins October 21st of'21. Now,what I'm going to state is is that the funding will be available as of October 1st of 2021. Typically, it takes us two years to build roadways;however, in this particular instance,you don't-- it's not a roadway where when we have maintenance of traffic that we need to deal with, so, typically, those time frames are shorter in that manner. Couple that with the fact that I have a high school that needs to open in August of'23, so I need to have the road done so Mr. Eastman can get those kids to school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you're pretty assured it's going to be done by 2023? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that link were to open,what would it-- have you done any studies to see what kind of impact it's going to have on Livingston Road? MS. SCOTT: No, we have not. In our overall traffic model, we haven't taken that road out to take a look at what the alternates would be, but it is,overall, in our cost feasible plan network that we model all of our traffic on. It will have some relief to portions of Livingston Road, it will have some relief to portions of Immokalee Road,as well as Bonita Beach Road for folks who are currently traversing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take any analysis into effect for the extension of Logan up through and connected to Bonita Beach Road? And I think it's the end of this year Lee County thinks they'll have that done. MS. SCOTT: It will. It's also included in our cost feasibility plan network that we model based on. Page 53 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how much traffic is there--is there expected to be traffic taken off Livingston Road because of that connection? MS. SCOTT: Yes,but we have not modeled it with and without. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you review the TIS for this project-- MS. SCOTT: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's in front of us today? MS. SCOTT: I did not personally,but my staff did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the staff member here who reviewed it? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can he or she come up so we can ask them a question? MS. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or I can at least. MS. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I knew it was a he,but I wasn't sure anymore nowadays, so I didn't want to offend anybody by saying the wrong he or she. Could "it"come up? Hi, Mike. MR. SAWYER: It can definitely come up. For the record,Mike Sawyer,Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, knowing that traffic is always an issue in Collier County, and especially when we're asking for a higher density in an area that it typically wouldn't have this normally, in that road that there's--Livingston's pretty congested at times, but especially based on the traffic on 1-75. In the TIS,did you see any analysis for the impacts that would be either beneficial or negative as a result of the Veterans Memorial completion and/or Logan Boulevard being connected up to Bonita Beach Road? MR. SAWYER: No,quite honestly. And the issue is that we look at the existing road network that we have. We also take into certain considerations of the improvements that are going to be projected but,quite honestly,what we want to make sure is that the project within the five-year time frame of our review is consistent with the GMP. In other words, is there capacity currently and moving five years projected out into the future on the immediate adjacent network? We look to see if that network has a 2 percent or greater impact on the first immediate section. After that,then we go to the next-- if it's over 2 percent at that point,then we look at the next road segments off of that. So you go to the first series of intersections,you look at 2 percent there. If you're tripping above 2 percent there,then you go to the next section of intersections. If you're above 2 percent at that point,then you go out to the third section,and then it's looked at at a 3 percent impact. In this case,there is a difference in the 420 units that was originally proposed as opposed to the 350 units that is now being proposed,and it really comes down to the immediate adjacent segments of Livingston. And we do, in fact,have capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you're calculating the capacity need for this project, though,you're using their generated peak-hour number, which is 25 percent--actually, it's lower than 25 percent, because I think that's based on the 420. So it's-- it might be wrong,but I could check that. But, still,you're looking at about 25 percent best-case scenario of the total number of persons that are estimated to be living in that facility because you're using their number, their peak number. MR. SAWYER: Correct. We're using their numbers that they're showing us,and we're confirming those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,the road system --we have this come up at every single meeting,every single hearing,every single zoning action. We all talk about traffic. And Page 54 of 79 January 17,2019 we're experiencing a lot greater traffic flow on the roads,l think,than some of us ever thought were going to be there. Have we ever looked back to see if the way were calculating this stuff was accurate? 1 mean, it's just--it's like the Racetrac and the convenience store combination,remember that, on-- it was on 41 and Palm. At that--just around that time frame,the State of Florida realized that the 1TE manual probably wasn't addressing convenience stores with large numbers of pumps as accurately as maybe it was needed. They did their own study. And you may recall that study, because we talked about it way back then. And I'm just wondering, have we looked at others? Because something seems kind of odd when we only have 25 percent of the persons counted for--I understand your explanation,but I've lived here 42 years,and I've never operated kind of the way you said. There might be one night a week I might stop somewhere on the way home, but usually not at all. I'm not sure everybody does that, but anyway. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Women do. MS. SCOTT: I was going to say, it's very rare in my household--and we have two licensed drivers and five vehicles--that either of us are ever home during the p.m. peak time frame. We're usually home about 15 minutes after, but that's my household. To answer your question, ITE looks through each of their generations that they've done through the years. If you go back to the first generation, it's much more limited in scale as far as the number of land uses,et cetera,and even with the 10th edition,they've added new land uses; they've split them up. So,yes,that is from an industry standard. They look at that through each generation. I think our last generation.the ninth generation,was done about three years ago or so,so we've just recently adopted the 10th generation. So,yes,someone does that,but then even specifically for Collier County transportation. I look at Long Range Transportation Plans and prior Long Range Transportation Plans to look at, say,what we had projected along Immokalee Road in our 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan versus what we're experiencing today and then what we're projecting out with our 2040 and now soon to be 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. So,yes,we do take a look back and kind of see what happened. I do that as part of my analysis in my background of the Annual Update and Inventory Report. So I'm looking at that just because I want to kind of see where those projections are. A lot of times we're higher. That's actually where we've been on-- I'm going to use Immokalee Road as the case. We were higher but we also had a downturn in the economy during that time frame. So things happen,and a model doesn't always pick those things up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this project were to go to the next step,which is the adoption hearing and PUD review, if it were to get that far, would it be reasonable for your department to request an analysis from the applicant as to how the two road segments,the new northeast section of Logan up to Bonita Beach Road and east/west over to 41 --Livingston Road would be--would affect the traffic flows on Livingston? Is that something that can be done,or is it too illogical or too difficult to even-- is it too much of a guess? MS. SCOTT: It's all based on a transportation model. It's not something that we would typically require for a development of this size. We are typically doing that type of--that level of analysis when we're looking at large towns where they're actually running the traffic model and having a "with"and "without" project. But I'm going to ask Mike to correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that this applicant directed any traffic down Veterans Memorial as part of the TIS. So they're taking a very conservative approach as far as how even they're directing their 25 percent that's coming in in the p.m. peak and how they're distributing the traffic. They did not utilize Veterans Memorial as a Page 55 of 79 January 17,2019 distribution. So they're either coming out and going north,or they're going south. So they're showing a larger impact to Livingston Road than probably what's really going to be realized in the end because Veterans Memorial will be in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Veterans Memorial dead-ends into a railroad track right now. So what good would it be to use that as a means of exit? MS. SCOTT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd go down,turn around,and come back and go right back to the same place they estimated it to be today. So, I mean, I don't see how that proves anything. MS. SCOTT: But when you're looking at the five-year period and you're asking, well, what impacts will that roadway have, et cetera. that roadway will be in place in the five years,as will the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the piece I was hoping that we could understand how-- if there is relief to understand that now, it would help understand this application, but,okay. I understand where we're at. Thank you. Did you have something,Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Regarding the traffic study,did it look specifically at this GMP,or did they subtract what they are already authorized with the De La Rosa project? Was it the delta,or was it the entire project? MS. SCOTT: I'll let Mike answer that since he reviewed it himself. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or maybe the traffic engineer can ask that question, because they're certainly vested for what they had already in De La Rosa,correct? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I can go back and double-check,but I believe that it was done on the total number of units proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Total number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That number being the higher at 420,then; is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: We redid it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you redid it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, a quick question. In the TIS. how big of a factor did Talis Park rear entrance factor in on that? That's right by where the road dead-ends. Because I know they were doing a lot more multi-family in that community,and their density is increasing, I know. From what I've seen,the majority of Talis Park is coming out on that Veterans there on that road. So how big of a factor--did you-all factor that in your TIS? MR. SAWYER: Currently we do not track, in the AUIR, Veterans Memorial. So all of those existing trips,okay,are already on the link that we look at, which is Livingston. Right now Veterans Memorial is looked at as a local street. We don't check capacity on all of those road segments with local streets. What we're looking at are the major corridors that we've got through the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the traffic off of Veterans onto Livingston would be included? MR. SAWYER: Those are --all of the existing trips are being already counted on Livingston. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Trinity,the Veterans Memorial all the way through across the railroad to Old 41,that's all part of the plan for the expansion,correct? MS. SCOTT: Correct. We are proposing going to Old 41. So we're not just stopping at the high school. We are going to Old 41. Page 56 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you're already working to get the vacated-- MS. SCOTT: What we're working on currently is working with the railroad to have an easement across the railroad, but the construction is programmed within our five years. We've been working closely. We knew the school had a few options,and we wanted to make sure that we aligned. So we have that funded for construction within our five years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trinity,that spur only went to the Krehling plant, right? MS. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is it used at all? MS. SCOTT: To my knowledge, it has not been used south of--the rail has not been used south of Alico in over a decade; however, it is still owned. I believe,by CSX. I believe they--actually, I believe Seminole Gulf just recently purchased the rights to it. CSX used to be the underlying property owner with Seminole Gulf as an easement. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So I would assume you're asking them, is it necessary? Can we just pull it out? MS. SCOTT: That is not typically how it goes with the railroad. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby. I have one other question from you. You wrote the staff report,right? MR. SCHMIDT: Among others, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 7 of the staff report,the very bottom of the page, it reads the following: "The density rating system does not provide for any additional density if more than the minimum required two criteria are met. Staff was suggesting the petition go above and beyond and offer something extra to the benefit of the larger community rather than simply asking for additional density. Application materials did not offer any additional commitments rather than request a greater density via this GMPA." That is where I started my concern about public benefit. What did you have in mind when you wrote that? MR. SCHMIDT: Looked for something additional from the applicants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I got that out of it-- MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but what kind of additional? In the past have you experienced any additional commitments to offset some of these concerns? MR. SCHMIDT: Well,planners look at the FLUE as, in this case,a starting point. These are examples of--the strategies are those fixed items. The FLUE--and those mitigation strategies don't provide for additional bonuses for density,yet I have applicants in front of you who want additional density. How do they get there? Staff offered up an idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the idea? MR. SCHMIDT: Offer up something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. So you don't have anything in mind. You suggested by this report that they should consider some additional commitment to get to where they want to go? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you may have had something in mind as to why Page 57 of 79 January 17,2019 you wrote that there,and that's what I was-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It could be something as simple as the residents within the apartment complex form carpools. MR. SCHMIDT: I mean, other portions of the documents,both the Transportation Element and the FLUE,give us ideas of what's being looked for. There have to be effective and meaningful strategies that provide that capacity on the roads within a certain time period. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: What could those be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I get it now. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What we're going to do is go to public testimony. And the way this is going to work,we will take the speakers that have put out slips. When we get done, if someone wants to speak who has not put a slip in, I'll ask,would anybody else from the public like to speak? We ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes;that if there--we don't need the redundancy. It doesn't--we hear it once,we pretty much hear it. If you say that you just agree with the speaker before you,that works great. If you want to defer your time to somebody else in your crowd,that works great,too. We are going to break at 2:15 for the court reporter for 10 minutes,and then we're going to end up today at 3:30,and then we'll have to continue whatever's left until the February 7th meeting. And if we did that,this would be the first item up, so it would start at 9 o'clock in the morning. So that's the process we're going to go through,and we will start by calling out names. And we have two speakers. Feel free to go to either one that's most convenient to you. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: All right. The first two are Rosie Petisco--excuse me if I get the pronunciations wrong--but second is Sharon Griffith. MS. PETISCO: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the first thing you need to do is confirm with us that you were sworn in,and if you weren't,we need to--and also you need to state your name,and if it's more than something simple like Smith,you probably need to spell it out. MS. PETISCO: Not a problem. It's Rosie Petisco. You pronounced it wonderfully. Nobody ever gets that right,and I have been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better spell that last name. MS. PETISCO: It's P as in Paul,e-t as in Tom, i-s as in Sam,c as in cat,o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would never have figured that out. Thank you. MS. PETISCO: Thank you. So first I'd like to thank you for your time,and I see that this is something that you are seriously considering. And I'm just standing before you-- I'm not as well prepared as other people may be. I'm just here as a full-time working mom that moved away from the city that I was born and raised in. I had a very good job at the University of Miami. My kids probably could have gone to school there for free,and I left Miami because I wanted to give them a different life and a different lifestyle. I live in Barrington Cove. My backyard will actually be at the end of the lake. So I just recently built a pool never expecting the possibility of apartment buildings and people who could be looking down at my teenage daughter in her bikini. I really don't care how much of a buffer you put. If the building is high enough,they'll be able to look directly into my backyard. My other concern is my daughter is at North Naples Middle School. I have one in eighth Page 58 of 79 January 17,2019 grade, one in sixth grade. This year when they did the orientation for the sixth grade,the principal did announce that this is the first year where the sixth graders will have to be overflowing into the seventh and eighth grade locker areas because this was the biggest incoming sixth grade class they ever had, and they no longer fit just in the sixth grade area. I can tell you traffic is a concern for me. We--I exit out the back of Barrington Cove because I do live closer to Barrington,to the back,so I come out through Veterans. Currently, there are mornings where at 8 o'clock in the morning, 8:30 in the morning, it's already kind of backed up pretty significantly on Veterans. So if the only exit for Allura is going to be on Veterans, I'm not really sure if anybody's really taking into consideration the impact that that will have in that little section. It's not like there's-- it's not a long road. It's a pretty small road to get to Livingston. Last night I took my girls to church. I make a right on Livingston,and I take it to Coconut Road. It took me, I timed it,eight minutes to get from Veterans to Bonita Beach Road at 5:30. What 1 find is that when I-75 is backed up, Livingston gets much worse,and it really takes a lot longer to get down Livingston. When I first moved here two years ago and we were trying to figure out where to live,we rented at an apartment building, so I get the need for rentals in good neighborhoods. I can tell you I was not put on a waiting list. It didn't take me a long time to find a three-bedroom in a good neighborhood for$1,800. And I do know that they're building an apartment building called Crest of Naples with 264 units on Bonita Beach Road by 75,and they are also finishing up Addison Place on Immokalee over by Collier,and that has 240 units,and it's managed by Greystar. So I'm really not sure,number one,why we would need 350 units to be approved in this area. I can tell you that in the year that I rented, we rented trying to decide where we were going to move. We didn't have trouble finding an apartment that we could afford. We had trouble finding a single-family home that we could afford. And so I'm not opposed to single-family homes that are affordable for families. I'm not opposed to something like Milano that's a townhouse or a condominium for people to purchase. I would be much more amenable to something where people are going to own a property there and be much more vested in the community. And those are my main concerns. And I think you will find that a lot of my neighbors feel the same way. And,again, I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Next speaker, please. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Mr. Chairman,the second speaker had left during lunchtime. The next name on the list is Cathy(sic)Wrede, I believe. MR. ROSENBLATT: Katy Wrede, she had to leave, but she asked me to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Come on up, sir, and identify yourself for the record,and let us know if you were sworn in. Thank you. MR. ROSENBLATT: I was sworn in. I was here early,first thing this morning. MR. SCHMIDT: Next name is-- MR. ROSENBLATT: Ivan Rosenblatt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: --Denise Cornillie. MR. ROSENBLATT: As I say, I'm here-- Katy prepared a thing. I'll try to do it as best as I can,putting my own twist on it as well as because I can't absolutely say all the things she said. As a--Katy, by the way, was a--is secretary of our master board in the Strand. As a resident of the Strand,she represented over a thousand residents,and she wanted to say that she would like to appeal to the county about this Stock Development request for rezoning. As we understood it, it was originally zoned for 170 single-family homes. We were a Page 59 of 79 January 17,2019 little surprised when we heard about this De La Rosa PUD,because we didn't know anything about that. But this is a significant difference from the 170 single-family homes that we understood it was zoned for. Let's see. Obviously,we know that there are developments that go on all the time so,you know, we understand that developments are going to occur,but we can't understand how it came to pass that this request for rezoning should ever be considered given the fact that in the last four years alone,five new developments and a firehouse have been built on the same four-mile stretch of Livingston from Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,and now the consideration of this rezoning, there are two more developments in progress, Serena Grove and the Enclave. The Enclave, by the way, is just north of Talis Park in between Talis Park and Mediterra on the northbound side of Livingston. They're both high-end, high-value homes. In the five-mile radius,we would say that 90 percent of the homes there are single-family homes,as this parcel has been zoned. When we all bought homes in this area, we assumed that would remain the case. We can appreciate the need for affordable housing in Collier County. Stock has repeatedly said this is not affordable housing but rather high-end luxury apartments. To consider such density in an area that has quickly become saturated makes us all wonder what can be gained other than a profit for Stock. Numerous communities in the area stand strongly opposed to this rezoning request for the following reasons: First and foremost is the untold traffic impact this will have on the stretch of Livingston between Vanderbilt Road and Bonita Beach Road. Currently all communities whose egress and ingress are on Livingston are virtually house-bound in the morning and afternoons from 3:30 to 6:30. Traffic does not move and is at a dead stop from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road. In addition, Immokalee Road,where our front gate is located, is backed up both east and west during those time periods. This is the current reality before the two new communities already underway along Livingston would be completed. And I would say that,you know, we heard from the traffic people earlier today, and if they're using criteria--the ITE is using criteria that they're using,all one has to do is go out and look at the traffic during the rush hours in the morning and in the afternoon during season, and you can clearly see that if they're saying there's no impact, somebody is using the wrong data because-- I would say,before you even consider it,you should do an extensive traffic survey,and you will find out that there's a real significant impact already on traffic. Let's see what else here. Veterans Memorial is an extremely short stretch of a narrow two-lane road with no bike lane or shoulder that dead-ends both east and west. Now, I guess we heard earlier that there is an intention to ultimately cut it through to Old 41. I don't know whether that'll have a significant impact or not but,you know, it certainly wouldn't hurt. In the morning,particularly when we go out our back gate--Talis Park is doing a lot of construction. They're using multifamily things in the back of Talis Park. and it's almost impossible to g'et out of our back gate because their construction traffic is coming through there, so that's an impact. And then in the afternoon now during season,as you head up Veterans to go on Livingston, sometimes it could take you 20 minutes just to get to Livingston, and then you have to turn and go up. And if there's an accident on 75, what they always tell you to do is divert off and go on Livingston, so it's a disaster. I think that's pretty much,you know,the impact that we want to say,and I say that definitely the transportation standards that are being used to analyze these are certainly grossly' deficient and should be really reconsidered,and we stand strongly opposed to this development as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 60 of 79 January 17,2019 Next speaker,please. MR.CORNILLiE: Good afternoon. You can see that I'm not Denise. My name is Daniel Cornillie, spelled C-o-r-n-i-l-l-i-e. And thank you for the opportunity to present this afternoon on this project. I live in Secoya Reserve,which is approximately a half a mile west of the site of this proposed apartment development. I attended public meeting regarding this proposal at the library on September 6th and was appalled by what was presented. Let me explain why. First,density. This over-400-unit development would add a population concentration to an area that is already facing serious in-season traffic issues. The delays at the intersection of Immokalee and with Livingston are well known, but a number of times last season at rush hour, traffic is also backed up on Livingston all the way from Veterans to Bonita Beach Road two miles to the north. High-density housing between these two bottlenecks would exacerbate these problems. More important is the compatibility with the existing development. The development along Livingston from Immokalee into Lee County is one-or two-story homes. The current drive along Livingston is attractive with housing subordinated to attractive landscaping on both sides of the street. The insertion of this four-story complex would be visibly out of place even if it was not of the undistinguished architecture pictured at the presentation. Take a drive by here and try to envision this. This is an aesthetic affront. Impact on property values. This out-of-place development would visually degrade the area to the point where it would negatively impact property values and the Collier County's tax base in the area as would the insertion of a concentration of rental units into an area of owner-occupied homes. This proposed development is so obviously out of place that it's an insult to the surrounding neighborhood,to the Naples brand,and to Collier County. The juxtaposition of this development with the elegant Mediterra is either careless or spiteful. Please preserve the zoning in a manner that precludes anything like this in this area. And just a closing comment,a veiled threat to if we don't get this,we'll revert to De La Rosa, which is worse in all respects in all of the above,really betrays Stock's contempt for the interest of the neighbors. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,please. MR. SCHMIDT: Next two speakers are Tom Griffith and Attorney Robert Pritt. MR. GRIFFITH: Good afternoon. Tom Griffith,a homeowner in Barrington Cove. I think we talked traffic to death,but I did do a local traffic study last night. I have the data on my phone. i know where it came from. I was driving southbound on Livingston. Traffic was backed up from Bonita Beach Road to Mediterra. It's like that all of the time during season. As a family,unlike the traffic person, we come home from work,we get our kids,and then we take them out again during peak times several times during the day and night for practices, et cetera. So traffic is obviously an issue,and everyone knows it. The one thing that I think the management company mentioned was residential home values. If you have an opportunity to buy a home in all the thousands of communities in Collier County. would you pick one where your backyard looks over a four-story rental apartment building? Would you want this in your front yard or backyard in the communities that you live in? I'm sure the answer is no. So someone mentioned common sense. Common sense tells us I will not buy a home that backs up to a rental apartment. I have too many options. Why would I do that? Page 61 of 79 January 17,2019 So common sense tells us,traffic is a problem. You add 700 people to the area we're in, traffic's going to be worse. Commons sense tells us our home values will go down because people do not want to buy next to these apartments. And they may be great tenants, luxury apartments; the perception is it's a rental apartment. And I've got too many options to buy in other places instead of our area. Schools;they mentioned the school capacities. And then the aesthetics. Does a four-story or three-story, partial four. fit into the landscape of our community? No matter what it looks like, it's not going to fit. From Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,there's nothing like it. So why would it fit in our little area right there in our community? It doesn't fit. And,two,we talked about Livingston traffic. No one's brought up Old 41 traffic. It's a two-lane road,and it's just as bad. So what's going to happen when they extend VME? People are going to cut through VME,get on Old 41,and sit in traffic again. So common sense tells us--it doesn't matter what the national data says,common sense tells us that it doesn't work in our community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr.Chairman,can I ask a question of this gentleman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, if you'd come back a minute. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tom,thanks for your statements. I have a quick question for you. When you bought in Barrington Cove,just out of curiosity,what'd they tell you? Obviously,that land was already--what'd they tell you,the developer,the developer when you bought your property? MR.GRIFFITH: You want me to be honest? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR.GRIFFITH: They told us a bunch of crap is what they told us. No one ever told us that Verona Pointe Estates was going to be built. I backed up to a preserve, so I was told your backyard is a preserve. Now it's 133 community-- is 133-home community. No one's ever told us that any of this was going to be developed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. And who was the builder/developer for Barrington Cove? MR.GRIFFITH: DR Horton. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: DR Horton. MR. GRIFFITH: And the other thing about the traffic study and that single-family homes have more traffic,yes, but not-- in 350 apartments with 700 people,you're not going to get that density with a single-family home on that corner. So,nationally,statistics may speak that there's more cars, but you're not-- if--how many homes can you put on 35 acres? It's not going to be 700 people, I can tell you that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Good afternoon,Mr. Chairman,members of the Board. I'm Robert Pritt. I'm with Roetzel&Andress Law Firm. I represent the Mediterra Community Association. Alan Johnson was here this morning, but I think he had to leave,the president, so he won't be speaking today. Tim Richards, who is the manager, is here. I'm not sure if he's going to speak or just yield to me. Since I'm an attorney, I kind of look at things from that aspect. And we do have a planner, Dr. David Depew,who's going to be speaking here today also. I'll leave the details to him, if it's okay. But there are really two points I want to make,and they're related,and one is the question concerning spot zoning. As a matter of fact, I had prepared the spot zoning remarks before the Chair brought them up today,and I do think this is spot zoning. This is illegal spot zoning. It's Page 62 of 79 January 17,2019 actually spot planning leading to spot zoning,which, in my opinion, is even worse. You cannot legislate your way out of a spot zoning situation. That has been --that's judge-made law in the state of Florida. If anybody wants to see the cases on it, I can't remember the name or the--of all the cases,but probably one is--the biggest one's called Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association. I think it was a Dade County case. But that's where you plop something into an area that is incompatible with everything else in the area. And what you've heard most of the day,actually from everybody, is that we have a proposal to put a very highly--a high density development,apartment type of development into an area that is clearly low density single-family residential. In a county that's larger than at least two states,there are plenty of places to put something like this. You don't have to put it somewhere that is,under your Comprehensive Plan, incompatible certainly as it applies to density and also as it applies to-- in the zoning this applies to uses. So that's what's being done. That's what's being proposed. The idea of planning and zoning--and I certainly don't want to lecture you, because you know this and see this probably more than I do, but the idea of planning is that you spent--and this county spent a lot of time and a lot of effort coming up with its districts. Next thing you know, we have developers wanting to create subdistricts to suit their purposes,so we wind up with a certain number of subdistricts. Why? Because generally in an ad hoc manner there's an attempt to get around the Comprehensive Plan,the GMP. That's what's being done here. Now, it's one thing-- if it's really pretty close and it's really about the same and the uses are not too far off,that's one thing. And the densities are similar,but this is nowhere close,as you heard a lot of people say today on both sides. And the problem is--another problem that I see is that the PUDs,which are a great idea in their place--planned developments are a great idea in their place--are being used improperly as the means to accomplish illegal spot planning, spot zoning when you get to the zoning aspect of it, so you wind up with PUDs going around that. It's one thing for PUDs to say,well, we're going to have this mixture of uses or we're going to have this type of use,et cetera,and to give up some setbacks and some height and things like that exchanged for amenities for the PUD, but it's a totally different thing to plop a PUD into a place where it doesn't belong, and it's even worse to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate that. Mr. Mulhere, t think, said--at least gave the impression to me,maybe to you,that,well, it's residential. Residential's residential. Well,that's not really correct because at least going back-- if you go back into history far enough,all the way back to the first zoning case that everybody had to learn from the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a case having to do with putting apartments into residential districts. And if I may,let me quote this. Suspend your disbelief just long enough to pick out some nuggets that I think are relevant to this case,and then I'll open it up for questions, if you want. But the U.S. Supreme Court said, "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses,which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private-house purposes; that in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover,the coming of one apartment house is followed by others interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which, otherwise,would fall upon smaller homes,and bringing as their necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business and the occupation by means of moving and parked automobiles, larger portions of street,thus detracting--almost Page 63 of 79 January 17,2019 done--from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open places for play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until, finally,the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. "Under these circumstances, apartment houses which in a different environment would not only be entirely unobjectionable,but highly desirable,come very near to being nuisances." This was Village of Euclid versus Amber Really, 1926. It could have been written last month. That case is still a good case,and it's good law. Without that case,we would not all be here. That was the case that upheld that zoning in its proper place is okay. And so the point is that this is not a new issue. This is something--the issue of compatibility, even among--even between one type of residence and another type of residence has been recognized since the beginning, since the landmark case, and that is certainly something that should guide us in saying you have to follow--developer, new person coming in, buyer,whoever you are,you have to follow the rules that we have in our Comp Plan,and we're not going to bend our rules just to accommodate you. I spent 13 years on a--as City Attorney for a small area--a small city in Lee County. They have not increased density one unit except for affordable housing since 1988. So sometimes you just say no. This is not it. This is not the place,and this is not it. And all that stuff about trying to accommodate somebody when they really don't have the proper reason for it, is really kind of a waste of time, in my opinion. So I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Could you send me that case? MR. PRITT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just cited,the Euclid case. MR. PRITT: Oh,yes, Village of Euclid. We all know about Euclidian zoning;that's where that came from. Not from Euclid of old,but it's named after the city, and that was the beginning of zoning. That's the case that said zoning is allowable. And from that case, everything has--that we talk about in planning and zoning has come out of that. I'll be glad to send you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will -- MR. PRITT: And also Bird-Kendall-- I didn't think to bring it,but that's one that--on spot zoning that is relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, obviously, I'll give Mr. Yovanovich an opportunity to send any case that he wants to utilize to offset the one you've just mentioned. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick comment for you, Mr. Pritt. Would it be all right if I obtain a transcript of your remarks so that I can quote you to the Planning Advisory Board? MR. PRITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: I've said that, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another board besides ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amazingly enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. MR. PRITT: Well, until a couple days ago I was City Attorney for Naples, as most of you know,as many of you know,and I've turned that over to partner now, but I still am working on a lot of the planning and zoning issues. Page 64 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Mr. Pritt. MR. PRITT: Yes. . COMMISSIONER FRY: So we talked earlier about the previously approved De La Rosa PUD,which I believe is seven units per acre. Are your clients--is there a line drawn where the clients would accept if this entire parcel was approved at seven units per acre,or is it just no to any kind of multifamily-type treatment? But you have De La Rosa already approved, so I'm just curious where you stand. MR. PRITT: Well,De La Rosa does not cover all of the parcel either; it's a smaller one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MR. PRITT: And I can't speak for my clients on that. We haven't really delved into that issue, but by our count it's four, not seven. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. PRITT: And,obviously, we understand if something is vested-- I don't know if De La Rosa is vested, but if it is vested,then it's vested. It would be hard to undo something that's already there but,as I recall,that was also single-family units. And what--if I may.one last point on that is,just because they might be approved for units that go within 20 feet of the perimeter of the property doesn't mean they have to build it,you know. They still could choose not to build it that close. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we finish, I have the De La Rosa document in front of me. I'll let you know right off the bat what the--they can do multi--they're actually-- it isn't--they're a multifamily product. COMMISSIONER FRY: They're taller multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Multifamily product,and the setback--the height is zoned 50 feet,actual 69 feet. The side setback,which is where--the example the applicant used, is half the building height. So if they went--and the building height in this case would be the zoned,so they'd be 25-foot setback from the--from that other PUD that's already there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark,when was that approved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: '07. COMMISSIONER FRY: '07,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see you sitting there. Do you agree with my statements? MR.YOVANOVICH: I do,and I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not for more testimony from you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree that it's only approved for multifamily. It's not approved for any single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make that clarification. That's all. Corby,next speaker. MR. SCHMIDT: Your next speakers are David Depew and Tim Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Good afternoon. I'll be real quick. My name is Tim Richards. I'm the general manager of the Mediterra Community Association. And pretty much everything that I would cover has already been covered regarding traffic. compatibility, and things of that nature. I agree with everything that Mr. Pritt just commented on. and that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. DR. DEPEW: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in, sir? DR. DEPEW: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. Page 65 of 79 January 17,2019 DR. DEPEW: I am a principal with Morris Depew Associates. I'm a land planner. I have been practicing in Southwest Florida-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name? DR. DEPEW: David Depew. I've been practicing in Southwest Florida since 1980 and have been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1983. I was asked by the folks at Mediterra to take a look at this request,and what I reviewed was what's before you today,which is a request to transmit a plan amendment. And I found the plan amendment, in my opinion,to be deficient in a number of areas, not the least of which you've begun discussing here today. The traffic is certainly one, while the analysis that has not identified a particular problem with it, nevertheless. I think you've recognized it does not give you the full picture of what impacts the traffic are going to create for this particular area of the county,especially given the existing congestion and the question of whether or not and when completion of Veterans to the west will be finished. But, more importantly, the question of--as Mr. Pritt mentioned,of the surrounding uses, I think, is important to consider and whether or not this is something that is conducive to spot zoning. Densities in this area are fairly low. Mediterra to the north is slightly over six-tenths of a unit to the acre, and the other developments that are proximate and adjacent to this development are around four. One's actually a little bit under four. So you're looking at a request that is ranging from about two-and-a-half times up to almost 1,500 times the density that is characteristic of this particular area. And the question you have to ask is whether or not this is compatible. Objective 5 of the plan as well as Policy 5.6 talks about new developments being compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. And the question that becomes really evident is whether or not this is compatible with and complementary to the surrounding development in this particular area. The plan amendment and the plan itself currently provides for density that--bonuses associated with affordable housing,workforce housing, residential infill. This project is proposing neither of those options. It's not affordable; it's not infill. The applicant provides no data whatsoever on why affordable housing is not necessary. There is--there are two studies in his application as to why the apartment need needs to be met. There's no study that shows why the affordable housing bonuses which you have as a public body suggested as an extremely important element,and an incentive to allow additional density is not being met. This is a data-and-analysis question I think needs to be addressed and represents a significant deficiency in this application. And,as such. I believe that it does not qualify for transmittal,and I would request that this board recommend against transmittal as a result of this deficiency and the lack of an explanation as to why this bonus would be requested without addressing affordable housing. And, finally, I'd like to simply echo the point that was made earlier,and that is that these are--and the application has,more or less,determined that this is kind of a given,that these densities are not a given. These densities are discretionary. The three units beyond the four is discretionary,and even the four is,to some extent,discretionary. So if you as a body, ultimately, when the zoning comes up,determines that those are not the right numbers, it's important to note that. And, in closing, I would say this plan amendment that's before you today is simply unnecessary. They have a reasonable,economically viable use for this property. There's no evidence whatsoever that's been provided to you here today that suggests that the existing use is somehow unbuildable or uneconomical to use or some sort of deficit for this property owner. Page 66 of 79 January 17,2019 In fact,the development that surrounds this property suggests that this is a reasonable use and that the activity that has been assigned under the current plan amendment is one that is economically viable and beneficial for the property owner. You simply don't need to advance this any further,and I would suggest to you that it's just not necessary. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think there's some questions. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question for you. I'm confused. Are you in support of affordable housing at this site? You stated there's been no study. Would you prefer that it be affordable housing? DR. DEPEW: What I would suggest to you is that the county's plan has stated that any bonus beyond this seven,the way to get that is through the provision of affordable housing. They're asking for roughly 3,2.7 units per acre in addition.but they're not suggesting affordable housing. In fact,they've said specifically they're not going to provide that. And I think that's the real problem here, because the county's determined that that is a goal under its plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You dispute the analysis that Mr. Weeks presented earlier in regards to the density? DR. DEPEW: I didn't hear Mr. Weeks present an analysis earlier with regard to the density. What I said was that Mr. Weeks'comments that it was discretionary is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second question: Do you deem the De La Rosa project, as currently proposed, incompatible? DR. DEPEW: I haven't looked at the De La Rosa project, so I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We wouldn't be here on the Growth Management Plan amendment if they had asked for affordable housing because they would be able to achieve it without amending the Growth Management Plan. So you're here today on a Growth Management Plan amendment, and staff explained to you that they would be eligible under the current Growth Management Plan,which is urban residential subdistrict,the density rating system of four base plus three TCMA. So that would get them to seven. So under our current density rating system,they cannot get to the number they're requesting,and that's why we're here today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. DEPEW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the next public speaker, Corby, I'd like to follow up on a question about these density bonuses. It would probably be a good time to understand it. This is in a TCMA and, for that reason, it qualifies for--to request three more density bonuses on top of the four that's under the base. MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The TCMA is a bigger piece a-- is a small --the piece here is a small piece of a bigger area that I think goes all the way down to Pine Ridge Road and over to another, but it's a large geographic chunk of that part of the county: is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMIDT: A large area,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason for the TCMA --and maybe Trinity can tell us that--is because of? Do you know? Why did we declare this area TCMA? Because that declaration has then afforded them the opportunity of a three-unit bonus. I thought TCMAs were driven because of traffic. And the TCMA says instead of looking at one failed road within a TCMA,you get to look at all of them collectively,and as long as you don't reach a certain percentage,you're not in violation. And kind of what that does is falsely tell us that everything Page 67 of 79 irmo January 17,2019 can fail but a couple roads here,and as long as their percentage is low enough and averages out,the rest of them can stay failed because you're in a TCMA and you can move forward. Why would we offer three bonus units for an area that's acknowledged to have traffic congestion by the mere fact it's under a TCMA? MR. SCHMIDT: It provides the opportunity to all the properties within that large geographic area to contribute to relieving congestion within that large area if it can show that it will do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does three bonus units contribute to relieving congestion? MR. SCHMIDT: They're attempting to show you how. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who is? All we've seen today is three units. I've not seen anything that says these three units are going to relieve congestion. That's-- actually, I asked for-- if they've done a survey,to show us something like that, and nobody has, including our Transportation Department. MR. SCHMIDT: And you've asked staff about why we asked them to show you even additional attempts to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the three-unit bonus is something they can request, but they've got to show in that request they're actually reducing traffic,not just adding more traffic that is below the threshold to the system? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have they shown you something that shows they're reducing the traffic on Livingston Road? MR. SCHMIDT: I'll let Trinity address that, because she's been reviewing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd rather get this resolved while we're still on the topic. I know the public's waiting to--well,actually,we need to take a break. Is Trinity still here? Oh, she's hiding in the back. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll answer part of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can stand up and say hi. Trinity,after we come back from break,I'd like you to respond to that question. We need to take a break for 10 -- well, we'll come back at 2:30,just about 10 minutes. So 2:30 we'll resume; give the court reporter a break. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) (Mr. Eastman was absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everyone,would you please take your seat so we can resume the meeting. And we left off trying to discuss the TCMA issue. And this map is one that I recall now. The area that's kind of in the center left of the map is the TCMA. It's all that light pinkish/orange color. It goes from Pine Ridge Road to 1-75 all the way up to the Lee County line and out to the water, of course. So most of the northern district in Collier County, if not all of it except for that little piece by Bonita Beach Road, is in the TCMA. And,Trinity, I'd,first of all, like to know if you were around when the TCMA was formed. I didn't say born;around. MS. SCOTT: I was born. I worked at the county but in the Metropolitan Planning Organization,so not Transportation Planning at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know about what year the TCMA was put together? MS. SCOTT: My recollection, it was the early 2000s;2002/2003 time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you mean while this guy here was in charge? So now we can-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I only had the Community Development. I believe it Page 68 of 79 . t January 17,2019 was 2003/2004, Don Scott,Norm Feder and-- MS. SCOTT: Stan Litsinger. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --and Stan. David knows as well. The--my recollection,the TCMA was formed. Of course,we all failed--knew at that time,especially 2002 and'3 when almost every road in Collier County was failing because there was absolutely no Capital Improvement Program until the 2003/2004 time frame, but it was to create a mechanism to control traffic but yet still let development proceed,because we were looking for concurrency,had to pay impact fees,others were vested. So the TCMA was created and the mechanisms,of course, that you're familiar with to mitigate the impacts of various developments. David,I know you know as well the--but most of it was recognized,and there are failing roads but,yet.at the same time there were units to be--that were approved and vested,and this allowed for some development to take place. That's my recollection. I think it was 2003, David,wasn't it? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this was-- if this was originated because of the intensity of the development and the traffic that was already up in that northern area,how did we get to a point--and, David,you'd probably be the historian that would know this. How did we get to the point where we felt it was helpful to add three units as a bonus per acre? MR. WEEKS: Unfortunately, I don't know that history. I was here. Stan Litsinger was the staff member that took that through the process,and I was just on the periphery. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I honestly don't remember either why-- I believe some of it was just to try and force, I'll use the word--or maybe not force, but to incentivize cluster developments on major arterial roadways where you could use alternative transportation methods: Carpooling, bus services.and other types of mechanisms.and also to encourage development around business clusters. People would either bicycle to work or other methods to get to work. That was part of the process. But I really don't remember other than maybe it was just to incentivize development in a cluster development in and around our major road network. MR. WEEKS: If I may, let me read into the record Transportation Element Policy 5.6. "The county shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provides multiple viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Pretty much what I said,yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the assumption was is that we keep our roads up to date and keep the levels of service adequate. MR. SCOTT: Correct. When we present the Annual Update and Inventory Report each year, there is an inclusion in that document where we look at the level of service for all of the roadways,the collector and arterial roadway network,within the two TCMAs,and we report on an annual basis the number of lane miles that are achieving an acceptable level of service,which also, when we are doing our review, we look at the TCMA as a whole to see if 85 percent of the lane miles are achieving that level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that also allows for segments of the roads within that TCMA to fail independently of the others,but they still aren't considered failed because they're in a TCMA. And we still look at density bonuses for those areas where the road congestion may not be as desired as parts of the TCMA. MS. SCOTT: Yes. The applicant could come in and ask for exemption from link-by-link concurrency if they would impact a failing roadway segment,and they would trigger the TCMA requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That helps a little bit. Most of what and how this occurred would be somewhere in the record. Now it's just a matter of hunting it out and Page 69 of 79 January 17,2019 finding it,which that's stuff I like to do,so I'll probably look for it. And something during break,two planning commission members mentioned to me they really need to be out of here at 3 o'clock since it's obvious we're not going to finish today. So what we're going to do is allow some cross-examination by the applicant's attorney of Mr. Depew,and then we're going to go ahead and hear public speakers till 3 o'clock,then we're going to stop the hearing,continue it to the 7th of September-- 7th of February. It will the first thing up at 9 o'clock in the morning, and w e'll expedite it through that morning and be done. So I know that's inconveniencing for all of you. I do hope that while you were sitting here today you picked up information that might be helpful in the things you were going to say or talk about, so at least something could be salvaged out of the day that we've had so far. And with that, Richard, do you want to-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't see Mr. Depew. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see Mr. Depew. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm assuming he's probably-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, is he your expert witness? MR. PRITT: Bob Pritt. Mr. Depew had to catch a plane,and he has left. This is legislative, so I don't know why we're cross-examining. Frankly, I'm not sure why we're being sworn, but this is clearly legislative,and there's no right of cross-examination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That is correct; it's legislative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an option that we can exercise, and I -- MR. PRITT: Well,with Mr. Depew, I'm not sure what his schedule is,but if it's going to be continued,then there would be that opportunity. We'll do everything we can to make him available. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have an issue with that. I'll wait. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob,could you make sure that Dave Depew-- Mr. Depew comes back for the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he just said. MR. PRITT: Well, I will try to do that but,again, I would object to any cross-examination in a legislative matter. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what, I'll tell you what, I'll just go ahead and in my closing I'll point out all the flaws of his testimony instead of him doing it through cross-examination. MR. PRITT: I will try to have him down here. 1 don't know what his schedule is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he may not now be cross-examined. If Rich decides to do it during his rebuttal,that's his option. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll move back into our speakers in the order of which they--the slips are called. Corby,would you call the next two speakers. MR. SCHMIDT: Elbert Lands and Andrew Kowalski. MR. LANDS: Good afternoon. My name is Elbert Lands. Last name, L-a-n-d-s. I'm a homeowner in Barrington Cove, bought several years ago from Horton,and I knew generally about the building that was taking place in the area, but my impression was that it was going to be single-family homes,not apartments. I have to agree with the majority of what's been said, and that is that it would be a negative impact for the community as a whole,due to the amount of traffic,number of people that are being placed in that small area,and I believe it would lower the overall home values. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. Page 70 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A question. You said you were expecting single-family. Did you--did you know-- I mean,the project behind you, De La Rosa,was zoned for only multifamily. MR. LANDS: That I was not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a higher height. Did you just not see--did someone not tell you about it or-- MR. LANDS: That's correct. I wasn't told about that. I was told about the building project that was taking place that would be to the east. And that did get developed,and those are very nice homes. And it just doesn't fit. Apartments don't fit. You know, I have to agree that the apartment complex that they have at Lely looks very nice, but no matter how much perfume you put on the pig, it's still a pig. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. KOWALSKI: Andrew Kowalski, K-o-w-a-l-s-k-i. I, like Mr. Lands,purchased a home in Barrington Cove,on his recommendation. I also was not informed that there were going to be De La Rosa coming into that area. I thought it was just-- in fact,I was led to believe it is like a protected area where you shouldn't go in there. It was like a swamp in one particular area there, and I just thought,hey,that's great,you know,there will be no building there. And I just--like everybody else said,the traffic is unbearable. I see no good coming from it from the people that live in that area. Like I say, it's--your property values are going to go down, and I'm just against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just--on the project--you live in the project just to the east. MR. KOWALSKI: Barrington Cove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But what--Barrington Cove has several pieces. Where do you front with this project? Down on the south side of this project coming in today? Maybe-- MR. KOWALSKI: Yeah, it would be the south end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are aware the buildings are going to end up closer to your property line if the other project goes forward? MR. KOWALSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you still would rather see that other project, potentially,than the one that they're proposing today? MR. KOWALSKI: I would rather see it zoned single-family dwelling is what I'd rather see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,well,the toothpaste is out of the tube on that one. We have Bert Harris and other laws in the state of Florida that strongly protect existing property rights, and that particular project's there. It was approved in 2007, so I don't know how we'd undo that one. MR. KOWALSKI: I don't know either,but I wish it would happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speakers,Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Bill Arndt and Todd Rosenthal. MR. ARNDT: Hi. I'm Bill Arndt, A-r-n-d-t. I'm on the board at Barrington Cove, and I'm one of the guys that meets with the small group that you've heard referenced several times that met with Stock and Mediterra. First of all, I'd like to say that Stock does a wonderful job of building communities. They've built Secoya close to us down the way; single-family homes,they've built in Mediterra, and they're currently building, I think, in Mediterra. Doing a great job. Page 71 of 79 January 17,2019 They build communities all over Southwest Florida that are single-family-home communities,and that really is their forte;they do a great job with that. They built two other communities. One is Spectra in Fort Myers that was recently sold for $72 million. They had it for three years. And in the paper,the article that was written about that, Stock said that was the building model,that they were going to build properties and then sell them as they're able to. I'm not looking for a commitment for five or six years for them to hold onto property, but at some point in time the property's going to be sold. We don't know who the next owner's going to be or how they're going to treat the property, how they're going to treat some commitments made by Stock. We just don't know that,and we can't ask them to put that in writing for us,so we're okay with that. But we would prefer,the people--we have 2,700 roofs that have been contacted and have written on a petition, 1,200 signers on a petition,that said they're opposed, strongly opposed to this development. I can't see how 100 additional --because we're not talking about actually 350,we're talking plus 100-- is going to affect our community so positively that 2.700 residents have to be disregarded. In other words,there's 2,700 people out there that are saying,you know, build single-family homes. We understand there's going to be something built there. Please, build something there. Build something that we can be proud of, something that would fit the community, something that's consistent with the rest of the--in the surrounding area. We'll bring the shovels and break the first in dirt(sic),but apartment complexes four stories high-- I understand that Stock went in front of the Estero Village, I think, four years ago for a place called Corkscrew Crossings in Corkscrew,350 units just exactly like ours, four stories high, exactly like ours. And I understand that 2017 that was put on the table by their planning commission, and I believe this last Wednesday it was shot down. It was closed down. So one of the things that we're looking for,the 2,700 residents, is give us something compatible,give us something that we can enjoy the freedom and the peace and the compatibility that we've come to expect. We're there. We're your citizens. We're the ones that vote for you. We love where we live. We just want to make it nice. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Go ahead,Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sir,are you the official speaker on behalf of the board of Barrington Cove? MR.ARNDT: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there another speaker coming that is the official? MR.ARNDT: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: No? MR.ARNDT: We're in the middle of a transition phase,and so we'll have an official board like with a board president and all that in March--on March 29th. Until then we have a board. I'm on the board. I'm the resident member on the board,but I'm not an official speaker for that board. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I ask that because my background before joining this board is on the board of a homeowners'association being in a similar position,and one of the issues we always discuss is,well, if not this, what comes afterward,you know,what is going to be next. I guess-- I want to kind of just generally ask the speakers from Barrington Cove-- because I know you're sensitive to what goes next to you. The very first slide that Mr. Mulhere put up showed the--with the existing PUD that's approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: De La Rosa. COMMISSIONER FRY: De La Rosa PUD,as if it is--could easily be a reality without Page 72 of 79 January 17,2019 Stock having to do anything. So I guess a general question I have for you as a resident of Barrington Cove and on the board, is this much larger,obviously with a greater footprint,more units--a lot larger property size,but they have built in farther setbacks, instead of looking at a four-story building that's 20 feet from that corner where you go up to the northern part of Barrington Cove, they have a large wetland preserve of four-story buildings;they're farther over. And it would seem to almost give you in that area less impact from at least the visible concerns you might have. Now, I'm only asking this--and this is not a statement of thinking this is a good idea or bad idea. I just-- I'm asking you, if this was not approved and Stock decided to go ahead and build De La Rosa, how would you feel about that? I mean, is that something you have discussed? MR. ARNDT: We haven't discussed that,but it's in place,and so,you know,as long as it tits the community, I would rather not have the property be built within 20 feet of the backyard of our neighbors,because that's really impositional. Currently within 120 feet of the backyard,and I know the home that will be sitting there on the corner,their house, 120 out will be a three-story structure. That's usually impositional. But you know something, Stock--the company is part of our community. They've done a great job in the past. They've communicated well with us. They told us--quite frankly, I asked them, I said, why can't we build townhomes or single-family homes or something like that,and they said,that is not happening;we can't afford it there. So they just shut that idea down totally,and they went on to propose other things. But we believe that they're acting in good faith. COMMISSIONER FRY: Final question. I know that this was continued from the December meeting so that Mr. Pritt and your association and Mediterra and others could meet with the applicants. They came back with some concessions, dropping from 420 to 350. The evidence of all the speakers from Barrington Cove and the Strand and other communities, I guess that would be clear indication that you're unable to come to any kind of mutually agreeable terms; is that correct? MR. ARNDT: Correct. I also want to make a clarification: They told us that the 420 was never on the table because the unit-- PUD because it's 35.7 acres at a density of 10 whereas it was 350 all along. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ARNDT: If that makes sense. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Karl. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. And don't call another speaker for a minute because we've got a--Ned has a question of somebody in the past. MR. ROSENTHAL: Hello. Todd Rosenthal. Resident of Mediterra. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name so we get it right. MR. ROSENTHAL: R-o-s-e-n-t-h-a-l. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ROSENTHAL: I'm going to try to look at some notes as I speak. One thing I just want to bring up,an issue. It seems like as residents we're getting threatened; if we don't take this,we're going to have this other development there. If that's the case,that's the case. The biggest problem we have is the density there. I'd invite any of you or actually beg any of you,just drive home like a normal resident would. Try driving that road at 5 o'clock at night. I have two kids at my house that I can't wait to go home to see,and I'm already sitting in traffic sometimes for 45 minutes to one hour. It's not fair. We have developments that still haven't been built yet. So it's amazing that we're talking Page 73 of 79 January 17,2019 • about putting in these new roads,but there's already a high school that hasn't been built yet. There is a development right in front of Mediterra and Talis Park that hasn't been built yet with lots more homes coming in there. I don't know what's going to happen to the traffic. Talis Park hasn't been fully developed yet. Mediterra still has homes that haven't been developed yet. A high school isn't there yet,so what is going to happen to the traffic that's there now? There's a grocery store at the corner of Livingston and Immokalee Road that hasn't opened up yet. I mean,the traffic-- I couldn't imagine. I still work. I have two kids. Last year in school I had to get up in the morning,take one daughter to school at seven in the morning,the high school,drive back,go back,get the other kid, take her to school. So, I mean, I'm doing four trips down that road in the morning. So I don't buy that traffic study. There's zero chance with 700 homes that there can be 170 trips during peak hours. Absolutely can't happen. So we can look at all these numbers,wherever they pull them from. Real world,we don't need to pay anybody. Just take an hour of your--actually, I can't say take an hour of your time. It's going to take you three hours to sit in that traffic. You know,that's, I think,the biggest thing. Other than threatening us with,you know,affordable housing. You know,what if--you know, I guess we have to talk about what impact or what does it do for the residents building over there. If it has to be affordable housing,then put it up. We know they're not going to do it. The only benefit is out for the developer making money on it. They are a great developer,but we just don't need the development there. We don't need-- I don't even understand how it went from four to seven,automatically, units if they have to build it. It's just not fair. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not automatic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why the process--this process would have still had to go on if they were asking for the seven but just at the PUD level,another rezone. MR. ROSENTHAL: And you've done a great job bringing up a lot of good points toward why are we already talking about seven. They haven't even gotten it yet. So maybe I'd say roll the dice and let them do the other development,because if they're going to do it,they would have done it, and they haven't done it. And I think, like some other people said, I don't think Stock would really put something up so close to other houses. If they do, they do. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hard to rent. MR. ROSENTHAL: It would be very hard to rent. But insinuating there's going to be a low-income development isn't fair to us. It's not right. If it's being approved,why--just to leave it at four acres. Why even talking(sic)about any more? But I think the biggest thing is the traffic study. We don't need to pay anybody to do it. We don't need to talk about it;just drive out there tonight. You'll see. You'll sit in traffic. I mean, I dread going home in season; I really do. Almost to the point of just,if you build it, I'm going to end up moving,and then where do I go? I'll be more traffic somewhere else. So that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: --coming from the heart. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Appreciate it. And, Mr. Pritt,Ned has had-- got a question of you, if y ou don't mind coming back up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Pritt. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I--and you told us when you were up here before,but I've forgotten,who exactly are you representing? MR. PRITT: Mediterra Community Association. That's the master association for Page 74 of 79 matossimilm • January 17,2019 Mediterra. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And about how many homeowners would that be? MR. RICHARDS: Nine hundred twenty-six doors. MR. PRITT: Nine hundred twenty-six doors, I think he said. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So,obviously,there are limits and constraints on the extent to which you could speak for those people. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you are here in a representative capacity. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think it's important for us to hear what your impression of your client,your collective client,would--what would satisfy them that could happen up here,and then ultimately in front of the County Commission. And so my question has to do with the role that we play. One thing that we always try to do, I believe, in the first instance is see if we can achieve a win-win situation where most of the people are happy and the developer is also mostly happy. It's not always possible,and when it's not possible, then it's our possibility to vote up or vote down and then,of course, it goes to the Commission whose vote really matters. So my question to you is,is it your sense from among your clients that they would encourage us to try to achieve the best deal that we could in terms of what we believe is necessary for additional concessions to be made by the developer in order to achieve compatibility,or are they going to be flat up,down or--up or down on this? MR. PRITT: Well, it's kind of hard for me to say because this just changed as of the other day. It was 420. Now it's 350. I would have to have meetings with my client on that. I would remind the Board,though.that contract zoning's illegal,too,and so this is not negotiation of a contract. Our position is that you ought to not permit,right now anyhow,you ought not to permit this or you should recommend that it not go forward as it is proposed to you. I also said a little while ago that I think--this is me--and my recommendation would be that they have a potential right to up to four units, not up to seven,not up to 9 point--or 9.84, whatever it is:that that's what they have a right to do at the most. So that-- if you want to look for a position,that would be my recommendation to the board,to my board at this time. Having said that, if it's going to be continued anyhow,there will be some time for us to have further discussions if the applicant would wish to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I had in mind. MR. PRITT: And by the way,the applicant has.you know, in fairness to them, in fairness to us,we've had two meetings,and it was somewhat worthwhile. It might be worthwhile to do again. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to a time that we've got to consider what we're going to do next,and the item we're talking about is 9A3. And at this point, I'm going to suggest to this board that we need a motion to continue this to the September-- I mean February. September, 1 keep saying that-- February 7th meeting first item up in the morning.and will be at 9 o'clock in the morning. And so if you can come back to that meeting,we would appreciate it,and you'll be heard right up--right front up. The first thing up we'll start with public speakers,so-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --at least that way you know you can get your time set in. A motion made by Patrick to do that. Second? Page 75 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karl. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would only ask that the parties attempt,during this ensuing period of time, see if they can't work together and achieve more, perhaps,concessions, if you will, to make the project more palatable,more compatible with the surrounding areas so that when you come back,you come back with something that at least appears to a reasonable person as being better for the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At the next hearing or next meeting, I would ask that Trinity and maybe Mike Sawyer give us a little history on the TCMA forming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll actually probably, by then, have all the documents that enacted it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. If they could put it in a little concise format. I mean, I can go back and do the research,but I'm just curious as to what was on the record for that area. I vividly remember the whole thing, but I'd like to--just so, for the record, we have an idea of why the TCMA was formed and what the intent was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many speakers were left? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know,but we've got rebuttal and other issues that would have to be--go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: More than a dozen already have slips in that remain. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So--and are they the only ones going to be allowed to talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, any public person. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you haven't spoken already,anybody from the public shows up,they're going to be allowed to speak. That's what we're here for. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark, I think one of the great justifications that you've presented for this project in this location is that there are not a lot of good locations left for projects of this type and yet we need apartments,and nobody's arguing the need for apartments. I guess my hope or a gap that I have is really understanding-- seeing some evidence that that statement is true. That--so,you know, if we deny this,whoa,you know, what have we done. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could do that. I'll bring you the map of Collier County that shows what's currently zoned and what's available out there. It's not a secret. I mean, I've got clients calling me all the time saying, please find me a site,and I say, good luck. But I'll bring you documentary evidence of that. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think also justification -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it. COMMISSIONER FRY: --that as--having been a homeowner out here in the audience before and now sitting up here is going from four to seven to 10,what--you know, is the real concrete justification that-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER FRY: --you know.that makes that a reasonable request. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you have a map showing all the vacant parcels that can be developed over 10 acres this side of 951? Page 76 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: This side of 951? I'm sure we could put something together between now and February 7th. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because back in 2010,Tim Billings did one,and we thought we were pretty well built out then. I'm curious what it looks like now. MR.YOVANOVICH: Again, 10 acres, I think, is too small, Mr. Chrzanowski. I think we're probably going to be looking at--20 acres should be the minimum for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting off on rabbit trails. MR. YOVANOVICH: No,but he asked me to bring information. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,no. I want to know if there are any big parcels out there that--how many big parcels out there can be developed with anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your market study was--supplies a lot of this information that both Karl and Stan are asking that was in the packet that was included in the first review. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll hopefully put it in an easier format that we'll throw up on the visualizer. If I may, Mr.Chairman,one thing. I don't want Mr. Pritt to bring Mr. Depew back for me. I'm going to deal -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've already acknowledged that. MR.YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that he's not feeling like he has to bring him here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're in the middle of a motion. Is that the only item that you wanted to bring up in regards to that motion? MR. YOVANOVICH: We were talking about--take the vote,and then I would like to address one thing that Mr. Fryer said after the vote. I didn't mean to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's finish the vote. You all heard the discussion. Is there any further discussion? If not, is there a vote to continue this to the February 7th meeting at--first item up on that date? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,everybody in favor. signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. We have other line--order of business. Richard,did you have something you had to get off your chest right now? MR.YOVANOVICH: One thing--and we always try;what Mr.Fryer suggested is that we reach out again. In fairness to Mr. Arndt--and I'm blanking for a second on the other gentleman who was there. I know Tim's name--but it's very difficult for them to get a consensus within their communities. So we're trying to deal with the representatives,and we'll continue to do that. It's, I think,a yeoman's task to ask them to figure out what their community would support between now and the 7th, but we will continue to reach out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. Next item to--for continuation is 9A4. It's the Page 77 of 79 January 17,2019 water pollution control prevention ordinance. That will go up second on the agenda on the 7th. It will go before the LDC amendments we have to hear that day as well. Is there a motion to continue that to that date? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned and seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Is there any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public comment on something other than the item before us? MR. BORK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You'll need to go to the speaker, identify yourself,and we'll be glad to hear you,sir. MR. BORK: My name is Arthur Bork. I don't want to take any time. Is it possible to preserve the list of speaker requests from this meeting so that we go to the top of the pile on the 7th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,we'll do that. Absolutely. MR. BORK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. And with that, no other public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, seconded by Joe. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 78 of 79 I , January 17,2019 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION C ji t. PA titf,` . MA STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K.KINZEL,CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT&COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on Z-Z(,—) ,as presented or as corrected V TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 79 of 79 January 17,2019 actually spot planning leading to spot zoning,which, in my opinion, is even worse. You cannot legislate your way out of a spot zoning situation. That has been--that's judge-made law in the state of Florida. If anybody wants to see the cases on it, I can't remember the name or the--of all the cases, but probably one is--the biggest one's called Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association. I think it was a Dade County case. But that's where you plop something into an area that is incompatible with everything else in the area. And what you've heard most of the day,actually from everybody, is that we have a proposal to put a very highly--a high density development,apartment type of development into an area that is clearly low density single-family residential. In a county that's larger than at least two states,there are plenty of places to put something like this. You don't have to put it somewhere that is,under your Comprehensive Plan, incompatible certainly as it applies to density and also as it applies to--in the zoning this applies to uses. So that's what's being done. That's what's being proposed. The idea of planning and zoning--and I certainly don't want to lecture you,because you know this and see this probably more than I do, but the idea of planning is that you spent--and this county spent a lot of time and a lot of effort coming up with its districts. Next thing you know,we have developers wanting to create subdistricts to suit their purposes, so we wind up with a certain number of subdistricts. Why? Because generally in an ad hoc manner there's an attempt to get around the Comprehensive Plan,the GMP. That's what's being done here. Now, it's one thing-- if it's really pretty close and it's really about the same and the uses are not too far off,that's one thing. And the densities are similar, but this is nowhere close,as you heard a lot of people say today on both sides. And the problem is--another problem that I see is that the PUDs,which are a great idea in their place--planned developments are a great idea in their place--are being used improperly as the means to accomplish illegal spot planning, spot zoning when you get to the zoning aspect of it, so you wind up with PUDs going around that. It's one thing for PUDs to say,well, we're going to have this mixture of uses or we're going to have this type of use,et cetera,and to give up some setbacks and some height and things like that exchanged for amenities for the PUD, but it's a totally different thing to plop a PUD into a place where it doesn't belong,and it's even worse to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate that. Mr. Mulhere, I think, said--at least gave the impression to me, maybe to you,that,well, it's residential. Residential's residential. Well,that's not really correct because at least going back-- if you go back into history far enough, all the way back to the first zoning case that everybody had to learn from the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a case having to do with putting apartments into residential districts. And if I may, let me quote this. Suspend your disbelief just long enough to pick out some nuggets that I think are relevant to this case,and then I'll open it up for questions, if you want. But the U.S. Supreme Court said, "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses,which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private-house purposes: that in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover,the coming of one apartment house is followed by others interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which.otherwise,would fall upon smaller homes,and bringing as their necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business and the occupation by means of moving and parked automobiles, larger portions of street,thus detracting--almost Page 63 of 79 January 17,2019 done--from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open places for play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until,finally,the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. "Under these circumstances,apartment houses which in a different environment would not only be entirely unobjectionable,but highly desirable,come very near to being nuisances." This was Village of Euclid versus Amber Realty, 1926. It could have been written last month. That case is still a good case,and it's good law. Without that case,we would not all be here. That was the case that upheld that zoning in its proper place is okay. And so the point is that this is not a new issue. This is something--the issue of compatibility,even among--even between one type of residence and another type of residence has been recognized since the beginning,since the landmark case,and that is certainly something that should guide us in saying you have to follow--developer, new person coming in, buyer,whoever you are,you have to follow the rules that we have in our Comp Plan, and we're not going to bend our rules just to accommodate you. I spent 13 years on a--as City Attorney for a small area--a small city in Lee County. They have not increased density one unit except for affordable housing since 1988. So sometimes you just say no. This is not it. This is not the place,and this is not it. And all that stuff about trying to accommodate somebody when they really don't have the proper reason for it, is really kind of a waste of time,in my opinion. So I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Could you send me that case? MR. PRITT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just cited,the Euclid case. MR. PRITT: Oh,yes, Village of Euclid. We all know about Euclidian zoning;that's where that came from. Not from Euclid of old,but it's named after the city,and that was the beginning of zoning. That's the case that said zoning is allowable. And from that case, everything has--that we talk about in planning and zoning has come out of that. I'll be glad to send you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will-- MR. PRITT: And also Bird-Kendall-- I didn't think to bring it, but that's one that--on spot zoning that is relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,obviously, I'll give Mr. Yovanovich an opportunity to send any case that he wants to utilize to offset the one you've just mentioned. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick comment for you, Mr. Prin. Would it be all right if I obtain a transcript of your remarks so that I can quote you to the Planning Advisory Board? MR. PRITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: I've said that, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another board besides ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amazingly enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. MR. PRITT: Well, until a couple days ago I was City Attorney for Naples, as most of you know,as many of you know,and I've turned that over to partner now,but I still am working on a lot of the planning and zoning issues. Page 64 of 79 January 17,2019 So common sense tells us,traffic is a problem. You add 700 people to the area we're in, traffic's going to be worse. Commons sense tells us our home values will go down because people do not want to buy next to these apartments. And they may be great tenants, luxury apartments; the perception is it's a rental apartment. And I've got too many options to buy in other places instead of our area. Schools;they mentioned the school capacities. And then the aesthetics. Does a four-story or three-story, partial four, fit into the landscape of our community? No matter what it looks like, it's not going to fit. From Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,there's nothing like it. So why would it fit in our little area right there in our community? It doesn't fit. And,two, we talked about Livingston traffic. No one's brought up Old 41 traffic. It's a two-lane road,and it's just as bad. So what's going to happen when they extend VME? People are going to cut through VME,get on Old 41,and sit in traffic again. So common sense tells us-- it doesn't matter what the national data says,common sense tells us that it doesn't work in our community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr.Chairman,can I ask a question of this gentleman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, if you'd come back a minute. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tom,thanks for your statements. I have a quick question for you. When you bought in Barrington Cove,just out of curiosity,what'd they tell you? Obviously,that land was already-- what'd they tell you,the developer,the developer when you bought your property? MR.GRIFFITH: You want me to be honest? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR.GRIFFITH: They told us a bunch of crap is what they told us. No one ever told us that Verona Pointe Estates was going to be built. I backed up to a preserve, so I was told your backyard is a preserve. Now it's 133 community-- is I33-home community. No one's ever told us that any of this was going to be developed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. And who was the builder/developer for Barrington Cove? MR.GRIFFITH: DR Horton. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: DR Horton. MR.GRIFFITH: And the other thing about the traffic study and that single-family homes have more traffic,yes, but not-- in 350 apartments with 700 people,you're not going to get that density with a single-family home on that corner. So, nationally, statistics may speak that there's more cars, but you're not-- if--how many homes can you put on 35 acres? It's not going to be 700 people, I can tell you that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Good afternoon, Mr.Chairman,members of the Board. I'm Robert Pritt. I'm with Roetzel&Andress Law Firm. I represent the Mediterra Community Association. Alan Johnson was here this morning, but I think he had to leave,the president,so he won't be speaking today. Tim Richards, who is the manager, is here. I'm not sure if he's going to speak or just yield to me. Since I'm an attorney. I kind of look at things from that aspect. And we do have a planner. Dr. David Depew, who's going to be speaking here today also. I'll leave the details to him, if it's okay. But there are really two points I want to make,and they're related,and one is the question concerning spot zoning. As a matter of fact, I had prepared the spot zoning remarks before the Chair brought them up today,and I do think this is spot zoning. This is illegal spot zoning. It's Page 62 of 79 GrecoSherry From: John Gilles <gillesjohnl @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 2:57 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA Hello Penny, I am a homeowner in Barrington Cove and vehemently oppose zoning changes for the ALLURA development. The land in question had been zoned for a long period of time and all surrounding property was developed in compliance with current zoning. Re-zoning this land is unfair to the voting taxpayers who chose to purchase in adjoining communities. Further, I can personally attest to the terrible rush hour traffic at Livingston and Veterans Parkway, particularly on school mornings,which this proposed development will only exacerbate. I have witnessed numerous near miss accidents, including school children attempting to cross Livingston Road on their bicycles. Naples is a beautiful and desirable place to live and I understand the demand. Part of the reason is the wealth of green space, highly rated schools, and lack of eye-sore developments. Allowing the proposed ALLURA development and other similar proposals jeopardize our wonderful city. The voting taxpayers in all surrounding communities are mobilized in opposing this re-zoning effort and ask for you to vote against ALLURA and help keep Naples beautiful. Sincerely, Michael John Gilles GrecoSherry From: Google Calendar <calendar-notification@google.com> on behalf of zannosgrekos@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 2:31 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Zannos Grekos- Representative from Barrington Cove opposi... @ Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:30am - 10am (EDT) (TaylorPenny) Attachments: invite.ics Zannos Grekos has accepted this invitation. :. Zannos Grekos- Representative from Barrington Cove opposing the Allura project (239-498- 9114) When Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:30am— 10am Eastern Time - New York Where 3299 Tamiami Trial East, Suite 303, NAples, FL 34112 (map) Calendar TaylorPenny Who • TaylorPenny-organizer • Zannos Grekos-creator Your meeting was found to be out of date and has been automatically updated. Updated meeting details: Start Time Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Invitation from Google Calendar You are receiving this courtesy email at the account penny.taylor@colliercountyfl.gov because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event,decline this event.Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More. 2 GrecoSherry From: Rob Walczak <tarpon569@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 1:06 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project I am sending this email in regards to the Allura Project proposed to be literally built in my back yard. I am a firefighter in Naples and my wife is a nurse. We have 3 small boys and I am very disappointed this project has even been considered. We moved to Barrington Cove for a better sense of community and safety. This project is going to be a eye sore to me as my backyard will be facing the buildings. My pool faces the parking area. I promise you that the safety concerns are very real for me. I have been in many similar buildings in the county and nothing I want in my back yard! This is NO sense of community and very upsetting for us. I worked very hard to get my family into our neighborhood. This all will change if this project is approved. Serve your citizens! Put our communities/families first and not someone's pockets! Robert Walczak 16285 Aberdeen Way Naples Fl 34110 3 GrecoSherry From: B Prins <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 11:04 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura complex please vote NO Hello Commissioner Taylor Please vote NO on the upcoming Collier County commissioners meeting for the Allura apartment project . The traffic on Livingston is already horrible..the afternoon traffic, going north to Bonita Beach road is often at a stand still. In addition, motorists often use Livingston as a thoroughfare for 175, when traffic on the highway is backed up. Drivers will exit the highway at Bonita and take Livingston to re-enter the highway at Immokalee. This is dangerous. The added population from the complex will also add to the already over crowded schools and the burdened services provided by the county via our taxes. Thank you and please vote NO to Allura complex Nanette Prins Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad 4 GrecoSherry From: Arnold Saslaysky <arnold@saslaysky.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 7:54 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SolisAndy Subject: Re: Allura Attachments: RattleSnakeHammock.png; LivingstonRd.png Dear Ms. Fiala: Thank you for your personal reply. You asked, "Where SHOULD they be built? Where are the jobs?" in reference to the proposed Altura apartment complex. I would ask, "SHOULD they be built?" Do we need another 304 apartments in a county that, according to Apartments.com, has 1,311 rentals available? (In your Daily News commentary, you noted the number of available apartments in East Naples alone.) On the other hand, if Stock Development were interested in constructing something more in line with what is currently in our immediate area (single-family homes or condos no more than two floors), I'm sure there would be less resistance. This type of construction would also provide the jobs you're looking for. Please take a look at the two attachments to this email. One shows Rattlesnake Hammock in the vicinity of Inspira (in this Google Maps image an empty lot at the corner of Grand Lely Dr.) and the other is the Livingston Rd corridor near the proposed Altura apartments property. Please note the difference in density of these two areas. It's pretty obvious that Livingston Rd is already pretty crowded. Note too that Veteran's Memorial Blvd, the proposed ingress/egress for Altura, is only two lanes compared with the four lanes of Grand Lely Dr. I would ask that all Commissioners listen to the wishes of their constituents and give them more consideration than the well-heeled developers who would be no worse off if their grandiose development ideas were cut down to something that was more in line with the "Smart Growth" principles being espoused for eastern Collier County, even right here along Livingston Rd. Thanks again, Arnold Saslaysky On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 7:23 PM FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>wrote: You mentioned "not in this area". Where SHOULD they be built? Where are the jobs? Donna Fiala Donna Fiala Collier County Commissioner, District 1 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #303 Naples, FL 34112 5 P: (239) 252-8601 F: (239) 252-6578 I am not home accepting the things I cannot change, I am out changing the things I can not accept. From: Arnold Saslaysky<arnold@saslaysky.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 5:17 PM To: SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill Subject: Re: Allura Dear Commissioners: I'd like to comment on the article "Collier County Workshop focuses on growth planning" that appeared in the Naples Daily News on Wednesday, March 6. First, regarding the following: "'We've got to figure out how we balance developer-driven needs versus what we know is the best planning practices for the future,' Commissioner Penny Taylor said." I think "best planning practices..." should greatly outweigh "developer-driven needs" which basically translate to making money, something developers will still manage to do. A good example is the proposed Allura apartments by Stock Development at the intersection of Veteran's Memorial Blvd and Livingston Rd. Why didn't Stock choose to develop the Della Rosa PUD located on a portion of that land? My guess, not worth the effort for only 107 units maximum. "Best planning practices" for this area should not include four-story buildings with 304 apartments! So please put sensible county planning before developer-driven needs and vote NO to Allura! Mike Bosi's statement: "the most rapid expansion that this county has seen, is in our rear-view mirror" and the statistics cited made me laugh. Percentages of population growth for two different decades were compared; one starting with 2010 having a 16% increase while the other beginning in 1950 showed a 143% increase. But look at the actual numbers according to the population cited in the article: in the 1950s, Collier's population increased only by 9,265 while in the 2010's it increased by 51,360.That hardly puts expansion in the rear-view mirror! Next comes Thaddeus Cohen's statement, "Not in anybody's lifetime will we look like Miami." DUH? I can say with the same authority, "Not in anybody's lifetime will an apple look like an orange!" My issue is to not have Collier County look like either Broward or Palm Beach County, both of which I rejected 17 years ago when deciding where I would spend my retirement years. I do agree with Penny Taylor suggesting the use of"smart growth principles" with a "range of housing choices and walkable neighborhoods."This is currently what we have in our area despite the fact that many of the neighborhoods are in gated communities.A cluster of four-story apartment buildings (Aullra) does NOT qualify as "smart" growth in this area. I would also thank Michelle Avola for her comments regarding the traffic nightmares and not allowing developers to dictate Collier's growth. Andy Solis commented about younger families not wanting to live in gated communities. My experience would suggest otherwise seeing who's living in the gated communities of Barrington Cove, Camden Lakes,Verona Pointe, Milano, and Delasol. Granted, they may not be looking for communities with golf and/or country clubs adding to their cost of living, but they don't shy away from houses and condos within a gated community. In closing, I'd just like to say, "Thanks for your service and thanks for voting NO to the Allura apartment complex. Sincerely, 6 Arnold Saslaysky ` The Strand 7 411 GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 2:50 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Minutes of the Jan 17th Planning Meeting with the discussion by Mr Pritt and Chairman Strain who voted against Allura Attachments: 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes (dragged).pdf; ATT00001.htm; 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes (dragged) 3.pdf;ATT0Q002.htm; 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes (dragged) 2.pdf; ATT00003.htm Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello again Commissioner, Attached are more Planning meeting minutes by Mr. Pritt with is discussion with Chairman Strain in regard to a Supreme Court decision with spot zoning. It discusses why a large dense apartment complex should not be in a single family homes neighbor.Thanks, Tim Diegel 8 GrecoSherry From: Karen Dillon <kdillon@affinitiv.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:36 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartment Project I am beyond shocked that the Collier County Planning Board passed this proposal. We live in The Strand and the traffic along Livingston between Immokalee and Bonita Beach Road is already horrendous, as well as the traffic on Immokalee Road between Airport-Pulling and I-75!!! Adding this many vehicles will create a total nightmare for anyone trying to travel in this area. All I can say is there must have been money that changed hands here as adding 304 more units is a terrible option and will create an untenable situation. Please know that if you vote for this proposal, I will do my best to see that you lose the votes of ALL my friends who live in your District, because I will definitely be certain that they are aware of your vote. Thanks, KD Karen Dillon (239)593-4620-direct line (239)595-0347-cell (239)206-2502-fax Skype-kkdillon KDillon@Comcast.net 9 GrecoSherry From: Diane Nebbia <dianenebbia1957@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:41 AM To: Fiala Donna; SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDaniel Bill Subject: ASAINST the Allura apartment complex I am against the Allura apartment complex that is proposed. I own a home in Barrington Cove and to do feel like this project in good for our area. The zoning should not be changed to high density! There would be a enormous impact on the roads and schools.There are not any high rise buildings in our residential area and it should not be allowed. Please listen to the neighbors of this area and help us to preserve the residential neighborhood that we live in. Thank you Diane Nebbia 16422 Barclay Ct 10 GrecoSherry From: Patricia <perutchf@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 8:33 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Hearing A parcel of property on the southeast corner of Livingston and Veterans is being considered for development of 4 story apartment buildings. Neighboring communities are concerned because all of the other adjoining areas are single family or multi-family 1 or 2 story homes. As you may be aware, this will bring increased traffic, possibly 700 additional cars traveling to and from our area. Also, other area projects include Enclave (between Mediterra and Talis Park) which is currently under development, Oakes Farm, a new high school (much needed for North Naples)on Veterans southwest corner off of Livingston and possible other projects to come. There is a plan to extend Veterans Memorial Blvd to the new high school (extending Veterans west towards Old 41) where the high school traffic would then flow from Livingston to Veterans past the elementary school which would be adding more traffic. Livingston Road is the only north/south access road that connects Lee County to Collier County's Immokalee Road. The traffic has been known going north on Livingston to be stop and go from Veterans Memorial Blvd to Bonita Beach Road and south bound traffic from Veterans Memorial Blvd to Immokalee. I believe that more information is needed to proceed with the magnitude of this new development. I understand the need to be proactive with providing housing but this parcel is one of only two that are undeveloped off of Livingston Road going north. A scaled down approach to ensure that traffic will not be severely affected and the quality of life and safety be considered before approving the Allura development. Thank you for considering my comments, Pat Crutchfield Delasol Resident ii GrecoSherry From: Arnold Saslaysky <arnold@saslaysky.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 5:17 PM To: SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill Subject: Re: Allura Dear Commissioners: I'd like to comment on the article "Collier County Workshop focuses on growth planning" that appeared in the Naples Daily News on Wednesday, March 6. First, regarding the following: "'We've got to figure out how we balance developer-driven needs versus what we know is the best planning practices for the future,' Commissioner Penny Taylor said." I think "best planning practices..." should greatly outweigh "developer-driven needs" which basically translate to making money, something developers will still manage to do. A good example is the proposed Altura apartments by Stock Development at the intersection of Veteran's Memorial Blvd and Livingston Rd. Why didn't Stock choose to develop the Della Rosa PUD located on a portion of that land? My guess, not worth the effort for only 107 units maximum. "Best planning practices" for this area should not include four-story buildings with 304 apartments! So please put sensible county planning before developer-driven needs and vote NO to Altura! Mike Bosi's statement: "the most rapid expansion that this county has seen, is in our rear-view mirror" and the statistics cited made me laugh. Percentages of population growth for two different decades were compared; one starting with 2010 having a 16% increase while the other beginning in 1950 showed a 143% increase. But look at the actual numbers according to the population cited in the article: in the 1950s, Collier's population increased only by 9,265 while in the 2010's it increased by 51,360. That hardly puts expansion in the rear- view mirror! Next comes Thaddeus Cohen's statement, "Not in anybody's lifetime will we look like Miami." DUH? I can say with the same authority, "Not in anybody's lifetime will an apple look like an orange!" My issue is to not have Collier County look like either Broward or Palm Beach County, both of which I rejected 17 years ago when deciding where I would spend my retirement years. I do agree with Penny Taylor suggesting the use of "smart growth principles" with a "range of housing choices and walkable neighborhoods." This is currently what we have in our area despite the fact that many of the neighborhoods are in gated communities. A cluster of four-story apartment buildings (Aullra) does NOT qualify as "smart" growth in this area. I would also thank Michelle Avola for her comments regarding the traffic nightmares and not allowing developers to dictate Collier's growth. Andy Solis commented about younger families not wanting to live in gated communities. My experience would suggest otherwise seeing who's living in the gated communities of Barrington Cove, Camden Lakes, Verona Pointe, Milano, and Delasol. Granted, they may not be looking for communities with golf and/or country clubs adding to their cost of living, but they don't shy away from houses and condos within a gated community. In closing, I'd just like to say, "Thanks for your service and thanks for voting NO to the Allura apartment complex. 12 Sincerely, Arnold Saslaysky The Strand On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:51 AM Arnold Saslaysky<arnold@saslaysky.com>wrote: Ron Et Susanne: This is very well stated email regarding the current horrendous traffic we face daily and the prospect of it getting even worse with the addition of the 304 Altura apartments. Not only is Collier County getting overflooded with traffic, but it also has an overabundance of apartments for rent. A simple online search for available apartments reveals there are approximately 2000 rentals available in the area. I see no point in adding 304 more and certainly not in an area where four-story buildings would be incompatible with the surrounding communities. I'd like to suggest the Commissioners ask themselves, "Is Altura something Collier County really needs?" Thanks for adding your voices to the majority of area residents opposing Altura. Arnold Saslaysky The Pinnacle at The Strand On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:26 PM Susanne Kauffman <KauffmanSP@msn.com>wrote: Dear Commissioners: We are always complaining about the increasing traffic congestion in Collier County, but have little opportunity to do anything about it. The hearings you are conducting pertaining to the proposed Allura development will provide an opportunity for you to make a decision that will determine the traffic conditions in this area for the foreseeable future. The only access to this high density community will be via Veterans Memorial Blvd., east of Livingston Road. This two-lane road already serves Tallis Park, Barrington Court, The Strand and ongoing construction traffic for two of these communities. The addition of several hundred personal, delivery and construction vehicles will result in massive congestion when this long line of vehicles encounters the traffic signs at the intersection with Livingston Road. To make matters worse, heavy traffic from Veterans Memorial Elementary School and Secoya Reserve approach this intersection from Veterans Memorial west of Livingston Road. And finally, traffic on Livingston Road already experiences massive backups because of the intersection with Bonita Beach Road to the 13 north, and Immokalee Road to the south. Both of those multi-lane highways are already infamous for the delays that are encountered in both directions. Therefore, we would ask that all of you Commissioners give serious thought to the opportunity you will be missing for restraining further traffic increases in this area if you approve the Allura proposed development. We look forward to your intelligent analysis and decision pertaining to this important issue. Ronald and Susanne Kauffman The Strand North Naples 14 GrecoSherry From: Bette Saslaysky <bette42@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 4:22 PM To: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Fwd:Allura Apartment Proposal for North Naples Dear Commissioners: I am a resident in The Strand and opposed to the amendment of zoning that would allow Stock Development to construct Altura, four-story buildings with 304 apartments at the intersection of Livingston Rd and Veteran's Memorial Blvd. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Bette Saslaysky 15 GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 5:47 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Planning minutes from Jan. 17th RE:Allura Attachments: 1-17-2019 CCPC minutes.pdf;ATT00001.htm Hi Commissioner, here are 2 pages from the minutes regarding the effect of the traffic from Allura according to the developer. Elsewhere they stated that there would be no significant increase in traffic from Allura. Basically it says that only 25%of the 600+ residents will leave during the 2 hour rush hour. Commissioner Strain debated this with the representative and never received a credible answer. He and others voted against Allura. For some reason, others voted for it probably due to personal reasons. Thanks, Tim Diegel 16 GrecoSherry From: Charles Hatton <cbh0905@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:46 AM To: donna.fiala@colliercounyfl.gov; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartment Project County Commissioners As residents of the Strand for 17 years, we are against the proposed Stock development, Allura. This project does not add to our values, but rather reduces them. In addition, it would be a major problem from a traffic standpoint if 300+ units with cars are added to an already difficult Veterans Memorial Parkway/Livingston intersection. Livingston Rd to Bonita Beach Rd at 4:30 to 6:00 in season can take upwards of 30 minutes to traverse. As many as 4 light changes may be required to even access Livingston Rd from Veterans Memorial Parkway when the traffic is so backed up. Again adding those many units would only add to the problem. Please do not allow Stock Development bully you into approving this project. Remember, it is not Stock Development who elects you, but rather the people of Collier County. Thank you Charles and Bonnie Hatton 6040 Pinnacle Lane#2103 Naples, Fl. 34110 17 GrecoSherry From: Carvelli, Amy <acarvelli@communityschoolnaples.org> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 8:13 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Against Allura! Dear Commissioners, I write this email with a heavy heart, knowing that the high density Allura apartment complex has already been approved by the Planning Commission.As elected officials, I hope that you will be more sensitive to the public's concerns and downright outrage about such a thoughtless, irresponsible project being thrust upon us.As a resident of Barrington Cove (on Livingston Rd.just south of Veterans Memorial Parkway), I am immediately affected by the proposed devastation of our surrounding natural environment,that my family specifically chose to reside near, and the impending traffic that will be thrust upon us. Currently, I already sit in traffic for an hour to crawl from my house to Bonita Springs from 5:30-6:30 regularly on weekday evenings. I have tried every possible route, and none of them are quicker. Naples was not built to be Ft. Myers in its infrastructure or quality of life. If Neapolitans wanted to live in such a congested environment, we would have moved to bigger cities and paid less for our homes. Perhaps we might have even stayed in the bigger cities we originally hail from. Even if I was not a resident of a neighborhood that will border Allura, I would oppose the project in order to preserve the charm of Naples that I, and so many others,fell in love with it.That is the real ALLURE of Naples, not ALLURA, which has become a dirty word, including those who live far from the project. Conservationists are concerned about the loss of natural habitat for wildlife. We have had a family of bears,wild turkey, otters, bobcats, deer, and even a panther roam through our neighborhood. While it is amazing to see them, it is a sad reminder that we are taking too much from our planet.Those in favor of the project may argue there is a need for "affordable housing," but as Ms. Fiala pointed out in her Naples News article, is there really a "crisis"? Rather, has this idea been falsely manufactured and promoted by those who might gain from passing through such lucrative construction projects on the horizon. Naples' identity crisis hovers between a place of greed and overdevelopment and a place where people come to slow down and enjoy a better quality of life. Which is really progress, and which path will you set us all on, Commissioners? With great appreciation for your time and service, Mrs.Amy Carvelli Lit. & Comp. I Honors and Lit. & Comp. II Community School of Naples 13275 Livingston Road Naples, FL 34109, USA Tel: 1-239-597-7575 Ext. 112 Room 0-15 www.communityschoolnaples.org I y. I:3 ES 18 GrecoSherry From: dgentzel9@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 4:50 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Ms. Taylor, Do not vote for Allura or you will lose our vote. Donna and Charles Gentzel Sent from my iPad 19 GrecoSherry From: MarcellaJeanne Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 4:04 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: CohenThaddeus; CasalanguidaNick; OchsLeo Subject: ALLURA Project Attachments: Allura RPUD Density Map.pdf;ALLURA -land use narrative-update-3-7-19.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Commissioner, On behalf of Thaddeus Cohen, please find attached the information you requested in reference to the Allura project. If you should need anything further, please let us know. Respectfully, Jeanne Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 20 GrecoSherry From: Ronald Maxson <maxson0l @aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 1:19 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote NO on Allura Apartment Proposal It is important for you to Vote NO on the Allura apt proposal . Please don't make traffic safety any worse than it already is on Livingston Rd Thank You Ronald Maxson 21 GrecoSherry From: Lori Grant <Icgrant@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 10:54 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Altura Dear Ms Taylor, Please vote NO for Allura. I will count on your NO vote just like you count on my vote for you Lori Grant 22 GrecoSherry From: C. Lennart Ehn <clehn@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 10:48 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Allura apartments and Eastern Collier County Growth Dear Commissioners, I'm a Collier County resident (The Strand in North Naples) and would like to comment on two matters which you are considering: Regarding the proposed Allura development on Livingston Road and Veterans Parkway, I ask that you do NOT approve the proposal to grant a variance which would allow the developer to increase the number of dwelling units to be built on the property. The developer already has the right to build a significant number of residences on the site. Increasing the number of residences allowed will merely serve to add further to the heavy traffic in the area. Traffic flows at rush hour on Livingston Road are already very heavy, and additional residences in neighboring existing developments are being added steadily, Thus, traffic continues to grow, and will increase further when the developer builds his "by right" residences. Please do not make a bad situation worse. With regard to planning for new development in the eastern part of the county, it was encouraging that some thoughtful opinions were expressed by both Commissioners and residents at your workshop yesterday. However, I would like to add my voice to those expressing a desire for slow, smart growth, occurring only after careful planning. Collier County used to be known as a developer's paradise, where sprawl and growth at any cost was quite acceptable; we hope that that is no longer the case. We realize that the county will continue to grow in terms of population. However, the manner in which this growth occurs can still be controlled -- by you! Please work to make Smart Growth a requirement, and to preserve as much land as possible for conservation and wildlife. Thank you for your attention. We will be watching with interest to see how you vote on the above matters! C. Lennart Ehn 6049 Ashford Lane #204 Naples, FL 34110 23 GrecoSherry From: Ellen Horowitz <Inatlarge@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 7:59 PM To: SolisAndy; Bill.McDaniels@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Allura Project Dear Commissioners. I am writing today to let to urge you to vote against the proposed Allura project at the corner of Livingston Rd. and Veterans's Memorial Blvd. As a long-time resident of the Strand, I have seen an incredible increase in traffic and construction in this area. During rush hour it is nearly impossible to get the short distance between Veteran's Memorial Blvd. and Bonita Beach Road. The stop lights back up all around the Livingston/Immokalee and Livingston/Bonita Beach Rd. intersections. Adding a high-density apartment complex will only make things worse, causing more congestion and traffic. My daughter gets so sad every time she sees a new development being built. Where we had acres of trees, there are now constant construction sites. We have displaced wildlife roaming through our neighborhood as they have no place left to go. Just today there was another bear sighting-- in the middle of the day. So now I have to worry about letting my kids play outside. More development is not a good idea for this corner at this time. Thank you. Sincerely, Ellen Goldberg 5867 Whisperwood Court Naples, FL 34110 24 GrecoSherry From: betsy22@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:44 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Fwd: Allura Status Madam: Do NOT vote for Allura or you lose our vote. Thanks. Mary E Donnelly Homeowner 5997 Trophy Drive#1101 Naples FLA Phone 913 208 5400 25 r= GrecoSherry From: Joe Huntt <j.huntt@live.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:38 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura project Dear Commissioner Taylor: To begin I want to thank you for the time and service that you give to our city. I am writing this letter in reference to the proposed Allura apartment complex that Stock Construction has requested to be built at the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I attended both of the meetings previously held by the Naples zoning commission where information was presented to the board that predicted that the traffic on Livingston would not be significantly impacted by the construction of a 300+ unit at this corner. Clearly a forecast that contradicts the reality of 2019. I specifically want to address the issue of the intersection of these two roadways. Every resident of Barrington Cove (my community),Secoya Reserve, a significant number of residents from The Strand and Talis Park usually, although each does have an alternate exit from their respective communities, drive through this intersection everyday. All of the parents dropping off or picking up their students from the elementary school as well as all staff and teachers must go through this intersection on every school day.The ongoing construction inside Talis Park requires that every construction related worker and all of the construction related equipment (dump trucks, concreted mixers, and 18- wheelers) also pass through this same corner along the eastern portion of Veterans Blvd. If you are not familiar with the logistics of this corner, it is a full size intersection by physical area with only a two-lane road representing Veterans Blvd.This roadway was not constructed to handle the volume (100+vehicles every hour from 6 a.m.to 7 p.m. every work day) of traffic that currently travel on the eastern portion of Veterans. If the first car at the light is making a left turn onto Livingston (going south) there is no way that any car making a right onto Livingston (going north) can turn because the road wasn't designed for that purpose. My point is that traffic backs up on Veterans and potentially requires sitting through two cycles of the light before getting onto Livingston. Southbound cars on Livingston turning onto Veterans moving eastward often block the intersection initially because of completing their turn on a red light.This delays any movement from the vehicles on Veterans to get through the intersect before the light goes red again. My point here is that at least twice every work day (morning rush hours and evening rush hours)we on the eastern side of Veterans cannot get out of our subdivisions without allowing extra time just to get onto Livingston to begin our travel north or south. I have experienced being in line waiting to turn right at the noon hour and was barely able to get through the light before it went to red and I was the fifth car in the line.To build an apartment complex that will have every one of its 600 plus residents required to use Veterans as well will create a virtual nightmare for those of us that have chosen to live here.This will be our fate for all future years since Veterans Blvd will never be extended eastward leaving no other way for us to leave the community. In summary I want to urge you to use reasonable logic to recognize that just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.Therefore, I respectively request that you deny the motion to grant the rezoning that the Allura project requires. Thanks, again. Joe Huntt 26 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 27 ammmi GrecoSherry From: david vandermolen <davevandermolen83@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:24 PM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Project/Stock Development Concerns for North Collier County Hello Commissioners, I am a home owner of the fairly new Barrington Cove community on Livingston road. Our children attend Veteran's Memorial Elementary, and North Naples Middle School. It is a wonderful location in Collier County and we wouldn't want to live anywhere else. It is full of a variety of single family homes and townhouses, all that attract committed owners to this beautiful part of Naples. Below is a breakdown of Naples Daily News articles pertaining to new home development, affordable housing, and Stock Development. As you can see, as of March 4, 2019,there has only been 682 articles written on affordable housing vs, 2,139 articles written on new home development. The affordable housing issue is in concentrated areas of Collier County; but does not pertain to the North Naples area we are looking at for the Stock Development.New home development is and has been booming in Collier County. Livingston Road alone is completely different than when we moved here in 2016. Do the Commissioners go to companies like Stock Development as say "we need affordable housing here, please look to develop?" What are the financial gains for the Commissioners to approve such a measure when the development of such a plan is far more of an issue?Was there ever an exploration of a single family community similar to Verona Pointe or Barrington Cove in this location? What service are we doing by building apartment complexes as the solution for affordable housing? Shouldn't the commissioners promote the process and idea of the Habitat for Humanity communities; providing financial classes, training, and assistance to getting loans to own affordable housing versus rent affordable housing? Laurel Oak is AT capacity, as well as Gulf Coast High. Veteran's Memorial Elementary while not at capacity as of this school year, has the 4th highest amount of student numbers of all Collier County Elementary schools; almost at 1,000 students. This is not including the YMCA daycare program on site, or the summer program that hosts other elementary school students. Where will students go if VME reaches capacity, and Laurel Oak is currently at capacity? North Naples Middle School, while not at capacity, is the 14th highest rank middle school in the state. What sacrifices will the Commissioners make to possibly sacrifice this standing in the state? Where will the students go if North Naples Middle School meets capacity? Oakridge is at capacity and cannot take on any new students. Are the Commissioners open to viewing pictures of the traffic issues throughout the day? Or at least driving down Livingston between the hours of 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm?What will the Commissioners do about the congestion on VME road as a two lane dead end street?There are 4 communities smaller than what this 4-story complex will be that currently use this road, and it takes 2 or 3 lights to get onto Livingston as it currently stands. Are the Commissioners open to expressing their point of view and/or feelings on the safety of their children walking to and from school, and home from after school activities across Livingston where Collier County schools does not support a cross walk guard? 28 Are the Commissioners comfortable with allowing renters overshadow the right to homeowners privacy by letting a 4- story building overlook backyards and pools of Barrington Cove? I appreciate you accepting this email, and reviewing the facts of the situation, versus a company's temporary financial gain. Sincerely, David VanderMolen a,.a...raao.Ye. Naples Day News .__ _'_ ate» as M ro tt Naples Daly Ne �. �• _ .� �.,. =.... »_ _.. .. , --..._- In th K Cle r g begins for future Habitat forI �� ‘,.......—.---.-7.--.... :—..."— Humanity community rw.". ... lef Kw' lOa _':.• a WWW P. i w,3 t..°irw ,.. r. n▪wrtst _ e iliIle 010 11. n. =II' W OW WWI. 47, :. � _....� w.,..asWWWW ,n. iiil 1.7 ro Naples-based developer Stock Development grappling with construction issues in Collier County Naples Daily News a;.tn:,,, I Share Yaurteedbwfeb MlV � � �� .__ __ .....w• Ma.waew.Na..parin.cl rwa..,u_ r..+rc•. o-r..� ..u,.+.a w.a a«. What to know about , -, Stock Development 0« `a,...,w.aad WWI.N..WR1a t.your CoiRew County .., :.c«.w•M:,aa„»,p..�.aaa-...t.a,�.,a_,ab... m,...... Eer m.••.a......Nare.,a.mennara a..,,.a,N»,a. m...a.. a.a.n,.mana....Ya+� .~•or..� T 29 i GrecoSherry From: Larry Waller <wallerlarry64@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:46 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Zoning VOTE NO Dear Commissioner Taylor: I am a resident of the Strand and my wife and I are both registered voters in Collier County. We have lived here for 16 years and object to building of apartments proposed by Stock. This is spot zoning and not compatible with the type of buildings in the area. The increased traffic brought on by the heavy volume of homes will diminish values of real estate in this area and cause a reduction in the property taxes paid to Collier County. Please do not vote for this zoning request. Larry Waller 6017 Trophy Drive Naples Fl 34110 30 GrecoSherry From: Traci Dutton <tlpdblue@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 8:25 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Say no to Allura >> Penny, >> I am a full time resident and registered voter. I am asking for you to vote no to Allura. It will create a hardship for myself and neighbors.The traffic is already backed up by 3pm from Bonita rd to Talus park and the road can't handle additional traffic. We do we not have enough protected land in Naples or parks. If you or anyone vote for this I assure you myself, my partner and our neighbors will not vote for you. Please do the right thing keep Naples a great place to live. »Traci Dutton 31 GrecoSherry From: Arnold Saslaysky <arnold@saslaysky.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 7:51 AM To: Susanne Kauffman Cc: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Re: Allura Ron Et Susanne: This is very well stated email regarding the current horrendous traffic we face daily and the prospect of it getting even worse with the addition of the 304 Altura apartments. Not only is Collier County getting overflooded with traffic, but it also has an overabundance of apartments for rent. A simple online search for available apartments reveals there are approximately 2000 rentals available in the area. I see no point in adding 304 more and certainly not in an area where four-story buildings would be incompatible with the surrounding communities. I'd like to suggest the Commissioners ask themselves, "Is Altura something Collier County really needs?" Thanks for adding your voices to the majority of area residents opposing Altura. Arnold Saslaysky The Pinnacle at The Strand On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:26 PM Susanne Kauffman <KauffmanSP@msn.com>wrote: Dear Commissioners: We are always complaining about the increasing traffic congestion in Collier County, but have little opportunity to do anything about it. The hearings you are conducting pertaining to the proposed Allura development will provide an opportunity for you to make a decision that will determine the traffic conditions in this area for the foreseeable future. The only access to this high density community will be via Veterans Memorial Blvd., east of Livingston Road. This two-lane road already serves Tallis Park, Barrington Court, The Strand and ongoing construction traffic for two of these communities. The addition of several hundred personal, delivery and construction vehicles will result in massive congestion when this long line of vehicles encounters the traffic signs at the intersection with Livingston Road. To make matters worse, heavy traffic from Veterans Memorial Elementary School and Secoya Reserve approach this intersection from Veterans Memorial west of 32 Livingston Road. And finally, traffic on Livingston Road already experiences massive backups because of the intersection with Bonita Beach Road to the north, and Immokalee Road to the south. Both of those multi-lane highways are already infamous for the delays that are encountered in both directions. Therefore, we would ask that all of you Commissioners give serious thought to the opportunity you will be missing for restraining further traffic increases in this area if you approve the Allura proposed development. We look forward to your intelligent analysis and decision pertaining to this important issue. Ronald and Susanne Kauffman The Strand North Naples 33 GrecoSherry From: Susanne Kauffman <KauffmanSP@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:27 PM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: RE: Allura Dear Commissioners: We are always complaining about the increasing traffic congestion in Collier County, but have little opportunity to do anything about it. The hearings you are conducting pertaining to the proposed Allura development will provide an opportunity for you to make a decision that will determine the traffic conditions in this area for the foreseeable future. The only access to this high density community will be via Veterans Memorial Blvd., east of Livingston Road. This two-lane road already serves Tallis Park, Barrington Court, The Strand and ongoing construction traffic for two of these communities. The addition of several hundred personal, delivery and construction vehicles will result in massive congestion when this long line of vehicles encounters the traffic signs at the intersection with Livingston Road. To make matters worse, heavy traffic from Veterans Memorial Elementary School and Secoya Reserve approach this intersection from Veterans Memorial west of Livingston Road. And finally, traffic on Livingston Road already experiences massive backups because of the intersection with Bonita Beach Road to the north, and Immokalee Road to the south. Both of those multi-lane highways are already infamous for the delays that are encountered in both directions. Therefore, we would ask that all of you Commissioners give serious thought to the opportunity you will be missing for restraining further traffic increases in this area if you approve the Allura proposed development. We look forward to your intelligent analysis and decision pertaining to this important issue. Ronald and Susanne Kauffman The Strand North Naples 34 GrecoSherry From: Rick Spreng <rickspreng@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 12:55 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Commissioner Taylor, As a resident of the Strand in North Naples, I have great interest concerning the Allura project and attended the Planning Board's meetings to help me understand the scope and nature of the project. I am only one person, however I know I share similar views of the 1200 residents in the Strand not to mention several thousand households within a two mile radius of our location. Even though my concern cannot come close to the concern of a Barrington Cove property owner, I still have great misgivings about the concentration of population that is occurring in our neighborhood. It seems very strange to me that most of the public comments by the Planning Board members during session were very critical of this expansion however they voted to approve the process on to the County Commissioners. If it were possible for you to experience Livingston Rd during early morning or late afternoon you would understand that adding about 500 cars coming and going from Allura each morning or evening will be very difficult. I base this on 350 apartment units with most having two wage earners since these are not low cost apartments and most suitable for young professional families. I believe Allura is not in the best interest of Naples and Collier County. Not only is it an intrusion to the lifestyle for Barrington Cove and the surrounding communities, It will be a roadway nightmare for all of us. Please consider our thoughts and vote based on what is best for not only Collier County but also the citizens in this area. Rick Spreng 5877 Rolling Pines Dr Naples 34110 35 GrecoSherry From: ScavoneMichelle Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 10:05 AM To: shakenns@comcast.net; 1982SWM@gmail.com Cc: LantzLorraine; ScottTrinity; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; FialaDonna; CohenThaddeus; MarcellaJeanne Subject: TP 7406 Allura Proposed Development Mr. Welding, Please see the following information provided by Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager: As required by the County's Traffic Impact Statement(TIS) guidelines, the applicant is utilizing the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication. The ITE Trip Generation Manual includes a large collection of vehicle count data collected over several decades for a variety of land uses. It is the most widely recognized and comprehensive report of vehicle trip generation data. The data collected is not just limited to personal vehicles entering and exiting the site, but would include delivery vehicles, service vehicles, school buses,mail delivery, etc. Therefore,that activity is accounted for within the rates. Regarding construction traffic,the County's Traffic Impact Statement(TIS) guidelines account for the construction traffic requirements. As noted in my original email, a new TIS is required for each phase of the development. Therefore, at the time of Site Development Plan the applicant will address their anticipated construction schedule and traffic for the project. You have keen observations regarding the access. Be aware that County staff has not agreed to the egress on Livingston Road. It does not meet the County's adopted Access Management Resolution. Please note,that the existing Della Rosa Planned Unit Development does allow for that access point as it was the only access available at the time and by our policy we must provide reasonable access. However, with the proposal to add the additional acreage that would provide access to Veterans Memorial, we believe that reasonable access can be accommodated via Veterans Memorial. In our review of the Planned Unit Development petition(which is separate from the Growth Management Plan Amendment)we have asked that the egress to Livingston Road be removed from the Planned Unit Development master plan. The current petition that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners is for the Growth Management Plan Amendment transmittal. If the Growth Management Plan Amendment is transmitted, it would be transmitted to the Department of Economic Opportunity, staff, etc. Once the additional reviews are completed,the petition would be presented again for adoption to both the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. At that time, I would anticipate a companion Planned Unit Development petition to be presented to both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Access management specifics would occur during the Planned Unit Development petition discussions. For more information regarding the sequence of petitions, I would encourage you to speak to our Planning and Zoning staff. On behalf of Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager Michelle Scavone, GMD Operations Coordinator 36 From: ScottTrinity Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 3:46 PM To:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net>; 1982SWM@gmail.com; SolisAndy<Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.Rov>; TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.Rov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.Rov>; FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.Bov>; misalasky@Bmail.com Cc: ScavoneMichelle <Michelle.Scavone@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:TP 7406 Allura Proposed Development Mr. Welding, We are in receipt of your inquiry about Allura. It has been forwarded to the appropriate staff for a response by close of business day on March 1, 2019 or sooner if possible. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Cotfrer County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov From:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:14 AM To: ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.Rov>; 1982SWM@gmail.com; SolisAndy <Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>; TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <BiII.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.Bov>; FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>; misalasky@Bmail.com Subject: RE: Allura Proposed Development Scott: I thank you for taking the time to follow up with my request to review the Traffic Study for this proposed project. As I read through the report,I find most of the "conclusions" preposterous. The predicted number of vehicle activity based on the proposed Units seems way out of line on each chart. It does not include the School Bus activity or the Delivery Truck activity. Where does it address the 24 month construction activity as the project is built ? 37 .m1 The other glaring error is the pictured Exit and Entrance locations. How do residents navigate to get South on Livingston Road ? The Exit shown on Livingston means that a driver has to make a mad dash across 3 lanes in a limited space to make a U-turn. Not Safe. The Entrance and Exit on Veterans Blvd is also a safety hazard. Again, people trying to go South on Livingston have to make a left turn onto a busy Veterans Blvd behind cars and trucks already lined up at the Light. You can guarantee there will be a lot of honking horns and possible road rage incidents with that proposal. I understand that the Traffic Consultant Report has to work through Statistics that they have used or developed from past projects, but sometime "Common Sense" observation should prevail. Jim Welding Strand Resident On February 20, 2019 at 3:39 PM ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov>wrote: Mr. Welding, I just resent the email and have reduced the files sizes. If it still does not get through, I will break it into separate emails. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager 99i9ounty Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov 38 err► �. From:James Welding<shakenns@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 5:25 PM To: ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountvfl.gov> Subject: Re: Allura Proposed Development Timothy. I did not receive. Please address "failed traffic study".Thanks.Jim Sent from my iPhone Jim Welding On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:47 AM, ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountvfl.gov>wrote: Mr. Welding, Sorry to bother you. However, I sent you an email last week on February 11 providing you information. Due to the size of the email, I had asked for a confirmation that you had received the email. I haven't received such a confirmation, so I am inclined to believe that the email was either sent to a SPAM folder or you did not receive due to the size. Can you please advise if you received? If not, I will try to reduce the sizes of the attachments and resend. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager <image003.jpg> Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 39 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.S cottn colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 40 GrecoSherry From: Lisle Anderson <LisleAnderson@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:42 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Please VOTE NO on Stocks Proposal for Allura Apartment. Dear Ms.Taylor Please VOTE NO on Stocks Proposal for Allura Apartment. Stock's proposal to build 304 Allura Apartments at the corner of Veterans Memorial Blvd. and Livingston Road is a major concern for the residents in the area.The traffic congestion is this area is extremely bad already. Any increase in population density beyond the existing zoning must be stopped. I would appreciate your assistance at stopping this proposal when it comes to the Board of County Commissioners for a vote. Thank you, Registered Collier County Voter 41 GrecoSherry From: Glen Housey <glen.housey@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:23 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Bill.McDaniel@colliercounty.gov Subject: Allura Vote no on Aurora or you will lose our vote 42 GrecoSherry From: Jerry Griffith <griffith8985@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 11:12 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project You've already heard our objections to this project.This email simply reiterates all of the sound reasons why this project should not be approved. We are full time residents of Collier County. Your vote to reject this project is a vote for all of Collier County residents. Jerry and Judy Griffith 6085 Pinnacle Ln, Naples, FL 34110 Unit 1203 43 GrecoSherry From: Robert Hayes <Rwhayescpa@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:40 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura project My wife and I are residents of the strand. We are totally against the allura project. You will loose our vote if you vote for the project. Anne and Robert Hayes The Strand Sent from my iPhone 44 EININNIMMONikOMMIROsomOVii GrecoSherry From: Sharon Finn <cre8ivedesign@optonline.net> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 12:13 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Opposing Allura Apartments To whom it may concern, In the next few weeks,the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd.The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. I'm writing with the same concerns of my fellow residents in Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra,Talis Park,The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes,Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are worried about the additional traffic,the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. After Hurricane Irma, many of our residents had sewage backing up in our streets and into our houses.The result if this project will place a hardship on the neighboring streets and services.The area is already busy with pedestrians, cars, walkers and cyclists, as well as black bears and deer. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.),there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction.These should provide a context for the use of the term—whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically and whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. It is the desire of our communities that the building be limited in density and ask you to block the addition of a new subdistrict. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dr. & Mrs. Brian Finn -Camden Lakes Community 45 GrecoSherry From: Joseph Klara <sklara@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 7:56 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments >>> Dear Ms.Taylor, >>> I live at the Strand and am very concerned with the Allura project. My concern stems from the added cars (could be around 600)that would be utilizing the one lane road that would thoroughly congest the entrance and exit of Veterans Memorial Boulevard.The road currently supports traffic from the Strand, Barrington Cove and Talis Park and is congested as it is. We literally would be housebound during high peak traffic as Livingston drivers are heading to Bonita Beach Road to access 75. >>> >>>Another concern is the devaluation of our property as a result of apartment rentals that do not seem to fit with the rest of the nearby communities. >>> >>> I am a registered Florida voter and would certainly adjust my future voting if this project is passed. Please vote against this project. >>> >>>Thank you. >>> >>> M. Silvana Klara >>>5970 Pinnacle Lane >>> Unit 2804 >>> Naples Fl 34110 >>> >>> Sent from my iPad 46 GrecoSherry From: Pat LaBattaglia <pat.labatta@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:21 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: No to Allura If you vote for Allura I won't vote for you Sent from my iPhone 47 GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:01 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Allura - Rich Yovanovich, Keith Gelder and Brian Stock 48 GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 9:31 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: The Rape of Barrington Cove Hello Commissioner,There are many reasons why Allura doesn't belong at Livingston and Veterans: traffic, safety issues, • increase noise, air and light pollution, etc. but look at the map The development actually is wedged in and splits the community of Barrington Cove! It affects the back yard of multiple single family homes! If the development would be single family homes,that could be tolerated with barriers. But Allura is composed of six 4 story buildings casting light and noise down upon our homes on three sides and taking away our privacy too. Please vote against this proposal. It definitely doesn't belong here. It is not affordable housing.The need now for high density in this area is minimal.Thank you. Tim Diegel 49 GrecoSherry From: Robert Wilkins <b7swilkins@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 6:36 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA "IF YOU VOTE FOR ALLURA, WE WON'T VOTE FOR YOU!" 50 GrecoSherry From: Melanie Schmees <melanie@napleschamber.org> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:34 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: GrecoSherry; Michael Dalby Subject: Naples Chamber - Meeting Request Hi Commissioner Taylor, It was a pleasure addressing you at the Commissioner's Meeting last Tuesday. Would you have time for a more formal meeting? I would love to pick back up where Kristi left off with you, and establish a new relationship. I plan on continuing certain initiatives, such as Economic Development Week, and ongoing business engagement which I would like to discuss with you. Best Regards, Melanie MELANIE SCHMEES Director of Business and Economic Research The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce P: 239.403.2914 E: melanie©napleschamber.orq 2390 Tamiami Tr. N.,#210 Naples, FL 34103 www.NaplesChamber.orq Facebook I Twitter I Instagram 1 � \r4 January 17,2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 17,2019 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 Joseph Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt,Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 79 January 17,2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the 9 a.m.January 17th 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: Would you-all please remain standing for a moment. Joe Schmitt was our previous developmental services administrator,and he worked with a lady who just passed away. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'd just like to take a moment of silence to recognize an employee who was with us for 15 years,just the consummate professional planner. Unfortunate circumstances,she passed away this past week, Kay Deselem. And, unfortunately, again, I will not be able to attend the ceremonies. I have to head out of town after the meeting, but I'd just like to take some time and each of us can, in our own way,take a moment of silence for Kay Deselem. Thank you. (A moment of silence was taken.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again,thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Joe. With that, we'll move to roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. 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 HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman,we have a quorum of seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a-- it will probably be a lengthy agenda today, so I talked to some of the members. I heard that some people need to leave at 3 o'clock or close to three,or I think it was 3:30 would work for quite a few of us or all of us. So with that in mind. I'd like to suggest that wherever we are in the process today, at about 3 o'clock we start weighing whether we should continue or break, and break no later than 3:30 and continue whatever is left for the following meeting. Does that work for you guys? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's-- Ray, I don't have any changes to the agenda. We have three--four advertised items. Basically, items have come back to us,the first three, and then we've got a pollution control ordinance at the end. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Page 2 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. A couple issues to clear up. First of all,January 31st,we're meeting in Immokalee at 10 o'clock. I think all of you have been notified about transportation to get out there. So if you've not responded,you might want to do that. Does anybody know if they're not going to make the January 31st meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then on the 7th of February,we have a regular meeting. There was some confusion about moving that entire meeting to the evening. It's an LDC meeting,and not all of it needed to be an evening meeting,and there was too much there to be able to finish in an evening meeting, so we're going to retain the February 7th meeting,and it will be held in this room as normal for those items that can be discussed during the daytime. And then an evening meeting had to be held for two items, and those two items and any cleanup items will be heard on the 28th of February,and that evening meeting will start at 5:05 in this boardroom. And if you haven't been notified by that, I think Ray's going to put it together to make sure we get that on the calendar. Is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. I'll coordinate with the staff,and we'll make sure that that notice is done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 28th of February. Does anybody know if--and it's a long ways in advance,but do you all plan to be there? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question. I, for some reason,have the 21st of February in my calendar. Are we meeting that day,too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,our regular meeting would be the first and third Thursday, so the third Thursday would probably be the 21st. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would meet then unless there's no cases. But right now I can't tell you that information. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we've got three February meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now,yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for those of you who haven't been on the Board too long, we periodically will have special meetings for numbers of things, including the AUIR and other special topics like that. Now,as far as the 7th meeting,does everybody know if they're not--anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the 3rd and the 28th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll keep everything on the schedule,then,as we just discussed. Approval of the minutes. We were sent two sets of minutes electronically. November 15th,we'll take that first. Are there any changes to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded. Discussion? And I imagine Mr. Fry, you're abstaining because you weren't here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So discussion? Page 3 of 79 January 17,2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Six with one abstention. The next item was the December 6th meeting. Same question: Any changes? If none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. Is there--you're abstaining again,Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were here on the 6th. I forgot what day you started. Okay. With that in mind,all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. Ray, BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners held a meeting on January 8th, but there were no land use on that agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report: To be expeditious today,there is none. We're just going to move right into our hearings. The consent agenda,we have no items for that. ***So that takes us to the first public hearing. These are two items that have been sent back to the Planning Commission. They will be discussed together. The vote today will be a little different than what we're used to. The advertised --the items are PL-20160002584/CPSS2017-1 and PL20160002577. Both of those are for a change to--the first one is for the change to the Comp Plan, the second one is for a conditional use for the same location, both for the Grace Romanian Church on Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures? We'll start with Tom. Page 4 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. EASTMAN: I had a brief conversation with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. Some emails with Anna Weaver,and I think I saw something on Channel 2, 5,and 7,and I didn't watch CNN, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I spoke with staff and with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure, plus a telephone conversation with Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I--all the same plus I did talk with the applicant's team as a whole,not just Anna,and I've also talked to some of the people in Golden Gate Estates, the Golden Gate Civic Association and some of the neighbors. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen,just emails. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Email with Anna Weaver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,before we start, I'm going to restate what the Planning Commission--not the Planning Commission--what the Board has asked us to do,and it basically--Mr. Klatzkow summed it up before the Board voted to send it back to us.and it was that we would ask the Planning Commission to look at it again to see if they can tighten,you know, somewhat the uses to make it more compatible with the community and then bring it back. So what we're doing here today is reviewing some additional compatibility standards as requested by the Board,and then this body will determine if they want to send that to the Board of County Commissioners as we discuss. And with that.Anna,we'll leave it up to you to start out. MS. WEAVER: Okay. Good morning. My name is Anna Weaver,and I'm a planner with Davidson Engineering representing the Grace Romanian Baptist Church. My presentation will include Companion Items 9A1 and 2. This is the third presentation to the Board,so you may be well aware of the project,but I'm going to briefly review, for the record,and include any revisions that we've made since our last hearing. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. It consists of two parcels and is approximately 6.25 acres. The applicant has two land-use petitions under review for this property. The first is a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. This is to include the site as an exception to the locational criteria for a church in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The second request is for a conditional-use approval to allow a church in the Estates zoning district. The conditional use is reliant upon the approval of the Growth Management Plan amendment,which is why we've requested them concurrently. So first I'll go over the Growth Management Plan amendment. Here's an excerpt of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan map with the subject property identified with a star right here. Florida Statutes identify review criteria for these small-scale amendments,which are listed here. County planning staff has found our application to be consistent with all the criteria and recommended approval for the amendment. So next I'll go through the conditional-use petition. Currently,the site is within the Estates zoning district. This is not a rezone request. Permitted uses in the district include single-family dwellings,family-care facilities,essential services,and educational plants. Churches are listed in the Estates district as an allowable conditional use. This means that Page 5 of 79 C January 17,2019 churches have always been contemplated in this district,but each request is reviewed individually and approved on a conditional basis. So here's the conceptual site plan for the project. We've identified one ingress/egress point north on Golden Gate Boulevard. The development area will include up to 24,000 square foot of primary building to hold the sanctuary and other typical ancillary rooms for the church. Just south of that is an area reserved for outdoor recreation and the possibility of a pastor's residence, which is limited in size in the conditions of approval that I'll go through in a few slides. Highlighted in green are the conceptual areas for preserve and stormwater retention,and we've also identified that a minimum of 129 parking spaces will be required and provided based on the 300-seat sanctuary. So next I'll go through the proposed conditions of approval. As Chairman Strain already went over,at the Board of County Commissioners'meeting on November 13th,we presented a list of conditions to include recommendations by this board. The county commissioners asked if we would return in order to write more detailed language in the conditions to address compatibility. So in preparation for this morning's hearing, we met with the Chair and discussed revised language to alleviate any remaining concerns. I've identified in red lines today for you the changes suggested and agreed to since we presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Number one limits church service hours to the following: Maximum of one service on Saturdays between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.; a maximum of three services on Sundays between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.; maximum of three services on recognized holidays;Thursday evening services between 6 p.m.and 9 p.m.;weekday church-related meetings and gatherings between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. for up to 50 parishioners except for weddings and funerals. Weekday'meetings and gatherings between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. will be up to 100 parishioners except for weddings and funerals, and we've also included Easter Sunrise and New Year's Eve services will be permitted limited to indoor activity only. Number 2 limits the floor area of the primary structure to 2.400 square feet and up to 300 seats. Number 3 states that the church shall provide a maximum of 140 parking spaces. Number 4 limits prohibited uses. So we've included daycare, food services, like soup kitchens or catering open to the public. Exceptions to that include church-related food services associated with activities like fellowship,weddings, funerals, or other similar events. Other prohibited uses are educational services and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Number 5 lists permitted accessory uses in conjunction with the church,and so we've included outdoor multi-purpose play area,gazebos,and covered pavilions,a pastor's residence no larger than 3,500 square feet,storage sheds collectively no more than 1,800 square feet,and counseling services similar to AA or NA. So we've added language to differentiate between drug and alcohol rehab and counseling services. Drug and alcohol rehab we would say is a medical facility,which we never intend to be, and fellowship-type counseling services are typical to a neighborhood church and provide a safe space for those needing guidance. Number 6 is a condition relating to the location of signage for the property. It states that signs must be within 350 feet of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate and are prohibited along Weber Boulevard. Number 7 allows for leasing of the facility only under certain circumstances. A representative from the church must operate and staff any event leasing--and leasing must be limited to charitable events: Weddings, funerals,educational events,events associated with holidays, and governmental events. We've added language to say that leasing to other congregations shall be prohibited. Page 6 of 79 January 17,2019 Number 8 limits special events to a maximum of 12 per year. Carnivals and outdoor amplified sound are prohibited. This was revised per the decision that we had at the Board of County Commissioners'meeting in November. Number 9 specifically prohibits all outdoor amplified music or sounds. Number 10 provides prohibition --prohibits lighting to the outdoor recreation area and allows typical residential lighting for the pastor's residence. And then No. 11 specifies detailed lighting conditions on the property to allow for minimal impact to surrounding properties. Number 12 prohibits any church steeple lighting. Number 13 specifies that an enhanced 15-foot Type B buffer shall be provided along the abutting residential property to the southeast. This buffer was reviewed and confirmed with the property owner who requested this enhanced vegetation rather than a wall. Number 14 is the actual building height for roof types,appurtenances,and screening shall be a maximum of 50 feet, and actual building height for the steeple is limited to a maximum of 60 feet. Number 15 states that in the event that a dumpster is needed, it must be placed on the western edge of the preserve,and the church can coordinate with Waste Management to determine if roll-out receptacles are acceptable. Number 16 limits the project to 12 weekdays p.m. peak-hour trips and 240 Saturday and Sunday peak-hour trips per the ITE manual trip generation rates for a church in effect at time of SDP. Seventeen is the typical language used for places of worship to indicate that if a specific event is predicted to or creates significant traffic,the owner will be required to hire law enforcement to direct the traffic. And, finally,No. 18 requires a wall along the south property line adjacent to First Avenue Southwest. That condition came out of our last hearing with the Planning Commission,and it is also required by code. So I'd like to conclude by saying that the applicant would like to request the Planning Commission move to recommend approval of the conditional use and small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment consistent with staffs recommendations and the previous recommendation from this board. So with that, I'll take any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission members? I know we've heard this a couple times before. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you go back-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add one thing real quickly before that? For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I spoke to Mr. Fryer yesterday, and I wanted to confirm for him on the record--his question was about the steeple. Was it 50 feet plus 60 feet for a steeple for a potential of 110 feet, and it's not. It's 60 feet total for the steeple. So whatever language we need to clarify in the record, steeple height is 60 feet for the actual height,not 60 feet on top of the 50-foot building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The steeple's 10 feet? MR.YOVANOVICH: Basically, it can be at 10 feet above the 50-foot building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record,I did speak to Mr. Yovanovich about the weddings and funerals,and I sent an email. My only concern is that the language--and I understand that funerals and weddings are unique and not a set schedule. Page 7 of 79 January 17,2019 I just want to make sure that the language doesn't put you in a predicament that you can be found not in compliance with the language by holding a wedding on Saturday morning and then a service on Saturday morning. So can you put that section of the language back up again? MS. WEAVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or a funeral on Friday night and another service. Because you have the exception of weddings and funerals. Again,as I pointed out, I think, in my email, for clarity,do you want to say wedding and funerals are unique circumstances? The question I rose is because, like I said,you have here shown you'll have a minimum of one service. Okay,that's fine. That works. If there's a wedding,that's another service on Saturday,and that fulfills the requirement. It doesn't put you in a box of being accused of violating the conditions of this conditional use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Our intention was by having"A"deal with worship services and then "C" deals with other church-type meetings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: A wedding would be another church-type meeting. And our intention was to say, if we had a wedding during the day, the 50-person cap wouldn't apply,or a funeral during the day,the 50-person cap wouldn't apply,and if we had a wedding at night,the 100-person cap wouldn't apply. So we put it under the"other meetings" so it wouldn't be confused with worship services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I'm fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: So hopefully that addresses your concern on our behalf,and we appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the Planning Commission have any questions? Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just have one. And I remember when this was here before, and maybe it was asked before. On that same page,just curious,you use the reference of "Bible study." which I attend a Bible study weekly that happens to start at 8:30. I was just curious as to a Bible study or a networking meeting or things of those natures why the 10 a.m. Was that to appease drive times and traffic? MS. WEAVER: Yep. We wanted to stay out of the peak hour. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So 10 a.m. is--after 9 isn't after peak hour. MS. WEAVER: Well,the peak hour is 7 to 9 a.m.,and I think we were trying to make sure that people aren't trying to get to site in time, so we tried to stay as--keep it as outside of the peak hours but also using the typical meetings that they have today. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will also, I'm sure, have some comments or questions after the public speaks,but just to tee up some of my basic concerns with respect to this. First of all, I take it that we are--the charge that has come to us from the Board is to look at the limitations on use. So I'll confine my comments to that; however, I must say that I am not at all comfortable with the level of any government intrusion into the holding of church services,and it makes me uncomfortable. If an agreement can be reached of some kind to satisfy most of the residents that is on that basis, I won't stand in the way, but it strikes me as not exactly the way we should be proceeding. Now,the other comment that I'm not sure is part of what our charge has been from the County Commission--and, Mr. Chairman, if I'm outside that charge, please stop me. But to me the issue of compatibility is most offended by the overall size of the facility; 24,000 square feet is a very large church. Page 8 of 79 January 17,2019 And I did some research online and found some references to comparisons,numbers of square feet versus numbers of communicants or seats in the nave of a church. and also bearing allowances for how many square feet per person in the nave. And the numbers that I found pointed more to a size--for 300 members, pointed more to a size of 12,000 to 18,000 square feet than 24-. So to me that would have been a way of accomplishing a lot of this. I don't know if that's part of our charge or not, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that relates to compatibility and building size certainly does. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that would be the way I would prefer to see than intruding into when services can be held and what kinds of services and the like. MR. YOVANOVICH: We talked about this in our call,and I have had a chance to talk to our client on that. We are not going to go away from the commitment we made on when we will have--or how many worship services we can have within the time frame. So that's--that is a commitment we've made,and we can live with that commitment. I've also--we could also limit the size of the building to the 18.000 square feet upper end, because here's Fellowship Hall.there's classrooms,you know, for Sunday school,and there's space. So we think that the 18,000 square feet--although we think 24,000 is a number that is legitimate, I understand the research you've done, and if 18,000 will make the community more comfortable with it,fine, we'll go down to the 18,000. We do think that the real generator for activity on the property is the 300 seats in the sanctuary, but certainly we don't want to have an overabundance of accessory space. So if 18,000 is what will satisfy the community for further compatibility,we will agree to that change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have for now, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I would think there might be other limiting factors. You know,the size of the building doesn't really put a limit on the people that can come in as much as the parking does, so-- I think a lot of this-- I don't care about the size of the building,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, if the applicant's willing to consider a different size, it doesn't hurt. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we were really trying to be sensitive to the community by putting in the limit of the number of people who can be there during the day to a reasonable number,and then in the evenings,to a reasonable number,and the times that they can be there to address concerns about people going to work and kids going to school;that's why you have,you know,those hours of operation for during the week in there. So we believe that we have--we've attempted to make sure we address compatibility with the community and address all of their concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm going to withhold any comments till I hear the-- I guess there's some public speakers. And so,with this, we'll move next to the staff and then the public speakers. James? MR. SABO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. James Sabo, for the record. Zoning Division has no issues with the revised conditions. We recommend approval. There are a number of speakers as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? Page 9 of 79 January 17,2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. James, would these conditions,that has been put forth by the applicant, make this more compatible for the neighborhood than the previous conditions that were submitted to the Commission? MR. SABO: Yes,question mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SABO: That's not really our call. I mean, I don't have a problem with it. I said that there's no issues. I think it's compatible. We think it's compatible but, ultimately,you set the policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is this more compatible? I mean,you're the zoning people. You're telling me you don't have an opinion as an expert member of the zoning department? Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Those changes make it more compatible, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was looking for. Thank you. Sue? MS. FAULKNER: Sue Faulkner, Comprehensive Planning. I wanted to just let you know that I handed out some emails that I received after your packets were sent out, so you have those before you,and if you had any questions-- I can put any individual email up on the screen if you felt you needed to show anything else. And the staff has reviewed this project,and we find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Sue. Anybody have any questions of Sue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,the public speakers,please limit your discussion to five minutes. The redundancy is not necessary. If you agree with the speaker in front of you, if you want to just get up and say we agree with the previous speaker, that's great. And as your name is called,please come to either one of the mikes. They'll probably call out two names; if the second person is ready to speak after the first one. And with that,James,do you want to--who's going to make this-- Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: My only comment is I know some people came in late and weren't sworn in,so let's make sure if they haven't been sworn in,we do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be the first question you're asked. Thank you. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the first two speakers, Sharon Griffith and Tom Griffith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If each of you will come up to the microphones. And, Sharon Griffith, if you'd take one of microphones you can start and,Tom Griffith,stand ready at the second one. MS. GRIFFITH: We're here for the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. Wrong case. This is the Grace Romanian Church. Is there any members of the public here wishing to speak on the Grace Romanian Church? MR. SABO: Sorry. I had the wrong number on the agenda item. Sorry. Is Mr. Schortemeyer here? Are you here for the church? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Yes. MR. SABO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you call the next speaker so they're ready to come up. MR. SABO: Mr.John Kelly. Page 10 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I am sworn in,thank you. Good morning,honorable commissioners. The first thoughts I had -- my name is Jim Schortemeyer,and I'm a resident of Unit 4,which is the location of the proposed church. I have several issues and concerns with that. Before I start, I'd like to thank you all for your service on this board. I can tell just by the few minutes that I've been in here how trying and intensive your work is, so I do appreciate your work. I have four issues that I'd like to touch on briefly regarding the church. The first of those would be traffic patterns and problems: the general lifestyle and compatibility issues that have been raised;wildlife concerns that I have not heard in this brief time. I'm sure they've been addressed in the proposal;and then perhaps some other considerations perhaps following up on what the size of the structure might be and some other compatibility issues that might be addressed in the proposal. At the present time, I would recommend that the proposal--that the proposal be denied. The traffic patterns and problems that we already have within Unit 4 are well known. Anybody that travels that area,and Weber Boulevard in particular,knows what those patterns are and how they've changed with projects. The speed limit's been reduced from 35 to 30 on Weber Boulevard already,and there's very confusing and limited access to Unit 4 from the other-- from other roads. So adding traffic to that particular area that's already a problem coupled with we are in a growth phase and we are continuing to grow out within Unit 4,there are several new homes under construction,all of those things will make it an incompatible traffic load within Unit 4. Lifestyle within Unit 4 it's the same as all of the Estates,and people that have moved to the Estates have moved there for the peace and tranquility. I had the peace and tranquility in my particular neighborhood within Unit 4. The first time that it was disturbed significantly was when Big Cypress Elementary School was constructed, and lo and behold,the first night that the water plant was in operation,from approximately a half a mile away, that was my first disturbance from an audio standpoint,and that has just increased. This church and other types of uses of that nature will only make that worse in the future. So--and the general lifestyle,the remote Estates lifestyle is also dependent on the fact that we have lots of wildlife that uses the area,as you well know. Unit 4 is one of those areas being considered for bear-proof garbage cans being provided throughout the area. So we have a bear population;we have occasional panthers;we have a deer population. All of those animals have been hit on Weber Boulevard with existing traffic patterns. If, in fact,the area's going to remain compatible to all of the wildlife in the area,we have to consider other restrictions. And then the church and provisional uses, we already have a cluster development of provisional uses within Unit 4,and it's considerable. It consists of a church --two churches, actually,a school,and a park, Max Hasse Park, which adds,again,considerable traffic,especially on First Avenue. Thank goodness I don't live on First Avenue. I do feel for the folks that do live on First Avenue,but their lifestyle has already been compromised. This would only further compromise that. So the only thing I have in terms of other considerations and sort of looking into my crystal ball and seeing how far along this process is,the other key thing that we have is, if you're familiar with Weber Boulevard in that vicinity,there is a walkway/bicycle path on Weber Boulevard. Unlike other areas where that pathway might be 10 or 15 feet from the road, it's only about five feet from Weber Boulevard which doesn't make it real safe with existing traffic patterns. But that is a popular walkway and bikeway within the Estates,and it also provides access, ultimately,to Max Hasse Park and to the school. For people who are just using that for a recreational purpose. it's not any kind of a loop Page 11 of 79 January 17,2019 system or anything else. One of the things that would make this more compatible would be perhaps a trail that encircled the subject property;would allow for walking and biking activity with some enhancements on the canal side and on the First Avenue side. There would actually be a loop trail that people could use and enjoy in the area,and that would actually enhance the current use, and perhaps with additional safety improvements on Weber Boulevard,we would actually be increasing the compatibility. With that, I thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan,and then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been retired a long time. Where do I know you from? MR. SCIIORTEMEYER: I did work for the State of Florida for a number of years with the Fish and Wildlife Commission. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's why. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: And so that's probably where we have met. Good to see you again. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you for mentioning the loop trail, because that's exactly the kind of thing that I, for one,want to hear from the public today about,because my understanding of our charge is is that we're to try to identify other points of connection where we could come up with a win-win or closer to a win-win. and so I appreciate your mentioning that. I'm going to ask you this question: Are there any other restrictions, limitations,or changes of a reasonable nature that you believe would make the residents happier about having this church in the neighborhood? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Well,as I listened to your comments this morning, the size of the facility is of great concern to me, and I think not just for this development but going forward. Within the Estates zoning and compatibility issues,a typical Estates home on two-and-a-half acres might put a footprint of about 10,000 square feet. Now,that sounds like a lot,but on two-and-a-half acres,that's 10,000 square feet of roughly-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 100,000. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: -- 100,000,thank you. So it's a 90 percent retention of either natural areas or at least green space. So if exceptional uses are planned--and they do have some buffer zones in there,but I think they ought to even be held,perhaps,to a higher standard in terms of setbacks and things of that nature: whereas, for an Estates house. I think there's 105-foot setback from the roadway. Perhaps-- so that would force a traditional--a conditional use to have a larger tract of land with more green space, more protected area, and greater setbacks, and that would promote compatibility with the existing nature of the area,at least in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I think that would be important. Your size--the size limit on the church, I would go along with that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, question. Did you attend the first two meeting on this church? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did not. My first involvement was to write the County Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a yes or no. Page 12 of 79 . F January 17,2019 MR. SCHORTEMEYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you see the language that was put on the overhead by the applicant today in the black and red writing? She walked through the changes they were proposing to make. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: 1 did get a chance to look at those. That really was first exposure to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let me tell you why that's important. This panel previously recommended approval for the church without that red writing. The Board got that,and there was discrepancies on the Board as to is this the right thing to do? Should it be more compatible? Is there a way to get it so that some of the residents aren't so opposed? So the Board sent it back to us and said,see if you can find other issues that could be modified to make this more compatible, tightening it up. So the question from us today is not is the church--should the church go there or not go there. It's what on that black-and-white lettering can be changed to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. And that's how I'm looking at this. And so what we came out with is suggestions by the applicant where they would reduce the activities;they would reduce the number of people;they would reduce now the size of the facility;they were going to limit the amount of days they can operate to be more compatible than it was before it was sent back to us today. And so,really,we're trying to find out, from your perspective, now that you've spoken so eloquently on the whole issue,are the red lettering and the red changes that are being proposed, in your opinion, more compatible for the neighborhood or less? MR. SCHORTEMEYER: I did not get a chance to look at all of them closely but,general speaking. it seemed to be that those were honest attempts to make it more compatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the task we've been charged with reviewing, and that's what I'm trying to stick to as far as understanding what we can do today,and that's why I was asking you that question. So thank you. I wanted to understand that. I appreciate it. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: You're welcome. And thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. SABO: John Kelly is the next speaker.and David Meffen can come up to the other mike. MR. KELLY: Hello. I'm John Kelly,resident at 221 Weber Boulevard South. And I would like to echo the words of my neighbor and note that traffic is a sincere impact on Weber Boulevard South. And we're most concerned that the same thing that happens on this corner will happen on the opposite corner,and if the use--any use greater than that of a single-family residence really isn't appropriate,as we already have a number of uses on First Avenue Southwest which were mentioned,the primary ones being Max Hasse Community Park. the Big Cypress Elementary School,the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall with two worship services,and what was the Cypress Woods Presbyterian Church,which has since been purchased by Grace Romanian,and I believe services are being offered there. At the time this proposal initially came before you all,that church was pretty much a failed church and there were no services being held. At this time there are services being held,and it brings to question in my mind whether or not another traffic impact analysis might not be warranted,as there is increased traffic now,and with their second church coming up within the neighborhood,just very concerned. Being as this is likely to move forward given the Board's--the Commission's charge, Page 13 of 79 January 17,2019 would ask that you also look at the height of the steeple. I would ask that it be no higher than the allowed building height in the area, not in excess of 50 feet. And then I would also like you to look at prohibiting on-street parking and seeing if there's not an enforcement mechanism for that. Much of what I heard earlier that the applicant has said, I don't see how much of that is enforceable. It's a nice thought,but I don't see how it is enforceable. But,anyway,that's what I have to say to you today. Thank you for your guidance and assistance to the community,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Ned has a question for you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I do when he's finished. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Kelly, I want to be sure I understand your position with respect to this parcel. Are you unable to accept any kind of a church on that parcel? MR. KELLY: Anything other than a single-family residence. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all you'd be willing to accept? MR. KELLY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,John,you're a planner with Collier County; is that correct? MR. KELLY: I am. I'm not here today in that capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but that's what your background is; is it fair to say? MR. KELLY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a planner.you're looking at the changes suggested by the applicant,do you see those as better in an attempt to seek compatibility? I know in your long run you don't believe it's compatible under any condition, but are these better than what was there before? MR. KELLY: They are. I would only ask for the two changes that I offered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just wanted to make sure I understood that point, because that's the task that we're here to look at. MR. KELLY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,John. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you do also understand that the steeple's 10 feet,the proposed steeple? MR.KELLY: Correct,that's above the church. I assume that would be 60 feet. I would like things to remain at the 50 feet,exceptions to the code notwithstanding. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there other speakers,James? MR. SABO: Yes. Mr. David Meffen is next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And who's after Mr. Meffen? MR. SABO: Don Ward is after that. He can come up to the other podium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Ward,you're up next, so be prepared to use this podium, if you don't mind. Go ahead,sir. Were you sworn in when we started out? MR. MEFFEN: Yes, I was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MEFFEN: Looking at the changes, I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to identify yourself for the record,even though they announced your name. MR. MEFFEN: David Meffen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. MEFFEN: Meffen. Page 14 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you spell that for the court reporter. MR. MEFFEN: M-e-f-f-e-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MEFFEN: I was at the original meetings for this church,and everything seemed to be in order,as a matter of fact. You know, what-- I didn't really give much input,and I left. And these changes just seem to be incompatible. 1 think it should be denied. It looks like they're increasing the hours. There's--and I know the game. The game is you try and get the permit in,and then you do changes. And I think we need to stick with the original agreement, what we did in the first NIM. And you see that the hours are going to be different. And I know that there's--there are changes coming down the road which, once this is okayed,then no one can fight with the changes. And I thought we had a really good plan in the beginning. But I can't see how increasing the hours would be in our interest. Now,again, I don't abut the property, so I don't have the same concerns that these other people do, but I don't think that.you know,ramming this through this Planning Commission is the way to go. I think sit down with the neighbors and see if we can alleviate all the concerns there. You know,a neighborhood meeting,you know,where it seems like they were snowing us just to get the permit.and then come back with the changes-- I don't think that's the way to go--and then ram it through here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I don't see how the hours have been expanded,and I did listen to the NIM. Could you be more specific on that point? MR. MEFFEN: Yeah, initially it was-- I think it was till 9 p.m., and it's increased where they're going to have two services Sunday morning, one service Sunday night. I don't have the original in front of me,but here you have drug and alcohol rehab was prohibited. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It still is. MR. MEFFEN: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It still is. MR. MEFFEN: Okay. And then down lower,counseling services for Alcoholics Anonymous,Narcotics Anonymous. You know, like the gentleman said before, I just don't think it can be enforced. And if you're going to allow it,you know,they're going to be bringing drug rehab into the center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's prohibited. MR.MEFFEN: It's prohibited,but it's not enforceable. And here you're allowing drug and rehab counseling,okay, but you're not allowing drug and alcohol rehab. You know,you could get federal funds. I'm sure it will help the church. You know,they'll bus people in. I just think it's a can of worms. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry to interrupt you,but is there a word other than "counseling"that you would find more appropriate,a way of describing AA and NA? MR. MEFFEN: Well. I mean.you know,at the initial meeting,you know,we wanted them to prohibit soup kitchens,you know. homeless at the site,et cetera,et cetera, and there was a reason for that. This is a residential area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me, sir. But my specific question is, is there a word that you would prefer to the word "counseling"that you think would take it farther away from the possibility of becoming something like rehabilitation? MR. MEFFEN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Page 15 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. MEFFEN: I don't know. I'm just saying that this short time that we have here,you know, we might be able to hammer out the differences if we got together and sat down,but--you know, it just seems like they got the permit,and now they're going to make changes to it. I think it should be denied. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our next speaker? MR. SABO: Next speaker is Don Ward. Last speaker, Michael Ramsey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Ward, were you sworn in? MR. WARD: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The court reporter will take care of that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WARD: I do. My name is Don Ward. I reside at 4055 First Ave. Southwest. I just purchased my home less than a year ago, and it's,unfortunately,going to be directly across the street a five-story church that's going to be basically,from what I can see,operating the hours--although they're limiting the services--excuse me, limiting the church services, it looks like church-related services can go on almost all day except for two hours a day during traffic-- peak traffic patterns, if I'm reading this right. They're not limiting church-related service. They're only limiting the actual service; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they're-- I mean,could you put that red--the first paragraph back on the overhead. MS. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that will help. They're going to have one service on Saturdays.three services on-- up to three services on Sundays, and then the recognized holidays. And then in evenings,they're going to have--they can have, I guess. Bible studies or things like that. During the day,they can have up to 50 parishioners attend things,with the exception of weddings and funerals. MR. WARD: Okay. I guess where I'm missing it is the church-related meetings and gatherings. It basically can happen at any time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,to be honest with you, if they didn't put it here,they most likely could still do it because that's considered a typical accessory use to a church,and most churches have daytime operations. They don't just shut--a lot of them,you know,they go on and have smaller gatherings which is--you know, that's what this is, so... MR. WEEKS: So it's basically going to be a full operation except for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not full. Fifty parishioners is--what is it,a sixth of the total parishioners that could be there. MR. WARD: Well,my main concern is is this is a residential area. I purchased my home. I'm on two-and-a-half acres, private. I have all kinds of wildlife in my yard, like the first gentleman was speaking. I had a bald eagle on my property the other day, both the male and the female. I have deer in the yard all the time. We don't need another big, basically,a commercial business right across the street at the main gateway to Golden Gate Estates. The other issue is the traffic. We've mentioned it over and over. This is supposed to be a small neighborhood church, is what it's-- my understanding. One,you know, I appreciate limiting the size. That's at least going to help, but the--as far as it servicing the neighborhood,the fact when they closed Weber--the crossover at Weber,the people from Golden Gate Estates east of Collier Boulevard can't even get to the church. The only way they can get to the church is to come all the way to Collier Boulevard, head south on Collier Boulevard,and make a U-turn to come back Page 16 of 79 rummemiiiiiIIMMINMENIMMININIMINIEmb January 17,2019 to Golden Gate Boulevard to get into the church. There's no other access other than going Max Hasse. So.you know,even being a small neighborhood church,they can't even get to it. I mean, the access is very limited, I should say,to get to this church that's supposed to be servicing our community. Then we have the whole access issue in general. This main primary entrance into the church is within maybe 300 feet of two lanes turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard. Even when you're limiting the time that the church can operate,this is going to be a traffic nightmare. As soon as people are turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard,there are going to be entrances into this church and people exiting the church. And,you know,this is just-- it's a bad idea all along. There's tons of places in Collier County they can put a church. The other thing-- I didn't realize that they just opened the same church,just started services at another church right down the street. Do they really need another church within a couple miles from an existing church that they already have? I mean, I just think this is a bad idea for our community in general,and I think we should deny--you-all should deny the petition. so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And there's a question from one of the commissioners. MR. WARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean,this has been in front of us it feels like a year,maybe not a full year, but a long time,and early on the plans called for ingress and egress off of Weber, and by popular demand that was approved. Are you saying that there needs to be more ingress and egress for local access? MR. WARD: I would say yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want traffic on Weber.directly-- MR. WARD: It's got to be somewhere or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is. It's on Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. WARD: But as soon as all of the traffic going out to the Estates,everyone that works out in the Estates--and I know they're not going to be open during peak hours.but there's traffic on that road all the time. There's tons of construction going on out in the Estates right now. There's constant traffic turning onto Golden Gate Boulevard. As soon as you turn onto Golden Gate Boulevard,you're going to have an entrance to the church. Why don't they look at the same traffic study that Collier County used to shut the cut-through that they go from Weber north to Weber south? There was a reason they stopped that--cut off that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They wanted to stop me from going to civic association meetings. They succeeded. MR. WARD: I bet it was. No. But there's a reason that they must have looked at the traffic pattern and said there's too much traffic in the area to allow that cut-through,and that's even further down--further east on Golden Gate Boulevard than this intersection will be. So,you know,that's my main issue with it: One, it being across the street from my home that I just purchased and,two,the traffic issue that it's going to cause for the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please. MR. SABO: Last speaker,Michael Ramsey. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning. My name's Michael Ramsey. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Page 17 of 79 i January 17,2019 We've spent a lot of time-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: One more time on your name,sir. I'm sorry. Your last name? MR. RAMSEY: Michael R. Ramsey. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ramsey,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, were you sworn in? MR. RAMSEY: Yeah, I was sworn in and sworn out. Okay. So we've spent a lot of time. Our group has been out talking to the residents around this area, and I get feeling from talking to the Planning Commission and some others you don't really understand the area. This church will affect every person that lives on every road south down Weber: First, Third, Fifth, Seventh,and Ninth. Because of the traffic pattern,all the residents that live down at the end of each of these roads will be affected by this church,or this operation, let's put it that way. All of--the way the traffic pattern will operate, it affects the quality of life for everyone in that area,not just at that corner. The way the road is constructed,and I think the five roads, they all dead-end,and they all come out and exit through Weber. and most of them go down to Pine Ridge or White. That's the way the pattern flows. This will affect all of those people,and there's not just a quarter mile around it. Second --and it's been made clear in here, Golden Gate Estates is zoned and was created to be a residential area. Residential quality of life is extremely important out here. Everyone in this area moved there around this location for the quality of life. Now,on First Avenue Southwest,which abuts right--or exits right across the from the church, it is also an exit point for the other two churches mentioned; Max Hasse Park. The thing that's not been brought out,and there's guidelines for traffic studies and other issues out here, is that most of the operation or traffic issues will occur on holidays,after work hours, after peak hours,and on the weekends. So two churches,a park, and the school out there,there's no guidelines in Collier County's traffic studies for the cumulative effect of these issues on weekends and holidays. They don't consider it to be that important, so it's not really measured. Residents here are complaining. The ones we talk to are complaining about that because they see it. When Max Hasse Park has an event, let's take, for example, Halloween,there are cars parked on both sides of the road all the way down First Avenue Southwest from the park to Weber. That is an intrusion on the residential quality of life. This, cumulatively,will add to it. Last,the thing that was especially interesting is that if Grace Romanian Baptist Church has bought the other church down there across from --on Golden Gate Boulevard,why hasn't that been explored for expansion of future services? Because the traffic impacts would be way less. Most of all,the last thing that we saw on there that was especially a change from the previous, leasing to outside entities shouldn't be allowed. I know in the new one it said that leasing to outside congregations is prohibited,but leasing to outside operations is an issue,because you're getting in on more operations, sound, noise,and traffic. So, basically,Golden Gate Estates after talking with all these people out here,we think that the residential quality of life out here is more important than having this operation at this location, and it's especially dangerous, we think, for traffic. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike. Ned,again. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You've been before us previously,correct? Page 18 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. I love being up here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I know. And you represent a large group of people, do you not? You're president of-- MR. RAMSEY: Pretty wide variety,yes. Mostly Estates residents. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay,good. Our charge,as I understand it from the County Commission, was--and correct me if I'm wrong,Mr.Chairman--not so much whether we're going to revote on church versus no church,but what's before us is can we try to find more ways of bringing the community and the church together. In other words--at least that's my understanding of what is in front of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's basically what I read that they assigned to us,yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So my question,specifically, for you, sir, not only you, individually,but your best sense of what the folks whom you represent would be interested in having,you've seen the redlining of the conditions that shows how it has been updated. Would you add any other provisions or points to that,or would you care to comment on-- MR. RAMSEY: Well, I just did comment on one. I do understand the charge here before you. I just think it's important to bring up this other stuff,because if you're going to operate within a very narrowly confined set of rules that doesn't apply to the whole subdivision,you're making me give you a recommendation to give us a bad project for the community? I don't think that's a very good thing for me to do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well.that's certainly your prerogative,but within the scope of our charge we're trying to find other points where,perhaps,the church could be asked to make concessions that would make having a church there more palatable to the neighborhood. Now's your chance to say that either for yourself or,perhaps,on behalf of the other community members with whom you're familiar. MR. RAMSEY: After studying this issue for quite some time,there is no compatible--this operation at that corner and location with traffic is not compatible with the residential quality of life that we expected to have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike,were you at the board hearing when this was discussed? MR. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you spoke? MR. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why they sent it back to us for negotiation instead just doing it themselves. Why? MR. RAMSEY: It was our opinion that--we've been going through this with Grace Romanian for this property for about two-and-a-half years. We had an initial application, and we went through a set of negotiations. We came up with what we thought was a very good compatible use with it. They went away for about six months and came back with a second application that had almost doubled all the activities and the hours of operation and was completely different from the first one. So we spoke that it shouldn't be approved because there was no attempt to be compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR. RAMSEY: So they sent it back and said,see if you can make it better. We still contend the location is a problem. Even though I do understand your narrowly confined set of rules that you're operating on the recommendations, it's a bad location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the best solution.then.that you would see is that it just not exist at all? Page 19 of 79 .tom January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Stay residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's not one of the issues we were-- MR. RAMSEY: I know, but it needs to be said: it needs to be understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know how the first meeting of--the first recommendation to the Board went. It was a recommendation of approval of the language that wasn't struck in red 6-1. MR. RAMSEY: Yes. And most of the people I talked to out there,they still feel like most of the members of the Planning Commission, even the Board of County Commissioners,don't understand the Estates'quality-of-life issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think I don't understand the Estates, Mike? MR. RAMSEY: That was a general comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: This is the issue we fight most of the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've probably lived out there longer--maybe pretty long--what, 40 years. How long you been out there for? MR. RAMSEY: Thirty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just trying to make sure that everything's clear, Mike. And I have tried and --as you know by the last vote,tried to go a different direction, but we're not here tasked with that today,and that's why I'm trying to keep it focused on what we were supposed to do. And I appreciate your comments. MR. RAMSEY: Well, let's take an example of a cumulative effect,all right. So we're going to put a bridge on Eighth Street Northeast and connect Randall to Golden Gate Boulevard. We're going to divert traffic from the north end of the Estates down to Golden Gate Boulevard coming through this intersection. That's going to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that got to do with this church? MR. RAMSEY: That's traffic;cumulative traffic issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Mike,we're back to what we were assigned today. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have some followup questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there any other speakers,James? MR. SABO: No more speakers for this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody here-- COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a question for Mr. Ramsey-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- if it's not too late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike. No, it's never too late,especially for somebody brand new. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Mr. Ramsey, I live in an Estates area as well. You mentioned that you had. I think, negotiated with Grace Romanian Church and arrived at something you said would he acceptable. As Chairman Strain has said. we're here to try to define what improvements in the conditions might make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Not so much to possibly reject it. but to send it back with additional conditions. What was initially agreed to with the church in terms of scope and size and activities and number of people and that type of thing? Page 20 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. RAMSEY: Well, I think the square footage of the building was smaller,the parking area was smaller,the operations--proposed operations was less,the hours of time of operation were shorter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a-- like this one is, like,three pages,there was about a page and a half previously of stipulations that were--this goes back months that we started with, and then when it got to the Planning Commission,the applicant's team brought some amendments to those,and through the Planning Commission, it got changed again to a point where the traffic had to increase. So they had to go back out and do a NIM. They came back for another hearing. That got recommended for approval to the Board of County Commissioners,and then the Board sent it back to us today. So that's kind of like a real short history of what happened. It's been going on for quite a while. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other speakers,James? MR. SABO: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Joe,you had some followups. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had some followup questions. I'm going to ask the applicant-- I don't care which represents but, Mr.Yovanovich,you're standing there. We heard from the public issues about, basically,the critters that are out in the-- I'm talking animals and other things out in the Estates. Did you have any requirement for a determination--jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Section 7 consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife regarding this property? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we did not--we don't have any technical permitting issues for listed -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So there's no listed species or endangered species identified? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was there a requirement through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for a biological assessment or follow-on biological opinion? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So I guess that pretty much clears any requirement dealing with any identified listed or endangered species. Regarding traffic,regarding the county, I guess, Mike,you may have to answer this. Have you determined that the traffic pattern and the impact to be compatible with the existing road network, are there any issues been identified? MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. We have studied it. The amount of traffic during the week,which is our criteria for judging whether the petition is consistent with the GMP, is that the impacts are reasonable and are actually quite low in this case. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it meets the concurrence requirements? MR. SAWYER: Yes. it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My last comment has to do with what John raised. I'll go back to the county-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Mike leaves, Mike,did you do a staff review for the staff report? MR. SAWYER: Yes,we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you recommend approval on that review? MR. SAWYER: Yes,we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take all the considerations you were just asked before you wrote that approval? Page 21 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The last one having to do with the height of the structure. John brought up the steeple. I've pretty much traveled the world. I think I've been in 96 countries throughout the world regarding places of worship,whether it is a mosque,a church,a Buddhist temple,typically the structures on a religious building are higher than the surrounding community so it can be identified by the people in the community. It's been that way since the Middle Ages. Is the steeple deemed compatible,and does it meet all the requirements as far as appurtenances on the building with regards to the county? MR. SABO: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well,those issues were raised. Again, I see no requirement to deny this or-- I cannot find any reason to deny this petition,and I recommend it move forward as written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does--now,we've had public testimony, staff response, and--to it. Richard, do you have any rebuttal that you'd like to have? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I think that what we've done is what the Board tasked us with doing,which was try to make this better than what was originally presented to you all and to the Board,and I think we've done that. I just would like to say one thing,that this petition, like most church petitions, if traffic becomes an issue,we are required to employ off-duty police officers to be there to direct traffic. So if there are cumulative impacts from our project,that is addressed in the provisions that are already existing--we didn't change that. That's been there for a while. So I just wanted to put that on the record for the community so they know that we've had that commitment in there to provide off-duty police officers if the county says we're having a traffic issue related to our operation of the property. With that, I don't have anything else to add to the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan.and then Ned. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich,we've heard some suggestions for further concessions, if you will,and I want to go back to those and ask you and your client to what extent some or all of them might be acceptable to you. The first thing that was mentioned was the loop trail. Is that something that the church would consider doing? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll turn to Anna. I don't know what the loop trail is. MS. WEAVER: I think I need further clarification on what loop trail they're asking for. I think-- I know he said maybe a trail around the property or-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: What he said,yeah, around the periphery. MS. WEAVER: Well, I can tell you we're going to build sidewalks as required in the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fryer, we need to look at how that would interface with the back of the property. I believe there's a canal there,too,right? MS. WEAVER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a canal. So I don't know. To the extent that we can work that into our site plan,we're willing to look at it. I don't want to make it a formal commitment as part of the application materials right now. Frankly, it's something new to us to even consider. I'm not prepared to say yes: I'm not prepared to say we can't work it in, but I don't want it to be part of the approval. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The building size, I mentioned that my rather brief research turned up for a 300 congregation size,between 12,000 and 18,000. Would you consider splitting the difference on that, a compromise at 15,000? Page 22 of 79 mrmr■ir January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll be honest with you, it took me some arm twisting to bring it down. I mean,there's--Fellowship Hall takes up space and kitchens in Fellowship Hall. That all adds up. And we think what we've done by the limits on who can come and when they can come and--we think we've addressed the concerns about compatibility plus the reduction of that 6,000 square feet. 1 think that's a fair compromise. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then it was mentioned to some degree through confusion, I think, on the part of the people who were trying to interpret the latest version of the compromise, 9 p.m. versus 10 p.m. Would the church be willing to conclude all activities at 9 p.m.? MR. YOVANOVICH: The preference would be to-- 10 p.m. has been in there for a while,and we'd like to keep it at the 10 p.m. I think the red is just--was the clarification of the how many services we can have on Saturday and the hours for that. But the 10 p.m. has been in there for a while for our worship services. And,again,the limitation on the number of individuals that can come,I think it addresses the concerns for the community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the 10 p.m. later limit,the one hour later limit would be exclusively for worship services? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,you have it under a couple of places. I've got to get a new pair of glasses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich,just to clarify,the 9 p.m. came about because of the first draft of the conditions. I have them. I'm looking at them. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're looking at-- if we're looking at church-related meetings, they end at 9, if I'm reading that correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Church operating hours,a,(1)(a),original submittal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are the worship services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Church services shall be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m.and 9 p.m. That's why I think it's coming up for a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the related--meetings--church-related meetings in C end at 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: Worship services have been 10 o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Originally, in the original submittal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh,way back when,before I got involved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Way back when, before you got involved--well,you got involved at the hearing level. but before that they were limit to 9 o'clock. That's why that's coming up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Worship, Mr. Strain? For worship services? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says right there, 1(a).church services will be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. That was produced by the applicant's planner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just have one moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. And,Joe,as soon as Ned finishes. I'll go to you next. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So after this answer he's done,then we'll go to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have services end by 9. Now,that means there will be people,obviously, leaving, but they'll be leaving an hour earlier if we had services ending at 10. Is that your-- is that what you're asking for,Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It sounds like that's what was on the table. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe--and I don't have the history all the way back to the beginning, but if we originally said 8 to 9 for worship services,then we can agree with that. We just don't want anybody to say every vehicle needs to be off that property by 9. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. Page 23 of 79 lummi January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the concern we have, but we don't mind. We'll make that change back on the worship services. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then -- I did have one more clarification,then,on this very point. The way it is currently worded, what kinds of activities can continue until 10 p.m.? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if we make the change we just made-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nothing. MR. YOVANOVICH: --nothing can happen after 9-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. We can shorten that,can't we,and just say no activities after 9 p.m.? MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than the cars leaving property,yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah,other than that;other than that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I had. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand the concept. We'll have to write it, but I understand the concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And the only thing I was going to ask Ned is to ask to put this pathway around the church on the fly, it may adversely impact the neighboring properties,and I think we really would have to look at that before we recommend that as a change, because there are buffers,there's other things around the church. And to basically do that on the fly is certainly going to have adverse effect on some of the homes surrounding the church. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that--Richard. is there anything else you want to-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just have a little--all right. Here's our issue. Thursdays--well, it didn't matter. We were limited at 9 anyway's. Let me--can I have one minute,or do you want to take a break for Terri? Is it about her time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we'll take a full break then,we'll go into the second case after we finish up with this one. I was going to let this one get done first, but-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I just need two seconds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a break till 10:30 and resume at 10:30. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. Okay. Thank you. We left off with final comments on the Grace Romanian Church application and. Mr. Yovanovich,you had time to meet with your client? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. Yeah,thank you. And I put on the visualizer-- I know it's old tech, but I don't know how to do it in PowerPoint. What I understood was we were going to make A, the hours would be 9 p.m.--for A as well as B and C, and then I understand 18,000 square feet is what we committed to during the discussion. And then it came up. and we heard--we were discussing during the break--and we committed to this at the Board of County Commissioners, so I just think we should add it, and I think this is the right place to put it under 3 regarding the parking to make it clear that would be no off-street--or no on-street parking permitted. Because there was concern that people would come to an event at the church and somehow would park on the local neighborhood streets. We've already committed that that Page 24 of 79 January 17,2019 wouldn't happen,so we thought we'd maybe want to add that to the commitments as well. That wasn't discussed,but we wanted to add that during the break. So I think those are the changes that were discussed in addition to what we previously presented. So that's it. I think I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only thing I have to ask is that Mr. Fryer--we have a Fry and a Fryer. I have to keep them straight. Mr. Fryer had asked to consider limiting all activities--no activities after 9 p.m., and that was why you wanted the break. So did you discuss that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Yeah,we did. And what happened is the only service that goes past 9 o'clock is the New Year's Eve service,and that's what I--and I spoke to Mr.Fryer about that on the break.that every other service except New Year's Eve has to stop before 9,and that's why we had that separate--we had that separate in D,because Easter Sunrise obviously happens before the normal hours that we had discussed in No. I,and the limitation on when we had to end,and that's why we separated,originally, Easter Sunrise and New Year's Eve services, because those would be the two exceptions to the worship service hours in Number A--or Letter A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 9 o'clock change to the 10 p.m. up top-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --fixes that. Basically you've got no activities after 9. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right,right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you,Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any other comments or questions from the Hearing Examiner-- I mean, from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: How is a wall defined? We had the southern adjacent property owner,and in the writeup it mentions a wall is to be constructed, but what are the parameters of a wall? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let Anna--because you don't want me to answer. MS. WEAVER: The code requirement for that area is that because it's adjacent to residential zoning across the street,it states that we have to construct a 4-foot wall. And I believe it says--well,don't-- I don't want to quote what it says exactly, but it's going to be a concrete or prefab solid wall. COMMISSIONER FRY: Four feet in height? MS. WEAVER: Four feet in height to help with headlights. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is a 4-foot wall--and what is the purpose of that wall in terms of-- I mean,at four feet, it does not obstruct the view of the church for the adjacent property owner. So what about the possibility of a taller structure? MS. WEAVER: The purpose, I believe,because it's right on the roadway, is for lights to affect the adjacent residential property. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's never been intended to be a security feature. It's always been intended to be a"stop headlights from bothering neighbors" feature. COMMISSIONER FRY: And has it been requested by the adjacent neighbors that it be tall enough to obstruct the view? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You guys don't do a Christmas midnight mass? Page 25 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: We will end it at the 9 p.m. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,we--midnight could be at 9 p.m.for us older people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll --anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,we'll close the public hearing, and then we'll go into a motion. If there's-- if anybody wants discussion on this before we go to motion --if not, I'd like to suggest that if someone would want to make a motion, it would be a motion to send the changes to the Board of County Commissioners recommended as additional compatibility considerations,so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, so moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be including the handwritten-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And what I'll do is, if you want to second it, I'll go ahead and read-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. The changes would be those in red that were presented with the amendments that are noted here in blue on this particular page. And I don't believe there were any past this section of that page. MS. WEAVER: Oh,not written. MR. YOVANOVICH: No further changes other than the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, more red ones,but no further written ones. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,the motion maker and the second accept that. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now,the next item up, I must--it's the only item left, so it must be why everybody's here. PL20170004419. It's the Collier County Growth Management Plan amendment for the Livingston Road-- MR. SABO: Mr.Chairman,we, I think,need action on the Comp Plan as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's not what the Board assigned us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The Comp Plan goes forward-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Comp Plan and the other motions go forward as they were. This just tells the Board what they asked for us to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. That was my understanding. MR. SABO: Very good. Page 26 of 79 mossimmilimust- January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me start over again,then. ***The next item up is Item 9A3, PL20170004419. It's an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to add the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard located on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard just east of Livingston Road. 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,please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the Planning Commission. Let's start with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich,and I saw the news stuff on Channels 2, 5,and 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get any emails? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,yeah, I did; from the public,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we all got copied on some of them. Some of them went to the staff, and then they distributed them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious,do we have to--everybody sees those. Do we have to disclose that? MR. KLATZKOW: Technically,you should be bringing with you all the ex parte communications you have in a folder, which we give the applicant or anybody else the ability to look at them and to ask questions about it. That's what you're supposed to do. Customarily, I can't remember the last time an applicant actually asked for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In our case-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,anyway, I got copies of emails from a bunch of people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I.as well, received all the emails and the materials in the packet,which --are a part of the public record and available to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And that's what I would suggest to all of you. If you get emails,always copy them back to staff,as I do. That way they're always part of the staffs record. Staff puts in the packet,or as Corby's done today,he passed them back out. So they do get them;they become available to everybody. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If he'd remember to say it, I'd remember to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Emails,phone call with Yovanovich prior to the December 6th meeting before this was continued, and I'm appointed(sic)with some homeowners in the Barrington Cove neighborhood. Do I need to name their names? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,just-- COMMISSIONER FRY: And I've had a brief conversation with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Conversations with staff. emails;conversations with Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had conversations with staff. I've had a slough of emails. 1 forwarded them all to staff. They're either in the packet or in front of us in the packages today. I've had meetings with Mr.Yovanovich and the applicant team as a whole I think once--almost all of them in December,and a group of them,again,yesterday,and that's--other than that,that's it. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have had emails,and I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. Page 27 of 79 Am= January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Mulhere,numerous emails that came into my official Collier.gov address, so I have to assume that they're in the archive and part of the official record. I did not forward those to staff, but I certainly can,and additional information that was-- I guess,was handed out by staff just came in. I got an email from Corby last-- I think yesterday or the day before regarding some language,changes in language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Similar emails,communication with staff,and a brief phone call with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That wraps it up. Bob,we'll turn it over to you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here this morning on behalf of the applicant. Also in attendance with me this morning is Brian Stock, Keith Gelder,Chris Johnson, all with Stock Development. Rich Yovanovich is our land-use attorney; Chris Mitchell is the professional civil engineer with JR Evans Engineering; and Ted Treesh. Ted Treesh is our transportation planner with TR Transportation Consultants. I have a PowerPoint presentation. I'd like to go through that. I'll be as succinct as possible. I realize there's a lot of folks here,and I don't want to take any more time than is necessary with my presentation, but there are some-- I think there is some information that will be significant. So let me just begin that.and I'll try to get through it as succinctly as possible. What you have before you is an aerial of the neighborhood and shows the subject property. Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's shifted north more than it is,right? MR.MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There's another outline. That's over a zoning map. The property has two zoning districts on it. Fifteen-and-change acres is part of the De La Rosa RPUD, and the balance of the property's presently zoned agricultural;about 20 acres. All of the property is in the urban residential subdistrict; none of the property is in the coastal high hazard area. Total size is 35.92 acres. So the property's located,as you know,at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial. This amendment seeks to establish the Veterans Memorial Boulevard East residential subdistrict,and this is a transmittal hearing to permit up to 350 multifamily dwelling units. That number originally was 420. We reduced to 350. There will be a companion--there is a companion PUD that is under review by staff,and as part of my presentation,I will share with you a number of the conditions and so forth that we're committing to as part of the PUD. I know this is always a bit of a challenge when you have a transmittal hearing that's limited to a Comprehensive Plan but,really,you-all have an interest in knowing more of the detail,and we're going to provide that to you. The density at 350 units is 9.74 units per acre. The existing De La Rosa PUD, 15.38 acres,allowed for up to 107 multifamily dwelling units,and those were approved to be constructed at a zoned height of 50 feet and a building height--excuse me--an actual height of 69 feet. The GMP provisions presently allow for up to seven units per acre,which would total 251.44 units. The additional units that we would be seeking would be 98.56. If you add those together, that totals 350 dwelling units at 9.74 units per acre. Page 28 of 79 I January 17,2019 This exhibit-- I'll spend a few minutes on this--overlays the De La Rosa approved PUD and site plan provisions--there was a site plan for De La Rosa PUD-- in blue. So the boundaries of that are outlined in blue,and the location of the buildings proposed for De La Rosa are also outlined in blue. The overall property that is part of our petition actually shows--excuse me--the development area. The overall development area for our petition is outlined in red. So a couple of points. We have established a minimum setback for principal structures from our eastern property line or boundary of 125 feet at a minimum. So these buildings here and this building here would be a minimum and are a minimum of 125 feet as juxtaposed with the site plan for De La Rosa, which allowed for a 20-foot setback. I looked at the SDP,and this building was approximately 26 feet from the property line and four stories in height, 50 feet in height. So, obviously,we have looked at this as part of our planning,and I've shifted the development as far away as we possibly could from Barrington Cove. So if you look at this table here,this table provides for the setbacks of the approved De La Rosa PUD,which was approved,as I said previously, for a building height of 50 feet zoned,69 feet actual,with a 20-foot setback. Our proposal at present is four stories or three stories. These buildings here were originally proposed--these two buildings were originally proposed at four stories. We've reduced those to three stories. Zoned height 40 feet; actual height 50 feet. These buildings,these remaining buildings,two here and two here, in red, would be retained at four stories,with the original zoned and actual height. The brand and PUD. which is Barrington Cove,was approved at a zoned height of 50 feet, three stories,and an actual height of 55 feet and three stories. So I just want to point that out,that the brand and PUD,which you can see the development here shaded,right here and right here;that PUD was approved for zoned height at 50 feet,actual height of 55 feet, three stories. We've reduced these two buildings right here,which are the closest to this portion of the development, down to three stories. This is the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before we--can you stay on that again,just to clarify, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I'll go over that several more times, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to be--do you want to--we normally don't interrupt the presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to be sure he--the buildings in blue are not going to be built. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Those are approved SDP for De La Rosa. The point that we wanted to make was you can see how close they are to Barrington Cove at a height of 50 feet and four stories. I say they're not going to be built. It sort of depends on what happens. Obviously-- This is the master concept plan. The only thing I'd point out is you can see that we did spend a lot of time designing the site to move the development area into this area. This is a fairly large wetland preserve,a little over 15 acres in size, and this is a stonmvater management lake with a--a significant landscape buffer around it. This is the revised site plan overlaid on an aerial. I'll point that out again. These buildings have been reduced from four down to three stories from a building height zoned of 50 down to 40. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't mean to interrupt again,but Joe may need this clarification;the two buildings that I think he asked about,the two on the south side,they're not darkened. Does that mean you're not building them? Page 29 of 79 i January 17,2019 MR. MULHERE: No,those are being built. I'm not sure why that is the case. Those are--they should be darkened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I guess I don't-- I've already kind of covered some of this. I won't be repetitive. These arrows depict the buildings that will be three stories and four stories with this sort of quad --the buildings right here being three stories and these being four stories. I mentioned this,but I'll repeat it again. We did insert a minimum --a minimum setback for buildings from our eastern boundary of 125 feet for principal structures. There are garages--single-story garages closer than that, but the actual apartment buildings will be a minimum of 125 feet from the eastern boundary. And here is our proposed amendment regarding the building height which would be depicted on the PUD master plan to show those buildings that will be three story,which I've already pointed out to you,and those buildings which will be four story. We've met with--and I'll go over this in a little more detail. But we-- in addition to the NIM, we've met with representatives of both Barrington Cove and Mediterra north across Veterans Memorial from this property. And as a result of those meetings, we've gone back several times to the drawing board to develop landscape buffers that we thought would address some of their concerns. This exhibit shows you --this is just sort of the master key, but shows you the types of landscape designs that we're going to put in those locations, and I'll show you more detail here. So you can see right here--so this is the property right here. This parcel right here is zoned A ag. It's adjacent--the parcel on the corner is zoned Cl. We don't own those parcels, just for reference. If you look at the arrow here,this parcel is zoned Cl,this parcel is zoned ag. Presumably at some point in the future that would be rezoned to something,potentially zoning it commercial,who knows. But it's zoned ag right now. So there's two parcels right there;one CI,one ag. So this exhibit shows you the landscape buffer treatment that we would do adjacent to that ag parcel. There's really not any great concern over that ag--over the relationship to that ag parcel. This shows the landscape buffer treatment to the south,also right here,also adjacent to the commercial parcel. It's a Type B--Type B buffer plan. There will be a decorative aluminum fence for security purposes around the property--that shows that decorative aluminum fence--and also around this lake portion,so that's a standard Type B. This one,of course, is more important because this buffer is the buffer that's adjacent to the closest developments in Barrington Cove,the closest development, period, with Livingston Road separating us--with Veterans Memorial separating us from Mediterra and Livingston here--right here. Excuse me. So this buffer is a significantly enhanced buffer. On the bottom right you see the single-story garage elevation. Those garages will be right in here. And what we've got here is an enhanced Type B buffer that has both canopy trees above the required minimum sizes;same thing with the shrubs. This you can see right here. And then there's sort of a mid-story palm row. In addition,there will be the aluminum decorative fence in there, but these are intended to create an opaque and substantial buffer,right in here,and so we've significantly increased the buffer requirements adjacent to our neighbors. Now,that's a 15-foot-wide buffer. We also intend to continue to work with the neighbors,and I'll get into that in just a moment. This is the buffer,the Type D buffer that's required adjacent to the roadway to the north along Veterans Memorial. This is a line-of-sight exhibit. I recognize this is a--there's a fair amount of detail here, Page 30 of 79 January 17,2019. and it may be a little hard to see. I'd like to just walk you through. The key here tells you what the perspective is. So A is looking from an individual standing at the back edge of their property in Mediterra looking south towards our project. They have a significant berm here with mature landscaping on top of the berm. As you're looking up across the top of that berm,with the reduced height now to three stories,which you can see in this exhibit right here,this--there will be no perspective. They will not see these buildings based on this berm,this landscaping,this wide--it's a fairly wide-- I think it's a 200-foot-wide right-of-way there, and then additional distance here before you get to the one-story garages, and then the other buildings,and then --or other buildings,and then the three-story apartment building. B is this perspective right here from Barrington Cove looking west. And,again,with the reduced height here,really,you would not see these buildings with an enhanced landscaping buffer here both on their property and our property and then the single-story garage structure. Even at four stories you will not see them except,perhaps,a little bit of the roofline at three stories. And then these two perspectives also. I think,are from Barrington Cove property on the other side of our lake right here. You can see D and C right there. And I think we have a similar situation there with the landscaping and the distance of 125 feet. Someone standing on their property here would see a little bit of the edge treatment from this perspective looking sort of northwest,and this is the perspective looking from their due west. Our Traffic Impact Statement was analyzed,and it looked at the AUIR in 2023 buildout conditions. Ted Treesh is here. I'm just going to go over this briefly. I'm sure there may be some more detailed questions in which I certainly will defer to Ted as the expert. But there is capacity along all the surrounding roadways,except Immokalee Road west of Livingston in 2023, both with and without this. And the site's located in the Transportation Concurrency Management Area, which is the policy that allows up to seven units per acre with certain transportation demand management techniques being utilized. Our project at 350 dwelling units does not trigger the 85 percent threshold described in Policy 5.7. The intersection analysis conducted at Livingston and Memorial indicates that the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service again, both with and without the project trips. And as another observation,Logan extension,which will be another north/south option which will relieve some traffic from this north/south from Livingston,will be-- is under construction; will be completed and open this year,2019. And this exhibit here shows 1-75 right here, Livingston right here, the project is right here, and this is the extension of Logan to Bonita Beach Road from its present terminus up to Bonita Beach Road. There are a number of transportation stips in the PUD. We have a maximum trip generation that we can't exceed of 176 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. There's a payment that's required for--a fair-share payment for signalization. We are required to--or at least we were-- I'm not sure since there's no actual CAT system running past this property whether or not we need to do this immediately or it remains as a condition. That's perhaps something that could be something clarified. But we agreed to a condition to install a Collier Area Transit shelter if and when requested by the county. The access point onto Livingston Road is limited and is only an egress, so it's not an ingress/egress but just an exit,and that's separated from the intersection by a thousand--by at least a thousand feet. And we also agreed to construct vehicular,pedestrian,and bicycle stub-out to the adjacent Page 31 of 79 January 17,2019 property,so I did want to show you that. Let me just go back. So,again,there will be a connection to the adjacent property generally in this vicinity right here. This is the commercial property. And we've agreed to connect. That would be for all forms of,you know,pedestrian, bicycle,and vehicular. I don't think there's any question but that there's a strong market demand for rental apartments in Collier County. Rates continue to increase and have since 2011. That's an indicator of a basic economic rule of demand exceeding supply. Additional supply will stabilize those rates and minimize further increases. Occupancy of existing projects is close to 95 percent,which is considered to be full occupancy. And the estimated demand for rental units by the end of 2022 is over 5,300 units. There are some unique elements that I'd like to point out with respect to management and demographic of tenants. As you know. Stock has constructed and manages several other rental apartments, luxury rental apartment projects. The typical demographics: The tenants are typically working professionals and empty nesters. The average household income ranges from 80-to 135,000. At Inspira at Lely, 40 percent of the tenants are empty nesters, folks that want to come down here perhaps full time. perhaps they'll rent it,but they won't be here all year. But they're not looking to buy a single-family home or a condominium. They're looking to rent. Stock employs professional on-site property management. The company is Greystar,the largest leasing property management firm in the United States. And the experience with them has been excellent thus far. Full background checks are required on all tenants. We have a seven-day eviction process for any criminal activity. Subleasing of units is prohibited. Airbnb and similar types of rental opportunities are prohibited. Renters insurance is required. All of the vehicles are registered with the property manager. There are restrictions on pets, size and types and requirement to show photos and proof of vaccination. The standard lease term--this question came up quite a bit. The standard lease term is 12 months. There are--there is a minimum lease term of seven months. There are certain circumstances where a lesser lease term is appropriate and,therefore,the lesser lease term is allowed. These are some photos. I'll go through them fairly quickly,but you may or may not know, but this project is developed and has been open for some time now,and this is Inspira at Lely Resort. The reason we're showing you these is because the intent is to build something of the same high, high quality on this property for this project. Some of the details may change, but--and you can see these are four-story products. You see we have garages. I want to show you some of the amenities. This is a perspective looking, I think it's from -- I think it's from the clubhouse looking out towards the pool or maybe from one of the units looking toward the pool. Very high quality and a very significant amenity package. That's a picture of the pool. Another picture of the pool. That is looking at the clubhouse,the main entry. And the second floor is a fitness facility. These are some interior amenity pictures. Meeting space,congregating space. There's a picture of the gym on the left-hand side,additional tenant gathering spaces. You can see that the design--the quality is very, very high. Additional perspective of the amenities. You can see the high ceilings in the front lobby,the foyer there. There's opportunities to,you know, do some work there if you like. Another picture of the pool looking out,sort of the central courtyard with the pool. That almost concludes my presentation. I did want to add that-- I mentioned that we had Page 32 of 79 January 17,2019 met with representatives of Mediterra and Barrington Cove several times both before the Christmas holidays and then after the Christmas holidays after we had reduced the building height on the two buildings that are close to Barrington Cove from four to three stores. We also made a commitment--I just wanted to mention this. We also made a commitment at that point in time to work with those folks,those representatives, between transmittal,assuming that transmittal is-- moves fonvard by the Board of County Commissioners, and adoption to address a couple of concerns that they raised, one being the quality and quantity of the landscape buffer adjacent to Barrington Cove--and we're happy to work with the folks from Mediterra on that issue,too,as it relates to the perimeter buffers, but I don't know that there were any issues with those--and also the building architecture. There was some concerns about, I think, more color being sort of being only one option there, but to look at some other architectural elements that would --and color and elements that would make that more attractive. We've agreed to continue to work with them. That concludes my presentation. We're open for questions,unless I missed anything, which Rich will let me know what I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob,just one--not a question about what you presented, but how are you going to provide that for the record? MR. MULHERE: I have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll give that to the court reporter and make sure she has it for recordation? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do--again, Rich Yovanovich, for the record, I guess,since this is a different petition. I would like to point out a couple of things as, kind of, why you're seeing so many Growth Management Plan amendments coming through for apartments in Collier County. As I know the Planning Commission is aware,but not everybody in the audience is aware,Collier County has a Comprehensive Plan that has a very low base density calculation of four units per acre. And even with the fact that we achieve three additional units per acre,apartment complexes are generally in the 10-to 12-unit-per-acre density in order for it to be a viable project to provide all of the nice amenities you see. So that's why we're here in need of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The only way to get to a density that we're asking for today under the current Comprehensive Plan regulations would be ask for an affordable housing density bonus,which we're not doing. That's why we're doing a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment to get to a density that makes sense for an apartment complex. I also --since Stock is a known entity in developing in Collier County and has the Inspira project up and running,we're fortunate today to have Catherine Cordoza with Greystar,who is going to be managing that project as well as this project. So I thought it would be beneficial if she came up and shared with you her experience with the types of tenants,because in reviewing-- I didn't attend the NIM, but I did watch the video of the NIM,and not just at this location, but in many locations, there's a concern about the quality and how will the project be fully maintained when people don't have an ownership interest in the actual building. And I think it would be helpful to have someone who's actually dealing with that on a day-to-day basis speak briefly about some of the things that Bob's already mentioned but give you the first-hand account. Her name's Catherine Cordoza with Greystar. I'll bring her up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said something though,and maybe she can answer it. You said that the reason we have so many Growth Management Plan amendments is because of the density that we allocate on a base density,and the apartments are needed at a higher density. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 33 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give me an example of another apartment complex in Collier County that has needed a Growth Management Plan amendment? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can name a few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did it for Pine Ridge Commons,which is the redevelopment of a shopping center. The Vincentian PUD along the East Trail,we did a Comprehensive Plan amendment for that. We're in, or shortly to be in,on Courthouse Shadows. We'll be coming in for a Growth Management Plan amendment for that. That also has a four-unit-per-acre limitation, and we're doing it--we had our pre-app the other day. So those are ones that are popping in my head right now. I'm pretty sure I've done others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand there are--there's actually 4,000 units that have come through in the last 12, 15 months-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --on top of the 12,000 we already have. And I was trying to understand,when you said that--because,you know, I've told you my concern has always been-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the density change due to the Growth Management Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mentioned three. Vincentian was a partial-- had a component for its increase based on affordable housing. The other two were commercial entities already approved swapping out commercial intensity for apartment intensity so that they became a wash; Pine Ridge Commons is one. Is there any one that you have similar to this one you're proposing today? MR.YOVANOVICH: There's one that Bob and I are both working on-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's across from Orchid Run? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. That one's in the process. I am not at liberty to talk about future projects, but I think that what we have in the urban area,especially west off-75,there are very few parcels left of any significant size that you can achieve enough critical mass for an apartment complex. And I'm not going to tell you this is the last one, but I'm sure it's pretty close in the urban area for undeveloped parcels that you can get to,you know, basically,the 350 range for an apartment complex,and they're going to require,you know,Comp Plan amendments to make that happen. So that's why I said what I said, Mr. Strain. And with this location, specifically, in the news recently is--and Mr. Eastman can address this is--this is an ideal location because you do have Veterans Memorial Elementary School,you have a middle school,and you have a soon-to-be constructed high school. So it would be an ideal location to provide housing for people working at all three of those school facilities. So with that, I'll -- unless there's further questions of me, I'll turn it over to Catherine, if--unless there's further questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just wanted to understand the clarification before we went past that point. MR.YOVANOVICH: Sure. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I know some of are you talking to one other. I can hear some of the whispering up here. I've got to ask you to refrain from that. Our court reporter listens only with her ears to type, and it gets mixed up sometimes to hear yours on top of the speakers. So please try to think of that when you're trying to whisper to one another. Thank you. Go ahead,ma'am. MS. CORDOZA: Hello. I do need to be sworn in. Page 34 of 79 wasfitisignillanalabo January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't here for swearing in? MS.CORDOZA: I did not stand for it. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'll need to state your name for the record. MS.CORDOZA: Catherine Cordoza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And could you just spell that just to be sure we've got the spelling right. MS.CORDOZA: C-a-t-h-e-r-i-n-e, last name C-a-r-d-o-z-a. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. MS.CORDOZA: Hi. I am just standing up here to say I have been managing--privileged with managing apartment communities for almost 14 years in both Lee and Collier Counties, latest project being Inspira in Lely Resort,as mentioned. I also would like to mention that I'm a current resident of Barrington Cove and have been for over a year now. I will be also-- if everything goes through, be managing the Allura project. I have two children. One goes to Veterans Memorial Elementary and one to North Naples Middle School right along near the project. So I have a very much--a vested interest in,you know,making sure that the community succeeds and that the resident base is a good one. Today's renter has changed drastically from what I think most people in this room and that have continued to own their homes think that the resident demographic is. In addition to the items that were mentioned as far as the screening process and what is required for an apartment community renter. to get approved at our communities we do a very thorough background check, credit check;all pets are screened,service animals,anything of that nature. The rules and regulations and lease agreements that are put into place and enforced by myself,my team,are pretty stringent. In fact,even more so than what a homeowner in Mediterra,Barrington Cove would be subject to. I don't believe that the apartment community is going to bring down home values. In fact, I believe there was some murmurings of that in Lely Resort and our previous project, Spectra,that people,you know,think that apartment renters are,you know, bad people or criminals or this,that, or the other. That's just not today. That's not who's renting apartments anymore. The people are renting by choice,they're great people,and I think that it's going to be a great addition to all the jobs coming to the area for working professionals,as mentioned,with,you know, not only the educational sector of it, teachers,the families. You have the Fire Department right there. And I think that that's going to be a good chunk of our demographic: working professionals just like anyone else that's in the community surrounding that are concerned. And I understand their concern, but the demographic of renters in today's market has changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before-- I guess this is the last member of your team,so before you sit down, let's see if we have any questions of you before we go back to Bob or Richard. Any questions of this lady? Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you educate me a little more about Inspira. What--how many buildings are there,what is the building height,and how many units are there? MS. CORDOZA: There's 304 units. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 304? MS. CORDOZA: 304,yeah. Very similar to the layout that was presented for Altura. They are all four-story buildings, four-story elevator buildings. There's five of them total. Thirteen six-bay garage, free-standing garage banks on site there,and very similar to the amenity package that was represented in the photos. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How close to Inspira is the next four-story building from some other development? Page 35 of 79 January 17,2019 MS.CORDOZA: I believe FSW is the closest four-story. I'm not -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Can you estimate approximately how far away it is. MS.CORDOZA: Maybe a mile or so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In that range? MS.CORDOZA: A mile. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have--of her? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the density per acre of Inspira? MS. CORDOZA: That I'm not 100 percent sure on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's part of the Lely PUD.yeah. So it's-- MS. CORDOZA: Fifteen, so quite a bit more-- COMMISSIONER FRY: Fifteen? MS. CORDOZA: --at Inspira versus what Allura will be. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It would be about 20. COMMISSIONER FRY: Twenty. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just under 15 acres for 304 units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So higher density than this? MS.CORDOZA: Yes,at Inspira. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the range of rents at Inspira,and what is projected for Allura? MS.CORDOZA: As of right now,at Inspira we have rents ranged from high-- mid to high 1,400s and up to the--just under 2,000 for a three-bedroom. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you have target ranges for the rents for Altura? MS. COOK: We don't have that available at this time. MR. YOVANOVICH: About the same. COMMISSIONER FRY: About the same. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of her? I have one. What's your-- based on your information on. I guess, Inspira then, what's your persons per household? MS.CORDOZA: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your persons per household? How many--what's your average persons per household in Inspira? MS.CORDOZA: Two:two or less,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two or less? MS.CORDOZA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you also have an age range? MS. CORDOZA: The demographic age range right now is, I want to say, late 30s up to mid 60s. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's all. Thank you. MS.CORDOZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess, Bob,you're going to take it from here? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm going to until Rich comes up and pushes me away from the podium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Bob? We'll go with Ned first. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The Allura site is surrounded on three sides by single-family dwellings, so that certainly prompts a concern over compatibility. And the site as planned,the project as planned,also raises a concern, for me at least,with respect to traffic. And my third Page 36 of 79 January 17,2019 major concern is the minimum length of lease that's being offered. So those three items comprise my concerns at the present time. My question--first question for you, Bob, is how proximate to the site is the next nearest four-story building? MR. MULHERE: There's--there are no four-story buildings in close proximity to this. I would say it's got residential--single-family residential on, really, in my opinion,two sides. To the south there's a 15-acre preserve, right here,right,and then you've got,you know, Livingston Road and on the north side of Veterans,yes, Mediterra. So really,to me, it's more like two sides, but that's just--maybe we look at that differently. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The size still seems to be excessive to me,and I would also like to see fewer stories on all the buildings. The TCMA discretionary bonus of three dwelling units per acre is that; it's a discretionary bonus. If you were to be granted that,you would come in at around 249 dwelling units per acre (sic),i believe. To me that seems to be more right-sized and also would facilitate less tall buildings. So that's just a comment that I would make at this point. Also,the traffic study was based upon the 2017 AUIR, which I understand. That was when all the work was done, but some fairly significant things have happened and show up in the 2018 AUIR Attachment F. And it--among other things,the deficiency of Segment 42-1,which is Immokalee, I believe, is projected to happen in 2022,sooner than it was under 2017 where it was projected to become deficient in 2023. And also the remaining capacity has increased significantly. I think it was 90-point something capacity in 2017. 1 believe it's 93 and some change percent capacity. So just in the last year the traffic situation that is close to this proposed project has gotten, I think,significantly worse,and it prompts me to want to ask for more concessions on the part of the developer to help mitigate the effects that have gotten surprisingly worse in just a short period of a year in the form of density and the effect that would have on traffic,and then compatibility, I think,would be enhanced if there were a minimum one-year lease provision so that people seem to, I think,at that duration or greater, have a greater concern for the property and for the upkeep of it and they take better care of property than shorter-term renters. So i just wanted to throw those considerations out. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming--a couple of things. We have our transportation consultant,Ted Treesh, here who can address your traffic concerns as well as I know Trinity Scott's here from the county. I know over the last several weeks I've had several discussions with Trinity and other members of your staff regarding the traffic analysis and what do or do we not trip as far as traffic impacts. And I do know that your staff is recommending approval. I think their one condition is that we interconnect with the commercial property,we stub out for whenever it's developed. But Ted can get into the greater detail about consistency with the traffic analysis and how this is all done. A couple things. One,Veterans Memorial, I'm assuming the high school's a go. Toni Eastman could tell you if it's not, it's pretty close to a go. When that happens--and I already know in the five-year plan-- is the expansion of Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the west-- I think I got my direction correct--all the way to 41;that's in the five-year plan to get built. I believe,just as a lawyer who's done a few of these things, but I'm sure Ted and Trinity will tell you,that that's going to provide some relief to Immokalee Road because right now,as people have pointed out,there's only-- if you're on Livingston Road,there's only two ways to get off. You either get off at Immokalee Road or you got off at Bonita Beach Boulevard if you're trying to get to,basically. 1-75 in that general area or to head--or you can go further south, obviously. But I think that's going to be a reliever. And Ted and Trinity can address that in Page 37 of 79 January 17,2019 greater detail. But that's already a factor that's going to happen and relieve some of the transportation issues that you're specifically raising regarding that segment of Immokalee Road. Second, I did speak to my client about whether or not we still needed the seven-month lease. It would be nice to have for people who come to the area and would like to,you know,rent on a shorter period while they're figuring out where they ultimately want to live, but that's not critical to us. I mean, if it's important to the community and important to the Planning Commission that we go to a minimum 12-month lease to show that we really are going to have great-quality tenants,you know, we can go to a 12-month lease. The density is really--has been analyzed. We looked at 420, and when we laid out the site,420 was not really achievable,so 350 is the number that is a realistic achievable project that will support the level of amenities that we're proposing for this project and other projects. I think I've said this to you, Mr. Fryer--I know I've said it to others--but in today's market,all of my clients are looking,okay, if I get approved today, I'm really leasing in about two years, so it's a race to who's going to have the best amenities,who's going to have the best apartments,because they know that they're competing with each other,and we're fortunate in Collier County that we can support that level of competition in the rental space. So it's--we've shown you--you've seen Inspira. This is going to be,you know,the best of the best out there,and we need to make sure that we can financially make that work. And we're not negatively impacting traffic based upon the traffic--we're putting traffic on the road. I'm not saying we're not, because I always hear that whenever I'm doing a NIM or whatever. Of course we're putting traffic on the road, but we're putting it in within the rules that apply in Collier County. So from a compatibility standpoint, I think we checked that box. We meet the criteria. The way we've reduced the height on the two buildings that are new properties, I think we checked the box. It's consistent with what was approved in De La Rosa. It's actually a little lower than what was approved in De La Rosa. And that was determined to be consistent with the community when that project was approved many years ago. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let me say that I do appreciate your efforts-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We've been trying. COMMISSIONER FRYER: --with respect to the one-year lease and your willingness to reduce your initial request from 420 to 350. But to me, both from a compatibility and traffic standpoint, I think it needs to be reduced further. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could tell you I don't believe 251 -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen,please. We're not here to do that. And I need to ask you to remain quiet. We need to move on with the hearing,so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just for the record,the issues are for discussion. We certainly are not going to put into any kind of considered GMP amendment lease terms and stuff like that. So I think you ought to take it into consideration so that when we actually-- if it gets to the PUD stage,that's when it would all come up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I know the public doesn't do this every day, but generally whenever we do a Comp Plan amendment, it's very generic or general,and people are really concerned about what's really going to happen on the property. Fortunately,the state legislature several years ago now lets us do the PUD at the same time. We used to not be able to do that. So now we can do the PUD rezone at the same time,and that's why we're focusing so much on the PUD, so people truly understand what will happen if we're fortunate enough to get transmittal and we come back for the adoption hearing and the PUD hearing at the same time. That's why you're seeing the level of detail. Page 38 of 79 January 17,2019 And, Mr. Fryer,we absolutely will be addressing those,obviously, in the PUD but not in the GMP level. Usually you have density and other things. You don't get into the finer points, but those will all find their way into the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,just to clarify. And I want to make sure we all understand,we're here for the GMP amendment, not the PUD. We're not voting on the PUD. And even if you asked for--the current density you're asking for now is 350 units. Certainly, it can be adjusted, modified,or whatever once you come in with a PUD. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. We understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to make sure the public understands that this is not--this is a GMP amendment,Growth Management Plan amendment,not the specific zoning. MR. YOVANOVICH: And,ultimately,this is just transmittal. I mean,there's--even if we get transmitted, it doesn't mean it gets adopted the same way at the adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Just-- I wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's team? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. When I saw those news reports on this project with all the people,one of them had an exhibit,and I just hit"Allura Naples"Google images,and it shows these buildings dwarfing the houses in the foreground. One of them is a WINK News,and another is a "Residents Against Allura"Go Fund Me page. They're well done, but I assume you didn't do them, right? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not part of one of your exhibits? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know what you're talking about. We've shown you all of our exhibits that are our exhibits. I don't know-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This isn't one of them. Okay. They're well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just not anybody's exhibits,but anyway. Go ahead. MR.YOVANOVICH: I can't attest to the accuracy of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember one time we actually had someone bring in a Letter to the Editor as evidence for the hearing. It's generally not acceptable, but anyway... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I remember one time we had somebody bring in a model but was not an architect,was not a certified engineer,was not a model maker, but brought in a model in an attempt to use that as an exhibit,which certainly could not be accepted because there was no professional competency behind it. So,again, I don't know who did these, but it would be nice to know-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Does somebody have a copy of them? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,this right here that was handed out. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can I look at those during the break? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'd just like to know from the standpoint of the professional competency of this,and could they attest as a signed or sealed engineer or whatever that did these,or an architect, or the scale,those kind of things. It is really fascinating. It's just I want to know who did it--and thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, is there anybody else that has any questions of the applicant's team? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do. And you have your traffic person here? MR. YOVANOVICH: Traffic,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 39 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. TREESH: Good morning, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation Consultants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR.TREESH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a peak hour of 176,and you used ITE manual 221 to get there. MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got 350 units and you've got 2.46 persons per households,that's 861 persons. Now,this is supposed to be a working essential--or not essential, but working professional type operation, so I'm assuming all these people are going to go to work. And if they do,generally work hours are two hours in the morning for peak hour and two hours in the afternoon. So your peak hour is 176. which is only 25 percent of the 861 persons anticipated to move there by your calculations. So how do you get only 25 percent are hitting the road at peak hour? Because the traffic is one of the driving forces behind this. MR. TREESH: I wish I could say this is my calculations, but these are the Institute of Transportation Engineers'calculations which we're required to use per the county requirements in terms of trip generation for this use. ITE,which is Institute of Transportation Engineers,just came out with their 10th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report. And with that 10th edition,they split the multifamily uses into different land-use codes based on the height of the building because that was determined through the surveys that were conducted,and submitted to ITE to have an impact on the trip generation. So,again,we're not making these numbers up. These are numbers that were nationally accepted, locally accepted and the estimates that we're required to use at this time. And I would like to point out that a multifamily use generates--an apartment use generates significantly less traffic than a single-family use. I mean, it's a pretty common-sense assumption, but if you think about it,the number of vehicles per unit,the number of persons per unit are significantly less in a rental community than it is in a single-family detached home and on the realm of almost half in terms of the daily trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you use land-use 221. multifamily housing,mid-rise for your calculation? MR.TREESH: That's correct,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fourth paragraph of land-use 221 from the manual says. "For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available,there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling units." So, okay, if you've got two-and-a-half people, which is average, let's say you've got two working people. I mean,at the price range you're in,you probably would need two working people. That's still going to get you to 700 persons, which 25 percent of that is 176. What happens to the other 75 percent of the people who leave at the peak hour to go to work each day and come back in that apartment complex when you're only saying a quarter of them are on the road? I just don't know how you get there. And if you're the traffic expert and you can't answer it,then maybe our staff can when I bring them up. MR. TREESH: Perhaps. But, again,you're asking me to delve into data that was collected and assimilated by ITE,and they don't survey every single resident of a community. They survey the driveways going into and out,and these are the traffic characteristics that this type of use exhibits. Where those specific people go at what time of the day, I mean,there's many answers. I mean, people can work different shifts where they don't leave during the peak hours. There's all kinds of answers to that question that would--but as with any land use in ITE,the data that is in there is based on actual surveys of these land uses, and that's the data that is in there and what we Page 40 of 79 i► January 17,2019 use. So the specific answers as to how those trips are distributed throughout the day and into the peak hour can vary,and the answers could be very wide ranging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you realize that the traffic might be an issue for this project in its determination for today's hearing? MR.TREESH: What project-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Allura.the one we're talking about. MR.TREESH: What project is traffic not an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you expected traffic questions today. Obviously, that's why you're here. MR. TREESH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have wanted to know how you got to that number based on the population of that project and why it differs? I mean,you're looking at only a quarter of the people,and I'm just wondering what analysis you might have done to do that. And a second analysis 1 was wondering if you did,obviously,when we have apartments for working people, professionals, whatever you want to call them,living in the urban area closer to where they work, that's going to take traffic off other sections of our roads-- MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --which desperately needs that done. But did you do a survey to determine where your market is for these people and the distances that we--they're going to be driving, road segments affected by them,and things like that? Would anybody do an analysis of that magnitude to get there today? MR. TREESH: I did not as part of this application,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it fair to say that the 10th edition of the ITE tells us nothing whatsoever about Segment 42.1 of Immokalee Road and the real conditions that are on that segment,correct? MR.TREESH: ITE is the simply the resource we use to-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know what it is. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. TREESH: --estimate traffic generation. No,there's not data in 1TE about-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It tells us nothing about that segment. Thank you. MR.TREESH: Correct. That's what the purpose of the Traffic Impact Statement is,to assimilate all the data together,and then analyze the roadway links pursuant to the county requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the county requirements. basically,accept the 221 and accept the 176 as a multiplier that you used to come to that conclusion that that's how many people will be on the road from that apartment complex-- MR.TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --during the peak time of day? MR.TREESH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then I'll have to ask staff how they come to that conclusion,because I'm kind of puzzled by it,one of the numbers, really. I didn't really understand what was going on as far as quantities go until I read the 221 TIS piece that was included in our report. And when I saw that persons per household. I got to think,well,how can that many people,all of them --just a quarter of them leave? I just don't know how you got there, and I didn't pick that up,and that's the piece I'll need explained. So thank you. MR. TREESH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does anybody else have anything? Page 41 of 79 January 17,2019 I have-- Bob,you know what spot zoning is? MR. MULHERE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tell me why this isn't. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think spot zoning is a term that's thrown out there an awful lot. It's my professional opinion-- I believe it's backed up by professional analysis-- is that spot zoning is taking a land use that isn't compatible with other land uses and not really mitigating for it. So, for example, residential is compatible with residential. Multifamily adjacent to single-family is compatible,although there may need to be some mitigation. We allow-- in our standard districts in Collier County,we allow multifamily use in the same proximity as this PUD does to single-family. Well, how is it mitigated? The height might be limited,the landscape buffers might be greater, the setbacks might be greater. And within our straight zoning districts for RMF6, 12. 16, there are limitations. But I can think of many examples in Collier County where you have five-, six-,eight-, 10-, 12-story buildings and higher in fairly close proximity to single-family residential development. Those two uses are not incompatible;therefore, it cannot be spot zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll ask staff the same question when we get to them. You're asking for--and then you --in the conversation I've had,you know my concern has been the additional density as a result of the request to change the GMP. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're asking what was consistent with the GMP,that's a different argument than if you want more. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the public benefit from providing an increase in the density for this project? MR. MULHERE: The public benefit is it's going to meet the market demand for rental housing, which is significant. It is also--which does--somebody mentioned it up here--we'll reduce the-- I think you mentioned it. We'll reduce the way that people travel to and from work. With this option here, there's lot of employment within close proximity to this,and so that changes the way people travel to and from work. If I have to live in Lee County because I don't have an option to rent something here that I want,then I take a different way to get to my workplace. for example,at these schools or anywhere else in Collier County. So we know there's a demand, so there is a public benefit to this. You know,we have to meet the demand;otherwise, we're pushing that issue into other locations. So it changes the driving patterns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what entices us to provide a density bonus with nothing in return for the taxpayers? I mean,you're not doing any improvements on the road system because you're eliminating yourself from that TM--whatever it is, TMCA improvement process. So what is it you're going to do to really suggest that this is the right thing to do for the additional density? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean,a couple of things. Number one, the whole premise of having a Transportation Concurrency Management Area identified was because the county, by policy, has decided that they want to encourage greater density. 1 understand that's seven units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that gets you to seven units,not 10. MR. MULHERE: I understand that; I got that. And then,I think,as Rich said, in this scenario, it's necessary for an apartment to generally have,you know, 10 to 12 to 14 units per acre. We're at 9.74. So we've really reduced that below what our original request was. So that's--and what public benefit? I mean. we're providing adequate, safe, and reasonable housing for a significant segment of the market, both existing and future in Collier County. Page 42 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember yesterday when we talked I suggested if you could tell me why this is unique and it stands out, it would be helpful to understand it. I haven't heard anything yet that's gotten to that point, and I mentioned it yesterday purposely so you could think about it. What have you --but it doesn't sound like you've got any--anything that would address-- my concern is--and I'll be absolutely straight as I was yesterday. When we tend to approve something for the first time, it becomes almost a standard thereafter. We have a limited number of people that do land use in Collier County and,as a result,that limited number have memory. So other clients then come in and say, well,we all know we've done this before. Let's do it again. I'm wondering why this is unique enough that that's not going to happen,or if it's the trend that's going to happen, what's the benefit to the taxpayers out of it if it were to happen? That's kind of where I'm coming from. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let Bob go because he may say,but I have some-- MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess,the things that come to mind are,number one, 1 don't know about any other potential applicant that might come in in their location, but what's unique about this location, I think--and we've already tried to make that statement, put it on the record. Number one,you know, it's at the intersection of what will be two arterial roadways. I don't know if every other one that comes in is going to be in the same position as that. Number two, it's proximate to-- it's within the urban area and proximate to work opportunities for an awful lot of people. Number three,we don't trigger--we don't trigger--by the county's rules,we don't trigger any transportation deficiencies. So by the county's rules,we're able to go forward. I don't know if every other project that comes in and asks for 9.74 or above units per acre will be in the same situation. If they are, I think they should have the same opportunity to come in and provide site-specific mitigation to address neighbors'concerns. Whether we succeed in that,you know, is certainly-- I can't speak for the neighbors, but we are attempting to do that. So the use is compatible,the location's appropriate,we don't trigger any transportation issues,there's demand for the use,and we've tried to mitigate the impacts of this development, both visually and otherwise,on the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your site specific mitigation are just your development standards? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any mitigation outside the project beneficial as a whole to-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,every project pays impact fees. So the--an additional benefit from this project is--and I believe David Weeks and I agree with this. is that we're not required to provide any TDM standards to get to the seven units per acre under the current Comprehensive Plan. To go above the seven,we're providing TDM standards for the additional 2.74 units per acre. So that's some additional benefit that we're doing. We are providing a--we are meeting a need that your Comprehensive Plan, frankly,doesn't address in its current form other than through an affordable housing density bonus program. And I'm fairly certain if I came in and asked for an adorable housing density bonus program on this piece of property,there would probably be three or four times the amount of people that are in this room right now than are here right now. So there's a--there's a gap, if you will, in our current Comprehensive Plan that doesn't address this market,and we are trying to address that market through a Comprehensive Plan amendment with a concurrent PUD to address compatibility and all those other things that are necessary. We're going to provide the additional TDMS that,otherwise,we would not be required Page 43 of 79 January 17,2019 to do unless things change. We might have to do it sometime in the future if traffics changes but. currently,right now we don't need to. So I would say we're not asking to do something for nothing, but we are also meeting a need. And, frankly,when you go back to the blue/red exhibit for what's De La Rosa and what's approved today for De La Rosa.that De La Rosa PUD,which Stock Development owns right now--so if this is turned down, we'll go in and we'll have to develop De La Rosa based upon the existing development standard, which is 50 feet zoned,69 feet actual, up to 26 feet--well, it's 20 in the thing,but the most recent site plan is 26,not 20. We'll have to do that. So what we've done is we've looked very thoughtfully at relocating those buildings further away from De La Rosa to create a 125-foot setback for these people with enhanced landscaping and some other visual barriers which are the garages. And you're going to get,you know,a world-class apartment complex on this site. So we're not doing something for nothing. We're meeting a need,we're providing additional transportation strategies,and we're addressing a shortfall in the current Growth Management Plan that has to be addressed. I mean, either change the code,which I know is not going to happen. We've been talking about this for a long time. So we're doing site-specific Growth Management Plans to address this. And each one is unique. Mr. Klatzkow will tell you,every zoning petition and every Growth Management Plan petition is unique,and we can never use it as a basis for another one, and I don't think I've ever done it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever said, hey,you gave me this here,you've got to give it to me here. MR. KLATZKOW: You say that all the time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only do it on -- I only do it on the road, only on the road right-of-way. But I'm not asking you to give me something that we got somewhere else. I'm saying.this is unique.and we think that we're meeting a need,and we've been responsive and responsible to the neighbors and have continued to meet with them and will continue to meet with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to--you're getting about 100 additional units than what you could request with the GMP as it is today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that 100 additional units,you're providing the following elements based on the TCMA: Transit shelter within the RPUD in a location design approved by Collier County. So you're going to put a transit shelter in. MR. KLATZKOW: Which no one will use based on the rentals that they're asking for, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the point is-- let me summarize. There's three of them: Bicycle pedestrian facilities with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you open up a pathway,okay; and then vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west,so the pathway becomes wide enough for a car. So that's it. That's what--that's the public benefit out of an extra 100 units for your project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're providing housing that the public needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Otherwise, we would not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me talk about that. (Multiples speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep saying we need housing. You're not-- I mean, if you were to ask what kind of housing we need of a lot of people--not saying that this is better or worse Page 44 of 79 January 17,2019 for this location--it's affordable. Now,we've got a lot of new projects coming online,4,000 units, just about. The other project you alluded to today is like Briarwood. It's going to be high-end. It's going to be very expensive like this. It's going to be like Orchid Run. We seem to have a lot of that coming on,and that's fine,and I have no qualms about that. But I'm not sure the need is that high-end market-rate housing as much as it is other types of housing. So I'm not sure the need for this is necessarily proven. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well. I think we've provided a market analysis that shows you there is a shortfall of this type of housing in Collier County. So I think we have established,and your staff agrees that we have established,there's a need for this type of housing in Collier County. I'm not saying there aren't other needs, but there is a need for this type of housing in Collier County for a blend of people who are going to come here and they choose that type of housing,and for working people. There's a blend that is going to live in this community,and there's no question there's a need. And how do I know that is there's no way that Brian Stock is going to put that much money at risk if he doesn't think there's a need and people who desire that type of housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any more questions, I don't think,of staff--of the applicant. That's most of them right now. Let me double-check one other one. Oh, I'll have to do some research. I have another question, but I'll wait till after lunch. I need to look at some documents based on what you've said. So I'm finished with the applicant at this time. Does anybody else have anything they want of the applicant? Any other questions? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: One quick question. In the apartment studies that were provided, I noticed there was no mention of a rather sizable apartment complex on Vanderbilt Beach called TGM Bermuda Island,and I just wondered why that was not in the reports. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure. Michael Timmerman did our Collier County regional market analysis. I really can't answer that question. He's not here today. I don't know why they didn't include that. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I ask that,because part of the justification for this is the need for apartment housing. And so I would think that all the inventory of apartment housing would be included in that. There's--TGM Malibu Lakes in the report. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the sister property. MR. MULHERE: We can try to get an answer to that via email,you know,during the lunch break. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think the first slide you put up, Bob,showed an overlay of the De La Rosa PUD. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're--just to be clear,and I think for myself and everybody up here and everybody that's in the audience, if this is not approved,the De La Rosa PUD that's shown in blue is already approved and can be built as-is? The PUD is approved and ready to go? MR. MULHERE: The PUD's approved. There was an SDP. I'm sure that the SDP would be revised but,yes, it can be built and will be built, because Stock owns that property. So, obviously,they're going to come in and build if they don't do this,which we believe is a far better site plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: So part of your case is that you're actually providing larger setbacks, lower-- MR. MULHERE: Significantly. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- building heights than what would be got(sic)on part of that Page 45 of 79 January 17,2019 property--part of the full PUD? MR. MULHERE: Yeah,and I think that affects primarily Barrington Cove.you know, because those are closer to Barrington Cove. It doesn't necessarily affect,you know,the neighbors to the north or any other directions. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I echo Commissioner Strain --Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fryer's concerns-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll respond to any name at all. COMMISSIONER FRY: --concerns--me,too. But I think the leap that I'm struggling with,and perhaps I know why we have a roomful of people here, is how we get from seven, which seems to be the magic number that would be permitted under the GMP, up to this 10 and what the-- MR. MULHERE: We like to say 9.74. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you--just what,you know,the overall benefit is. And I looked at the mitigation strategies.the bus stop,and I think there's no bus route to that location. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. We have a central bus stop right here in the county. I've yet to see anybody get off that bus and walk to the county. It's right here. The people who are using the bus would be the people who would want the affordable housing primarily,all right. It's not for this type of market. That's just my experience. I've yet-- I don't know a single county employee who uses the CAT system. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I guess that doesn't show a demonstrable benefit,and the stub outs to an existing commercial property that doesn't exist yet-- I assume that once that was built there would be some-- MR. MULHERE: Benefit. COMMISSIONER FRY: --benefit that less traffic would have to go out on the main roads to get to that commercial development. MR. MULHERE: That's the idea. And, look,you know, I can't predict what-- I mean, I don't agree-- I don't necessarily disagree with what the County Attorney said. I mean, I don't-- maybe Michelle Arnold could speak better to the demographics. I think there is a specific ridership on CAT. Who exactly they are, I don't necessarily disagree. But there is an idea to promote--there's only so many ways that we're going to reduce the level of traffic on our roadways. We can continue to widen roadways to eight or 10 lanes,and nobody wants that,or we can find ways to encourage people to use transit. That's one way. That's why we encourage transit. Now, if we're not doing it effectively,that is a different question. That is the question of how do we do it more effectively to encourage people to ride. MR. KLATZKOW: Or you keep the density. MR. MULHERE: People are not going to use transit if there isn't a transit stop there. MR. KLATZKOW: It's fascinating,because we've got a 30-year plan with our roads and everything else based on a certain density,yet we keep increasing density and wondering why the roads can't handle them. It's a fascinating conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're a fascinating county. Anybody-- go ahead. Corby,you wanted to add something? MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. Mr. Chairman,before we break for lunch, I'd like to address one item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's good timing. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Yovanovich made some statements regarding how he achieves density on this property or hopes to, and I'd like to clarify something. When he talks about moving from four units per acre to seven and then beyond, I'd like to clarify something. And it's the urban designation in the FLUE which allows,as a base density, Page 46 of 79 January 17,2019 four units per acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the three is discretionary, is it not? MR. SCHMIDT: The three units per acre is discretionary as offered by the Transportation Concurrency Management Area and when providing those transportation demand-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Corby,you said the base-- four is allowed,and that's-- MR. SCHMIDT: Four is allowed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --not my understanding.that the base density of four is eligibility. So I just want to clarify that. MR. SCHMIDT: That's right. Your base is also an entitlement,and it's discretionary as well. It can be adjusted. And then to go from your four number to seven has to do with your transportation demand management strategies. And by offering those items up that he has in his subdistrict language would allow them to go from four to seven using their round numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But. see,those items that he's offering up would apply if a project of any size was here, right? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. And then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean,this is a bigger project than what we were originally talking about. So I'm just saying that there should be something larger contributed to the cause to get it accomplished if that was the case. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not here to argue that at this moment. I'm just trying to make some thresholds understood clearly for the members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And then to move beyond those seven units per acre from 9.75 or 9.8, or whatever the calculation may be,then something else or simply as an ask offering up nothing more to move beyond that seven per acre up to what the density requested is is what's being asked of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks,manager in the Comprehensive Planning section. I just want to. I guess. put a fine point on something that Corby has stated. The requirement under the TCMA for the density bonus in the FLUE does not specifically require transportation demand management strategies unless the applicant wishes to be exempt from link-specific concurrency,which they are not. They're not asking for that so,therefore,they are not required to provide TDMS; however,there is a policy in the Future Land Use Element. Policy 6.1,specific to the TCMAs that does say--and here's the fine point,that does say that part of the requirement is that there's the--do take actions to promote public transit. bicycling,walking. and other alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. So it may in fact be TDM strategies that meet that policy requirement, but just--the fine point is just that it is not specifically a requirement that thou must do specific TDM strategies that are identified in a different FLUE policy that says you must do at least two of the following four. So there potentially could be some other strategy that the applicant could employ that would meet the requirement of this Policy 6.1. Again, it's a fine point,but I just wanted to get that clear on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Weeks,do you have any evidence or--well,do you have the belief that those particular TDM strategies,that any of them would be significant or meaningful? Impactful? MR. WEEKS: I think it's difficult to say until we see-- most particularly because two of them that they're proposing are the interconnections with the commercial development next door, Page 47 of 79 January 17,2019 and until we--unless and until we see exactly what that commercial development is going to be, I think that makes a big difference on how much that TDM strategy works. Right now the corner parcel is zoned CI,which is limited to office and personal service type uses,which I would suggest would not be something that would be significantly of use by persons in this development. But if that zoning were to change in the future to allow retail uses, then I think there would be more use of that property and,therefore,those interconnections would have a greater benefit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But a bus stop that's not on a bus route is not typically useful, is it? MR. WEEKS: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in following that line of reasoning,the three TDM strategies that they're suggesting really aren't very useful. It's in the-- based on the GMP language that you guys are putting forth. MR. WEEKS: It's of limited benefit,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of where I was concerned about as far as public benefit. Okay. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Let me make one more comment;just echoing what was stated earlier,and that is why they're here. They're here for a Comprehensive Plan amendment because they cannot achieve the density without the plan amendment. There's data and analysis required by Florida Statutes,and so they have to demonstrate that there is a need for what they're asking for and that this is the appropriate location to meet that need. Staff has determined that they have met the need;they demonstrated the need;that there's a need for more apartments. The whole range--you know,you go back to the study that the County Commission had commissioned and that was done in 2017, I believe,or early in 2018,that did identify the need for more apartments in Collier County.of the entire level, the entire spectrum, not just affordable but certainly includes affordable, but the whole spectrum. Anyway,they have demonstrated the need for apartments. To me,the focus of the discussion,appropriately,would be is this the appropriate location to fulfill that need,and that gets into the compatibility discussion and the infrastructure impact discussion. And the compatibility portion we're limited somewhat because we don't have the details here,and that's,of course, I think is why Bob showed you so much information from the proposed PUD, because that's where you'll get a lot of that detail of how to make a project or at least try to make a project compatible with its neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, I'd like to call a break. We will take a one-hour lunch. We'll come back at 1 o'clock and resume with the staff responses,questions,and then public testimony. (A luncheon recess was had.) (Mr. Klatzkow is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the lunch time. For those of us that are here,we're going to resume the meeting. And we left off with the applicant finishing up their presentation and questions from the Planning Commission,and we started on some staff reporting,and we'll move to staff right now, and Corby will--well, I guess,you're the beginning player for those. Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners,good afternoon. Just to review-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Corby, state your name for the record. MR. SCHMIDT: Schmidt,Corby Schmidt, principal planner with the Comprehensive Planning section for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you relation to Joe Schmitt? Page 48 of 79 mommeili • January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,he spells it different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just want to get off on tangents while we're at it. MR. SCHMIDT: Just extremely different. It's so distant it's spelled differently. The request before you today is for the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Livingston Veterans Memorial Parkway subdistrict. I may have the title-- it's long. The Altura companion rezone is not being considered today.but you did hear some details from that future proposal as part of the presentation from the applicant's agents. I've put on the visualizer for you the most recent changes with those highlighted. You also have them in handout form. In the past week you've received an email,at least one. With previous changes here,those last two,you'll see them in yellow highlighting. Changed reference to the FLUE policy that allows the offer to use those not-required TDM strategies,as the applicant has stated they would be doing,to move them from four units per acre to seven. If the requirement would have been to be exempt from link concurrency.that reference would have been 6.5. Here the reference has been changed to 6.1. And the statement at the bottom is a catch-all that we use in a number of other subdistricts. So if development strategies change within the subdistrict, it allows for the use of the property in the manner of the underlying subdistrict or district itself. Those are the only changes to the language since you received it previously. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Corby.you want to slide the--you've only got half of Line B,and I know there's a change there as well. So just so the public knows where the change is. Isn't that--no, the--above it. You didn't highlight in yellow,but it's from 420 to 350. MR. SCHMIDT: Oh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was on the previous. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe the public is aware of previous changes,the density change, the count change and other less significant numbers and so forth in anticipation of the--from the floor change associated with the companion item that we anticipated happening here today. Before lunch I went over the policies in the Future Land Use Element that provide for the four units per acre as part of the base density on this property,the allowance for the three additional units per acre.and then the ask by the applicants in this case for the additional acreage or the additional density for the nine-point sum total. The density rating system doesn't cover that. There are no provisions in the FLUE for that additional density that's happening, because it's an ask. It's just outside of any of the other bonuses that we have provisions for. And you are being asked for the first time to do something like that outside of the Transportation Concurrency Management Area provisions,outside of the density rating system and other provisions for the residential designations in the FLUE. There have been no further changes since the original staff report,and the findings haven't changed since December. So unless you have any questions of staff,that's all I've got for my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I do. Corby.you heard my question previously about spot zoning,and the applicant's planner attempted to provide their explanation what they thought spot zoning is. What do you think it is? I mean,does this-- let's put it this way: Does this qualify as spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: Spot zoning is something that would be so far out of context that it would be noticeable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they didn't ask for a GMP amendment, would this he considered spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: t think so. Page 49 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the GMP amendment makes a difference? MR. SCHMIDT: The GM--for the GMP amendment,to put this in some sort of context-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. SCHMIDT: -- it makes a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they came in just with a PUD and wanted to put this project there,your department,or you, would look at it as considered spot zoning; is that-- MR. SCHMIDT: No. I think it's a contributing factor to making a decision. It isn't the only one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was clear on it when you told me the answer yesterday. I'm not clear on it when you told me today in the public meeting. So David's standing behind you. Maybe he can clarify it for me. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners,David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section, Growth Management manager. First of all,we don't have a definition of spot zoning either in the LDC or in the Comprehensive Plan but,generally, it's a zoning that is very different than that which is around it, and usually it's thought of as being very small. That's my experience;those are the two determinates of what spot zoning is; however,the Land Development Code does have a minimum --which I think is relevant here to the question of spot zoning--does provide that for any property to be rezoned to a district to which it is not similar, for example, if a piece of property wants to be--applicant wants to rezone a piece of property to commercial and it is adjacent to commercial zoning,CI,2,3,4. 5. it doesn't matter,any of those,then there would be no minimum size requirement. It could be a quarter of an acre. But if a property is not abutting a district to which it is similar,then it has to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet, which is just under an acre, and there's also a width requirement. It's either 150 feet or 200 feet. So from my perspective, reading that minimum requirement that suggests that spot zoning would be a property that is smaller than that 40,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then on that basis,this wouldn't be considered spot zoning? MR. WEEKS: I do not believe so at all. And, furthermore, I'll go back to an earlier question, if I may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WEEKS: --about this. We have the density rating system in the Future Land Use Element that allows properties to be rezoned and determines what density a project is eligible for, and for most portions of the urban area,that base density of eligible but not entitled is four units per acre. The maximum density would be 16 units per acre. And,of course,the property has to qualify for enough bonus density to get up to that 16. And so, from my perspective, if a property comes in and it qualifies for bonuses,assume it qualifies for the maximum of 16,just because the project qualifies for the maximum density and that that density might be much higher than the surrounding zoning would allow, in my opinion that is not necessarily spot zoning. And one example,the biggest bonus that we have is the affordable housing bonus,which recently changed to 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That question was raised in several of the emails or letters I received, and I wanted to get a firm answer on it. While you're there, did your department review--the PUD's been in the works in the county for some time. Everybody knew it was there. So did you guys--since compatibility is an issue for the GMP level,did you guys look at the PUD and make any review of it to determine if, basically,the way they wanted to build this Page 50 of 79 • January 17,2019 project met the consistency requirements of the GMP for compatibility? MR. WEEKS: Yes and no. Yes,we have--Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the rezone petition. Broadly speaking, our approach is,yes,this may be found consistent if the companion plan amendment is adopted and goes into effect because the rezone, what it's requesting right now,that density is not consistent with the existing future land-use designation on the property. That rezone is contingent upon this plan amendment being adopted and going into effect. Specifically,the question of compatibility,Comprehensive Planning staff has for many years,and we continue to.defer to the zoning services staff to determine compatibility. They look at the project in all of its detail. They look at all of the different development standards: Setbacks,building heights,building mass, if there is any,building orientation, buffers, landscape buffers,separation from surrounding properties, development on surrounding properties. They take all of that into account in determining whether or not a project is compatible. Comprehensive Planning usually has a higher-level review, so we defer the compatibility review to the zoning services staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in this particular case,if this project were to go to adoption, it would--they've already said it's going to be brought forward with adoption. So then that's when staff would weigh in on the compatibility, I would assume, based on history. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,okay. The other thing, we used to have--well, maybe we still do. We've got different-- I know we've got different bonuses. The bonus provisions,the transportation one that we're dealing with today, TCMA, has public-benefit processes that go with those that are affected or those that fall under that umbrella. This one I know doesn't,based on what has been resubmitted at the 350. Other density bonuses in the code, let's say it's--other than affordable housing. I know what that one does. Are there any other public-benefit requirements of those others? Because I'm still caught in this problem of trying to figure out what are we getting for the three additional units we're giving away,and that's got me a little bit perplexed, because even if they use the TDM strategies to get to seven,those strategies as we've discussed really aren't, realistically,going to do anything,at least it seems like they may not because it's just a matter of when and how. So I'm more worried about the size of this project and what kind of public benefit could be expected, if any. MR. WEEKS: First let me say there's no requirement that a project provide public benefit. That simply is not one of the criteria that's established in state statutes or,to my knowledge, in the Land Development Code,although I know oftentimes it is brought up. For the other density bonuses, most of them are simply if you are located within a certain area,you qualify. For example, if a project was within a residential density band or at an activity center,it's eligible for three-units-per-acre bonus,period. The applicant doesn't have to do anything extra. It's just based on location. There's another bonus that is based upon having an access to two or more arterial or collector roads. So the applicant does have to provide access from the project onto the external roads but,other than that,they're not actually doing anything;they're not offering up anything,per se. And that's typical of the density bonuses. Generally speaking, it's location based. And that would be the case here in the TCMA; just because you're within the TCMA, if you take some action to address transportation concerns, and it doesn't specifically have to be those TDM strategies,the project is eligible for the three-unit-per-acre bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you,David. And I have a question,Heidi. that I'd like to ask you to possibly answer. I know that the Page 51 of 79 January 17,2019 State of Florida has some rules about illegal exactions; can't do them. But is there a give and take allowed in the process of this kind of operation where a developer's asking for unallocated density, density that's not part of any bonus provision? I don't want to push an envelope where there isn't one but,at the same time. I know we do things--when Dan Summers'department reviews something,he'll look at it and say,well, I need 20 cots for hurricane preparedness to go into a shelter,and that's--a developer then will have that as part of his commitment. Is there anything that could be utilized in a case like this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: At the Growth Management Plan level, I think you can request anything that you want or feel is reasonable that the developer would be willing to do. On the rezoning level,which is the PUD level,there has to be a nexus between what's requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the project? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And the impacts--yeah. But on the Growth Management Plan level, I think you can request anything reasonable the developer's willing to do in order to get the approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Tom needs a new high school right down the road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the developer can say no if it's not something he can do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to understand the limitations,because I know we do have some. And,Corby,that's the only questions I have at this time. 1 do need other staff members, but I want to make sure nobody else here--go ahead,Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would--when the question of public benefit came up and there being no requirement or a standard to use in the nature of public benefit, I would think of Section 163.3177,and particularly GA8 of Florida Statutes which says--here's just an excerpt. "Also the state planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires, i.e., if the community has articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired,such as within a community development area and existing incompatibilities, i.e., presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions." I think that comes pretty close to public-- making public benefit a relevant consideration. Just my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I sure have some questions of transportation staff. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. For the record,Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you were sworn in earlier? MS. SCOTT: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity,you heard some of the questions I asked. They're going to be the same process. I looked at multifamily 221,and in that dissertation about what it did,they talked about a persons per household,and you multiply that out either by the 420 or the 350 or by,the young lady earlier said,about two people per unit. So even if you use that number, if you use two people per unit instead of the 2.4 that 221 was based upon,you still have 700 bodies. Now, I know she said she's got herself and two kids,so in that household there's probably one car; unless she's got a husband,there might be two. But if you're a young professional trying to pay$2,000 a month,there might be two of you and there might be two cars. How is it logical that out of 700 people, let's say 90 percent of them, 75 of them have a car and they don't all ride together,that only 25 percent are going out at the peak hour and Page 52 of 79 January 17,2019 coming--going out and coming back at the peak hour? And that's-- both of those are important. And I couldn't get an answer I even understood from their traffic engineer, so I thought maybe you could attempt it. MR. SCOTT: Well, first of all, let me say that the ITE is based on --just to echo what Mr.Treesh advised earlier-- is based on surveys that are nationwide,and so it is based on data. What I will tell you is, particularly in the p.m. peak people tend to trip chain. So I leave work at 5 o'clock. I might go have a drink with a friend. I may meet my husband for dinner. I may stop at the grocery store and pick something up. I may go to the gym. So there's a lot of things that people do,particularly after work and even before work; lots of folks go to the gym in the morning before they go. so they're not necessarily leaving at that a.m.or p.m. peak time. They're picking up children from an after-school program. So those time frames tend to expand out to where you may have a smaller percentage that are actually leaving during those p.m. (sic)peak times or coming home during those p.m. peak times, but it has to do with trip chaining,distance of commute,things of that nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any documentation that shows that has been the outcome of a serious study and people living in these kind of facilities showing that they confer-- it's concurred like you just said? MS. SCOTT: That that's specifically the reasons,no,but it is conferred based on the IT trip generation manual because this is years and years and years of data collection that goes into an industry-wide standard that we all use. All the counties in the state of Florida utilize IT trip generation as our level of standard to measure against. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to see some improvements with the east/west link of Veterans Memorial. You had told me previously that's in the five-year plan. Is that right? MS. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when do you think the actual construction of that road will begin? MS. SCOTT: Based on our five-year plan--hold on. I have to pull it up and look across. It is in our Fiscal Year'22,which begins October 21st of'21. Now,what I'm going to state is is that the funding will be available as of October 1st of 2021. Typically, it takes us two years to build roadways; however, in this particular instance,you don't-- it's not a roadway where when we have maintenance of traffic that we need to deal with,so, typically,those time frames are shorter in that manner. Couple that with the fact that I have a high school that needs to open in August of'23, so I need to have the road done so Mr. Eastman can get those kids to school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you're pretty assured it's going to be done by 2023? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that link were to open,what would it--have you done any studies to see what kind of impact it's going to have on Livingston Road? MS. SCOTT: No, we have not. In our overall traffic model,we haven't taken that road out to take a look at what the alternates would be, but it is,overall, in our cost feasible plan network that we model all of our traffic on. It will have some relief to portions of Livingston Road, it will have some relief to portions of Immokalee Road, as well as Bonita Beach Road for folks who are currently traversing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take any analysis into effect for the extension of Logan up through and connected to Bonita Beach Road? And I think it's the end of this year Lee County thinks they'll have that done. MS. SCOTT: It will. It's also included in our cost feasibility plan network that we model based on. Paee 53 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how much traffic is there-- is there expected to be traffic taken off Livingston Road because of that connection? MS. SCOTT: Yes,but we have not modeled it with and without. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you review the TIS for this project-- MS. SCOTT: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that's in front of us today? MS. SCOTT: I did not personally, but my staff did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the staff member here who reviewed it? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can he or she come up so we can ask them a question? MS. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or I can at least. MS. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I knew it was a he, but I wasn't sure anymore nowadays, so I didn't want to offend anybody by saying the wrong he or she. Could "it"come up? Hi, Mike. MR. SAWYER: It can definitely come up. For the record, Mike Sawyer,Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, knowing that traffic is always an issue in Collier County, and especially when we're asking for a higher density in an area that it typically wouldn't have this normally, in that road that there's-- Livingston's pretty congested at times, but especially based on the traffic on 1-75. In the TIS,did you see any analysis for the impacts that would be either beneficial or negative as a result of the Veterans Memorial completion and/or Logan Boulevard being connected up to Bonita Beach Road? MR. SAWYER: No,quite honestly. And the issue is that we look at the existing road network that we have. We also take into certain considerations of the improvements that are going to be projected but,quite honestly, what we want to make sure is that the project within the five-year time frame of our review is consistent with the GMP. In other words, is there capacity currently and moving five years projected out into the future on the immediate adjacent network? We look to see if that network has a 2 percent or greater impact on the first immediate section. After that,then we go to the next-- if it's over 2 percent at that point,then we look at the next road segments off of that. So you go to the first series of intersections,you look at 2 percent there. If you're tripping above 2 percent there,then you go to the next section of intersections. If you're above 2 percent at that point,then you go out to the third section,and then it's looked at at a 3 percent impact. In this case, there is a difference in the 420 units that was originally proposed as opposed to the 350 units that is now being proposed,and it really comes down to the immediate adjacent segments of Livingston. And we do, in fact,have capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you're calculating the capacity need for this project, though,you're using their generated peak-hour number,which is 25 percent--actually, it's lower than 25 percent, because I think that's based on the 420. So it's-- it might be wrong, but I could check that. But, still,you're looking at about 25 percent best-case scenario of the total number of persons that are estimated to be living in that facility because you're using their number, their peak number. MR. SAWYER: Correct. We're using their numbers that they're showing us,and we're confirming those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,the road system--we have this come up at every single meeting.every single hearing,every single zoning action. We all talk about traffic. And Page 54 of 79 January 17,2019 we're experiencing a lot greater traffic flow on the roads, I think,than some of us ever thought were going to be there. Have we ever looked back to see if the way were calculating this stuff was accurate? I mean, it's just--it's like the Racetrac and the convenience store combination, remember that, on-- it was on 41 and Palm. At that--just around that time frame,the State of Florida realized that the ITE manual probably wasn't addressing convenience stores with large numbers of pumps as accurately as maybe it was needed. They did their own study. And you may recall that study, because we talked about it way back then. And I'm just wondering, have we looked at others? Because something seems kind of odd when we only have 25 percent of the persons counted for-- I understand your explanation,but I've lived here 42 years,and I've never operated kind of the way you said. There might be one night a week I might stop somewhere on the way home, but usually not at all. I'm not sure everybody does that,but anyway. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Women do. MS. SCOTT: I was going to say, it's very rare in my household --and we have two licensed drivers and five vehicles--that either of us are ever home during the p.m.peak time frame. We're usually home about 15 minutes after, but that's my household. To answer your question, ITE looks through each of their generations that they've done through the years. If you go back to the first generation, it's much more limited in scale as far as the number of land uses,et cetera,and even with the 10th edition,they've added new land uses; they've split them up. So,yes,that is from an industry standard. They look at that through each generation. I think our last generation.the ninth generation,was done about three years ago or so, so we've just recently adopted the 10th generation. So,yes, someone does that. but then even specifically for Collier County transportation, I look at Long Range Transportation Plans and prior Long Range Transportation Plans to look at, say, what we had projected along Immokalee Road in our 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan versus what we're experiencing today and then what we're projecting out with our 2040 and now soon to be 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. So,yes,we do take a look back and kind of see what happened. I do that as part of my analysis in my background of the Annual Update and Inventory Report. So I'm looking at that just because I want to kind of see where those projections are. A lot of times we're higher. That's actually where we've been on--I'm going to use Immokalee Road as the case. We were higher but we also had a downturn in the economy during that time frame. So things happen,and a model doesn't always pick those things up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this project were to go to the next step, which is the adoption hearing and PUD review,if it were to get that far,would it be reasonable for your department to request an analysis from the applicant as to how the two road segments,the new northeast section of Logan up to Bonita Beach Road and east/west over to 41 --Livingston Road would be--would affect the traffic flows on Livingston? Is that something that can be done,or is it too illogical or too difficult to even -- is it too much of a guess? MS. SCOTT: It's all based on a transportation model. It's not something that we would typically require for a development of this size. We are typically doing that type of--that level of analysis when we're looking at large towns where they're actually running the traffic model and having a "with"and "without"project. But I'm going to ask Mike to correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that this applicant directed any traffic down Veterans Memorial as part of the TIS. So they're taking a very conservative approach as far as how even they're directing their 25 percent that's coming in in the p.m. peak and how they're distributing the traffic. They did not utilize Veterans Memorial as a Page 55 of 79 January 17,2019 distribution. So they're either coming out and going north, or they're going south. So they're showing a larger impact to Livingston Road than probably what's really going to be realized in the end because Veterans Memorial will be in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Veterans Memorial dead-ends into a railroad track right now. So what good would it be to use that as a means of exit? MS. SCOTT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd go down,turn around,and come back and go right back to the same place they estimated it to be today. So, I mean, I don't see how that proves anything. MS. SCOTT: But when you're looking at the five-year period and you're asking,well, what impacts will that roadway have, et cetera. that roadway will be in place in the five years,as will the other. - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the piece I was hoping that we could understand how--if there is relief to understand that now, it would help understand this application, but,okay. I understand where we're at. Thank you. Did you have something,Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Regarding the traffic study,did it look specifically at this GMP,or did they subtract what they are already authorized with the De La Rosa project? Was it the delta,or was it the entire project? MS. SCOTT: I'll let Mike answer that since he reviewed it himself. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or maybe the traffic engineer can ask that question, because they're certainly vested for what they had already in De La Rosa,correct? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I can go back and double-check, but I believe that it was done on the total number of units proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Total number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That number being the higher at 420,then; is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: We redid it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you redid it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, a quick question. In the TIS,how big of a factor did Talis Park rear entrance factor in on that? That's right by where the road dead-ends. Because I know they were doing a lot more multi-family in that community,and their density is increasing, I know. From what I've seen, the majority of Talis Park is coming out on that Veterans there on that road. So how big of a factor--did you-all factor that in your TIS? MR. SAWYER: Currently we do not track, in the AUIR,Veterans Memorial. So all of those existing trips,okay,are already on the link that we look at,which is Livingston. Right now Veterans Memorial is looked at as a local street. We don't check capacity on all of those road segments with local streets. What we're looking at are the major corridors that we've got through the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the traffic off of Veterans onto Livingston would be included? MR. SAWYER: Those are--all of the existing trips are being already counted on Livingston. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Trinity,the Veterans Memorial all the way through across the railroad to Old 41,that's all part of the plan for the expansion,correct? MS. SCOTT: Correct. We are proposing going to Old 41. So we're not just stopping at the high school. We are going to Old 41. Page 56 of 79 January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you're already working to get the vacated-- MS. SCOTT: What we're working on currently is working with the railroad to have an easement across the railroad, but the construction is programmed within our five years. We've been working closely. We knew the school had a few options,and we wanted to make sure that we aligned. So we have that funded for construction within our five years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trinity,that spur only went to the Krehling plant, right? MS. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is it used at all? MS. SCOTT: To my knowledge. it has not been used south of--the rail has not been used south of Alico in over a decade; however, it is still owned. I believe,by CSX. I believe they--actually, I believe Seminole Gulf just recently purchased the rights to it. CSX used to be the underlying property owner with Seminole Gulf as an easement. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So I would assume you're asking them, is it necessary? Can we just pull it out? MS. SCOTT: That is not typically how it goes with the railroad. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby. I have one other question from you. You wrote the staff report,right? MR. SCHMIDT: Among others. but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 7 of the staff report,the very bottom of the page, it reads the following: "The density rating system does not provide for any additional density if more than the minimum required two criteria are met. Staff was suggesting the petition go above and beyond and offer something extra to the benefit of the larger community rather than simply asking for additional density. Application materials did not offer any additional commitments rather than request a greater density via this GMPA." That is where I started my concern about public benefit. What did you have in mind when you wrote that? MR. SCHMIDT: Looked for something additional from the applicants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got that out of it-- MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but what kind of additional? In the past have you experienced any additional commitments to offset some of these concerns? MR. SCHMIDT: Well,planners look at the FLUE as, in this case, a starting point. These are examples of--the strategies are those fixed items. The FLUE--and those mitigation strategies don't provide for additional bonuses for density,yet I have applicants in front of you who want additional density. How do they get there? Staff offered up an idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the idea? MR. SCHMIDT: Offer up something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. So you don't have anything in mind. You suggested by this report that they should consider some additional commitment to get to where they want to go? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you may have had something in mind as to why Page 57 of 79 January 17,2019 you wrote that there,and that's what I was-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It could be something as simple as the residents within the apartment complex form carpools. MR. SCHMIDT: I mean. other portions of the documents,both the Transportation Element and the FLUE,give us ideas of what's being looked for. There have to be effective and meaningful strategies that provide that capacity on the roads within a certain time period. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: What could those be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I get it now. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What we're going to do is go to public testimony. And the way this is going to work,we will take the speakers that have put out slips. When we get done. if someone wants to speak who has not put a slip in, I'll ask, would anybody else from the public like to speak? We ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes;that if there--we don't need the redundancy. It doesn't--we hear it once,we pretty much hear it. If you say that you just agree with the speaker before you,that works great. If you want to defer your time to somebody else in your crowd,that works great,too. We are going to break at 2:15 for the court reporter for 10 minutes,and then we're going to end up today at 3:30,and then we'll have to continue whatever's left until the February 7th meeting. And if we did that,this would be the first item up, so it would start at 9 o'clock in the morning. So that's the process we're going to go through,and we will start by calling out names. And we have two speakers. Feel free to go to either one that's most convenient to you. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: All right. The first two are Rosie Petisco--excuse me if I get the pronunciations wrong--but second is Sharon Griffith. MS. PETISCO: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the first thing you need to do is confirm with us that you were sworn in,and if you weren't,we need to--and also you need to state your name,and if it's more than something simple like Smith,you probably need to spell it out. MS. PETISCO: Not a problem. It's Rosie Petisco. You pronounced it wonderfully. Nobody ever gets that right,and I have been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better spell that last name. MS.PETISCO: It's P as in Paul,e-t as in Tom, i-s as in Sam,c as in cat,o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would never have figured that out. Thank you. MS. PETISCO: Thank you. So first I'd like to thank you for your time,and I see that this is something that you are seriously considering. And I'm just standing before you-- I'm not as well prepared as other people may be. I'm just here as a full-time working mom that moved away from the city that I was born and raised in. I had a very good job at the University of Miami. My kids probably could have gone to school there for free,and I left Miami because I wanted to give them a different life and a different lifestyle. I live in Barrington Cove. My backyard will actually be at the end of the lake. So I just recently built a pool never expecting the possibility of apartment buildings and people who could be looking down at my teenage daughter in her bikini. I really don't care how much of a buffer you put. If the building is high enough. they'll be able to look directly into my backyard. My other concern is my daughter is at North Naples Middle School. I have one in eighth Page 58 of 79 January 17,2019 grade,one in sixth grade. This year when they did the orientation for the sixth grade,the principal did announce that this is the first year where the sixth graders will have to be overflowing into the seventh and eighth grade locker areas because this was the biggest incoming sixth grade class they ever had,and they no longer fit just in the sixth grade area. I can tell you traffic is a concern for me. We--I exit out the back of Barrington Cove because I do live closer to Barrington,to the back. so I come out through Veterans. Currently, there are mornings where at 8 o'clock in the morning, 8:30 in the morning, it's already kind of backed up pretty significantly on Veterans. So if the only exit for Allura is going to be on Veterans, I'm not really sure if anybody's really taking into consideration the impact that that will have in that little section. It's not like there's-- it's not a long road. It's a pretty small road to get to Livingston. Last night I took my girls to church. I make a right on Livingston,and I take it to Coconut Road. It took me, I timed it,eight minutes to get from Veterans to Bonita Beach Road at 5:30. What I find is that when 1-75 is backed up, Livingston gets much worse,and it really takes a lot longer to get down Livingston. When I first moved here two years ago and we were trying to figure out where to live,we rented at an apartment building, so I get the need for rentals in good neighborhoods. I can tell you I was not put on a waiting list. It didn't take me a long time to find a three-bedroom in a good neighborhood for$1,800. And I do know that they're building an apartment building called Crest of Naples with 264 units on Bonita Beach Road by 75,and they are also finishing up Addison Place on Immokalee over by Collier,and that has 240 units,and it's managed by Greystar. So I'm really not sure, number one,why we would need 350 units to be approved in this area. I can tell you that in the year that I rented, we rented trying to decide where we were going to move. We didn't have trouble finding an apartment that we could afford. We had trouble finding a single-family home that we could afford. And so I'm not opposed to single-family homes that are affordable for families. I'm not opposed to something like Milano that's a townhouse or a condominium for people to purchase. I would be much more amenable to something where people are going to own a property there and be much more vested in the community. And those are my main concerns. And I think you will find that a lot of my neighbors feel the same way. And,again, I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Next speaker,please. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Mr. Chairman,the second speaker had left during lunchtime. The next name on the list is Cathy(sic)Wrede, I believe. MR. ROSENBLATT: Katy Wrede, she had to leave, but she asked me to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Come on up, sir,and identify yourself for the record, and let us know if you were sworn in. Thank you. MR. ROSENBLATT: I was sworn in. I was here early. first thing this morning. MR. SCHMIDT: Next name is-- MR. ROSENBLATT: Ivan Rosenblatt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: --Denise Cornillie. MR. ROSENBLATT: As I say, I'm here-- Katy prepared a thing. I'll try to do it as best as I can, putting my own twist on it as well as because I can't absolutely say all the things she said. As a--Katy, by the way,was a--is secretary of our master board in the Strand. As a resident of the Strand,she represented over a thousand residents,and she wanted to say that she would like to appeal to the county about this Stock Development request for rezoning. As we understood it, it was originally zoned for 170 single-family homes. We were a Page 59 of 79 V January 17,2019 little surprised when we heard about this De La Rosa PUD, because we didn't know anything about that. But this is a significant difference from the 170 single-family homes that we understood it was zoned for. Let's see. Obviously,we know that there are developments that go on all the time so,you know, we understand that developments are going to occur,but we can't understand how it came to pass that this request for rezoning should ever be considered given the fact that in the last four years alone,five new developments and a firehouse have been built on the same four-mile stretch of Livingston from Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,and now the consideration of this rezoning, there are two more developments in progress, Serena Grove and the Enclave. The Enclave, by the way, is just north of Talis Park in between Talis Park and Mediterra on the northbound side of Livingston. They're both high-end, high-value homes. In the five-mile radius,we would say that 90 percent of the homes there are single-family homes,as this parcel has been zoned. When we all bought homes in this area,we assumed that would remain the case. We can appreciate the need for affordable housing in Collier County. Stock has repeatedly said this is not affordable housing but rather high-end luxury apartments. To consider such density in an area that has quickly become saturated makes us all wonder what can be gained other than a profit for Stock. Numerous communities in the area stand strongly opposed to this rezoning request for the following reasons: First and foremost is the untold traffic impact this will have on the stretch of Livingston between Vanderbilt Road and Bonita Beach Road. Currently all communities whose egress and ingress are on Livingston are virtually house-bound in the morning and afternoons from 3:30 to 6:30. Traffic does not move and is at a dead stop from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road. In addition, Immokalee Road. where our front gate is located, is backed up both east and west during those time periods. This is the current reality before the two new communities already underway along Livingston would be completed. And I would say that.you know, we heard from the traffic people earlier today, and if they're using criteria--the ITE is using criteria that they're using.all one has to do is go out and look at the traffic during the rush hours in the morning and in the afternoon during season,and you can clearly see that if they're saying there's no impact, somebody is using the wrong data because-- I would say, before you even consider it,you should do an extensive traffic survey,and you will find out that there's a real significant impact already on traffic. Let's see what else here. Veterans Memorial is an extremely short stretch of a narrow two-lane road with no bike lane or shoulder that dead-ends both east and west. Now, I guess we heard earlier that there is an intention to ultimately cut it through to Old 41. I don't know whether that'll have a significant impact or not but,you know, it certainly wouldn't hurt. In the morning, particularly when we go out our back gate--Talis Park is doing a lot of construction. They're using multifamily things in the back of Talis Park, and it's almost impossible to get out of our back gate because their construction traffic is coming through there, so that's an impact. And then in the afternoon now during season,as you head up Veterans to go on Livingston, sometimes it could take you 20 minutes just to get to Livingston,and then you have to turn and go up. And if there's an accident on 75, what they always tell you to do is divert off and go on Livingston, so it's a disaster. I think that's pretty much,you know,the impact that we want to say, and I say that definitely the transportation standards that are being used to analyze these are certainly grossly deficient and should be really reconsidered,and we stand strongly opposed to this development as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 60 of 79 • January 17,2019 Next speaker, please. MR. CORNILLIE: Good afternoon. You can see that I'm not Denise. My name is Daniel Cornillie, spelled C-o-r-n-i-l-l-i-e. And thank you for the opportunity to present this afternoon on this project. I live in Secoya Reserve.which is approximately a half a mile west of the site of this proposed apartment development. I attended public meeting regarding this proposal at the library on September 6th and was appalled by what was presented. Let me explain why. First,density. This over-400-unit development would add a population concentration to an area that is already facing serious in-season traffic issues. The delays at the intersection of Immokalee and with Livingston are well known, but a number of times last season at rush hour, traffic is also backed up on Livingston all the way from Veterans to Bonita Beach Road two miles to the north. High-density housing between these two bottlenecks would exacerbate these problems. More important is the compatibility with the existing development. The development along Livingston from lmmokalee into Lee County is one-or two-story homes. The current drive along Livingston is attractive with housing subordinated to attractive landscaping on both sides of the street. The insertion of this four-story complex would be visibly out of place even if it was not of the undistinguished architecture pictured at the presentation. Take a drive by here and try to envision this. This is an aesthetic affront. Impact on property values. This out-of-place development would visually degrade the area to the point where it would negatively impact property values and the Collier County's tax base in the area as would the insertion of a concentration of rental units into an area of owner-occupied homes. This proposed development is so obviously out of place that it's an insult to the surrounding neighborhood,to the Naples brand, and to Collier County. The juxtaposition of this development with the elegant Mediterra is either careless or spiteful. Please preserve the zoning in a manner that precludes anything like this in this area. And just a closing comment,a veiled threat to if we don't get this,we'll revert to De La Rosa,which is worse in all respects in all of the above,really betrays Stock's contempt for the interest of the neighbors. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. SCHMIDT: Next two speakers are Tom Griffith and Attorney Robert Prin. MR. GRIFFITH: Good afternoon. Tom Griffith,a homeowner in Barrington Cove. I think we talked traffic to death,but I did do a local traffic study last night. I have the data on my phone. I know where it came from. I was driving southbound on Livingston. Traffic was backed up from Bonita Beach Road to Mediterra. It's like that all of the time during season. As a family, unlike the traffic person,we come home from work,we get our kids,and then we take them out again during peak times several times during the day and night for practices,et cetera. So traffic is obviously an issue.and everyone knows it. The one thing that I think the management company mentioned was residential home values. If you have an opportunity to buy a home in all the thousands of communities in Collier County. would you pick one where your backyard looks over a four-story rental apartment building? Would you want this in your front yard or backyard in the communities that you live in? I'm sure the answer is no. So someone mentioned common sense. Common sense tells us I will not buy a home that backs up to a rental apartment. 1 have too many options. Why would I do that? Page 61 of 79 January 17,2019 So common sense tells us,traffic is a problem. You add 700 people to the area we're in, traffic's going to be worse. Commons sense tells us our home values will go down because people do not want to buy next to these apartments. And they may be great tenants, luxury apartments; the perception is it's a rental apartment. And I've got too many options to buy in other places instead of our area. Schools;they mentioned the school capacities. And then the aesthetics. Does a four-story or three-story, partial four, fit into the landscape of our community? No matter what it looks like, it's not going to fit. From Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road,there's nothing like it. So why would it fit in our little area right there in our community? It doesn't fit. And,two,we talked about Livingston traffic. No one's brought up Old 41 traffic. It's a two-lane road,and it's just as bad. So what's going to happen when they extend VME? People are going to cut through VME,get on Old 41,and sit in traffic again. So common sense tells us-- it doesn't matter what the national data says,common sense tells us that it doesn't work in our community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr.Chairman,can I ask a question of this gentleman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,if you'd come back a minute. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tom,thanks for your statements. I have a quick question for you. When you bought in Barrington Cove,just out of curiosity, what'd they tell you? Obviously, that land was already--what'd they tell you,the developer,the developer when you bought your property? MR.GRIFFITH: You want me to be honest? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR.GRIFFITH: They told us a bunch of crap is what they told us. No one ever told us that Verona Pointe Estates was going to be built. I backed up to a preserve, so I was told your backyard is a preserve. Now it's 133 community-- is 133-home community. No one's ever told us that any of this was going to be developed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. And who was the builder/developer for Barrington Cove? MR. GRIFFITH: DR Horton. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: DR Horton. MR.GRIFFITH: And the other thing about the traffic study and that single-family homes have more traffic,yes, but not-- in 350 apartments with 700 people,you're not going to get that density with a single-family home on that corner. So, nationally, statistics may speak that there's more cars, but you're not-- if--how many homes can you put on 35 acres? It's not going to be 700 people, I can tell you that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Good afternoon, Mr.Chairman,members of the Board. I'm Robert Pritt. I'm with Roetzel &Andress Law Firm. I represent the Mediterra Community Association. Alan Johnson was here this morning, but I think he had to leave. the president, so he won't be speaking today. Tim Richards,who is the manager, is here. I'm not sure if he's going to speak or just yield to me. Since I'm an attorney. I kind of look at things from that aspect. And we do have a planner, Dr. David Depew,who's going to be speaking here today also. I'll leave the details to him, if it's okay. But there are really two points I want to make,and they're related,and one is the question concerning spot zoning. As a matter of fact, I had prepared the spot zoning remarks before the Chair brought them up today,and I do think this is spot zoning. This is illegal spot zoning. It's Page 62 of 79 111111111111111111.0111.111. MENEM January 17,2019 actually spot planning leading to spot zoning, which, in my opinion, is even worse. You cannot legislate your way out of a spot zoning situation. That has been --that's judge-made law in the state of Florida. If anybody wants to see the cases on it, I can't remember the name or the--of all the cases,but probably one is--the biggest one's called Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association. I think it was a Dade County case. But that's where you plop something into an area that is incompatible with everything else in the area. And what you've heard most of the day,actually from everybody, is that we have a proposal to put a very highly--a high density development,apartment type of development into an area that is clearly low density single-family residential. In a county that's larger than at least two states,there are plenty of places to put something like this. You don't have to put it somewhere that is,under your Comprehensive Plan, incompatible certainly as it applies to density and also as it applies to-- in the zoning this applies to uses. So that's what's being done. That's what's being proposed. The idea of planning and zoning--and I certainly don't want to lecture you, because you know this and see this probably more than I do, but the idea of planning is that you spent--and this county spent a lot of time and a lot of effort coming up with its districts. Next thing you know, we have developers wanting to create subdistricts to suit their purposes, so we wind up with a certain number of subdistricts. Why? Because generally in an ad hoc manner there's an attempt to get around the Comprehensive Plan,the GMP. That's what's being done here. Now, it's one thing-- if it's really pretty close and it's really about the same and the uses are not too far off,that's one thing. And the densities are similar, but this is nowhere close,as you heard a lot of people say today on both sides. And the problem is--another problem that I see is that the PUDs,which are a great idea in their place--planned developments are a great idea in their place--are being used improperly as the means to accomplish illegal spot planning, spot zoning when you get to the zoning aspect of it, so you wind up with PUDs going around that. It's one thing for PUDs to say. well, we're going to have this mixture of uses or we're going to have this type of use,et cetera,and to give up some setbacks and some height and things like that exchanged for amenities for the PUD, but it's a totally different thing to plop a PUD into a place where it doesn't belong, and it's even worse to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate that. Mr. Mulhere, I think, said--at least gave the impression to me,maybe to you, that,well, it's residential. Residential's residential. Well, that's not really correct because at least going back-- if you go back into history far enough, all the way back to the first zoning case that everybody had to learn from the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a case having to do with putting apartments into residential districts. And if I may, let me quote this. Suspend your disbelief just long enough to pick out some nuggets that I think are relevant to this case, and then I'll open it up for questions, if you want. But the U.S. Supreme Court said, "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses,which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private-house purposes: that in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover,the coming of one apartment house is followed by others interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which, otherwise,would fall upon smaller homes,and bringing as their necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business and the occupation by means of moving and parked automobiles, larger portions of street,thus detracting--almost Page 63 of 79 January 17,2019 done--from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open places for play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until, finally,the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. "Under these circumstances,apartment houses which in a different environment would not only be entirely unobjectionable,but highly desirable,come very near to being nuisances." This was Village of Euclid versus Amber Realty, 1926. It could have been written last month. That case is still a good case,and it's good law. Without that case,we would not all be here. That was the case that upheld that zoning in its proper place is okay. And so the point is that this is not a new issue. This is something--the issue of compatibility,even among--even between one type of residence and another type of residence has been recognized since the beginning, since the landmark case, and that is certainly something that should guide us in saying you have to follow--developer, new person coming in, buyer,whoever you are,you have to follow the rules that we have in our Comp Plan,and we're not going to bend our rules just to accommodate you. I spent 13 years on a--as City Attorney for a small area--a small city in Lee County. They have not increased density one unit except for affordable housing since 1988. So sometimes you just say no. This is not it. This is not the place,and this is not it. And all that stuff about trying to accommodate somebody when they really don't have the proper reason for it, is really kind of a waste of time, in my opinion. So I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Could you send me that case? MR. PRITT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just cited,the Euclid case. MR. PRITT: Oh,yes, Village of Euclid. We all know about Euclidian zoning;that's where that came from. Not from Euclid of old, but it's named after the city, and that was the beginning of zoning. That's the case that said zoning is allowable. And from that case, everything has--that we talk about in planning and zoning has come out of that. I'll be glad to send you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will -- MR. PRITT: And also Bird-Kendall-- I didn't think to bring it, but that's one that--on spot zoning that is relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, obviously, I'll give Mr. Yovanovich an opportunity to send any case that he wants to utilize to offset the one you've just mentioned. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick comment for you, Mr. Pritt. Would it be all right if I obtain a transcript of your remarks so that I can quote you to the Planning Advisory Board? MR. PRITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: I've said that, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another board besides ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amazingly enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. MR. PRITT: Well, until a couple days ago I was City Attorney for Naples,as most of you know,as many of you know,and I've turned that over to partner now,but I still am working on a lot of the planning and zoning issues. Page 64 of 79 mommonnion January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Mr. Pritt. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we talked earlier about the previously approved De La Rosa PUD,which I believe is seven units per acre. Are your clients--is there a line drawn where the clients would accept if this entire parcel was approved at seven units per acre,or is it just no to any kind of multifamily-type treatment? But you have De La Rosa already approved, so I'm just curious where you stand. MR. PRITT: Well,De La Rosa does not cover all of the parcel either; it's a smaller one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MR. PRITT: And I can't speak for my clients on that. We haven't really delved into that issue. but by our count it's four, not seven. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. PRITT: And,obviously,we understand if something is vested-- I don't know if De La Rosa is vested, but if it is vested,then it's vested. It would be hard to undo something that's already there but,as I recall,that was also single-family units. And what--if I may.one last point on that is,just because they might be approved for units that go within 20 feet of the perimeter of the property doesn't mean they have to build it,you know. They still could choose not to build it that close. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we finish, I have the De La Rosa document in front of me. I'll let you know right off the bat what the--they can do multi--they're actually-- it isn't--they're a multifamily product. COMMISSIONER FRY: They're taller multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Multifamily product,and the setback--the height is zoned 50 feet,actual 69 feet. The side setback,which is where--the example the applicant used,is half the building height. So if they went--and the building height in this case would be the zoned,so they'd be 25-foot setback from the--from that other PUD that's already there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark,when was that approved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: '07. COMMISSIONER FRY: '07,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see you sitting there. Do you agree with my statements? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do,and I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not for more testimony from you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree that it's only approved for multifamily. It's not approved for any single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make that clarification. That's all. Corby,next speaker. MR. SCHMIDT: Your next speakers are David Depew and Tim Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Good afternoon. I'll be real quick. My name is Tim Richards. I'm the general manager of the Mediterra Community Association. And pretty much everything that I would cover has already been covered regarding traffic, compatibility, and things of that nature. I agree with everything that Mr. Pritt just commented on. and that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. DR. DEPEW: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in,sir? DR. DEPEW: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great,thank you. Page 65 of 79 January 17,2019 DR. DEPEW: I am a principal with Morris Depew Associates. I'm a land planner. I have been practicing in Southwest Florida-- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name? DR. DEPEW: David Depew. I've been practicing in Southwest Florida since 1980 and have been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1983. I was asked by the folks at Mediterra to take a look at this request,and what I reviewed was what's before you today,which is a request to transmit a plan amendment. And I found the plan amendment, in my opinion,to be deficient in a number of areas, not the least of which you've begun discussing here today. The traffic is certainly one, while the analysis that has not identified a particular problem with it, nevertheless, I think you've recognized it does not give you the full picture of what impacts the traffic are going to create for this particular area of the county,especially given the existing congestion and the question of whether or not and when completion of Veterans to the west will be finished. But, more importantly,the question of--as Mr. Pritt mentioned, of the surrounding uses, I think, is important to consider and whether or not this is something that is conducive to spot zoning. Densities in this area are fairly low. Mediterra to the north is slightly over six-tenths of a unit to the acre, and the other developments that are proximate and adjacent to this development are around four. One's actually a little bit under four. So you're looking at a request that is ranging from about two-and-a-half times up to almost 1,500 times the density that is characteristic of this particular area. And the question you have to ask is whether or not this is compatible. Objective 5 of the plan as well as Policy 5.6 talks about new developments being compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. And the question that becomes really evident is whether or not this is compatible with and complementary to the surrounding development in this particular area. The plan amendment and the plan itself currently provides for density that--bonuses associated with affordable housing, workforce housing,residential infill. This project is proposing neither of those options. It's not affordable; it's not infill. The applicant provides no data whatsoever on why affordable housing is not necessary. There is--there are two studies in his application as to why the apartment need needs to be met. There's no study that shows why the affordable housing bonuses which you have as a public body suggested as an extremely important element,and an incentive to allow additional density is not being met. This is a data-and-analysis question I think needs to be addressed and represents a significant deficiency in this application. And,as such, I believe that it does not qualify for transmittal,and I would request that this board recommend against transmittal as a result of this deficiency and the lack of an explanation as to why this bonus would be requested without addressing affordable housing. And, finally. I'd like to simply echo the point that was made earlier, and that is that these are--and the application has,more or less,determined that this is kind of a given,that these densities are not a given. These densities are discretionary. The three units beyond the four is discretionary,and even the four is,to some extent, discretionary. So if you as a body, ultimately, when the zoning comes up,determines that those are not the right numbers, it's important to note that. And, in closing, I would say this plan amendment that's before you today is simply unnecessary. They have a reasonable,economically viable use for this property. There's no evidence whatsoever that's been provided to you here today that suggests that the existing use is somehow unbuildable or uneconomical to use or some sort of deficit for this property owner. Page 66 of 79 January 17,2019 In fact,the development that surrounds this property suggests that this is a reasonable use and that the activity that has been assigned under the current plan amendment is one that is economically viable and beneficial for the property owner. You simply don't need to advance this any further,and I would suggest to you that it's just not necessary. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think there's some questions. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question for you. I'm confused. Are you in support of affordable housing at this site? You stated there's been no study. Would you prefer that it be affordable housing? DR. DEPEW: What I would suggest to you is that the county's plan has stated that any bonus beyond this seven, the way to get that is through the provision of affordable housing. They're asking for roughly 3,2.7 units per acre in addition,but they're not suggesting affordable housing. In fact,they've said specifically they're not going to provide that. And I think that's the real problem here,because the county's determined that that is a goal under its plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You dispute the analysis that Mr. Weeks presented earlier in regards to the density? DR. DEPEW: I didn't hear Mr. Weeks present an analysis earlier with regard to the density. What I said was that Mr. Weeks'comments that it was discretionary is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second question: Do you deem the De La Rosa project, as currently proposed, incompatible? DR. DEPEW: I haven't looked at the De La Rosa project, so I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We wouldn't be here on the Growth Management Plan amendment if they had asked for affordable housing because they would be able to achieve it without amending the Growth Management Plan. So you're here today on a Growth Management Plan amendment,and staff explained to you that they would be eligible under the current Growth Management Plan, which is urban residential subdistrict,the density rating system of four base plus three TCMA. So that would get them to seven. So under our current density rating system,they cannot get to the number they're requesting,and that's why we're here today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. DEPEW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the next public speaker,Corby, I'd like to follow up on a question about these density bonuses. It would probably be a good time to understand it. This is in a TCMA and, for that reason, it qualifies for--to request three more density bonuses on top of the four that's under the base. MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The TCMA is a bigger piece a-- is a small --the piece here is a small piece of a bigger area that I think goes all the way down to Pine Ridge Road and over to another, but it's a large geographic chunk of that part of the county; is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMIDT: A large area,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason for the TCMA—and maybe Trinity can tell us that--is because of? Do you know? Why did we declare this area TCMA? Because that declaration has then afforded them the opportunity of a three-unit bonus. I thought TCMAs were driven because of traffic. And the TCMA says instead of looking at one failed road within a TCMA,you get to look at all of them collectively,and as long as you don't reach a certain percentage,you're not in violation. And kind of what that does is falsely tell us that everything Page 67 of 79 w- January 17,2019 can fail but a couple roads here,and as long as their percentage is low enough and averages out,the rest of them can stay failed because you're in a TCMA and you can move forward. Why would we offer three bonus units for an area that's acknowledged to have traffic congestion by the mere fact it's under a TCMA? MR. SCHMIDT: It provides the opportunity to all the properties within that large geographic area to contribute to relieving congestion within that large area if it can show that it will do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does three bonus units contribute to relieving congestion? MR. SCHMIDT: They're attempting to show you how. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who is? All we've seen today is three units. I've not seen anything that says these three units are going to relieve congestion. That's--actually, I asked for-- if they've done a survey,to show us something like that,and nobody has, including our Transportation Department. MR. SCHMIDT: And you've asked staff about why we asked them to show you even additional attempts to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the three-unit bonus is something they can request, but they've got to show in that request they're actually reducing traffic,not just adding more traffic that is below the threshold to the system? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have they shown you something that shows they're reducing the traffic on Livingston Road? MR. SCHMIDT: I'll let Trinity address that, because she's been reviewing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd rather get this resolved while we're still on the topic. 1 know the public's waiting to--well,actually,we need to take a break. Is Trinity still here? Oh, she's hiding in the back. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll answer part of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can stand up and say hi. Trinity,after we come back from break, I'd like you to respond to that question. We need to take a break for 10--well, we'll come back at 2:30,just about 10 minutes. So 2:30 we'll resume;give the court reporter a break. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) (Mr. Eastman was absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everyone,would you please take your seat so we can resume the meeting. And we left off trying to discuss the TCMA issue. And this map is one that I recall now. The area that's kind of in the center left of the map is the TCMA. It's all that light pinkish/orange color. It goes from Pine Ridge Road to 1-75 all the way up to the Lee County line and out to the water, of course. So most of the northern district in Collier County, if not all of it except for that little piece by Bonita Beach Road, is in the TCMA. And,Trinity, I'd, first of all, like to know if you were around when the TCMA was formed. I didn't say born;around. MS. SCOTT: I was born. I worked at the county but in the Metropolitan Planning Organization,so not Transportation Planning at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know about what year the TCMA was put together? MS. SCOTT: My recollection, it was the early 2000s;2002/2003 time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you mean while this guy here was in charge? So now we can-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I only had the Community Development. I believe it Page 68 of 79 January 17,2019 was 2003/2004, Don Scott,Norm Feder and -- MS. SCOTT: Stan Litsinger. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --and Stan. David knows as well. The--my recollection,the TCMA was formed. Of course,we all failed--knew at that time,especially 2002 and'3 when almost every road in Collier County was failing because there was absolutely no Capital Improvement Program until the 2003/2004 time frame,but it was to create a mechanism to control traffic but yet still let development proceed,because we were looking for concurrency,had to pay impact fees,others were vested. So the TCMA was created and the mechanisms,of course, that you're familiar with to mitigate the impacts of various developments. David, I know you know as well the--but most of it was recognized,and there are failing roads but,yet,at the same time there were units to be--that were approved and vested,and this allowed for some development to take place. That's my recollection. I think it was 2003, David,wasn't it? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this was-- if this was originated because of the intensity of the development and the traffic that was already up in that northern area,how did we get to a point--and, David,you'd probably be the historian that would know this. How did we get to the point where we felt it was helpful to add three units as a bonus per acre? MR. WEEKS: Unfortunately, I don't know that history. I was here. Stan Litsinger was the staff member that took that through the process,and I was just on the periphery. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I honestly don't remember either why-- I believe some of it was just to try and force, I'll use the word--or maybe not force, but to incentivize cluster developments on major arterial roadways where you could use alternative transportation methods: Carpooling, bus services,and other types of mechanisms,and also to encourage development around business clusters. People would either bicycle to work or other methods to get to work. That was part of the process. But I really don't remember other than maybe it was just to incentivize development in a cluster development in and around our major road network. MR. WEEKS: If I may, let me read into the record Transportation Element Policy 5.6. "The county shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provides multiple viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Pretty much what I said,yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the assumption was is that we keep our roads up to date and keep the levels of service adequate. MR. SCOTT: Correct. When we present the Annual Update and Inventory Report each year,there is an inclusion in that document where we look at the level of service for all of the roadways,the collector and arterial roadway network,within the two TCMAs,and we report on an annual basis the number of lane miles that are achieving an acceptable level of service, which also, when we are doing our review, we look at the TCMA as a whole to see if 85 percent of the lane miles are achieving that level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that also allows for segments of the roads within that TCMA to fail independently of the others,but they still aren't considered failed because they're in a TCMA. And we still look at density bonuses for those areas where the road congestion may not be as desired as parts of the TCMA. MS. SCOTT: Yes. The applicant could come in and ask for exemption from link-by-link concurrency if they would impact a failing roadway segment,and they would trigger the TCMA requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That helps a little bit. Most of what and how this occurred would be somewhere in the record. Now it's just a matter of hunting it out and Page 69 of 79 January 17,2019 finding it,which that's stuff I like to do, so I'll probably look for it. And something during break,two planning commission members mentioned to me they really need to be out of here at 3 o'clock since it's obvious we're not going to finish today. So what we're going to do is allow some cross-examination by the applicant's attorney of Mr. Depew,and then we're going to go ahead and hear public speakers till 3 o'clock,then we're going to stop the hearing,continue it to the 7th of September-- 7th of February. It will the first thing up at 9 o'clock in the morning,and we'll expedite it through that morning and be done. So I know that's inconveniencing for all of you. 1 do hope that while you were sitting here today you picked up information that might be helpful in the things you were going to say or talk about,so at least something could be salvaged out of the day that we've had so far. And with that,Richard,do you want to-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't see Mr. Depew. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see Mr. Depew. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm assuming he's probably-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, is he your expert witness? MR. PRITT: Bob Pritt. Mr. Depew had to catch a plane,and he has left. This is legislative, so I don't know why we're cross-examining. Frankly, I'm not sure why we're being sworn, but this is clearly legislative,and there's no right of cross-examination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That is correct; it's legislative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an option that we can exercise,and I -- MR. PRITT: Well,with Mr. Depew, I'm not sure what his schedule is,but if it's going to be continued,then there would be that opportunity. We'll do everything we can to make him available. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have an issue with that. I'll wait. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob,could you make sure that Dave Depew-- Mr. Depew comes back for the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he just said. MR. PRITT: Well, I will try to do that but,again, I would object to any cross-examination in a legislative matter. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what, I'll tell you what, I'll just go ahead and in my closing I'll point out all the flaws of his testimony instead of him doing it through cross-examination. MR. PRITT: I will try to have him down here. I don't know what his schedule is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he may not now be cross-examined. If Rich decides to do it during his rebuttal,that's his option. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that,we'll move back into our speakers in the order of which they--the slips are called. Corby.would you call the next two speakers. MR. SCHMIDT: Elbert Lands and Andrew Kowalski. MR. LANDS: Good afternoon. My name is Elbert Lands. Last name, L-a-n-d-s. I'm a homeowner in Barrington Cove, bought several years ago from Horton,and I knew generally about the building that was taking place in the area,but my impression was that it was going to be single-family homes,not apartments. I have to agree with the majority of what's been said, and that is that it would be a negative impact for the community as a whole,due to the amount of traffic,number of people that are being placed in that small area,and I believe it would lower the overall home values. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. Page 70 of 79 January 17,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A question. You said you were expecting single-family. Did you--did you know-- I mean,the project behind you, De La Rosa,was zoned for only multifamily. MR. LANDS: That I was not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a higher height. Did you just not see--did someone not tell you about it or-- MR. LANDS: That's correct. I wasn't told about that. I was told about the building project that was taking place that would be to the east. And that did get developed, and those are very nice homes. And it just doesn't fit. Apartments don't fit. You know, I have to agree that the apartment complex that they have at Lely looks very nice,but no matter how much perfume you put on the pig, it's still a pig. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. KOWALSKI: Andrew Kowalski, K-o-w-a-l-s-k-i. I, like Mr. Lands, purchased a home in Barrington Cove,on his recommendation. I also was not informed that there were going to be De La Rosa coming into that area. I thought it was just-- in fact, I was led to believe it is like a protected area where you shouldn't go in there. It was like a swamp in one particular area there, and I just thought, hey,that's great,you know,there will be no building there. And I just-- like everybody else said,the traffic is unbearable. I see no good coming from it from the people that live in that area. Like I say, it's--your property values are going to go down,and I'm just against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just--on the project--you live in the project just to the east. MR. KOWALSKI: Barrington Cove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But what--Barrington Cove has several pieces. Where do you front with this project? Down on the south side of this project coming in today? Maybe-- MR. KOWALSKI: Yeah,it would be the south end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are aware the buildings are going to end up closer to your property line if the other project goes forward? MR. KOWALSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you still would rather see that other project, potentially,than the one that they're proposing today? MR. KOWALSKI: I would rather see it zoned single-family dwelling is what I'd rather see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,well,the toothpaste is out of the tube on that one. We have Bert Harris and other laws in the state of Florida that strongly protect existing property rights, and that particular project's there. It was approved in 2007, so I don't know how we'd undo that one. MR. KOWALSKI: I don't know either, but I wish it would happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speakers,Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Bill Arndt and Todd Rosenthal. MR. ARNDT: Hi. I'm Bill Arndt,A-r-n-d-t. I'm on the board at Barrington Cove,and I'm one of the guys that meets with the small group that you've heard referenced several times that met with Stock and Mediterra. First of all, I'd like to say that Stock does a wonderful job of building communities. They've built Secoya close to us down the way; single-family homes,they've built in Mediterra, and they're currently building, I think, in Mediterra. Doing a great job. Page 71 of 79 January 17,2019 They build communities all over Southwest Florida that are single-family-home communities,and that really is their forte;they do a great job with that. They built two other communities. One is Spectra in Fort Myers that was recently sold for $72 million. They had it for three years. And in the paper, the article that was written about that. Stock said that was the building model,that they were going to build properties and then sell them as they're able to. I'm not looking for a commitment for five or six years for them to hold onto property, but at some point in time the property's going to be sold. We don't know who the next owner's going to be or how they're going to treat the property,how they're going to treat some commitments made by Stock. We just don't know that, and we can't ask them to put that in writing for us,so we're okay with that. But we would prefer,the people--we have 2.700 roofs that have been contacted and have written on a petition, 1,200 signers on a petition,that said they're opposed, strongly opposed to this development. I can't see how 100 additional --because we're not talking about actually 350,we're talking plus 100-- is going to affect our community so positively that 2,700 residents have to be disregarded. In other words,there's 2,700 people out there that are saying,you know, build single-family homes. We understand there's going to be something built there. Please, build something there. Build something that we can be proud of,something that would fit the community, something that's consistent with the rest of the--in the surrounding area. We'll bring the shovels and break the first in dirt(sic),but apartment complexes four stories high-- I understand that Stock went in front of the Estero Village, I think, four years ago for a place called Corkscrew Crossings in Corkscrew,350 units just exactly like ours, four stories high, exactly like ours. And I understand that 2017 that was put on the table by their planning commission,and I believe this last Wednesday it was shot down. It was closed down. So one of the things that we're looking for,the 2,700 residents, is give us something compatible,give us something that we can enjoy the freedom and the peace and the compatibility that we've come to expect. We're there. We're your citizens. We're the ones that vote for you. We love where we live. We just want to make it nice. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sir, are you the official speaker on behalf of the board of Barrington Cove? MR.ARNDT: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there another speaker coming that is the official? MR. ARNDT: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: No? MR. ARNDT: We're in the middle of a transition phase, and so we'll have an official board like with a board president and all that in March--on March 29th. Until then we have a board. I'm on the board. I'm the resident member on the board, but I'm not an official speaker for that board. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I ask that because my background before joining this board is on the board of a homeowners'association being in a similar position, and one of the issues we always discuss is, well, if not this, what comes afterward,you know,what is going to be next. I guess--I want to kind of just generally ask the speakers from Barrington Cove-- because I know you're sensitive to what goes next to you. The very first slide that Mr. Mulhere put up showed the--with the existing PUD that's approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: De La Rosa. COMMISSIONER FRY: De La Rosa PUD,as if it is--could easily be a reality without Page 72 of 79 January 17,2019 Stock having to do anything. So I guess a general question I have for you as a resident of Barrington Cove and on the board, is this much larger,obviously with a greater footprint,more units--a lot larger property size,but they have built in farther setbacks, instead of looking at a four-story building that's 20 feet from that corner where you go up to the northern part of Barrington Cove,they have a large wetland preserve of four-story buildings;they're farther over. And it would seem to almost give you in that area less impact from at least the visible concerns you might have. Now, I'm only asking this--and this is not a statement of thinking this is a good idea or bad idea. I just-- I'm asking you, if this was not approved and Stock decided to go ahead and build De La Rosa, how would you feel about that? I mean, is that something you have discussed? MR. ARNDT: We haven't discussed that,but it's in place,and so,you know, as long as it fits the community, I would rather not have the property be built within 20 feet of the backyard of our neighbors,because that's really impositional. Currently within 120 feet of the backyard,and I know the home that will be sitting there on the corner,their house, 120 out will be a three-story structure. That's usually impositional. But you know something, Stock--the company is part of our community. They've done a great job in the past. They've communicated well with us. They told us--quite frankly, I asked them, I said. why can't we build townhomes or single-family homes or something like that,and they said,that is not happening;we can't afford it there. So they just shut that idea down totally,and they went on to propose other things. But we believe that they're acting in good faith. COMMISSIONER FRY: Final question. I know that this was continued from the December meeting so that Mr. Pritt and your association and Mediterra and others could meet with the applicants. They came back with some concessions.dropping from 420 to 350. The evidence of all the speakers from Barrington Cove and the Strand and other communities, I guess that would be clear indication that you're unable to come to any kind of mutually agreeable terms; is that correct? MR. ARNDT: Correct. I also want to make a clarification: They told us that the 420 was never on the table because the unit-- PUD because it's 35.7 acres at a density of 10 whereas it was 350 all along. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ARNDT: If that makes sense. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Karl. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. And don't call another speaker for a minute because we've got a--Ned has a question of somebody in the past. MR. ROSENTHAL: Hello. Todd Rosenthal. Resident of Mediterra. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name so we get it right. MR. ROSENTHAL: R-o-s-e-n-t-h-a-l. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ROSENTHAL: I'm going to try to look at some notes as I speak. One thing I just want to bring up,an issue. It seems like as residents we're getting threatened; if we don't take this,we're going to have this other development there. If that's the case,that's the case. The biggest problem we have is the density there. I'd invite any of you or actually beg any of you,just drive home like a normal resident would. Try driving that road at 5 o'clock at night. I have two kids at my house that I can't wait to go home to see,and I'm already sitting in traffic sometimes for 45 minutes to one hour. It's not fair. We have developments that still haven't been built yet. So it's amazing that we're talking Page 73 of 79 January 17,2019 about putting in these new roads, but there's already a high school that hasn't been built yet. There is a development right in front of Mediterra and Talis Park that hasn't been built yet with lots more homes coming in there. 1 don't know what's going to happen to the traffic. Talis Park hasn't been fully developed yet. Mediterra still has homes that haven't been developed yet. A high school isn't there yet, so what is going to happen to the traffic that's there now? There's a grocery store at the corner of Livingston and Immokalee Road that hasn't opened up yet. I mean, the traffic-- I couldn't imagine. I still work. I have two kids. Last year in school I had to get up in the morning,take one daughter to school at seven in the morning, the high school,drive back,go back,get the other kid, take her to school. So, I mean, I'm doing four trips down that road in the morning. So I don't buy that traffic study. There's zero chance with 700 homes that there can be 170 trips during peak hours. Absolutely can't happen. So we can look at all these numbers,wherever they pull them from. Real world,we don't need to pay anybody. Just take an hour of your--actually, I can't say take an hour of your time. It's going to take you three hours to sit in that traffic. You know,that's, I think,the biggest thing. Other than threatening us with,you know,affordable housing. You know,what if--you know, I guess we have to talk about what impact or what does it do for the residents building over there. If it has to be affordable housing,then put it up. We know they're not going to do it. The only benefit is out for the developer making money on it. They are a great developer, but we just don't need the development there. We don't need-- I don't even understand how it went from four to seven,automatically, units if they have to build it. It's just not fair. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not automatic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why the process--this process would have still had to go on if they were asking for the seven but just at the PUD level, another rezone. MR. ROSENTHAL: And you've done a great job bringing up a lot of good points toward why are we already talking about seven. They haven't even gotten it yet. So maybe I'd say roll the dice and let them do the other development, because if they're going to do it,they would have done it. and they haven't done it. And I think. like some other people said, I don't think Stock would really put something up so close to other houses. If they do, they do. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hard to rent. MR. ROSENTHAL: It would be very hard to rent. But insinuating there's going to be a low-income development isn't fair to us. It's not right. If it's being approved, why--just to leave it at four acres. Why even talking(sic)about any more? But I think the biggest thing is the traffic study. We don't need to pay anybody to do it. We don't need to talk about it;just drive out there tonight. You'll see. You'll sit in traffic. I mean, I dread going home in season; I really do. Almost to the point of just, if you build it, I'm going to end up moving,and then where do I go? I'll be more traffic somewhere else. So that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: --coming from the heart. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Appreciate it. And, Mr. Pritt,Ned has had--got a question of you, if you don't mind coming back up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you,Mr. Pritt. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I--and you told us when you were up here before, but I've forgotten,who exactly are you representing? MR. PRITT: Mediterra Community Association. That's the master association for Page 74 of 79 January 17,2019 Mediterra. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And about how many homeowners would that be? MR. RICHARDS: Nine hundred twenty-six doors. MR. PRITT: Nine hundred twenty-six doors, I think he said. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So,obviously,there are limits and constraints on the extent to which you could speak for those people. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you are here in a representative capacity. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think it's important for us to hear what your impression of your client,your collective client,would--what would satisfy them that could happen up here,and then ultimately in front of the County Commission. And so my question has to do with the role that we play. One thing that we always try to do, I believe, in the first instance is see if we can achieve a win-win situation where most of the people are happy and the developer is also mostly happy. It's not always possible,and when it's not possible,then it's our possibility to vote up or vote down and then,of course, it goes to the Commission whose vote really matters. So my question to you is, is it your sense from among your clients that they would encourage us to try to achieve the best deal that we could in terms of what we believe is necessary for additional concessions to be made by the developer in order to achieve compatibility.or are they going to be flat up,down or--up or down on this? MR. PRITT: Well, it's kind of hard for me to say because this just changed as of the other day. It was 420. Now it's 350. I would have to have meetings with my client on that. I would remind the Board,though. that contract zoning's illegal, too,and so this is not negotiation of a contract. Our position is that you ought to not permit,right now anyhow,you ought not to permit this or you should recommend that it not go forward as it is proposed to you. I also said a little while ago that I think --this is me--and my recommendation would be that they have a potential right to up to four units,not up to seven,not up to 9 point--or 9.84, whatever it is; that that's what they have a right to do at the most. So that-- if you want to look for a position,that would be my recommendation to the board,to my board at this time. Having said that, if it's going to be continued anyhow,there will be some time for us to have further discussions if the applicant would wish to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I had in mind. MR. PRITT: And by the way,the applicant has,you know, in fairness to them, in fairness to us,we've had two meetings,and it was somewhat worthwhile. It might be worthwhile to do again. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to a time that we've got to consider what we're going to do next,and the item we're talking about is 9A3. And at this point, I'm going to suggest to this board that we need a motion to continue this to the September-- I mean February. September. I keep saying that--February 7th meeting first item up in the morning,and will be at 9 o'clock in the morning. And so if you can come back to that meeting,we would appreciate it,and you'll be heard right up--right front up. The first thing up we'll start with public speakers,so-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --at least that way you know you can get your time set in. A motion made by Patrick to do that. Second? Page 75 of 79 animmi January 17,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karl. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would only ask that the parties attempt,during this ensuing period of time, see if they can't work together and achieve more, perhaps,concessions, if you will, to make the project more palatable,more compatible with the surrounding areas so that when you come back,you come back with something that at least appears to a reasonable person as being better for the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At the next hearing or next meeting, I would ask that Trinity and maybe Mike Sawyer give us a little history on the TCMA forming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll actually probably,by then,have all the documents that enacted it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. If they could put it in a little concise format. I mean, I can go back and do the research, but I'm just curious as to what was on the record for that area. I vividly remember the whole thing, but I'd like to--just so, for the record, we have an idea of why the TCMA was formed and what the intent was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many speakers were left? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, but we've got rebuttal and other issues that would have to be--go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: More than a dozen already have slips in that remain. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So--and are they the only ones going to be allowed to talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,any public person. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you haven't spoken already,anybody from the public shows up,they're going to be allowed to speak. That's what we're here for. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark, I think one of the great justifications that you've presented for this project in this location is that there are not a lot of good locations left for projects of this type and yet we need apartments,and nobody's arguing the need for apartments. I guess my hope or a gap that I have is really understanding-- seeing some evidence that that statement is true. That--so,you know, if we deny this,whoa,you know,what have we done. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could do that. I'll bring you the map of Collier County that shows what's currently zoned and what's available out there. It's not a secret. I mean, I've got clients calling me all the time saying, please find me a site, and I say,good luck. But I'll bring you documentary evidence of that. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think also justification -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it. COMMISSIONER FRY: --that as--having been a homeowner out here in the audience before and now sitting up here is going from four to seven to 10, what--you know, is the real concrete justification that-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER FRY: --you know,that makes that a reasonable request. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you have a map showing all the vacant parcels that can be developed over 10 acres this side of 951? Page 76 of 79 January 17,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: This side of 951? I'm sure we could put something together between now and February 7th. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because back in 2010,Tim Billings did one,and we thought we were pretty well built out then. I'm curious what it looks like now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, 10 acres, I think, is too small. Mr.Chrzanowski. I think we're probably going to be looking at--20 acres should be the minimum for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting off on rabbit trails. MR. YOVANOVICH: No,but he asked me to bring information. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,no. I want to know if there are any big parcels out there that--how many big parcels out there can be developed with anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your market study was--supplies a lot of this information that both Karl and Stan are asking that was in the packet that was included in the first review. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll hopefully put it in an easier format that we'll throw up on the visualizer. If I may, Mr.Chairman,one thing. I don't want Mr. Pritt to bring Mr. Depew back for me. I'm going to deal -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've already acknowledged that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that he's not feeling like he has to bring him here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're in the middle of a motion. Is that the only item that you wanted to bring up in regards to that motion? MR.YOVANOVICH: We were talking about--take the vote,and then I would like to address one thing that Mr. Fryer said after the vote. I didn't mean to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's finish the vote. You all heard the discussion. Is there any further discussion? If not, is there a vote to continue this to the February 7th meeting at--first item up on that date? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,everybody in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. We have other line--order of business. Richard,did you have something you had to get off your chest right now? MR.YOVANOVICH: One thing--and we always try;what Mr. Fryer suggested is that we reach out again. In fairness to Mr. Arndt--and I'm blanking for a second on the other gentleman who was there. I know Tim's name--but it's very difficult for them to get a consensus within their communities. So we're trying to deal with the representatives,and we'll continue to do that. It's. I think,a yeoman's task to ask them to figure out what their community would support between now and the 7th, but we will continue to reach out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. Next item to--for continuation is 9A4. It's the Page 77 of 79 January 17,2019 water pollution control prevention ordinance. That will go up second on the agenda on the 7th. It will go before the LDC amendments we have to hear that day as well. Is there a motion to continue that to that date? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned and seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Is there any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public comment on something other than the item before us? MR. BORK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You'll need to go to the speaker, identify yourself,and we'll be glad to hear you, sir. MR. BORK: My name is Arthur Bork. I don't want to take any time. Is it possible to preserve the list of speaker requests from this meeting so that we go to the top of the pile on the 7th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,we'll do that. Absolutely. MR. BORK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much,sir. And with that,no other public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, seconded by Joe. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 78 of 79 January 17,2019 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION juict MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K.KINZEL,CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT&COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on Z''4-19 ,as presented or as corrected V . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 79 of 79 GrecoSherry From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 7:44 AM To: TaylorPenny; ScottTrinity Cc: GrecoSherry; CohenThaddeus; PattersonAmy Subject: RE: ALLURA Proposed Development Good Morning Commissioner, The gentleman may have over simplified the question/statement, but yes we do have controls in the GMP, LDC, and Traffic Impact handbook. Our controls consider capacity on the adjacent roadway links, intersection analysis, and access driveway analysis. Collier County's site impact analysis including intersection reviews have only become more stringent over time. The growth management changes that took place at the State level in 2011 softened the concurrency restrictions but have not changed site impact reviews here in Collier. The controls are applied differently at zoning as compared to a development order where construction plans are submitted. I took a quick look at Delaware's traffic study criteria (http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/february2016/proposed/Chap2.pdf) and they are essentially the same. Trinity, Please send Mr.Jim Welding ( shakenns@comcast.net ) a copy of the TIS for the Allura project and a link to our TIS guidelines and procedures. Please copy the group on this email. Thank you, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@CollierGov.net 239-252-8383 CIP7er Comity From:TaylorPenny Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:33 PM To: CasalanguidaNick<Nick.Casalanguida@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc:GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Fwd: ALLURA Proposed Development Nick, Can you please send this gentleman the traffic study for Allura. Also, I am not sure, after 20122,that FLorida has the same rules as Delaware regarding 'failed intersections' reference in his letter. Please confirm. 5 Thank you. Penny Penny Taylor Collier County Board of County Commissioners District 4, Commissioner 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL. 34112 Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyfl.gov 239-252-8604 Begin forwarded message: From:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Date: February 9, 2019 at 7:03:22 AM EST To: Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyFL.Gov Subject:ALLURA Proposed Development Reply-To:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Penny: I have owned property in The Strand for over 16 years and spend at least 6 months in our beautiful community. We spend the other time in Delaware, a state which requires any new Developer provide a TRAFFIC STUDY to approve the anticipated vehicle movement on the appropriate intersections. If the intersection is declared a "failed intersection", the developer must provide another option to make the grade. Either reduce the density of the project or spend millions of their money to improve the roads. Please let me know if a study has been completed where I can review the results. Thanks. Jim Welding Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. J 6 mow. GrecoSherry From: ScottTrinity Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:46 AM To: shakenns@comcast.net Cc: TaylorPenny; GrecoSherry; CasalanguidaNick; CohenThaddeus; PattersonAmy Subject: Allura Attachments: Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures.doc; PL20170004419 Livingston_Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict aka Allura GMPA TIS.pdf;Allura Planned Unit Development TIS.pdf Mr. Welding, Collier County has developed guidelines and procedures for traffic impact studies for development requests. These procedures are applied as developments proceed forward in their various stages. With the County's transportation review, a traffic impact study (TIS) is required for each development phase. In the case of Allura,the applicant prepares the study for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development and ultimately if those two are approved a site development plan. Attached you will find the Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures. The applicants for the Allura development have submitted a TIS for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, which I have attached. The TIS analysis was developed based on 420 multi-family residential units, which the applicant subsequently requested to be reduced to 350 at the beginning of the Collier County Planning Commission. As part of the submittal for the Planned Unit Development petition, the applicant submitted a separate TIS which analyzed 350 multi-family residential units. This email contains a few large attachments, and I want to make sure that you receive the information. If you could please confirm receipt of this email, I would greatly appreciate it. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Coer County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov 3 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY The purpose of the traffic impact study(TIS) is to quantifyy the potential traffic impacts, ensure compliance with the transportation concurrency requirements consistent with the comprehensive plan and identify site related operational deficiencies that impact the health, safety and welfare of the traveling public. The TIS shall also, where applicable, analyze access points, median openings and intersections significantly impacted by the development on the transportation system and develop mitigation strategies to offset the impacts according to the methodologies and provisions as described herein. These guidelines are in addition to the requirements of the access-management regulations and in the event of any conflict between these guidelines and such regulations, the more stringent requirements shall apply. The TIS is required for all applications for: • Comprehensive Plan Amendments • All zoning changes including DRIs • Site Development Plans • Subdivisions/Platting • All development applications that produce additional traffic or modifies existing traffic (Excluding applications for building permits) 1. METHODOLOGY STATEMENT Prior to conducting any study, a methodology statement shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted for review and approval by the County'. The purpose of the methodology statement is to establish agreed upon methodologies and assumptions prior to the start of the study. A methodology statement shall be prepared using the guidelines provided in the following paragraphs. The methodology statement will be first reviewed by a County representative, if necessary, through a methodology meeting with the applicant's consultant. The applicant's consultant will then revise the statement based upon agreed methodologies. The applicant shall ensure the consultant does not prepare a traffic study without an approved methodology statement signed by the appropriate County representative. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable fee with the submittal of the methodology statement and prior to the review of the TIS, the applicant shall pay any additional fees due based on the schedule of fees as set forth in EXHIBIT"A". 2. APPLICANT AND REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS All Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are to be prepared by a transportation professional with training and experience in traffic analysis and transportation planning. All Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are to be reviewed by staff or consultants of the Collier County Transportation Development Review Team (TDRT) with training and experience in traffic analysis and transportation planning. 1 Any reference to the "County" in these guidelines shall mean the County or its consultants, contractors, or employees,as applicable. - 1 - 3. REVIEW FEES AND STUDY CLASSIFICATIONS An applicable consultant review fee in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A shall be paid to the appropriate County department, along with a minimum of four copies of the TIS and methodology statement. Transportation studies will be classified and considered under the following criteria. The Criteria is meant to be used as a guide but in no way prohibits the county from requiring additional study information on a case by case basis. 1. Small Scale Study (NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL OR ROADWAY IMPACTS) CRITERIA • The project generates less than 50 net new total 2-way AM and less than 50 net new total 2- way PM peak hour trips,and • The access point to the adjacent roadway network does not require modification inside the Right-Of-Way above a standard driveway connection. (No turn lanes or median modifications), and • The project is a stand alone project and not part of a larger development, and • If the project uses a shared access point, the addition of the project traffic does not trigger any operational deficiencies or additional work within the right-of-way. Small scale studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall use the data from the latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables to demonstrate that the project will not generate significant impacts, as defined by Section 8 of the TIS Guidelines, on the roadway network and that the project does not directly access a roadway that is currently operating above 110% of the adopted service volume capacity or will exceed 110% of the adopted service capacity with the addition of the proposed project trips. The table shall include the existing roadway capacity, background traffic,trip bank, project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted segment as stipulated by Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. Please refer to EXHIBIT "Small Scale Study"as a guideline for this application. - 2 - 2. Minor Study (NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL IMPACTS WITH MINIMAL ROADWAY IMPACTS AND WORK WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY) CRITERIA • The project does not satisfy ALL of the criteria for a Small Scale Study. • The project generates fewer than 100 net new total 2-way AM or fewer than 100 net new total 2-way PM peak hour trips and less than 2% of adopted LOS service volume on the roadway segment(s) it directly accesses, and • The access point to the adjacent roadway network may not require modifications inside the right-of-way beyond the scope of turn lanes and median modifications, and • If the project uses a shared access point and the addition of the project traffic, based on the applicable analysis scenario, does trigger or cause operational deficiencies or require additional work within the right-of-way, and • The only mitigation required is ingress and egress turn lane(s) and median modifications, and • No impacted major intersections, as defined by Section 8.b herein, are currently failing or expected to fail with the addition of the project traffic Minor studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall use the data from the latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables to show that the significantly impacted roadway network, as determined by the study trip generation and distribution, has sufficient capacity. The table shall include, as appropriate, the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip bank, project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted roadway as required by Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. The study shall provide detailed PM, and when requested AM, analysis and conclusions consistent with this guide, the land development code, and the most recently approved right-of-way ordinance that all modifications in the right-of-way provide safe ingress and egress including but not limited to turn lane analysis. Please refer to the EXHIBITS as referenced throughout this document as a guideline for this submittal. - 3 - 3. Major Study (SIGNIFICANT ROADWAY AND/OR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS) CRITERIA • The project does not satisfy ALL of the criteria established for either a Small Scale or Minor Study. (ie. the project generates more than 100 net new total 2-way AM or PM peak hour trips, the project significantly impacts one or more roadway facilities or causes them to become deficient, or the project requires access management improvements and intersection improvements above and beyond turn lanes and/or median modification) Major studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall determine using the data from the latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables whether the significantly impacted roadway network, as determined by the study trip generation and distribution has sufficient capacity. The table shall include the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip bank, project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted roadway as required by Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. The study shall provide detailed AM and PM analysis and conclusions consistent with this guide and the most recently approved right-of-way ordinance that all modifications in the right-of-way provide safe ingress and egress including but not limited to turn lane analysis, roadway analysis and intersection analysis. Please refer to the EXHIBITS as referenced throughout this document as a guideline for this submittal. If the Major Study identifies capacity or traffic operations deficiencies, the applicant may elect, by way of their TIS study submittal, to propose mitigation strategies and demonstrate the effectiveness of those strategies at resolving the deficiencies. 4. TRIP GENERATION The trips from/to the site shall be estimated using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication or other rates as requested and/or approved by the County. An example of trip generation is shown in Exhibit 4A. In selecting between Trip Generation Average Rates and Equation, ITE guidelines as depicted in Figure 3.1 page 10 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook should be followed. Figure 3.1 has been reproduced as Exhibit 4B. If the county and the applicant cannot agree on an acceptable trip generation, the applicant shall provide a study of three locally similar uses. The study shall be prepared consistent with ITE policies and procedures and must be approved by the county prior to beginning the study. In order to estimate the net new trips from a project, vested trips and trips from existing use, if any, should be subtracted from the total trip generation potential of the proposed project. Trip reduction for existing land use, however, will be permissible only if the site was operational within the last twelve(12)months and will be determined at the Methodology Meeting. - 4 - 5. INTERNAL CAPTURE Internal capture is permitted for multi-use developments as defined in Chapter 7 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The multi-use developments should typically be between 100,000 to 2 million sq.ft. and should be planned as a single real-estate project. The calculation for internal capture should be done according to the procedure outlined in Chapter 7 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Exhibit 5A depicts the ITE procedure for internal capture. Alternatively, use the county developed Excel spreadsheet with an example of internal capture for estimating net external trips (the trips at the site driveways). Exhibits 5B and 5C depict the county procedure for internal capture. The internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. Internal capture rates higher than 20% shall be adequately substantiated and approved by the County staff. 6. PASS-BY CAPTURE The total gross external trips for retail uses may qualify to be reduced by a pass-by factor to account for the project traffic that is already traveling on the adjacent roadway. As per FDOT's Site Impact Handbook page 58, the number of pass-by trips should not exceed 10% of the adjacent street traffic during the peak hour or 25% of the project's external trip generating potential (Exhibit 6A). If the ITE Equation Ln(T)= - 0.29Ln(X) + 5.0 (ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Page 47) for estimating pass-by capture for Shopping Centers (LUC 820) results in more than 25% pass-by capture, the pass- by rate should be reduced to 25% for the peak hour. The daily capture rate is assumed to be 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. The entering pass-by trips should be equal to the exiting pass- by trips and in the same direction as the entering pass-by trips i.e. if 20 pass-by trips heading EB entered the project driveway, then 20 pass-by trips should exit the project driveway to go EB. The approved pass-by percentage shall be applied to the total traffic and the resulting number of pass-by trips should be equally split between the inbound and outbound trips. Exhibit 6B from ITE Trip Generation Handbook(Figure 5.2 Page 32) depicts the application of pass-by trips. In the analysis of the site-access intersections,the pass-by trips shall be included and separately identified. The following pass-by rates may qualify to be permitted for other land-uses with higher potential for pass-by capture: • 50%Pass-By: Gasoline Stations with and without convenience store (LUC 844,845) Fast Food Restaurants with Drive-Thru Windows (LUC 834) Pharmacy with and Without Drive-Thru Windows (LUC 880,881) Convenience Market with and without Gasoline Pumps (LUC 851,853) Drive-In Bank(LUC 912) • 40%Pass-By: Quality Restaurants and High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurants (LUC 831,832) The pass-by rates for all other retail land uses should comply with FDOT's guidelines. Any pass-by rates higher than the above permitted rates shall require justification and prior approval from the County staff. - 5 - 7. TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The most current version of the appropriate Collier County Model is acceptable in determining the trip distribution percentages and trip assignments. The results of the model will be reviewed by Collier County for reasonableness to ensure the existing and future travel patterns are correctly simulated. Manual trip distribution and assignments may also be acceptable as long as they are reviewed and accepted by Collier County and logically replicate the existing and future travel patterns. This review may take place during the Methodology Meeting if the manual trip distribution has been performed at this juncture. Otherwise, the manual trip distribution must be reviewed and approved by Collier County prior to identification of the Significantly Impacted Roadway Network or other subsequent steps of the TIS process. The trip distribution shall be shown graphically in both percentages and number of trips. The total project trip distribution and assignment at project driveways and adjacent intersections are different for project sites with and without full access median openings. Therefore, the trip distribution shall also be shown separately for Total Project Trips and the Net New Project trips. The maximum directional project trips on roadway segments shall be highlighted in these figures. Exhibits 7A through 7C provide a sample for trip distribution and assignment. The trip distribution percentages in the study network should add up. Any mid-block reduction in trip percentages shall be graphically depicted with adequate information and shall be discussed and approved by staff at the methodology meeting. S. SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ROADWAYS/INTERSECTIONS Significantly impacted roadways and intersections are identified based on the following criteria: a. The proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new total trips) based on the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic will determine the limits of the trip distribution and analysis. • Trips distributed on links directly accessed by the project where the project traffic by direction is equal to or exceeds 2% of the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS standard. • Trips on one link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project where the project traffic by direction is equal to or greater than 2%the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS standard. • Trips on all subsequent links where the project traffic by direction is equal to or greater than 3%the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS standard. b. Major intersections (signalized and/or unsignalized intersections of major roadways as determined during methodology meeting) that are part of the significantly impacted roadways, major intersections that are within 1,320 feet of the site access, and all site-access intersections are considered significantly impacted. c. With the Traffic Study Report, the applicant, on a separate page, shall provide a list and number of the intersections studied for the purpose of establishing the review fee per the fee schedule as outlined in EXHIBIT"A". d. Any intersection or link which may be adversely impacted as identified by the County at the methodology meeting based on the size and degree of the project that may, at the county's discretion,be included for analysis in the Significantly Impacted Roadway/Intersection Network - 6 - 9. ANALYSIS SCENARIOS and DEFINITIONS: Scenarios: a. Existing Scenario is defined as the documentation of existing traffic on the existing significantly impacted roadway network. b. Base Scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic, plus background traffic for the estimated build-out year on the E+C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway network. c. Proposed Scenario(s) As defined by Table 9.1 below Table 9.1: Proposed Scenario(s)Requirements Table 9.1 Background Traffic Incremental Operational Build Out Horizon Development Trips (3) Network Capacities Scenarios Analysis Maximum Allowable AUIR+Background Com Comprehensive 5 Years or Less 5-year CIE NO Methodology P (1) Growth to Build-Out Meeting Land Use Amendment Maximum Allowable AUIR+Background Over 5 Years (1) Growth to Build-Out 5-year CIE(4) 5 Year Increments Methodology Meeting 5 Years or Less AUIR+Background Re-Zoning (from zoning Maximum Allowable Growth to 5-year 5-year CIE NO Methodology (including application) Horizon Meeting Conditional Use applications) Over 5 years Maximum Allowable AUIR+Background 5-year CIE(4) 5 Year Increments Methodology Growth to Build-Out Meeting 5 Years or Less AUIR+Background Methodology Maximum Allowable (from zoning Growth to 5-year 5-year CIE NO PUD Re-Zoning application) ( ) Horizon Meeting Over 5 years Maximum Allowable AUIR+Background 5-year CIE(4) 5 Year Increments Methodology (2) Growth Build-Out Meeting 2 Years or Less Proposed-Current AUIR E+C E+C Mandatory Per TIS Site Phase(5) Study Guidlines Plan/Subdivision Over 2 Years Proposed-Current AUIR+Background E+C 2 year,5 Year, Mandatory Per TIS Phase(5) Growth to Build-Out Additional 5 Years Study Guidlines (1) Maximum allowable Trip Generation may be reduced subject to the Methodology Meeting and adoption of corresponding conditional or phasing language in the Land Use Ammendment (2) Planned Unit Development rezoning may serve to limit the maximum allowable trips over the build-out horizon compared to comparable Zoning (3) Or as stipulated during methodology meeting (4) Applicant may be allowed or required to consider additonal roadway networks(ie. Interim Cost Affordable Plan) based on methodology Meeting (5)The Significantly Impacted Network shall be determined based on the traffic generation and distribution of the current proposed phase: • - 7 - Scenario Definitions: a. Significantly Impacted Roadway Network: As defined in Section 8, above. b. Network Capacities: Based on either the E+C network, or in the case of zoning and land use amendments,the existing roadway network+projects fully funded in the 5 year CIE c. Build-Out Year: The year in which that quantity of development considered by the TIS is anticipated to be substantially complete and eligible for Certificate of Occupancy. The build-out year shall be documented in the approved methodology statement. d. Background Traffic: As defined in Section 12,below. e. E+C Network: The E+C network is defined as all the existing roads, plus all the improvements that are funded for construction within the first two years of the local government's or the FDOT's adopted Transportation Improvement Programs for applications requiring a Certificate Of Public Adequacy(COA). f. Incremental Scenarios: Future scenarios based on 5 year increments beyond the build-out year. 10. GENERAL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AND SOFTWARE a. Level of Service (LOS) and turn-lane length analysis (in accordance with the County's access management standards) are required for all significantly impacted intersections described under Section 8. • b. All roadway adopted LOS and corresponding Service Volumes will be taken from the currently adopted AUIR or as agreed during the methodology meeting. c. Use of the analysis software is allowed in accordance with the following: (1) The latest version of Highway Capacity Software(HCS) and Synchro software can be used for signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis. For certain complex and saturated traffic conditions,the County may require traffic analysis through SimTraffic or CORSIM. (2) The electronic copy of the analysis files shall be provided. The hard copy of the summary sheets with sufficient details of the input data and the MOEs (measures of effectiveness) shall be provided unless otherwise requested by the County. (See Sample Exhibits lA and 1B) (3) Other analysis software may be used if requested and/or approved by the County. (4) The input data to the software shall be field verified,where applicable, and provided in the report including,but not limited to: (a) Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes with geometry, including lane widths and turn-lane storage lengths at intersections(without taper). Similar information should be included for future analysis years. (See Sample Exhibits 2A through 2C) (b) Traffic factors such as the K, D, and T factors (See Sample Exhibit 3). The K factors shall be documented when travel demand forecast volumes are used for developing peak hour segment volumes and intersection turning movement volumes for the analysis year(s). The documentation of K factor, however, will not be required if historic growth rates are used for extrapolating the existing traffic data (segment volumes and intersection turning movement volumes)for the analysis years(s). - 8 - (c) Heavy vehicle factor of five percent in the urban area if data is not available. Major Studies outside the urban area will be required to verify the factor if not available from existing sources less than 1 year old. This method will be established at the methodology meeting. (d) Directional distribution factor(D Factor)from AUIR. (e) Peak-hour factor (PHF) for the intersections. This value should not be greater than 0.95. (f) Existing signal timing and phasing (to be obtained from the County with a hard copy provided in the report). The existing signal timing of a signal which is part of a signal system, including its maximum and minimum settings, shall not be changed pursuant to determination of adequate intersection or roadway segment capacity without the prior approval of the County staff. (5) Other parameters that govern the roadway/intersection capacity analysis shall be based on the parameters described in the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual. 11. TRAFFIC COUNTS All counts shall be conducted based on acceptable engineering standards. Raw turning movement counts (TMCs) shall include passenger cars and trucks and shall be provided for all Significantly Impacted intersections as agreed upon at the methodology meeting. Daily directional machine counts (minimum 48 hours)for all Significantly Impacted road segments as deemed necessary by the County staff for operational analysis purposes shall also be provided. If requested by the County, at least one of the daily count locations for each impacted roadway facility will be a vehicle classification count conducted for a minimum of 48 hours. The TMC data shall be summarized in the format similar to the example depicted in Exhibits 8A or 8B. The raw TMCs shall be adjusted using the most recent and appropriate Peak Season Conversion Factors (PSCF)published by FDOT or Collier County. The machine counts shall be adjusted using the most recent PSCF and axle adjustment factors. To the extent that any adjusted machine count volumes indicate lower traffic volumes than those adopted in the current AUIR, these counts shall be discussed with and approved by Collier County prior to use for subsequent components of the TIS. Adjustment factors shall be approved at the methodology meeting. The intersection turning movement volumes collected in the field indicate the throughput for every individual movement at the intersection and may or may not reflect the demand for the individual movements. If residual queues are observed for any movement at an intersection, the turning movement volume will not reflect the true demand for that movement. Approach counts will be needed for those approaches where the demand is exceeding the capacity and residual queue builds up during the peak hour. The placement of the approach count machine is equally important to measure the demand. The count machines shall be placed at a location where the queues would not extend past the count machines. The locations and need for approach counts will be determined during the methodology meeting or requested as part of a sufficiency review. The approach volume for the peak hour of the intersection shall be used to develop approach turning movement volumes based on the approach turning movement percentages. This shall be done for approaches with residual queue build-up during peak hours. The approach count machines shall be placed at a location where the queues would not extend past the count machines. In no event, however, should the estimated turning-movement counts be less than the existing field counts. Segment tube counts shall be done concurrently with the intersection turning movement counts where the segment is part of the intersection. The segment machine counts at mid-blocks shall be checked against turning-movement counts at the adjacent intersections. In general, the mid-block counts and turning-movement counts should not be substantially different unless the difference can logically be explained. Approved FDOT or County-maintained counts may be used for verification if they are - 9 - less than one year old in the high growth areas. Counts from a similar approved study may be used if the information is less than one (1) year old. New counts will be requested if there are recent improvements to the transportation system that may cause significant traffic diversions. Counts more than one year old from the year of the TIS submittal will not be acceptable unless otherwise approved by Collier County. The counts will be done on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays of a typical work week and are not to be done immediately before,during, or after a major holiday. 12. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH/FUTURE TRAFFIC The existing traffic counts shall be increased by a growth factor up to the project's build-out date (shall be reasonably specified) to account for increases in existing traffic due to other approved developments. The build-out year shall be in accordance with table 9.1. The estimation of the background traffic-growth rate and background traffic shall be based on the following: a. Historical growth rates (minimum of the past three'years) may be used in areas where the expected growth is representative of the past growth. (See Sample Exhibit 9) b. The growth/future traffic on committed roads that do not currently exist shall be based on the most appropriate adopted model, as directed by the County staff for each specific application. c. If the appropriate adopted model as directed by the County staff is used,the traffic growth rate for existing roads shall be based on the growth rate as determined by comparing the most recent, validated year, model volume to the future model volume. The future model volume is determined by applying the project's build-out year, socioeconomic data to the committed network. The build-out year, socioeconomic data may be obtained by interpolating between MPO's or the County's adopted validated year and the adopted interim or future year, socioeconomic data. d. The socioeconomic data of the model shall reasonably represent, if appropriate, the recently approved developments in the vicinity of the project as approved by the County during the methodology process. At a minimum, the build-out year socioeconomic data is to consider development approvals (DRIs, Planned Unit Developments or major rezonings) that may not be included in the model, a minimum of ten miles from the project boundary. It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to review and prepare the amended data set unless otherwise available from the County. e. The TIS will consider all vested development on the significantly impacted links and intersections. This information shall be obtained from the County and agreed upon at the methodology meeting. f. Minimum, annual growth rates in all cases shall be two percent, unless otherwise approved by the County. g. The assumed growth rate and method of calculation for each impacted roadway segment shall be presented in a table. h. Development of the future intersection turning movement count shall be adequately documented. (See Sample Exhibit 10) - 10 - 13. APPLICABLE STANDARDS a. The LOS standards for all major road segments shall be consistent with the letter standards per the County's latest adopted concurrency tables in the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). • b. Although it is acknowledged that Collier County does not have an adopted LOS concurrency standard for intersections of major roadways, the performance of intersections on the network is critical to maintaining the adopted LOS on the adjacent segments. As such,the operating LOS of significantly impacted intersections (the intersections as a whole, as well as individual movements)may be evaluated in the TIS using appropriate indicators such as volume to capacity ratio (V/C), delay, and ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization), with respect to the identification of any appropriate solutions or mitigation measures for the Existing, Base, and Future Scenarios. c. The delay for individual turning-movements and through-movements may exceed the segment standard by one letter grade, but not below LOS "E", provided that the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio for the subject movement remains less than or equal to one. Average control delays up to 100 seconds are acceptable for individual turning movements and through movements where the corresponding v/c ratio is less than 0.8. d. All other design and traffic operations standards as specified in the Land Development Regulations, Right-of-Way Handbook, Access Management resolution and other applicable County ordinances. 14. INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS The following additional information may be required: a. The Horizon (Build-Out) year of the project must be a reasonable date and in accordance with table 9.1. b. Tabular presentation of the LOS standard of all the existing significantly impacted roadways and tabular presentation of the LOS standard for the significantly impacted segments with committed roadway improvements. c. Graphical presentation of the existing and E+C link and intersection geometry with, storage lengths for turn lanes, speed limits and traffic control devices. (Sample Exhibits 2A through 2C) d. Tabular presentation of the date(s) of the traffic data collection and the appropriate peak season and axle adjustment factors used for adjusting the raw traffic counts. (Sample Exhibit 3) e. Graphical presentation of the existing link AADTs, directional peak hour volumes for the links,. and peak hour turning movement volumes at the intersections. (Sample Exhibits 2A through 2C) f. Tabular presentation of the approved traffic factors(K,D, T)for the roadway segments within the study area. (Sample Exhibit 3) g. Graphical presentation of the project's proposed access locations, types, and internal roads with connections to the County's build-out or long-range plan of roadways. The graphic shall also cover the area beyond the boundary of the project to include all the external, major roadways and existing or future, access points and types of developments surrounding the project as agreed upon at the methodology meeting. h. Pavement marking plans/concept plans of roadways that provide direct access to the project and have completed or are undergoing design or route study phase, if available. • - 11 - i. Graphical presentation of total (adjusted for internal capture, if any) and net new project traffic distribution both in percentages and number of project trips. (Sample Exhibits 7B and 7C) j The trip distribution percentages in the study network should add up. Any mid-block reduction in trip percentages shall be graphically depicted with adequate information. 15. PHASED DEVELOPMENTS The traffic-generation estimate shall consider the total traffic generation of the cumulative development (including traffic from previously developed or approved phases) for purposes of operational analysis. For purposes of evaluating mitigation needs, only the impacts of the traffic above and beyond the traffic from the previously developed uses or prior approved phases (where mitigation is already accomplished in accordance with the TIS guidelines)need to be considered. 16. FREEWAY/INTERSTATE IMPACTS Traffic studies will not be required to analyze the traffic impacts on interstate/freeways except at interchanges. Interchange analysis shall include analysis of exit ramp storage capacity, as would be the case with any intersection analysis, pursuant to maintaining safe operating conditions on the limited access facility 17. EQUAL MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Operational impacts of the development project traffic will have to be mitigated for intersections failing to achieve acceptable levels of service (as outlined under the APPLICABLE STANDARDS section). To mitigate the impact of the development traffic, a concept called equal mitigation will be used except as otherwise required by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Equal mitigation shall mean the implementation of an improvement that, at minimum, results in the reduction of delay per vehicle on each lane group at deficient intersections prior to the addition of the development traffic. Equal mitigation will apply to improvements such as extending existing turn-lane lengths at intersections but will require delay estimation through traffic simulation. Other improvements such as installation of hard-wire signal coordination and installation of real-time demand responsive signal coordination system such as SCOOT or equivalent intelligent traffic management systems (ITMS) may also be acceptable if approved by the County staff. Acceptable mitigation improvements will offset the impacts of the development without adversely impacting the below-standard movements as measured by, capacity and delay, and as further described below. Improvements will be deemed acceptable if capacity is added (through the addition of general purpose through-lanes, auxiliary turn-lanes, or ITMS options that are accepted by Collier County)that restores or improves the delay and V/C ratio to the level it was in the"base scenario." The developer shall only be responsible for the equal mitigation improvement; however, for informational purposes only, if equal mitigation improvements are identified at.any deficient location(s) that would result in delay being reduced to the "base scenario" but not to the acceptable LOS, then additional improvements that may be needed to bring the entire deficient location(s) back to the LOS standard, shall also be identified and reported separately. For example, an existing intersection is operating at LOS F with 120 seconds of delay per vehicle. After adding the project trips, the delay increases to 140 sec/veh. Providing a second left-turn lane reduces the overall delay to 120 sec/veh but the intersection is still operating at LOS F. The applicant will only be responsible for providing a second left-turn lane which brings down the intersection delay to the original level. If the left-turn improvement reduces the overall delay from 140 sec/veh to 100 sec/veh, the applicant will be required to pay only 50% of the cost of the left-turn lane improvement. However, the intersection still failing and the applicant will need to identify other improvements that would be - 12 - required to achieve an acceptable LOS E with a delay of less than 80 sec/veh. The design and construction of any mitigation improvements shall be in accordance with Collier County or FDOT standards, as applicable. The analysis of intersections to demonstrate the adequacy of an improvement to achieve equal mitigation must be based on a consistent traffic-signal timing strategy and must follow the steps below: a. Analyze the "base scenario" condition which would include the existing traffic plus the background traffic on an E+C network for the analysis year. For this scenario,the existing timing plan is required. If the signal operates as an isolated intersection, optimization of cycle length, phasing, and splits can be performed. However, if the signal is part of a signal system, any modifications or adjustments must be highlighted and approved by the county before finalizing the analysis and submitting the TIS. The choice of signal-timing methodology in this step must be carried consistently into the next step. From the analysis, an overall Intersection Signal Delay and an Intersection Capacity Utilization are reported by Synchro. b. The next analysis is to evaluate the total future traffic (background plus project traffic) on E+C network(future scenario). For this analysis,the signal timing plan in Paragraph 17.a may be optimized by Synchro. If the LOS standard is met, no further analysis is required. If the LOS standard is not met, further analysis to identify appropriate mitigation is required. c. The next analysis is to evaluate total future traffic on an improved intersection concept (future scenario with mitigation). The same signal-timing strategy used in Paragraph 17.a is required. If the overall Intersection Signal Delay and the Intersection Capacity Utilization are equal or less than in Paragraph No. 17.a, the improvement is considered to be adequate to offset the impacts of the development. d. Any changes to existing conditions, including traffic-signal timing or phasing changes shall be noted and highlighted in the conclusions of the report. e. If the developer presents evidence acceptable to the Transportation Administrator or designee that the required equal mitigation improvements are not feasible in relation to the development proposed, mitigation strategies at alternative location(s), other than the primary location(s), may be proposed and may be accepted if approved by the Transportation Administrator or designee. At minimum,the improvements shall meet the following criteria: (1) The location(s)must be within the impacted area and must be at or near deficiency. (2) The improvement must be other than simply a signal-timing or phasing change. (3) Mitigation must, at the minimum, improve the overall vehicle-hours of delay, intersection- capacity utilization, and/or speed of the alternative location(s) by the equivalent amount of the reduced vehicle-hours of delay, intersection-capacity utilization, and/or speed at the primary location(s). (4) The improvements must not already be, or in the process of being condition of approval of another development. (5) All the applicable analysis requirements for the primary location(s) shall apply to the analysis of alternate location(s). - 13 - 18. ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS An applicant may request alternative mitigation in the local area when equal mitigation fails to completely offset the impact of the development. Alternative mitigation recognizes that in certain situations it may be a benefit to the county and the traveling public to allow for additional forms of mitigation to be incorporated within the review and approval of new development and the redevelopment of existing property. The following items may be considered and approved by the Transportation Administrator or designee in conjunction with or as an alternative to equal mitigations as defined above: a. Donation of right-of-way for future improvements. b. Payments of an additional roadway impact fees set to fund future improvements. c. Installation and/or purchase of Intelligent Traffic Management Systems (ITMS) approved by the county. d. Participation in various forms of alternative transportation including but not limited to: the inclusion of a park and ride site into the development, the inclusion of public transit shelters, the purchase of a public transit vehicle and maintenance on an existing or new route. e. Commuter subsidies. f. Pedestrian connections. g. Interconnections with existing developments. h. Area wide system improvements to adjacent intersections and roadways that improve the level of service above and beyond the impacts of the proposed project. 19. FAIR-SHARE MITIGATION If the developer presents evidence acceptable to the Transportation Administrator or designee that the required equal mitigation is not cost feasible in relation to the development proposal, the developer may propose fair-share mitigation which must be approved by the Transportation Administrator or designee. The fair-share payment shall be calculated as follows: a. Identify all the needed improvements to bring all deficient locations back to the LOS standard. b. Submit a signed and sealed cost estimate of the required improvements as approved by the County. The estimate will include all costs associated with the completion of the improvement from concept to finished product. c. Calculate the fair-share cost of those improvements per the following formula: For Intersection Improvements A= MOE for Base Scenario(Background Traffic with E+C network) B = MOE for Total Traffic(Background plus Project Traffic)without Improvements C = MOE for Total Traffic(Background plus Project Traffic)with Improvements D= Cost of Improvement [Change in MOE from A to C] Fair Share= x Total Cost of Improvements [D] [Change in MOE from B to C] For example, if A= 120 sec/veh delay; B= 140 sec/veh delay; C= 100 sec/veh delay A—C= 120— 100=20 Fair Share= x Total Cost of Improvements [D] B—C= 140— 100=40 - 14 - 20. Construction Traffic Any development (minor and major) anticipated to produce construction traffic that would significantly affect the flow of traffic on adjacent roadways shall provide mitigation measures if requested by the County. The County reserves the right to make this determination and the applicant shall be responsible for providing details of the anticipated construction traffic volumes, hours of operations, and proposed mitigation measures and obtain approval from the County. At the County's discretion, the County may require all off site operational improvements identified and approved in the TIS to be in place prior to any on site construction. • • • - 15 - TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VII. CONCLUSION 7A TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for projects seeking Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and rezoning approval. The approximate 35.57 acre subject site is located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking the aforementioned approval. The approximate location of the subject site is illustrated on Figure 1. Currently, the future land use designation for the subject site is Urban Residential Subdistrict which allows a density of up to 4 residential units per acre. The proposed GMPA will establish a Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. Currently, a 15.38 acre portion of the subject site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD) which allows up to 107 multifamily units. The remaining 20.19 acres of the subject site is zoned A-Agriculture which allows up 1 residential unit per 5 acres. The proposed Allura RPUD rezoning will allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. The analysis in this report will determine the impacts of the proposed change in land use as well as rezoning to allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multifamily residential units. The transportation related impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and proposed rezoning will be evaluated based on the estimated build-out year of the project and the impacts the proposed amendment and rezoning will have on the surrounding roadway infrastructure. Access to the subject site is proposed to be provided to Veterans Memorial Parkway via a single full site access drive and to Livingston Road via an exit only. Page 1 • y }• t . 2r1 ,�.. c 1,0 .hj •r1 N ,S dA L Y .. . \4 / �� `AI �. srr r I • .! yY E ' ' ,•.,'\—.... •""-• ` •z " .• 4 1t� `'1: ?, "/ `ifs ' , mit " S'fi {;- t� i" +• il, rM�a j# ' S . 1 E: • .id r tet r4'� ti _`^-• '--f,' •/ pt • • .r- - �• `W - _... ' t .fie Tm. - -1...n.• Vir* >. A rC - i_ r M1 _ O075 j .l ' . 1 _ -_ uF.-. 11 , - 1 S w 1 \* anwr>' �n J r L r A.J• 4 !' r d v f. ' - PROJECT SITE ` '0 1 ,r •�.,� r .w.r4 1, ;,\ _•. * •,-, r. + ter 1 ; + •..-� ': arty '*.w w WO I. i _ y � a7"; ` i�v � If, , :* �. ..xt • ^ ' Y r. .. 1. y/ 4C-.5'. lj - fy 44.41,r."s to ?,�! .. .0., v ¢'"" {. 1"`•T - , " [Lk:• 1 it r ` ....I,:4..4. 'F-,-.1...4.--44-;', --"--..,-. +._- ------iii"` : `,�_ „} eft ,, ' ii,1� I /, { �i I ,.'.r``•.•�_ ` (1 i' •/$1(1 l ' d 7. ,�;,_• t ._ --'- r1i840 1 area'i� T ,+an.slf♦ • �} C 1x yi 2 f Llit - 1 r"rr i` , t '•t 2 •f' r•t T `� * �s,.. t. yt • ' � .... . A '..it Y�.i , ,tri r• 1:-t. .) R y"t�: i . :j 'at mom omit& - - • '\i S� _ :.fir �l l 2. r TT YF ;`r tD ls�. rU.i } ' m o ie 84 m kre a R, � .� 6 .• tx f t r a s z t 1. 1 <• �)-. >t !E_ �;:i i.: •aE ys t 'rt• ] t 1 - r 1 :� Vit •rte' 0 • a ` ____4 "- t*1..tP7t " t �I _ !a?a1r..a3.. ' c. ".-•1 Y -...��1► = . IttY'!.'wY_ '!' - - ir arr*', .. t, 'it �iT -.ti_ •1----- •.-�-i i t ?!•.t '1 .a ..._. . I£�_I.ti 1?"-_.. u t'l r TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LOCATION MAP TR TRANSPORTATION ONINC LIVINGSTON RD./VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST CONSULTANTS, RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 1 7/ T R TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Methodology meeting notes were exchanged with Collier County Staff via e-mail in order to discuss the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and rezoning of the subject site. The initial meeting checklist and the latest methodology notes are attached at the end of this document for reference. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the various roadways within the study area will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding roadways. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The site is bordered by Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the north, Barrington Cove Neighborhood residential uses to the east, vacant land to the south, and by vacant land and the North Collier Fire Station #48 and Livingston Road to the west. The subject site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA). The Northwest TCMA is bounded by the Collier/Lee County Line to the north, the I-75 right-of-way to the east, Pine Ridge Road to the south and the Gulf of Mexico to the west. Veterans Memorial Boulevard is a two lane undivided roadway that borders the subject site to the north. Collier County's 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) does not report any data for Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Veterans Memorial Boulevard in the Collier County's Needs Plan is shown to be widened to four lanes as well as being extended from Livingston Road to US 41. Collier County's Needs Plan is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. Veterans Memorial Boulevard, east of Livingston Road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Collier County Department of Transportation. Livingston Road is a six lane divided arterial roadway that borders the subject site to the west. Livingston Road north of Mediterra Boulevard is a four lane divided arterial roadway. Livingston Road from Imperial Street to Immokalee Road has a minimum Peak Hour, Peak Direction Level of Service Standard (LOS) of "E". The Level of Service Page 3 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Standard Volume for this segment of Livingston Road (Roadway Link ID# 51.0) is 3,000 vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction. Livingston Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Collier County Department of Transportation. III. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING The proposed Land Use Amendment would change the future land use designation on the approximately 35.57 acre subject site from Urban Residential Subdistrict to establish a Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict which will allow the subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. Table 1 summarizes the land uses that could be constructed under the existing land use designation and the intensity of uses under the proposed land use designation. Table 1 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Land Uses Existing/ Proposed Land Use Category Intensity 142 Multi-family Existing Urban Residential Subdistrict Dwelling Units (4 DU/Acre) Livingston Road/Veterans 420 Multi-family Proposed Memorial Boulevard East Dwelling Units Residential Subdistrict (12 DU/Acre) Additionally, a 15.38 acre portion of the subject site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD) which allows up to 107 multifamily units..The remaining 20.19 acres of the subject site is zoned A-Agriculture which allows up 1 residential unit per 5 acres. The proposed Allura RPUD rezoning will allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. Table 2 summarizes the land uses that could be constructed under the existing zoning category the intensity of uses under the proposed zoning category. Page 4 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Tablet Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Land Uses Existing/ Proposed Zoning District Intensity • Existing RPUD (15.38 acres) 111 Multi-family A-Agriculture(20.19 acres) Dwelling Units Proposed Allura RPUD (35.57 acres) 420 Multi-family Dwelling Units IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION The trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Based on the request from the Collier County, a trip generation utilizing the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation report was also provided. This data was provided for informational purposes only and is attached in the Appendix of this report for reference. Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise) from the 10th Edition of the report was utilized for the trip generation purposes of the proposed multi-family dwelling units. Table 3 outlines the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation based on the existing land use category. Table 3 outlines the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation based on the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning. The daily trip generation is also indicated in this table. Table 3 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trip Generation Based on Proposed Land Use Amendment and Rezoning Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Multi-Family Housing 36 104 140 107 69 176 2,287 (420 Dwellinu Units) Page 5 RRANSP TCONSULTANTSORTATION, INC The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate were assigned to the site access drives and the surrounding roadway network. The project traffic distribution was determined in the methodology with staff and is illustrated on Figure 2. Figure 2 also illustrates the assignment of the total project trips to the site access drives based upon the project traffic distribution. V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test. The trips generated as a result of the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning on the subject site was compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Based on the information contained within Table 1A, Livingston Road, south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard is anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed development. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 2A includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2017 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). A five-year planning analysis was also conducted. In order to estimate the projected 2023 background traffic volumes, the existing 2017 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2017 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2017 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2017 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2023 background traffic volume. Page 6 , orrimiraimmov _ _ LEE COUNTY _ N Alk COLLIER COUNTY W AI E ir r --- ,. ,\ S N.T.S. (107)36 I IS 1 rn I:: � 22(14) VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. ��68(45} o /1 1 j c- N 1 SITE _i L fid/ z ti14(10) 0 11w -----i z J -Q Nz..7...-_,- ;Vg-iCi -c s-N IMMOKALLE RD. 4 + y km7 (22) 40-30% 1110. (32)11 , + 1-20%.-1110. un LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC ♦20%-► PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ` TRANSPORTATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 1 7ATR CONSULTANTS,INC LIVINGSTON RD./VETERAMEMORIAL MPAR&A B URA EAST Figure 2 RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) g TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The concurrency analysis was performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes that will result with the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning from the 2023 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the net new traffic associated with proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning approvals. Based on the information contained within Table 2A, there will be sufficient capacity on all surrounding roadways, except on Immokalee Road, west of Livingston Road to serve the net new trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is projected in the year 2023 to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is considered as a pre-development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. Figure 3 was created to indicate the results of the concurrency analysis on the adjacent roadway network. As can be seen within Figure 3, a positive capacity is shown after the addition of the peak hour trips from the proposed development on all roadway links, except for Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road. Additionally, Veterans Memorial Boulevard in the Collier County's Needs Plan is shown to be widened to four lanes as well as being extended from Livingston Road to US 41. Should this improvement be constructed, the traffic congestion may be alleviated on Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road. Collier County's Needs Plan is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. The Developer is committing to meet at least two of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies listed in Policy 6.5 of the Future Land Use Element contained within Collier County's Growth Management Plan. Policy 6.5 is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. Page 8 LEE COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY W �- E 1,671 (1,635) S [1,647) N.T.S. 1.25% 0 N S VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. 0 1 N i SITE I d 1,671 0 (1,648) 6 /[1,602] z 2.32% J IMMOKALLE RD. 1\ -214 1,287 730 (-245) (709) [-235] (1,281) [716] 1.04% [052%1,271) 0.61% LEGEND 000 2023 CURRENT REMAINING CAPACITY (000) 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY W/AM PROJECT TRAFFIC [000] 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY W/PM PROJECT TRAFFIC 0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE �' RA2023 REMAINING CAPACITY ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED LINKS // TRTNSPORTATIONLIVINGSTON RD.I VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST CONSULTANTS,INC RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 3 // TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Based on results shown in Table 2A, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is shown to operate above the volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 in the year of 2023. Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element states that "each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards." Attached to the Appendix of this report is the Northwest TCMA report which shows that the Northwest TCMA currently meets 98.9% of its lane miles above the LOS standards. With the addition of the Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road insufficiency, the projected percent lane miles meeting the LOS Standard will decrease to approximately 94.8%. Therefore, with the addition of the project traffic to the surrounding roadways and based on the results of analysis containing within this report, the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning meets the minimum 85% threshold as described in Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element. Policy 5.7 is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS An intersection analysis was conducted utilizing the latest version of the program SYNCHROC to determine the operational characteristics of the signalized intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted by TR Transportation at the intersection in January, 2018, after the start of Collier County public schools. The peak hour turning movements were adjusted for peak season conditions based on peak season factor data as provided by FDOT in their Traffic Information Online resource. The FDOT peak season correction factor is included in the Appendix of this report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2023 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2023 background volumes {` to estimate the future 2023 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report Development titled p of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. Page 10 7/ T R TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The SYNCHROD summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2023 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "B" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. Turn lane improvements at the site access drive intersection will be evaluated at the time the project seeks site development plan approval application. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning is to allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multifamily residential units. The site, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2023 build-out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways, except for Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road in 2023 both with and without the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning approval. Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is projected in the year 2023 to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is considered as a pre-development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. In addition, the subject site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA). Based on the concurrency analysis contained within this report, the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning meets the minimum 85% threshold as described in Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element. Page 11 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Intersection analysis was conducted at the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The results of this analysis indicate that the signalized intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2023 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Therefore, no roadway improvements are recommended in order to accommodate the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning. K:12017l2 December'10 Della Rosa RPUD Zoning Comp Plan Collicr'4-12-2013 Report.doc Page 12 • APPENDIX . . _ „ . . „. METHODOLOGY MEETING NOTES } odimmimaiiiminso APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Location: via e-mail People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Stephen Baluch,Collier County Transportation, (239)252-2361 2) Michael Sawyer,Transportation Planning(239) 252-2926 3)Ted Treesh, TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., (239) 278-3090 Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: Ted Treesh Organization: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Address &Telephone Number: 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, FL 33901 (239) 278-3090 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name &Title: Stephen Baluch, Site Plan Reviewer, Transportation Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name &Title: Organization&Telephone Number: Applicant: Applicant's Name: Stock Development Address: Telephone Number: (239)449-5227 Proposed Development: Name: Livingston/Veterans PL20170004385 (RPUD) PL20170004419 (GMPA) Location: Southeast quadrant of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Pkwy Land Use Type: Multi-Family Residential ITE Code#: LUC 221 —Multi-Family Housing(Mid-Rise) Proposed number of development units: 420 Dwelling Units Other: N/A Description: Multi-Family Housing PUDA/GMPA Existing: Currently the site is vacant. A portion of the site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD). A Growth Management Plan Amendment will request the land use change from Urban Residential to establish the "Livingston Road/Veterans' Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict" to allow an increase in residential density from 4 dwelling units per acre to 12 dwelling units per acre. Comprehensive plan recommendation: Change from Urban Residential to a Subdistrict to allow an increase in density from 4 units/acre to 12 units per acre Requested: N/A Findings of the Preliminary Study: Project is anticipated to generate less approximately 212 net new PM peak hour trips. See the attached trip generation tables. Study Type: Small Scale TIS n Minor TIS ❑ Major TIS • Study Area: Boundaries: Livingston Road County line south through Immokalee Road (Links #51.0, 52.0 and 53.0), Immokalee Road east and west of Livingston Road (Links #42.1 & 42.2) based upon the Collier County 2%-2%-3% Significant Impact Criteria. Additional intersections to be analyzed: Livinston Road a Veterans Pkwy Horizon Year(s): 2023 • Analysis Time Period(s): AM & PM peak hours Future Off-Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation, 10'h Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: Pass-by trips: None Internal trips (PUD): None Transmit use: n/a Other: n/a Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: None Methodology& Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates: 2017 AUIR Site-trip generation: ITE Trip Generation 10`h Edition —LUC 221 (Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise) 1111111111111111111111111111Y •,, Trip distribution method: By Hand — 35% to/from the north on Livingston Road, 65% to/from the south on Livingston Road, 15% to/from the south of Livingston Road south of Immokalee Road, 30% to/from the west on Immokalee Road and 20% to/from the east on Immokalee Road Traffic assignment method: By Hand Traffic growth rate: From comparison of the 2010 & 2017 AUIR's Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location &configuration: One full-site access to Veterans Parkway Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On-site parking needs: Data Sources: ITE Trip Generation Report, 10°i Edition Base maps: Prior study reports: • Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES -: Study Pr a/ Reviewers • Applicant • .,.,,,,•:•:,..,,,,,7.04);4$;;a_ g:rte NPI:•Ve#A?tigtt.mmy,'.0 c:A. •,4.:i' ,"r:i It..: TRIP GENERATION LIVINGSTON/VETERANS GMPA/PUDA ALLURA Table 1 Trip Generation Multi-Family(Mid-Rise) ITE Land Use Code 221 Weekday A.M.Peak Hour WeekdayP.M.Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Multi-Family Housing (420 Units) 1 36 I 104 140 107 69 176 2287 { Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Description Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments,townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels(floors). Multifamily housing(low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing(high-rise)(Land Use 222),off-campus student apartment(Land Use 225), and mid-rise residential with 1st-floor commercial(Land Use 231)are related land uses. Additional Data In prior editions of Trip Generation Manual,the mid-rise multifamily housing sites were further divided into rental and condominium categories.An investigation of vehicle trip data found no clear differences in trip making patterns between the rental and condominium sites within the ITE database.As more data are compiled for future editions,this land use classification can be reinvestigated. For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available,there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 95.7 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. Time-of-day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the eight general urban/suburban sites with data,the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m.and 4:45 and 5:45 p.m., respectively. For the four dense multi-use urban sites with 24-hour count data,the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m. and 4:15 and 5:15 p.m., respectively. For the three center city core sites with 24-hour count data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 6:45 and 7:45 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., respectively. For the six sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents,there was an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and total dwelling units,an average of 95.7 percent of the units were occupied. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the five center city core sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.84 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.94 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.07 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.59 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 71 The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 32 dense multi-use urban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.90 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.90 during Weekday.AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.00 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.08 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 13 general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.56 during Weekday. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.88 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.70 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.07 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s,and the 2010s in Alberta(CAN), British Columbia(CAN), California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ontario, Oregon, Pennsylvania,South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Utah,Virginia,and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 168, 188,204,305,306, 321, 357,390,436, 525, 530, 579,638, 818, 857,866, 901,904, 910, 912, 918, 934,936,939, 944,947, 948, 949, 959, 963,964, 966,967, 969, 970 72 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2*Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) ,{rF • Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 27 Avg Num of Dwelling Units: 205 Directional Distribution: 50%entering. 50%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 5.44 1.27- 12.50 2.03 Data Plot and Equation 3.000 X 2.500 X X 77 2,000 X X X X r 1,500 X X X 1.000 X X X X XX 500 X X X X X 00 100 200 300 400 500 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:T=5.45(X)-1.75 R'=0.77 ler_ Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 73 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 53 Avg. Num.of Dwelling Units: 207 Directional Distribution: 26%entering. 74%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 036 0.06- 161 0.19 Data Plot and Equation 300 X X 200 X X X X X. X X X too X X X - X X! .. X , - X' X XX XX X X x 00 200 400 600 800 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:Ln(T)=0.98 Ln(X)-0.98 R'=0.67 74 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) ite- ( asommommis Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221 ) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 60 Avg Num of Dwelling Units: 208 Directional Distribution: 61%entering,39%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.44 0.15- 1.11 0 19 Data Plot and Equation 400 X 300 N n X X X X X 200 X X X X XX too X . X X X X X X XXX X X X X r x 00 200 400 600 800 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:Ln(T)=0.96 Ln(X)-0.63 R'=0.72 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 75 r ti r y z z z z z U) 0 r p., w e o e 0 e N 0 N -1 07 G tp 0 - r O r. O O u x • 0 X C O ^ en O I- J M C N N I- O U - W 0 3 r 0 No o N o ,o a r rn N N O d Q O t7 tb t° tN 7 O E w J 0 N O O a x cc W O f z p o CO C N p J N N ^ VI CC O Q > 0 o Z r H ik- r y e 1) e a° a° (n N u) N N 0 N O C N h O U ,• O fV O C U = ° cc Dtu LI CO ON J .- O ^z co 0 O I- 0 v > w 0 tu I- o oage 0 a (O N N Y1 U) co Q f w ° .-•o 0 0 o 0 a_ Q e LL 0 W cc d r J > a V 2 z - Q x x x a 0zzQ V Z z v= F 3 w - o a CO Q W r O j u'l CD Ill c C Q, r= O a= e e >° e Z L W O` O O LIJ m m t'7 to t�0 N CO K t a I- o aW Z Uz od o CO Fr re w zU U O e e e c ILQuZ N LI p pa cc a o W -J ut o 0 0 0 o O h O O to _ W 0 ai vi of vi vi O J )- a a N O o Q 0 0 0 O O O • J tO CO CO CO tO O U CC I- 2 Z it , w a o 0 o N O - N Y) Y1 O 0 W N r Z cc w n w W N N N N N N N I x 0 o 2 W > > ai a o co v. ^ t I U U W LL I F a a d CC CC c c I r I- c c t)o ° ° U U E. x w W w Z m u E F.c E Oj O > E j CC CC l'W 0 0 0 Q. a Cr to Z vi vi ui O O j x x Y Y O Q Q a t0 w W m { a a ° f a 2 a c m a a p3 ° CO I-- F Q C o E l. ! I-- I.- z J E E€ isiimmemmeammow =0 n C.G.C.C.C C --. "". s s:.m C:.C:.0 CLCCG.C C 3C.@C.:.,.C.SC:.vC.siSC C:9 C.CO3,+CC aY kS=F.s,bS .� S bSSek Sb�F•S &r.l:b5 � b ':�:.=F�3S+S.bS.ti G,F } �=•j *oo$: 1.• -r«:r.:424E222E72'222;?a433o2:222E"s1&^y422.*4:28 S4!V_ "i_a.7 _x?<W- r2' :7=_-::37 # - "a7-3:4!i$14$a ta-» t y Ttg▪a -- L t o?�"i L Si•1 �_ a. ry::' 21„2v aae -yr.�S _ �...r• .. e tEtk • 3aR99$.'3P.;'3R598, RLRk =:sz-.=,2t= ^ =oox _==c_5 = r gs e Al xtir3>`sJ=.:t xnt,I. x�1a=a :A$$. fATIX:7 1A.°rsViR! = 2 < 2 lA zz 2222,01-,2'.414 wv0 wvv.wv.a:aJZZZZ z_Zz<Z zz zzZ z Z ZZ ZZ_S 0 vw.x.• !{ .__..^.C:-_ss_.a s_....... w r S yy _ - 'x ._ ,4 1 Ili _,i 1„ a a a € v g 1U14 3..-a'tea-`-' ial$dal 31 33 21-P121`x4a s#a .f. 13'- - 2 yL� a`��3� 42� � tx3__ u3�a fi`a� t aE�f gg! 3 � � gS`m_ '� a'�-=�s1' a$:a"� .--§r,r' 1- do s -- Y :'q § s� s4 ,-�3e, 1r vj 3: E 8 H ”y�''s 3 E s 3 d, 3; Y 2ii 5 E = ^ .�=s1 33.'. 7:2 3 '33215 4. 11 Y.3 ` 2,,2, „ ±.9 ilt 1'S 'd =�o� 4 1aTj�.s-1 -__e_-- =1Y71"S>Ii $i? �5�l. mY.•S�ca_ - `t '`. _ 4ddg 3 z i'`n 3 3 d 2"1 i a 1±LL 1::1r" 1.y;7 E 3 E 4 "j :s��" d Yom? ��.�.�:�' �.�.33 �>•f ff ie4d �����3����s_�a���t1e�.� �� ilAitiii-=3i7.1:11_etttlAAAili4444t1WViVi;;; ;M.:eili 41 '12..;747, t Y i'OCYeC 1• Y YYT YTY Y] Y9CY 04 y.x1'YY x�[ YSa(Y]C Y^%OC Z Y K1KYK t iia2f 4 ? 4i ..i= az �4g,si`c , 2gaoa$ Z �;x.43 Ebb M2. ^ -.-.,.x•. ._.1.. =nix { t C1 i oda .. ? .. a.- anad3 AA'�yaa t-k44;i .:4F}4h4;.f :.': -;�6 41 :444S,L S�*r_•'zk;;^a Cry, - - , 11 C L „•3 c b a a z ' - •F ° .=.° ==r=s=Y=.3SSF'_R4= =8.'✓' s=s.Q$�SEi3====zz'z:;aga==a- ..'�Y :4 r'� �-:?pari.... F� �� $_�aY_-_-Fyl:� s3•T7 t..c c - - n n'-i.h;__ g21 s a x'Y .s� _qxs�-g-s %. =s���_a§;Ysx'-----:a:$��^$1'=g 1.t »$ 5� . _. fa �,Eiaa.S. qs. -�.'.: `s=_1131 -.._._..-.,----.___^ :s ;31 ..tw ..--.�5y m�..CCC_.v..y ... J.... C u.s..uy GQQQC:..•u u.u, x °,7 ac�ni � �y%`_a �...Sz3..:'�r. <..<.r.'ee»»Tf4-�Jx^.�=..�=�#7•^..3✓� � 113 4 m - -• n n . f Y 21 1313112 c ;3111-,1 aL Y 33x4-1413i43.4103• 9i YY _ 2'"-= n • S21=a";a is:.:sv4' s�y -1-47 @z es.�<Y 1sT,•i 1'.x ;d <> 4 S-2x v E > rt13r v.-_Q.. .id.:1:, a LZA t_3'�s ”., +a�.�..1:1•7 r 31::32 1 i 7:t.1 L se ` _ ;111 1 Y L S1_ :Y> lO 3 Y" 1 y !c 3'7 _- 1 1 F � q:11; i 48a411113jen SX'Ek5 s 3' -i9iYt af-ni$8Ui : - x 6 5 T ?:. 5ses Fri :, i:n': 3 i L i i S i , 7317111ir iiiF i - 133 11aa33131 :-33333 3333a33 n n n .n n n n n •.n n n n 21;;;;,,A7. 0.1!!! !!!!!!!!!!s - - _ ls 114;g1'-s l f, S-_ _ u n 3 x O K y - • - • r Y Y Y 1 Y ee>6'Y i! i n L X i•eS -3 n 4i iz;,-•f. aaa ai8iIa2sa3 a�e2.��?17x•1�nxr.i1n�. .- v` zx - -x e Et :::?Yi?xa “IfirAzr2�`s•J�X 3xvn:33n V,7. Q�t :`1#£8y$ik¢,11--,total MUNI3 $ �',' $ _ T c a'i'a e c c i i c o 2•'Y «M1€ .1711.• .a Al 21I,„ 444 .:a. sees- 4�i4 eooaoo - cee�a eeo�so� -ogaco- ».oq�=== 3 i'.;r7TiT..SI.^.3:711..rar;a;;^ ; ._,.;;^;z-zk;t:7<-3<x-,.?'?>S'i;;;;;_3 TABLES 1A, 2A & 3A r U z a z } z z z F 0 N I- m M e e (A In O .- r w O N h 0 W {0 J O O O u x o ! ! : : NN (0 C • r y O 0 CN0 N 0 O J O fV O O a x e ._ z w W = J N O ta- ^ r a O. 0 0 — z O r r N e e e e e Q N all N O W U O6 O • > cc U x ea 1— W j w — w co C I- N ? a- LO O ^ O 0:1r O > U cr) 111w O e e ¢ (0 co e e co h 0NQ a 0 Or vC7 U Cn O Orz 2 w J LL Z z a x e a W sw ct p O 2 Cl, Z > (0'I N N N — U W 0 O V i_ p a( r 1.- 0 W< 1) a z ooxCCxx O 0CC do Q U Q IX Z Ct wC 0 0 0 w U W ~ W Q o a J o z o m Q J 0 t•- O n r H mQ m U P oe e e e o zU J owOm LOI-i M N0 J Q o cc 2 I— x ZQQ. 00 I- - o UJI- Q z 0 0 to O w U W U g I- I- z n i er. w e ' LL W o o w m N in X Z g O. co zc. O rco Z 0 I- co o o $ . o 0 z W O coi n ci of vi 0 W a CO > too 000 00 °' 0 m 0 cc z Z r z 0 II II W >R N '- ? ? U' O) O O O to h N N07 O W O U, Z F- d. M = W N W CO CV G N N N N N a s w = Cr w > > co z 0. o n 2 m CO 0 0 R O O D O O I- /- y C C Y N 17.^0 0 I- ' w w Z m w E c O O E j j E w �_ a a cc re i x x CO z vi ui ui O 0 I I Y Y 10 Q Q D 03 LU W Cl. 0 X 0 x C ¢ a ..,-7; m m J J 0 0 0 > E E a 0 m - a N a d, a` r g. E, V 0 N O c u '1•:2-' a W ti • Q 4 W W W W z H LL Q Q )- >- ? T J e, U Q N T !- al b t2. '("1. ^ N .. F W W ^ U f -, LL Q K 1 at ato N O U W Z N W U 2 U .. ("I. o a Q Q br ;:,+ N a Z Q tu z v ^ O. a g w zz u O M K cc LL a, N r> O a G ~ U Q t; ; : : fVM / Z• p' cc, N N N N Q Q 0 w z U ^ ' P - N K IR 4 o 0 u Q Q U a U I-z f a) an a> m rn Z _5 g a W 7 N f J N N N Q Q O Q N N N W K d Y N J re Q N Le. QI co P M N E r. m N Z (� U w co N Q Q Q a r LL 0 m m ^O w N N } WCe 4 ¢ O ^ m r cv W V 0 < r > CO -Iz > c } o csi Q W Lu _i Q ^ E- m .J N 0 a' t, o - N v M Q Q a 0 U o0 s LL Z 0 it it 0 0 U W O O a 0 Q) li to N N N Y 22 a ` • (n r t6 Z 4 z i 0 x r e Q ° o 0 0 Q w E W 0 o z UZ z w ` E H ° 0a S o S $ vj Q n O ri vi n vi Q L Ce Z o Z W t1 O O O N '- m O = _ O N h w Y v Cn a a w ffi• n le _ m rn J U U_ N n c o gg i r. E E a 0 ccc tS N N a' N N N G C C N 8 :5- ).- �aT C.) C.) N o`, 1 c r'' D O O w > > E 0 -' o a 0 o o `o o ° cc K V) Z N U) w LL 0 0 O O I x• ¢Q Wo w N o a a > v Q ` N a s 0 51 0 co O O cc0 E J TABLE 3A ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2011 2017 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE Livingston Road Imperial Parkway to Immokalee Road 51.0 1,074 1,180 6 2.00% 1.58% Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road 52.0 1,667 1,610 6 2.00% -0.58% Immokalee Road Livingston Road to I-75 42.2 2,461 2,460 6 2.00% -0.01% Airport Road to Livingston Road 42.1 2,349 2,790 6 2.91% 2.91% All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2011&2017 Annual Update Inventory Reports(AUIR) •In instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or insufficient data was available to calculate •• a growth rate due to construction,a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0%was assumed. SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2017 AUIR "(tars of Growth) Annual Growth Rate(AGR)= -1 2011 AUIR 1,180 ")1,6) AGR(Livingston)= -1 1,074 AGR(Livingston)= 1.58% l. • 2017 AUIR REPORT .g....1 `p T. n'', F i '.i F. :. .'.: :. 2i_ L ' 4n. c,_ +' nn Srr9R:.3 S:.SS;.3 n.��^J:..7^::.2 nnr ... a@i.rr.0-S R. nn 4 % ie°4:Ig.44e Zi, e ' :444 :iii= ! lS eX?lz4elegie.gile_x, C. sEaEw:41.. 1 .. '7 -. = 333;.:.:;$ssi: .a171?21 '-4is21;i-- '3,:nx If fifii ±Yi : lp. moi'= _ 7:-5'F!'=iVii:-:!Si;+ii&iik ii '- i 111inifFiliIHigILMiiiH!!"ifiiiiinfriilii4iii g.', . .. . -s' PI "v'---•'R+° -73µz== =-53:. :a-...«...__;:£'''__::- : :A �'io as:�:< tq t d .'1. _: “ - t- a ...i. -ani= t t- i '�=?.,.3tss»-g-i ,,e. ,41 - i-,y- c#i.c.z. _Y.2..� '- 3pit =.-�3.'.rya:.ar.R7sRiIiEssgn - ics 4.1E-gR:p4::- s, .=? ='3« -�3$ - -. 1▪ -.3 / 5.1f,-H �_ic5:.!Uf:11 isia.xsa_=E s?44";,7.7`,!;1“R,F1,7I 4 1 'Hs^A23 iY--=F 3 r-.7 i- F T.3i--.3.7, FMJ._ F S-Fi lil a;Y�_'1_ _ :.s. { 5;i FRFiii ARA=P2Mst ”;!! 7::;23V1 6 -:igi =c-_. -_ -1__. 2t- •%r,E= ---.33..,-. .a- . ..« _-4' c E !� ' _ _ _ "s a; _ a:211 t.:1.`"11F5 a al_ _-'E Z: L rc cRR.1�.7,;s': 3 I r ; R,tl �_--..«..__ _..�� ..... ...1-: .. w...-..-.,...4.— -4-,;... r- ..1 1 C21 Z z z z z z A..Z M r.....u„ .a z z z z z.z z.z z z z z z z z z z z z%u ¢'c a. • x -:RJ...'.C__--r.7=^D^J ata a:3RD=:•.a:asmn..z2== 1cmu:u Amz 2z=a dY.Fi 2 7 3 7 sk s.7 $'ew faii5..1s.'.£sall5.11111;+,r.^9a^a'a2F321a17 ii1- E 7 - 3is : a: =- l ta„ 1il :3 ' ; _ 41=7-17,1-1,,,411. _ R' SYixrx3n aw ! , 3l �a= < �� 3i -41 44 62 Ea 31_ 5 : 0:1ji . ai - :-ig °1a '-' " 154:.1i1fy! ; n ' 1x4!9x_.ArALI>14 >116111Ys:Wj- , F 443 i _ia ; � ce? 4i _- f ] )1 '' ' +! - DIP 3ss-1i 33 ; `I ; if: `7yi -: e3P- . :i $I ; - 1i31i = .1,41t413.:4;21474 < - i5-'.t =1;; ' --;1� ��-4; tt:r l>�ta4� a i21 3 1 ~ ! t15i13di'c4_i� Aq�< 4Jiib!!)=3L6 =AY`i3s3i= -- , .t i P1101111111 J _ _ .1 t i i l i i-s i 4 i i i a 7 1 1 a ' * i i IZ j 1 i Y 9 z i j 1 7 7. _ °a '� 2441.14.4 3 3_x.3.3 =sa c'2i -'-i?f, 6 E i�3 3 i i i< 4. 444 IIP ill ;l'Z a L i 'i t a l 4 j i. 'a-', 1 'a i 's i'n _ _i 4 `a "a 2 3-5 A111,11.111ir:!1777:,7,7f7= 11 114 1 Y4-:Thli Y Hiiii Y3G=iiY Z i4; aP4 'AW1:1I;!!:,E8 `l Yinrt Ett '3 3'atliti a>; a89 _sfi3$al33iit/it,ffwii$_a$ inti ilii a1 --= -- _ — 4,...i7 =Ill . -:... ....s.>- -:.3_77:7. _ =r- _ - - - 1 • .:0-. , • • . . C: 4q,G'J s s:. .sa r..r L L r_r..n,... s.,..,,==s s mmmC.:.m Lq.0:.r.====:,L L_.. t 4'*. , {fix::=4e_'s x:i,'°: s.4: € '_°+:s°g444'40€ig: a4 g44 ',;ia c . .. =.. ;Y.;.;<<'°�iF:._ 33.:ti92 :iaa� �« s :f�YX:70. � : ; 4 ��X E,41 Ei.;E :Pi an,#IX M'iiiiII,c_Fit=0, l4:s'r.42:4:I_4_ -9=_xgi t' s - �'T _ ..1 _ .:M"£ .t=_#. fi=zi _l ?R;3R3 =sa.pii2:-JtH _3x...n ;af cs, 1 �- 1 A7 °s 3==-7 3 x x i.,=`-.n _-t.7- x-x 7-_=x 1._:.x-`.'a S's =x==- " E '-# .i. _ii _s i-3_. ...44i 6 -.IVA" -- - - 4 :73- . .-...:e _..-...f-7. - _ - 5-__fin= - 11 ( Vi�tt 11 :1 P.''3=2451.3=_S,3 9:a:.7-sn=3§3 €i3S'x=_{£S?_ _ gaaaS_ 4a4 °c£> _`31 _!;'- =.:. 4_x"- <7'_2.14,5sss_3tit_=s€33S:3e�.a7_a5_ � '.Z,«.`«D. .“.--T2, F,:_= i ISF :.";21{4. z=- =-2"4!!#:g"ss3a:a? Mt"1+t'•ilHI. 7=.. 3 s i l t:. .iii=n n!--I=R• ,• _^•S.f?113 F ' - "I- !i 11.1 ”"1" ,1,5:11!"-_" ; a---=' "«« =�fs�s�asa::�'.::.�:M_-_�...kw A 11 _.,4,,z22.,72zwrzwwzw-ay.s S3363zzz•<zzzz .gw....cw......zzzzz ' . 13 w Z ax x w.c C C_r_.r x.a=a.L L L L L Z w C w w w:Z C=C Z___a s w.Z Z L C L w a w w w 1 `,f -i: 3ii.,w $73= :7 � 41.14 7.17,.... 67..Ro.'ee13399,si5IFal.lilin.Aa • ' ' sarwlz x 3. 6` 3sy1313311' 91114 �-> i, 1 li . • : 3 .a7g 1„1;4:1.11.i s 011 1a3114 £a3' i .1:3;;1 " 4324 34 -ta5 $ a * tic 3 ( r is� a - gAiT; :: 11; J;; 4' " Yx _sYY ?121s+ �Vlt rtfS} 4sYY :a3 j1ia � _ .< __ LCL.1,. YaY_.9:. ,....<._,..1,... ,.,.., .. _ 4 _ Ry a 1 $ y :IV 6 i4 1 _ i 3 - 7$ 1'01114 11, 7' ' "1 431 1131111,!Ilam ei�il3 ' Y111 l7 4i1=s110 33 =';-3_' 3a - ;fi, a:Fl3i si3_i/�1 a-, s< < -L- 3 tw i �,�Fi. '.jvfl=i z3� ?;'34<1=�_J � �1� ztttI e..0;: tS;Y.:443 i /131 aalailll c is f9 31iY �aj,jsize 3 . 331aa1 ijil�a as ��, �ii�i a a a l 1“ 4 3 i i- , C a Y a a s 7t1:'77/113 I i i E i a t i i 1 i 1 1 3 W1♦ 4 "x��.Yl43333�3i3i1.! iyy _ Gp ; sa 1- j} ?t N 1 1- Y s 1 3 1_1 1_ F£.F.F.F..�: Fr d i i i i 1 1 1 1. 114H1, 1 . . “; 7;1.11 E�jj/1( �+�3Y i1 i0flyy44441 " 49" '� . t 2#r S;.L YYY�Y33 - -.i..'l.'/.3 f.Yt HI i.: "fpli fi$$.0,533.1 lAYYE£ YY33S;2' 3,.773775 I �Y V HE • Yvr rSr3LYttrYY . .Y.'.Y.! 3.rr I i _;i a33iF1s3Ef Itaa 5-gM;rni$a§ S ,,.==:9 :.£-"'l . .c .3 227-7-7;----P111 <,5# 7.$.44 _ i59;.7$1:.'t:.7�'.,;T7'2:11711.Z71:SA.......:.-�.£a'>x x.:0a a3gi!'i'?r^.SS:-= I 1 COLLIER COUNTY NEEDS PLAN & PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS ATTACHMENT "H" f 1 • a.le.6a.*W..le.la.,M ler I Irl f" .a" . a1 'u:. 1 2311 Sheet SW 9nr*ky•Keane Avema Golden G*e0)dilMld E6Wtad 244n CdNd.. 401661 9.4 2 Mnpal Prang Rad Vardorb.e Beach Road )menoka0.R084 SCR OR) &lar»Diad.Anal 132 Hoa 28 97 Bald Eagle Dr Caber Boulevard San Mauro Road a lanes 100 feet 1.3 3 8ofia(d Road Tama nn Trail Fool(US 41) Wilson Boulevard Eatem.00 4Lua Decided Antoni 200 him 7 6 4 Camp Kean Rad 04 Well Rad(CR 6581 ImmOka)6 Road ICR 8461 4-Lana Deeded Menai 200 fast 5 7 5 Corker Bo4evad iCR 9511 Gold.Gate Caoal Green Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Medal 132 feet 2 0 6 CR 951 Extension Imm.lmtee Road(CR 646) Heritage Bay Properties 4-(.008 Divided Mena) 120 feel 1 5 7 CR 951 EaMNion Homage Bay P087404a Leo County 1(0. 2-Lara Mani 00 Hal 1 5 8 Er7egnse Averle A.rpoa Plmg Road Luurgstan Road 4-Lan90iudad M6ra.Co0acar 145 feet t0 9 Everglades Boidevard Golden Gate Boulevard immal4lee Road(CR8461 4-1 ane°ended Menai 200 feel 63 96 Everglades Boulevard Intresule 75 5-75) Golden Gale 4-taro Drnded Mena) 200 feet 5 3 10 Florida Tradepof Bode and Now Markel Road 5R 29 Loop Road 2.Lane Arterial 700 feel 2 6 It Gordan Gate Bodo-mad Wilson Mammrd Cason Boulevard 1-Lane Owned MaOa( 165 feel 5 8 12 Corollate-Frank Road Orange Bbssom Onve VaMoO.))Beach Rad 6-Lara()ended Man.) 158 feel 0 5 13 CoedleflaFrank Road Vandar0d18each Rad Immoka)ee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Ment 49.158 feat 1 8 14 Green Bo,avard EAaaan West Livingston Road Santa Barbara Banana 4-lane Derided AAenal 156 feet 2,0 14a Gree Boulevard Eot.man Weal Over Interstate 75 0-75) 4-Lane Dundee Mani 200 feet 0 2 15 Grein Bo)evard Santa Barbana Logan Boulevard Smarm Boulevard 4-Lane Guided Collector 100 feet 1 0 10 Green Bowavard Ed)1801 Ave SW Gelber Boulevard(CR 95)) 2301 Street SW a-lans Omded Collector 148 het 2.1 .. I l Green Soule..Est)1601 Ave SW 23rd street SW Even4lades Boulevard Dane CelleMor 50 feel 6 0 18 Inena1e 7511.75) Collier Bou)ovm0(SR 051) Golden Gale natant 6-Lane Fuaway 3601661 13 19 Reroute 7511.751 Golden Gate Parkway Pro Ridge Road(CR 8961 5-Lane Freeway 360 feel 2 6 enervate 75 Ii-75)74.Occupancy Vahnfes 20 (110V)lana Pane Ridge Road(CR 606) Lee County Line 4.lanea hurried Access 160 7661 7 a 21 tmmdule.Road(CR 8461 01 Well Read(CR 8581 Shady Hollow Boulevard 6-lane OiwdW Marla) 180 feel 14 22 blunaalse ROW(CR 0461 Shady Horace,Boulevard Camp Kean Road Mane Divided Menai 120 lee) 17 2 23 umnokalee Road(CR 8461 Camp Kean Rad Eustis Asenu. 4-Lane[lauded Adana) 120 Tart 2 5 24 ennmealee Road(CR 8481 SR 29 Mrpant Boulevard 4-Lane 0lwded AAM0( 120 feel 0 a 1 25 tmmokal0.ROW Eweraan Camp Kean Road SR 29 2-Lane Condor 00 feet 2.7 26 Keary Avenin 23Al Street SW bet Road 2-ane UndrMed Mina Collector )S-124 feel 0 9 263 Keane Avenue tro.Road Wrt6an Bou,evard Extension 2-Lane Undivided Mira.Canner 16.124 feel 2 0 21 1:016 team Rad eke Tedford Rood SR 62 +taro Omelet!Arsenal 140 feel 4 I 28 Logan Bonevasd Gee.Boulevard Pine Ridge Road(CR 890) &Lara Owrdal Adana) 112 feel 2 0 29 Loan Boulevard Pne Rate Rood(CR 808) (mmakale.Read(CR 641 4-Lane Oudot Major Collector 148lat 4 2 11 Massey Snarl VardelGK Beath Road Invoolal.Road(CR 840( 2-lane Collector 80 feet 2.0 32 Nur Gordan River Ceasing Good1Oe.Frank Road A.roar1 Plating Road 4-1606 Graded Minor Collector 102 Hat 2 3 323 Now Gordan Riser Bedge a1 Gordon Riser a lane mesad 0 40 Midge 95 feet 0.4 Entranced 2-ran Carded Maier 13 Northbrook.,Once Inmakalee Road(CR 5461 r.ln to and 00 putt.Nand-way Colleges 60 reel 2.1 14 Old U541 Taman Trod North1US 411 lab Cousin lane 4-Lasa 0hlded Mane Calmtor ISO feet 15 35 00'Nag Road(CR 856 Everglades Oa:dewd 00 Well Grade Road bran Divided Menai 216 I.) 3.9 16 Oil Web Rad)CR 858 Ave Man.Fi ttance Camp Kean Road &lane OMded Mena) 200 Het 1 0 37 Orme Blossom Onus Airport Puling Rad Lmngsun Road 4Une(leaded Malar C98.d01 102 feet 0 7 30 Randall Boulevard lmmokalee Road(CR 8461 Eveglades Boulevard &lar*0evided Adanai 1801ee1 34 39 Rardae Boulevard Eva:4lades Boatman Od Wee Road(CR 850( &lana Ornded Adana 1601p) 3 0 40 Rabiosrosa Hammock Road 1.01u6n Trail Ease(US Ill Santa Barbara Boulevard Ertmu.on IMAM Ow14a1 AAenal 132 feet 3 8 41 Ratdesnake,Hammodk Road Extensi00 Coder Boulevard(CR 9511 Benfield Road En 2-Lane Collator 80 feet 1 3 42 San M,rm Road(CR 92) Calker Boulevard Tanana Trad East(US 41) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 102 feet 11.5 43 Santa Barbara Boulevard Painted Leaf Law Green Boulevard &Lane DOM.Arial 132 feet 17 at SR 29 Mhrsute 75(1.751 Immakalee Road Edens/on 4-Lane Divided Mend 200 feel 14 8 45 SR 29 immokaie*Road Eadensan )mmokalee Road(CR 648) +Late Dauled A4W)et 200 fen 5 0 45a SR 29 0181 Street Inenakal.Onva 4Lalr*Madrid AM1anai 130 fed 0 9 46 SR 29 Im6akalee Onve New Madret Road North 4-1.ar•0hldnl Anand 130 feet 1 I 47 SR 29 New Mann ROW No l.0.113 County lura 4-Lana MOW Medal 200Ian 5 5 40 SR 29 Loop Rad Immokalee Road ICR 8401 FTo.da indepbn eouleyard 2lena ua 64464 arterial feel 2 4 1 49 5R 29 Loop Road SR 29(South) Imm.kalee Road(CR 64) 5-Lane Meru( 300 feet 3 3 49a SR 29 loop Road Florida Tradepoi Boulevard SR 29(Nah) 4-Lane Carded Adna) 200 feel 5 5 50 SR 82 SR 29 lee Corny lea brat*0Mda1 Anneal 192 feed 7 0 51 SR 84 Mama B.4ovord) Mrporl Puffing Road Sana Barbara Boulevard &Lal*Oiwded Atonal 132 het 5.0 52 5R 951(Collier Bo4evardl N of Mateo)sand&ldge Tower Rad &ane GMrded Arterial 132 feel 7 0 53 Trmram Trail East(US 4 t 1 Cadler 80.4yard(CR 951) Gr<eeway Read 8-Lane°kneed Menai 200 foal 3 0 54 lanes.Trml East NS 41) Gramma,ROM 6 L's Fawn Road +lar*Dented Menai 200 feet 2.5 55 Trade Center Way Extension Anglo.Pulling Road Lungs-ton Read 2-lane Collator 60 ole: 1 0 56 Tree Farm Road Cake,Botdnerd(CR 951) Massey SI 2-tane Collector 56 teal 10 57 Tann Eagles Boulevard buns.. Vanderbilt Beach Rd Imnakal a Road(CR 648: 4-Lone Carded Cdlacta 150 ken 2 0 58 Vandenan Beach Road Tamumr Trail North(US III Aimed Puling Road flan OMded Arsenal 132 feet 2 1 59 Vandemdl Beach Road Colo,Oouiaw14(CR 951) When Boulevard 4-an Cabled Adman 2001661 5 0 59a Vanderh8 Beach Road Wdson 80ulevard Desoto BoOcvard Ranh 1-Lan.Div.ded Anew) 200 feet 5 7 60 Vanderbilt Cove Waging Pau Road Barna Beach Road Enhanced 2-Lane Muir Collector 100 feel 2 7 61 Veteran MI1m0rtal Boulevard Tamount Ttal MUM(US a II Livingston Road 41.00 owned Menai 150 feel 2.6 63 Wink-lox Road Lule league Road West of Carson Road 2-ane Collector 58 fed 0 9 84 WNppna004l lam Green Bateman(Wluoneonarii Way Pira RKgp Road 2-lane Coded» 58 feel 04 65 Wrote Boulevard CoO..r Bonnard(CR 051) 3101 Street 5W 2-Lane Derided Collector 102 feel I 2 4-taro Inroad Medan Badge(22' Median)with 4'One Lams and B 856 Whin Boulevard Budge wast 01 31s1 Street SW Saawa)ks 0 2 88 Warm Pass Road Vanderbilt Dore Samna Tad Foot(US 411 Enhanced 7-Lane Mala Called» 12 feet 10 67 Wilson Boulevard S Wilson BouHwM Edens on Golden Gate Boulevard 4-lam Mita Arsenal 150 feet 5.4 00 Wilson Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard lmmokalee Road(CR 8481 4-are 0wided Adana) 150 foot 3 2 65 Wilson Boulevard Eat f While Lake 81.2 Cad1.r 9046,6.8(CR es U BenOald Road +Lam Dueled Adewl 130 feel 1.2 10 Wes.Boulevard Eat I Blaen Bum Rd 8.14414 Road Wilson Boulevard +Uva Drc)eed Agana) 130 feel 3 7 71 'Node Road VoMafbi6 Beach Rad Caller Boulevard(CR 951) 2 Lam Cdlego) 58 fon 0 7 17 Cnncal Needs 10101 ec.a Imnakata Road(CR 6461and laymen)n)Tml East_NS 41) uncle point urban Interchange 73 Gina(Needs Imenec0on Imm0lalee Road(CR 8461adli0ngslon Road single pontubse rnterc)rone 64 Cnanl Needs I01ersec0on Iolak4(00 Road(CR 848(and Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 single pool uban interchange 75 Cnecal Needs!Metuchen Immolator*Road(CR 846)and Ranlali Boulevard saran para urban 0000261090 76 Cntica)Needs Indenaclron Pro Rdge Road(CR 806163 AOpel.Pu0rg Rad angle pant urban interchange 77 Critical Needs Inhnectan Pro Ridya Road(CR 096)and Livmgsan Road suq)e 704111 urban Interchange pada,cbvereol mlarcharge oath 2 78 Cauca Nests)Merseg.a kdanule 751.1-75(and Colket 0alerard(CR 951) loop amps 79 Cnual Needs I0ensac50n nderstafe 75(1.75)and Everglades Boulevard °amend Inl.rcturge 0a 010ul Needs)reerseckan Theism(Trail East NS 41)and SR 29 Sgruktanon-6)ast arm assemby a I Cntroal Needs IMasecton !amain.Trail 8101(054 t)and Colkor Boulevafd(CR 9511 angle par*van Interchange 82 Geta)Needs Ippaact.an Oases Boulevard(SR 541 and Anion Pulling Road setae punk u9an)Merclulale 83 Cnecal Needs IMaruw0n Golden Gala Parade!and lwugsta Road sing%pant urban interchange 54 Cn5Oai Needs 1ltenec500 Taman Tran North(US 411and Golden Gate Paaway single pant urban ln)a0Mang0 98 Cn6ral Naas Intersection Tanana T)ad 1061 NS 411 ow)San Marco Road(CR 971 single porn)urban mtrclun e 85 Bang.1 23.1 Strati 5W orf block Noah 0(Yarn Boulevard 2lane Bridge Construction 107 fret 85 Br doe 2 160,Street NE.'total of rph Aroma NE Dodge Construct on 55 reel ATTACHMENT H iJ1i New Ew.e a'br�.n:m21 IA1RtOKAIEE RD E " NqM. !TCW i\tiETP1AP linage Y a7ln Ase.NE F'e{E RglanalsE ., -` Amon RuaO Nan Etpx ed ROWFY201t �YS411a IM O! ?Urn Y.ten+e 6ira Oe'ken12'ttb l(13y men, De f 1.101u~�M AMORE SOlA1AaEAlp1 RO O ngt P/7031 toy Oercnl Cwtaaucom¢FY2022 yew ren spereeS Year E.prct2T y LL, M 211 Oat ant 2021 InlwNCp0.11mptaawnaMa W fin ny TWA ♦ Oea9n.FY2019 t. z Immesabe951 ROW.FY2020 Yes Eagwa Oehaent 2917 f Y rE • �. � , kfamaaron 12019+16) Comma-Pats FY2022 nbmlmain dtPO►rwRF D•tx 9223 t. ..ti i , '9' m abm slS f.eNlq. elMheeY TCW `�'9a 1 u. Ira tElyFarftWoodciest OA'A'Eu eO Pam.*St.eawtq `: amLMe� is I (By Duaral y°� i Thum.%t OEdOEA1T2O11 > , M1A''''''EE N_AD � y I fAaatarrt:®n. C 1 I ween L4.vo - mnnn+sa'ae Rad 11111k... wreK 1MNtMMen Pa ettee.ai em se RE Randalntanecwn —.- ... Vallee le eta • f I- F'DSEunmc,l a7 CrN1lIK1aEY:':n s O. L'prndpr Studyvnds+May arM .4h Er�lllt'6EA.:M RD a 111.C.PO ERT 9 14ISep*tea a ; 1 8+tlgq M 1lr!h St NE t1 Sa�FYMetS a e GCaOEn¢aTE&'N ��� O OanylC �t:nc:2019 ran G FY]019 n a r anaq v4 T ROM:M921 Inver Cmamucwn URw Consmucton 0 CMtW11pNw Fol. E 2 RG a Year_a.oecsaa pM en 2027 MApe kits FY2016 d WO LL a ,rs 11 Towfaoecaa 'a q a pati/�'= Ga'snabaAm w Ent Coma TCW 3 pws2or , 3 levo Rtxx.forn�lasnataamn Ent t X Feetwa7YlcVA S��' 0prata jaq Uy,y ,a„ Raaexarm Rxr:ve Com7euw+net S7 at� kpncaak.Ra av WWan Can She. n Year Caaletxmn FY202f 12073 x Eealf�plal you., 1 +. RAZ.;ap= _ Deuce Pam -` ROWCeewe0/_St sPataattax s_„dr/ROW fine le .J 3 �t a ,OtheGala r R ..atasaw Fru* eJ 1 leyo6,.nr __ ! qL tYnnru8lxtnntrn EeYc0ealYheee s 31 Mts.Seeped IFb Oleenl y 1' A ti Study<ROW FYIOtS !mane,Len ImpnlvotrmMa IF0O17 } Adv RITY Onagn.FY2021 .e�w _ I MTTVE9wNE ,"t FY2021120:2 ROW FY2016.2gM 4� MAcnapf.K Rp Constmcgan FY2021 Yep Eapaexd 0er:2025 AI flatten fY2010.FY71740n21 t Y¢ar EapectsW Dea0enl y $p 2023/S CwmYTCN!A �.t- -1,,,r ala [ 1 YearEspastmoar t202t Legend `9. j i Cmmnw n Man;m Cap ac ty C'Mancamanl p.eia, Bowes ' .ae'0a1Tc1N Year Eapea¢o a6wn1 2520 Eeieen0 Deficiency f/I'\ Wean m 6{n;POSE Funded It NUN \//�.r1 • �. Pursue Stat.Fundm+0 I �Pr01aaI MFasncyy 5to tS s S wElr.ireoawN 203x —PIMe¢1W Deficiency 10 Venn 1 istw dRal tCEA �a4 11T cMN1cEAeoundary 1 v.e Enacted OMwY 2032 i ,,,f Canto.to Moneta 1 t i I I 9 9 i I 1 s COLLIER COUNTY NORTHWEST TCMA REPORT TCMA Report Collier County Transportation Concurrency Management System PkH r-PkDlr tri Lana Mlles @ AUIR ID Street Hama From To VUC Ratio Length /Lanes Lane Milos VCO 1.00 Northwest TCMA 98.0 Tarmamr Trail Nonh Lee County Lno Wiggins Pass Road 0 71 1.67 6 10.0 1002 99.0 Tamramr Trail North Wiggins Pass Road lin mokalee Road 0.94 1.52 6 9.1 9.11 100 0 Tamraml Trae North Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.75 1.51 6 9.1 9 06 1010 Tamiami Trail Nath Vanderbilt Beach Road Gull Park Drwe 075 I 26 6 7 6 7 58 102.0 Tamiami Trail North Gull Park Orion Pine Ridge Road 0.61 1.44 6 8.6 8 64 109.0 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulrshore Drive Tamiami Trail 0.71 1 34 2 2 7 2 68 110 1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail Gocdlette•Frank Road 0.61 1.87 4 7.5 7 50 111,1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.64 3.22 6 19.3 19.30 114.0 Vanderbilt Drive Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 0.48 252 2 50 503 115.0 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road 11119 Avenue 0.46 1.49 2 3.0 299 117.0 Wiggins Pass Road Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 0 45 1,05 2 2.1 2.10 1.0 Airport Road immokaiee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0 57 1.97 4 7.9 7 89 2.1 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.68 1.53 6 92 9 18 23.0 Goodletle-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.95 1 80 2 3.6 1.60 24.1 Gaodlehe-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Or. 0.59 068 4 35 3.52 24.2 Goodlede-Frank Road Orange Blossom Dr Pine Ridge Road 0 65 1.53 6 9 2 9 18 39.0 111th Avenue N. Gullshore Drive Vanderbilt Drive 0 43 051 2 1 0 1 01 40.0 1111h Avenue N. Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 0.48 1 00 2 2 0 2.01 41.1 Immokalee Road Tamiami Trail Goodletle-Frank Rd. 0.66 1.47 6 8 8 884 42.1 Immokalee Road Airport Road Livingston Rd, 0.90 1.96 6 11.8 11.79 51.0 Livingston Road Impenal Street Immokalee Road 0.43 3.11 6 19.8 1915 52.0 Livingston Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.53 1.99 6 120 11.96 53.0 Livingston Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 048 2.21 6 13.3 13.26 63.0 Seagate Drive Clayton Road Tamiami Trail 0 57 0,48 4 I 9 1.93 64.0 Pine Ridge Road Tamiami Trail Goodielte-frank Road 067 0,50 6 1.0 302 65.0 Pine Ridge Road Goodleite-Frank Road Shirley Street 0.70 067 6 4.0 4.05 66.0 Pine Ridge Road Shirley Street Airport Road 0.87 0.81 6 4.9 4.88 67.1 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.86 2.09 6 I 12.56 1256 2.2 Airport Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Rd. 0.65 2.92 6 17.5 17.51 41 2 Immokalee Road Goodlette•Frank Rd Airport Road 0.84 2.47 6 14.8 14.81 42.2 Immokalee Road Livingston Rd 675 0 71 1.78 7 12.5 12 48 62.0 Old US 41 US 41(Tamiami Troll lee County line 1.09 1.57 2 3.1 0.00 110.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodie5e-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.70 1 2.40 4 9 6 958 111.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Rd. Logan Blvd. 0_74 3.11 8 18.7 18.63 57.68 I 268.72 285.58 Total Lane Miles: 288.7 Lana Mlles 4=1.0 VWC: 285.6 il.0 Rain cased woe raer:rant nai tang Treat taums•tnn Simi•fain Veiled t-ps Percent Lane Miles Meeting Standard: 98.91. MASTER Attachment F.201710906171•Ism • I 1 t i fiI 1. TR-5 NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA (TCMA) ---_ _ i , I 1 Q i i lap '; -.T.If 1 0 _!" ; '� ' , 1 , + 1 1 •,311F' Z i �! 1 , 1 ia g 2 o f • m • I R a� � I I fi W ��_ ii1.!l.+.. N OAl9 NV901 f 1 I • I ' : +it' 11 6 1-7, NMI ICI I . re U d t # O?i NOISONIAi1 p a,. - M ,g ', O2i9Nlllfldl2lOdbIY 1 ., i q� t1 C m_ o - V H -i '' 1. t Ce LLI w 0 N „AL. 1 ' )4NVb3-31131000`0 fi' i 1 In }Ca Lbs IX 4-4 "+ i ` C 44 N, M( N181-In ONVI a o E d z ; F` to i t Li .r c 0s_ o MO11191130Ndn ` Z • . t v 0 m �� Z z m° . . sa I GO I I wC Z ..........I J cv GOI ,. i !f rage 15 of l TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICY 5.7 Policy 5.5 -Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation will provide certification from the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends revisions. Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation must provide certification to the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Monitoring of the use of the TDM strategics must be included in the annual monitoring report and modifications to the applied TDM strategies may he made within the first three years of development if they arc deemed ineffective. Policy 5.6 - The County shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. Performance within each TCMA shall be measured based on the percentage of lane miles meeting the LOS described in this Transportation Element, Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this Element The following Transportation Concurrency Management Areas are designated: Northwest TCMA—This area is bounded by the Collier-Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side (Map TR-5). East Central TCMA — This area is bounded by Pine Ridge Road on the north side; Collier Boulevard on the east side; Davis Boulevard on the south side, and; Livingston Road(extended) on the west side(Map TR-6). Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends revisions. Commercial developments within the TCMA must provide certification to the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Monitoring of the use of the TDM strategies must be included in the annual monitoring report and modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three years of development if they are deemed ineffective. Policy 5.7 - Each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards described in Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this Element. If any Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for a proposed development indicates that fewer than 85% of the lane miles in a TCMA are achieving the LOS standards indicated above, the proposed development shall not be permitted where such condition occurs unless modification of the development is made sufficient to maintain the LOS standard for the TCMA, or the facilities required to maintain the TCMA LOS standard are committed utilizing the standards for committed improvements in Policy 5.3 of the Capital Improvement Element of the Plan. Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends text remains. Collier County reports on the operational status of the TCMA's each year in the AUIR. Policy 5.8 - Should the TIS for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1% of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS), yet 9 7runsporiation Element FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 6.5 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No.2017-48 adopted December 12.2017 h) Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and automobile work trips generated by the development. i) Including residential units as a portion of a commercial project that would reduce vehicle miles of travel. j) Providing transit shelters within the development(must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). (xu)(xv)(xxx)(xuv) Policy 6.5: In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development(must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. (XII)(XLIV) Policy 6.6: All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non-PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (XII)(XLIV) Policy 6.7: All new development, infill development or redevelopment within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area is subject to the historical and archaeological preservation criteria, as contained in Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (Xlll)(XXX)(XLIV) OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (XLIV)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2017-22 on June 13, 2017 23 FDOT FLORIDA TRAFFIC ONLINE (2016) PEAK SEASON FACTOR 1yf !f( 1.11111.11111117.1.11.111,.,, ,, , - 1 2016 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.87 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2016 - 01/02/2016 0.98 1.13 2 01/03/2016 - 01/09/2016 0.95 1.09 • 3 01/10/2016 - 01/16/2016 0.91 1.05 * 4 01/17/2016 - 01/23/2016 0.89 1.02 * 5 01/24/2016 - 01/30/2016 0.88 1.01 * 6 01/31/2016 - 02/06/2016 0.87 1.00 * 7 02/07/2016 - 02/13/2016 0.85 0.98 * 8 02/14/2016 - 02/20/2016 0.84 0.97 * 9 02/21/2016 - 02/27/2016 0.84 0.97 *10 02/28/2016 - 03/05/2016 0.84 0.97 *11 03/06/2016 - 03/12/2016 0.84 0.97 *12 03/13/2016 - 03/19/2016 0.84 0.97 *13 03/20/2016 - 03/26/2016 0.86 0.99 *14 03/27/2016 - 04/02/2016 0.89 1.02 *15 04/03/2016 - 04/09/2016 0.91 1.05 16 04/10/2016 - 04/16/2016 0.94 1.08 17 04/17/2016 - 04/23/2016 0.96 1.10 18 04/24/2016 - 04/30/2016 0.98 1.13 19 05/01/2016 - 05/07/2016 1.00 1.15 20 05/08/2016 - 05/14/2016 1.02 1.17 21 05/15/2016 - 05/21/2016 1.05 1.21 22 05/22/2016 - 05/28/2016 1.07 1.23 23 05/29/2016 - 06/04/2016 1.10 1.26 24 06/05/2016 - 06/11/2016 1.13 1.30 25 06/12/2016 - 06/18/2016 1.16 1.33 26 06/19/2016 - 06/25/2016 1.15 1.32 27 06/26/2016 - 07/02/2016 1.15 1.32 28 07/03/2016 - 07/09/2016 1.15 1.32 29 07/10/2016 - 07/16/2016 1.14 1.31 30 07/17/2016 - 07/23/2016 1.15 1.32 31 07/24/2016 - 07/30/2016 1.15 1.32 32 07/31/2016 - 08/06/2016 1.15 1.32 33 08/07/2016 - 08/13/2016 1.16 1.33 34 08/14/2016 - 08/20/2016 1.16 1.33 35 08/21/2016 - 08/27/2016 1.16 1.33 36 08/28/2016 - 09/03/2016 1.17 1.34 37 09/04/2016 - 09/10/2016 1.17 1.34 38 09/11/2016 - 09/17/2016 1.18 1.36 39 09/18/2016 - 09/24/2016 1.15 1.32 40 09/25/2016 - 10/01/2016 1.13 1.30 41 10/02/2016 - 10/08/2016 1.10 1.26 42 10/09/2016 - 10/15/2016 1.08 1.24 43 10/16/2016 - 10/22/2016 1.05 1.21 44 10/23/2016 - 10/29/2016 1.03 1.18 45 10/30/2016 - 11/05/2016 1.01 1.16 46 11/06/2016 - 11/12/2016 0.99 1.14 47 11/13/2016 - 11/19/2016 0.97 1.11 I 48 11/20/2016 - 11/26/2016 0.97 1.11 49 11/27/2016 - 12/03/2016 0.98 1.13 50 12/04/2016 - 12/10/2016 0.98 1.13 51 12/11/2016 - 12/17/2016 0.98 1.13 52 12/18/2016 - 12/24/2016 0.95 1.09 53 12/25/2016 - 12/31/2016 0.91 1.05 * PEAK SEASON 21-FEB-2017 10:54:33 830UPD 10300 PKSEASON.TXT ._ . ... . ... ...... . . .. . . . TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LIVINGSTON ROAD @ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD «° to o Q 0 K Oi '4" N W W M N O .a 01 t0 V ~ M a N 43 CO n 0 a N O 0 N O co" 3 c O U coal W . N C N Qat O N M N N n n N W M Ca 40 O O co CQOr t` r M CO m n to 3 F- rMN c 0 o V j i} C3 3 0 0 U' Z 1 �,,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 00 . n O m N m n o N ...- 33 Ti Ca ii 01 VD N N o a O h O Ln T.W c O O r M a a 0 r AlAl O p p v. M co �+• 1- O O O •r E O O Q N M O in ina. en co t0 co ta0 n N n N 0 CO W t0 O r N N Fi n O O O O CO I 0 Nil a« N W M LO 0 n In t0 CO n 0 a 00j Q b r 0 to t0 N W N O 0 r COo0. le"' Q0 H r Al N n M N N N O 0 r O 1 in v- 6g000000.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o . 0 o zA I- 0 0 Z s It Z'' cc) M T M 0 01 r O to n r co aco R OOC Q r N M n r r n WM � O J Pjr O OAl O O co i" t0 a t0 n M M N N 0 0 O Q+, co. 0 a n 001 CO O L N to t0 n N 0 0 01 N 0 to O O C, CO •i J z r r N N N Al W n M 0 0 n o ? or in r { r M N r to en n. o v, n a E m at r to r r v °° n .= °' M o n v r o n '� 0? ix 0 0 0 0 o > C Q a;? o N Al a CO CO 0 to n r °' C W < CU Q~ Al N Al n M M M N A O N O 0- 0 N CO 1... 0 N > > 0 0 0 0(0 000 .00 0 0 c o t v 0 (Zo a• ) ma . N. 0 0 a Z > Toc a 0 M to o 0- M co co n co m o v M w O J W r r r a AlCla-C2 N r n o r co O O o N. C 01 CD 0 to r r N a NAl W ID r 0 O N t.j O C n 0 O O I C w t M N O Vr. CO O cn N ,o ? M M N 07 r r n r W M O tv'n N O O 0 `'I tA. 7 N 0 > C m •/ N Q co t0 0f t0 N 0 tD a N t0 0 r G a N Of M J N <~ r N N M M Al Al Al . N O 0 r 0 N ` O O Z p. C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O . 0 t0 co D i-: Q t0 F O O Z C r n CO IM O W OOO a CO C7 nnra n a N: V O J O O Q' N N.ct 4 kb -o C1 _C 3 2 M t0 n n M N 01 CO N a n tT 0I 0 co r N CQ•n >rn F r co N N co co N co N N AZ? O r N V O 0 r o > N J TA o cn .�(CO en M t0 n (N W " 0 O N O v N r O i� M co C J t COCe O O O O O 0 H W O • E a O to NMAO ...Ne O LL Z d OM41 rEr a O r a C 2 Q •-. <= < < 0 u is 1s is r; Q id eo do id o ++0 o Q o o a = tY ¢ Q a OJ f' o00o - o00o1- 6I- Q 1- iQ aLL 0 E 0 U N to U alco C C O ' U o ii 11; o O a o v j0 m in Cl) Veterans Memorial Blvd I Ei Q 38 17 73 0 Op Right Thru Left U-Turn i 1 e— V"'e— r I .a CO In O c E N d a) to 1`+ t� al 0 j V O N C°. V`/ EC- �L. N U7 d • to V <C> (7')� C 7 "' 2 a. V C V J N O A +� M1 C 5� N 0 7 7 CI `CO Q C G 4fi � � _ _ _ O. J N C d AS 2 a a a- a) E y M C"'1, a g < O ' 0 �1 QQQ C▪DV Ce C O r) 41\ Vit` /r►\, N 2 anl-fi 1181 mu. lualM C m M .egml E 0 1•9 £L 99Z `o J co a� 2 pnig lelJoulaw sueia;aA om ✓+ a c w r a a > a) N E v a:v cn o r 2 c _ �,CC O C Jtm 7 N 2 E n L Ao Z 2 is y v 0 U. J U To p N N tN N C) 0 N r i7 O 0 F to N �t U N r tUD tUD N t00 �" O C) O C) (sit- U lT. O 0 N C 0 �•« N O V r N ID N CO 0 CO M 9 O tp U) C .N N r N N N N N N N C) O N 0 T C) W 0 U Eo O oo Z N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p c 0 R > 0 0 N Z � ei 03 eo � � tD a o 0 0 d 7 E p co N lD •f r M N CD M " O N r O O CU.0 o o r ▪ o N CO CO W t11 M O O �, L O r N N h NtpO0o/2^I.i t0 t!) NtDM O n O <D) r N r n O OW 0 Ma to co mtD tD a O M N M M ;Ea. ► MO • Of t0 0 Q r0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O p pO O'Or� C � a N Y) rnrM pMC 7 Jr r r NNCf � IC) ei O O OW • Oa• LCt' 2 O OMS m O M N < O O L Z H N N co M M M et. O N O) ID O co T O M E N N O r r er tD M O h O co d o N C) tD < r M O O M 1- 0 O ^ M V � O O O r O G) ,_ 2 a« co N h r O N co C) N A tD O O N C) Q O N N M N N N r N C) 0 N O n C) co to e•• o Ca y • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p O o CO AjCD a) m N 0 0 Z co co CO et CD ▪ O �vl O• C d r N tD O e d' N O O • a� E O to O O O d L N 2 VO N O O t� {L ? O N r a n 001-. N1 M O C OC pQ M M r O co Ln O O O ; • O O Ce) 1.11 N to tT N CO M O CO !p co O ~ � I r O N v, > CO •> Qa H• m N 0 °) v ~v a en CDD 0 o c 0 0 M 0 r N N N CO N N N N r p 0 J d ` 0 O 0 Z O: to 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 O p ' 0 cCO N 0 0 N Z a N 'fl a r to O C � p, C 7 J N CO CO M • O O M o n O O O `+) O oja r c _ V 0) N L • C r <D CO n N O O N h N lT tD N O C N d O:•n >N N N N N Cf ev O CO ei C) M O ^ C1 t7 NSN J r c▪s▪) O) C O O N M CO O O tC <O • M M M • O CO O N O M J<m 2' O O O �- O CC aj O E c a to O N O to O N O N D— )-. N Z jp O O r M 7 O r M at C« a .� _ > LL Z d U E tD l0 ID t� h ►� 1� O O a p ` s Q„Y a s O LL J r r h F Q H 0 E 0 U vi N 0 oi co c i O c 0 I 1 0 1 ai 1 ei is o L) m in fn I Veterans Memorial Blvd ? I E 33 3 61 0 1 CO Right Thru Left U•Turn ces1 4\ ,4; �� 4 1 T T 1 T 01 el RS c, = . cn •• t... a, j V an.. aNi C; V w .L y Ul � ` d Q' 00 / �\ u) cEo 01- •u ., c M IX j) M j a y a1 0 tt3 , r T a) 0 5m s , lr p 0ta 0 0 r C > os 2 C Q > ',I 1 d � � V os J J i n a1a1y L E d d d E .W et 10 <C> CD a LL al 2 utnl•ft gal ni41 14618 C CO M •>_ 0 0 ZI. 9 9L o Epn18 lel.lowapy suelap1 o inta c a c LT! r v a >p` fY V N y C4C E C:a ] O•En O ot 03 C'C C E(o E Jtm o I-- O W . mC ♦i O z m o O U- J (..) DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE YEAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES { 0 CC co p O O Cf) �t N CO m Cr) p LI) OCC) O 'Cr LM co V O 'Cf N CO C7 • CO O co `- r N N H to o H Cn c m r- 0 CO O in c N co co c) O IC) (e) M (V N o J l,() o MJ t-- U) ,d, 00 r CO �j f•. 0 CO I- O co (O �j CO • CO O N. 4:1- N CV o CC IC�) c CL u, (to In gyp Ott) O) O) CO CC) CO O OO O to CO CXR CO W N „ CV O N N LU .- N 0 o I!7 o H t() c W M- O ! 00 In r r CO CO co g co os co O W N N COLo m O V C Om000O WICLfC O W = N i N Y CO co 'a d a CL (n a O Q co M 40 1.1., O u, M M a co O Oo. M O M M N L C) O HCO to CO c (N H Q p ON N O o co CUOOLC) O b COCZ > Ct)m - � N U) CrN O N e- N- 3.- 0 a) 0 } CO 0 R1 m LOoC70 OCnM COO 03 CO o O � � coco L •,.-: u) Cr • Cr 0 1t') V) = O r CV CV ++ E = CD U.. 2 o O R ZM � M O � � CN co co 1.0 zc`) • M CO OO � d'CV � N- N C cu .CD ) E > o Q •D co m 65 C? co .6 0 to N co m 0 0 00 Cf) ((p O� C.O O C o Z ti CO �i co O) Z r (�j 1 N. • Ce N N C in O 0 CO 00 COm CO O O O CC) N m & p CO 0 to O t 05 O C = co Z N r- C•I • M M Z O O O T. j C N N N _! 4 O N N 0) ` E E c O N O C o CnO m D • cc (' > o m E > Li O LL v) U U W 7 0) 0 • C U) C Cn O p > ll v 0 > CD -LE C E0 > CoCD QEN uCI) a + — o .- _ O ' > ' O o0 ' C > -0o O C) a ° 20 u) 2 7 Q0 2VUO O `C4 O) p 'C OC O 0) C ._)cti, 'C O C O CD C co 92 '5CO) C o) C O RS 'j 0) ` O } 03 _ Ix cam U O U a- rod Em U = U .0 o > > m o as H I) H (cu c Oct m ” m N _ Q H U) C -C CO U CO �) U ` C •p .. co O co 2 '' 2 Q C6 co a)co E Um Q Q. 0 CD )- Q (1. (\1 CC Q. 0 C9 >- NI 0- NI INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEETS { LIVINGSTON ROAD VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD 2023 PEAK SEASON BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR ,NBL NBT N.:: - , .''` SBR Lane Configurations 4 4, ) TT+ r ) t++ r Traffic Volume(vph) 60 15 296 85 20 44 329 924 43 53 1212 39 Future Volume(vph) 60 15 296 85 20 44 329 924 43 53 1212 39 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.960 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.992 0.972 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.915 0.392 0.115 0.279 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1520 0 0 701 0 214 5085 1583 520 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 236 25 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 64 16 315 90 21 47 350 983 46 56 1289 41 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 158 0 350 983 46 56 1289 41 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase , 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ! All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 16.4 16.4 46.5 40.3 40.3 31.3 26.3 26.3 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.42 0.35 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.92 0.82 0.36 0.05 0.19 0.72 0.06 Control Delay 22.0 76.9 34.5 12.1 0.1 10.1 25.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.0 76.9 34.5 12.1 0.1 10.1 25.1 0.2 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 dimilimi Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 10210512018 * Lane Group EBL EBT. EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS C E C B A B C A Approach Delay 22.0 76.9 17.4 23.8 Approach LOS C E B C Queue Length 50th(ft) 67 63 116 115 0 10 210 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 171 #171 #250 147 0 24 264 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 582 207 467 2732 907 301 1780 687 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.76 0.75 0.36 0.05 0.19 0.72 0.06 jler ion4 mmary _ ,—Y t , . _._ .. , Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:75 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.92 Intersection Signal Delay:23.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3:Livin•ston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd \fr01 tO2 —0'04 =lei ME tri 4- 4\05 106 08 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 I Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 f -0" ♦ 4- ks 1{ , `► •1 '/ Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT Lane Configurations 4+ 44 1.1 +++ r vs 44+ r Traffic Volume(vph) 14 9 88 71 3 39 106 1666 42 44 1081 35 Future Volume(vph) 14 9 88 71 3 39 106 1666 42 44 1081 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.893 0.954 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.994 0.969 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(plot) 0 1653 0 0 1722 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.949 0.790 0.195 0.105 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1579 0 0 1404 0 363 5085 1583 196 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 94 31 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 15 10 94 76 3 41 113 1772 45 47 1150 37 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 119 0 0 120 0 113 1772 45 47 1150 37 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk lime(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 I Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 9.8 9.8 45.5 42.6 42.6 40.7 38.2 38.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.61 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.52 0.28 0.55 0.04 0.20 0.39 0.04 Control Delay 13.1 28.8 6.4 11.0 0.1 7.3 11.8 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.1 28.8 6.4 11.0 0.1 7.3 11.8 0.1 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 -1' —. C 4— k- 4\ t P `► 1 4J i Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL JBT. NBR SBL ,SBS', LOS B C A B A A B A Approach Delay 13.1 28.8 10.5 11.3 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th(ft) 10 36 13 186 0 5 109 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 51 83 35 276 0 18 175 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 545 448 599 3251 1056 239 2914 994 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.27 0.19 0.55 0.04 0.20 0.39 0.04 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:66.6 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.55 Intersection Signal Delay:11.5 Intersection LOS:B Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min)15 l Splits and Phases: 3:Livin.ston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd ,01 t02 9W4 =IV EfiFij MIL 05 0b 08 it 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 2023 PEAK SEASON WITH PROJECT TRIPS Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 1 i. '- 4 4\ t f `► 1 4' a ter Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT, SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ ) ttt r l TTT r Traffic Volume(vph) 60 15 296 153 20 66 329 938 66 66 1212 39 Future Volume(vph) 60 15 296 153 20 66 329 938 66 66 1212 39 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.963 0.850 0.850 I Flt Protected 0.992 0.969 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.903 0.418 0.119 0.275 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1500 0 0 750 0 222 5085 1583 512 5085 1583 i Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 236 23 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 } Adj.Flow(vph) 64 16 315 163 21 70 350 998 70 70 1289 41 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 254 0 350 998 70 70 1289 41 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.05 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 20.0 20.0 46.9 38.2 38.2 31.5 26.5 26.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.59 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 0.71 1.23 0.85 0.41 0.08 0.25 0.76 0.06 Control Delay19.1 166.5 37.1 14.2 0.8 11.1 27.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.1 166.5 37.1 14.2 0.8 11.1 27.1 0.2 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 —. c 44— k* 4\ t P \. 1 41 Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT - WBR - ,NBL . NBA' NBR SBL .Sl3T SBR LOS B F D B A BC A Approach Delay 19.1 166.5 19.2 25.5 Approach LOS B F B C Queue Length 50th(ft) 68 -152 114 116 0 13 210 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #174 #296 #247 149 6 29 264 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 556 207 445 2462 830 284 1705 666 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 1.23 0.79 0.41 0.08 0.25 0.76 0.06 j (ht , ,+tel® `ld Cikd' ,., a Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:78.9 Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v!c Ratio:1.23 Intersection Signal Delay:32.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3:Livinuston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd \it01 02 ---Po4 _` -ayIIIIII 411\ � 4-- 1 05 1 06 08 ! �1 NMI. ME wow Wssiine Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 -' i 7r ♦/ '- 4\ ,fir t l 1 t.ane Group ',BBL EBT ..:1=ER WBL WBT _ WBR NBL Mat R ,BBL. ' Bfi._ ; R Lane Configurations 4 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 14 9 88 116 3 53 106 1676 112 81 1081 35 Future Volume(vph) 14 9 88 116 3 53 106 1676 112 81 1081 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.893 0.958 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.994 0.967 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1653 0 0 1726 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.951 0.768 0.189 0.109 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1582 0 0 1371 0 352 5085 1583 203 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 94 27 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 I Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 I Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 i Adj.Flow(vph) 15 10 94 123 3 56 113 1783 119 86 1150 37 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 119 0 0 182 0 113 1783 119 86 1150 37 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 I Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 13.4 13.4 45.0 39.0 39.0 40.7 36.8 36.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.53 0.53 0.56 0.50 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.66 0.31 0.66 0.13 0.39 0.45 0.04 Control Delay 11.1 35.6 8.2 15.3 2.8 13.5 14.2 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.1 35.6 8.2 15.3 2.8 13.5 14.2 0.1 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 iiiiwsiNsirmorowilmosmiloilmllaN Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 —► .i C f— 4. 4\ 1 l' `► 4/ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WitWBT WBR NBL NBT NBA. ,SBL $8T SBR LOS B D A B A BB A Approach Delay 11.1 35.6 14.2 13.8 Approach LOS B D B B Queue Length 50th(ft) 10 66 17 214 0 12 124 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 49 129 42 316 25 38 198 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 504 397 541 2712 901 220 2561 899 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.46 0.21 0.66 0.13 0.39 0.45 0.04 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:73 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.66 Intersection Signal Delay:15.0 Intersection LOS:B Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Livin•ston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd \001 t02 , —'004 Mill IIIIII MIN I 4— 05 ♦ 05 08 EMI t''' IIIM INNI 0017 ger Synchro 9 Report Page 2 TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RD/VETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 10th EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday i Multifamily Housing Ln(T)=0.98 Ln(X)-0.98 Ln(T)=0.96 Ln(X)-0.63 Mid-Rise T=5.45(X)- 1.75 (LUC 221) 26%In 74%Out 61%entering 39%exiting T=Trips, X=Number of Dwelling Units Table 1 Livingston RdNeterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trip Generation Weekday A.M.Peak Hour Weekday P.M.Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise 36 104 140 107 69 176 2,287 (420 Dwelling Units) TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RD/VETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 9th EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Apartment T=0.49(X)+3.73 T=0.55(X)+ 17.65 T=6.06(X)+ 123.56 (LUC 220) 20%In 80%Out 65%entering 35%exiting T=Trips, X=Number of Dwelling Units Table 1 Livingston RdNeterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trip Generation Land Use- Weekday A.M.Peak Hour Weekday P.M.Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Apartment 42 168 210 162 87 249 2,669 (420 Dwelling Units) J RTATI O N ,i , v v 'ANTS, INC ""�`� �Do/A fs---) 07- 4/ & DISTRIBUTION r-NnO s Co CcACADS a c,terf, n C O\ce) posed development was determined by referencing the oP a$► t� I �r :peer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 10th Edition. - / t ly Housing Mid-Rise) was utilized for the trip generation Cam-)- v -family dwelling units. Land Use Code 221 was utilized 3la0l1c1 buildings as shown on the site plan, are proposed to have ! outlines the anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak __r a_______.,.. �., —...,..y proposed. The daily trip generation is also indicated in this table. Ii- ,---- N0 1� (t{'�� Table2 69 00 4 7 v Trip Generation C-Ar11-5 Allura Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise 29 83 112 87 55 142 1,829 (336 Dwelling Units) The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate were assigned to the site access drives and the surrounding roadway network. The project traffic distribution was determined in the methodology and is illustrated on Figure 2. Figure 2 also illustrates the assignment of the total project trips to the site access drives based upon the project traffic distribution. Ce) N. l S 5 i o r 4- ANA(3,-11-)(- 5--1-4-a' iNS'T -1-1--k 55 [ e"NC LLLS1 v N V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY -- C c +r C rxt -1-1 a G In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table IA, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test. The trips generated as a result of the proposed SDP application were compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour-Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Page 4 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Based on the information contained within Table 1A, no roadway segments are anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, Concurrency analysis was only required on the roadway link directly accessed by the proposed development. Attached to the Appendix of this report is also the Collier County Hurricane Evacuation Routes Map TR-7. As illustrated on this map, Immokalee Road within the vicinity of the subject site is labeled as a Hurricane Evacuation Route. The Collier County's Growth Management Plan (GMP), Transportation Element Policy 5.8, states that a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required should the proposed development impact the designated hurricane evacuation route by more than I% of the maximum service volumes at the adopted LOS. Based on the information contained within Table k1 1A, Immokalee Road is shown to be impacted by less than 1% of the of the maximum service volumes at the adopted LOS. Therefore, no proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required as a result of the proposed development. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 2A includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2017 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). A two-year planning analysis was also conducted. In order to estimate the projected 2021 background traffic volumes, the • existing 2017 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2017 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2017 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2017 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2021 background traffic volume. The concurrency analysis was performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes that will result with the SDP Amendment from the 2021 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the traffic associated with the proposed SDP Amendment approval. Based on the information contained within Table 2A, there will be sufficient capacity on all Page 6 744TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2021 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2021 background volumes to estimate the future 2021 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. The SYNCHRO© summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 both with and without the project trips in the t) weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is ,k shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "B"both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Based on the t HCS results, the intersection of Veterans Memorial Boulevard with the proposed site access drive is shown to operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted / 5 based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. 10.5eij VII. CONCLUSION The proposed SDP application for the subject site would allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 336 multifamily residential units. The site, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding 15-c roadway network was analyzed based on the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2021 build-out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways in 2021 both with and \L without the proposed SDP approval. C/N ep- Page 9 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2021 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2021 background volumes to estimate the future 2021 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. The SYNCHRO© summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "B"both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Based on the HCS results, the intersection of Veterans Memorial Boulevard with the proposed site access drive is shown to operate at an acceptable LOS in 2021 in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed SDP application for the subject site would allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 336 multifamily residential units. The site, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2021 build-out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways in 2021 both with and without the proposed SDP approval. Page 9 So the specific answers as to how those trips are distributed throughout the day and into the peak hour can vary, and the answers could be very wide ranging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you realize that the traffic might be an issue for this project in its determination for today's hearing? MR. TREESH: What project -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN:Allura, the one we're talking about. MR. TREESH: What project is traffic not an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you expected traffic questions today. Obviously, that's why you're here. MR. TREESH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have wanted to know how you got to that number based on the population of that project and why it differs? I mean, you're looking at only a quarter of the people, and I'm just wondering what analysis you might have done to do that. And a second analysis I was wondering if you did, obviously, when we have apartments for working people, professionals, whatever you want to call them, living in the urban area closer to where they work, that's going to take traffic off other sections of our roads -- MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which desperately needs that done. But did you do a survey to determine where your market is for these people and the distances that we --they're going to be driving, road segments affected by them, and things like that? Would anybody do an analysis of that magnitude to get there today? MR. TREESH: I did not as part of this application, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it fair to say that the 10th edition of the ITE tells us nothing whatsoever about Segment 42.1 of Immokalee Road and the real conditions that are on that segment, correct? MR. TREESH: ITE is the simply the resource we use to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know what it is. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. TREESH: -- estimate traffic generation. No, there's not data in ITE about -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It tells us nothing about that segment. Thank you. MR.TREESH: Correct. That's what the purpose ofthe Traffic Impact Statement is, to assimilate all the data together, and then analyze the roadway links pursuant to the county requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the county requirements, basically, accept the22l and accept the 176 as a multiplier that you used to come to that conclusion that that's how many people will be on the road from that apartment complex -- MR. TREESH:That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- during the peak time of day? MR. TREESH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I'll have to ask staff how they come to that conclusion, because I'm kind of puzzled by it, one of the numbers, really. I didn't really understand what was going on as far as quantities go until I read the 221 TIS piece that was included in our report. And when I saw that persons per household, I got to think, well, how can that many people, all of them --just a quarter of them leave? I just don't know how you got there, and I didn't pick that up, and that's the piece I'll need explained. So thank you. MR. TREESH: Thank you. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN:And does anybody else have anything? a CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got 350 units and you've got2.46 persons per households, that's 861 persons. Now, this is supposed to be a working essential --or not essential, but working professional type operation, so I'm assuming all these people are going to go to work. And if they do, generally work hours are two hours in the morning for peak hour and two hours in the afternoon. So your peak hour is 176, which is only 25 percent of the 861 persons anticipated to move there by your calculations. So how do you get only 25 percent are hitting the road at peak hour? Because the traffic is one of the driving forces behind this. MR. TREESH: I wish I could say this is my calculations, but these are the Institute of Transportation Engineers' calculations which we're required to use per the county requirements in terms of trip generation for this use. ITE, which is Institute of Transportation Engineers, just came out with their 10th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report. And with that 10th edition, they split the multifamily uses into different land-use codes based on the height of the building because that was determined through the surveys that were conducted, and submitted to ITE to have an impact on the trip generation. So, again, we're not making these numbers up. These are numbers that were nationally accepted, locally accepted and the estimates that we're required to use at this time. And I would like to point out that a multifamily use generates -- an apartment use generates significantly less traffic than a single-family use. I mean, it's a pretty common-sense assumption, but if you think about it, the number of vehicles per unit, the number of persons per unit are significantly less in a rental community than it is in a single-family detached home MR. TREESH: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fourth paragraph of land-use 221 from the manual says, "For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling units." So, okay, if you've got two-and-a-half people, which is average, let's say you've got two working people. I mean, at the price range you're in, you probably would need two working people. That's still going to get you to 700 persons, which 25 percent of that is 176. What happens to the other 75 percent of the people who leave at the peak hour to go to work each day and come back in that apartment complex when you're only saying a quarter of them are on the road? I just don't know how you get there. And if you're the traffic expert and you can't answer it, then maybe our staff can when I bring them up. MR. TREESH: Perhaps. But, again, you're asking me to delve into data that was collected and assimilated by ITE, and they don't survey every single resident of a community. They survey the driveways going into and out, and these are the traffic characteristics that this type of use exhibits. Where those specific people go at what time of the day, I mean, there's many answers. I mean, people can work different shifts where they don't leave during the peak hours. There's all kinds of answers to that question that would -- but as with any land use in ITE, the data that is in CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep saying we need housing. You're not -- I mean, if you were to ask what kind of housing we need of a lot of people-- not saying that this is better or worser this location -- it's affordable. Now, we've got a lot of new projects coming online, 4,000 units, just about. The other project you alluded to today is like Briarwood. It's going to be high-end. It's going to be very expensive like this. It's going to be like Orchid Run. We seem to have a lot of that coming on, and that's fine, and I have no qualms about that. But I'm not sure the need is that high-end market-rate housing as much as it is other types of housing. So I'm not sure the need for this is necessarily proven. MORRIS 2914 Cleveland Avenue I Fort Myers, Florida 33901 I DEPEW Phone (239) 337-3993 I Toll Free (866) 337-7341 www.morris-depew.com ENGINEERS . PLANNERS •SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS L 4 , Analysis:SD Livingston, LLC-Altura r '� ✓ (i PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26, 2018 N Revised:January 16, 2019 Introduction and Background The requested GMPA would add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Residential Subdistrict category to the Future Land Use Element, allowing up to 12 units per acre on the 35.57-acre subject property. (A companion rezoning request would change the zoning from the A, Rural Agricultural and Residential Planned Unit Development (Della Rosa) zoning districts to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)to develop a multi-family residential project of 3681 dwelling units, a clubhouse and accessory uses on the±35.57-acre site.)The GMPA request, however,would allow up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The subject site is located on the east side of Livingston Road, and south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 13,Township 48 South, Range 25 East. According to the documents accompanying the Site Development Plan request,the maximum building height would be 50', zoned, and 60', actual. Buildings would be four stories in height, and buffers would range from a 10'Type A up to a 20'Type C.There would be 15'Type B buffer adjacent to approved single- family residential uses to the east of the subject property. Approximately 42%of the site qualifies as wetlands of varying quality. The subject property is currently designated Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition,the Urban Residential Subdistrict provisions allow a maximum density of four(4) dwelling units per acre (DU/A) as a base density.The subject property is located within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, and TCMA and Affordable Housing bonuses could increase that number to a total of 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant, however, is not requesting bonus density, but rather a GMPA that would increase the total allowable density per acre up to 9.84 dwelling units. The proposed amendment states: "The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57±acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard.The purpose of this 1 Documents for the accompanying submittals variously describe the subject property as between 35.57 acres up to 35.91 acres,and the final development plan between 336 up to 368 multi-family units.The boundary survey lists the total acreage as 35.566 acres.As noted above,the GMPA,if approved,would allow up to 12 units per acre. Fort Myers Tallahassee Destin Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Altura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 2 Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 9.84 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 350 units. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.3 by providing two or more of the following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit& Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west: and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. d.The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses." Jr a t r .. r t �-- cu . ( _ 1l .4 ��T,y � (�T • RL�n665uf rl.� _ _.v I t rw.wab "�s- •� - � � r. :.. \T--""" 74' • f � l 1-4 � c�j J�P' C� �Y ai 4L�t� 'e Figure 1:Subject with Surrounding Development Surrounding land uses include the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development to the east and south, Royal Palm Academy to the southeast,The Enclave Residential Planned Unit Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 13 Development to the southwest, undeveloped C-1 zoning to the west,Agriculture zoned property to the west, and the Mediterra Planned Unit Development to the northwest, north, and north east. The C-1 parcel located to the west of the subject property is designated as the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Blvd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Discussion and Analysis Objective 5 of the Future Land Use Element indicates that the County will promote sound planning that ensures, among other things, the compatibility of land uses. Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element states, "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to,the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Development Acres Units Units per Acre FLUM Category Mediterra 1,168 ' 750 0.64 Urban Residential Brandon 51.1 204 3.99 ; Urban Residential The Enclave 28.38 114 4.02 Urban Residential • Royal Palm Academy 162.7 550 3.38 • Urban Residential Table 1:Surrounding Development Summary Based upon the surrounding land uses,the requested density of 9.84 units per acre represents an increase ranging between 245% up to 1,538%of the existing densities.The plan amendment does not provide for any incentives for density beyond those that would normally be available for the additional 3 units per acre available for proposed TCMA improvements. Under the existing designation,there would normally be a requirement for provision of affordable housing, but the current request eliminates that necessity. The property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) which potentially makes it eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus, potentially increasing the total density for 4 units per acre to 7 units per acre, without a change in land use designation. Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element indicates that a TCMA will be designated to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. In order for a development to be exempt from link-specific concurrency requirements, developments within the TCMA must provide not less than 2 Transportation Demand Management(TDM)strategies as detailed in the Land Development Code (LDC). According to LDC Section 6.02.02(L)states, "In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least 2 of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a. Including neighborhood commercials uses within a residential project. b. Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c. Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d. Including Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page I 4 affordable housing (minimum of 25%of the units)within the development. e. Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties."This language echoes that found in FLUE Policy 6.5. The applicant has indicated an intention to provide a transit shelter and connection to the adjoining commercial development, once that development is undertaken.The latter commitment is dependent upon the ultimate design of the commercial property and may be outside the applicant's ability to guarantee. The applicant has not committed to any of the other TDM strategies. The applicant has submitted studies regarding demand for the proposed development as a rental community.The first study, by Axiometrics, indicates that the property would consist of 320 units- 144 one-bedroom units (45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%) and 32 three-bedroom units (10%). This is 106 dwelling units less than that which would be allowed under the proposed GMPA. Further,this study indicates that the proposed development should have luxurious interior amenities to be competitive within the market and command higher rental rates. Thus, the proposed analysis is not targeting affordable or workforce housing. 0 Additionally, an analysis by Myers Research was provided discussing demand and supply of new 5\ market based rental property. That study concluded that net demand by 2022 would reach `N 2,672 units,with supply amounting to 2,732 units (including the proposed Altura development). s-' The Myers study includes rental units with monthly rates up to $2,500;this is clearly not affordable/workforce housing, and there is no discussion regarding the socioeconomic status of 7 the proposed renters for the subject property. Further,the increase in demand for renter occupied housing units projected between 2018 and 2023 is only 645 units for the CountyT f There appears to be little support for the need to increase overall density on the subject property to a level between 2.5 times up to over 15 times the properties in the area. The Myers Research report does note that the employment centers are located to the west and south of the subject property. A review of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) accompanying the request suggests that traffic on Immokalee Road, west of the intersection with Livingston, is problematic.Since that is the direction of the majority of employment and support services, it is clear that increased traffic resulting from the approval of the proposal will impact that situation.The TIS also indicates that the improvements to Veterans Memorial Blvd. will not be undertaken until 2022, an does not indicate when those improvements will be completed. Chapter 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS indicates that plan amendments must be based upon data and analysis including the amount of land necessary to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected seasonal and permanent population, and the character of the undeveloped land. The request for a GMPA adds 171 dwelling units to the subject property that it could not achieve without provision of affordable housing. At 7 units per acre,the density with the proposed TDM strategies met on site, the total number of units to be permitted would be 249. No GMPA would be required, and there has been no indication that the existing land use designation is Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 15 somehow burdensome to the land owner. There are economically viable development options for the subject property as shown both by the market studies provided as well as by the existing development patterns in the area. There is no compelling necessity to provide for such a significant increase in development density on the subject property. Further, there has been no data and analysis provided that would suggest a compelling reason for waiving the requirement of providing affordable/workforce housing as an incentive for added density. Staff indicates that at a macro level,the proposed GMPA may well be compatible with the area in which it is located. The Staff Report goes on to note that the rezoning petition must by analyzed with regards to specific compatibility measures. The proposed Site Development Plan shows buffers of 15' between existing single-family residences and the development. The proposed rezoning allows heights of up to 50' (zoned) and 60' (actual),for a series of massive, four-story buildings, all of which are necessary to place the 350 dwelling units on a property with significant wetlands that encompass over 40%of the site. Conclusion C 64X / The GMPA requested is unnecessary and fails to demonstrate any kind of deficiency which it is intended to address. The subject property has an economically viable and reasonable use,the e applicant can achieve a reasonable density through the utilization of existing provisions of the c7` Growth Management Plan, and the documents submitted for the companion requests demonstrate that compatibility with adjoining and proximate development will not be achieved v based upon the current development plans. Although the traffic analysis has not identified any specific problems associated with the development, it is noted that the employment centers a—nTcornm ial development servicing the subject property are located primarily south and west of the subject property. The additional traffic proposed by the development will certainly add to congestion of the roadways in the area, and the east-west improvements to Veterans are not scheduled to commence until FY 2022. R7ii\v/ David W. Depew, PhD, AICP, LEED AP Principal & Co Founder Morris-Depew Associates, Inc. Scr,_ i ( i 1141 CC. 1G7C January i7,2019 So common sense tells us,traffic is a problem. You add 700 people to the area we're in, traffic's going to be worse. Commons sense tells us our home values will go down because people do not want to buy next to these apartments. And they may be great tenants,luxury apartments; the perception is ifs a rental apartment. And I've got too many options to buy in other places instead of our area. Schools;they mentioned the school capacities. And then the aesthetics. Does a four-story or three-story, partial four,fit into the landscape of our community? No matter what it looks like,it's not going to fit. From Vanderbilt to.Bonita Beach Road,there's nothing like it. So why would it fit in our little area right there in our community? It doesn't fit. And,two, we talked about Livingston traffic. No one's brought up Old 41 traffic. It's a two-lane road,and it's just as bad. So what's going to happen when they extend VME? People are going to cut through VME,get on Old 41,and sit in traffic again. So common sense tells us--it doesn't matter what the national data says,common sense tells us that it doesn't work in our community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr.Chairman,can I ask a question of this gentleman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,if you'd come back a minute. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Torn, thanks for your statements. I have a quick question for you. When you bought in Barrington Cove,just out of curiosity,what'd they tell you? Obviously,that Iand was already--what'd they tell you,the developer,the developer when you bought your property? MR.GRIFFITH: You want me to be honest? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR.GRIFFITH: They told us a bunch of crap is what they told us. No one ever told us that Verona Pointe Estates was going to be built. I backed up to a preserve,so I was told your backyard is a preserve. Now it's 133 community--is 133-home community. No one's ever told us that any of this was going to be developed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. And who was the builder/developer for Barrington Cove? MR. GRIFFITH: DR Horton. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: DR Horton. MR.GRIFFITH: And the other thing about the traffic study and that single-family homes have more traffic,yes,but not--in 350 apartments with 700.people,you're not going to get that density with a single-family home on that corner. So,nationally,statistics may speak that there's more cars,but you're not--if--how many homes can you put on 35 acres? It's not going to be 700 people, I can tell you that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Good afternoon,Mr.Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Robert Plitt. I'm with Roetzel &Andress Law Firm. I represent the Mediterra Community Association. Alan Johnson was here this morning, but I think he had to leave,the president,so he won't be speaking today. Tim Richards,who is the manager, is here. I'm not sure if he's going to speak or just yield to me: Since I'm an attorney,I kind of look at things from that aspect. And we do have a planner, Dr. David Depew, who's going to be speaking here today also. I'll leave the details to him,if it's okay. But there are really two points I want to make,and they're related,and one is the question concerning spot zoning. As a matter of fact,I had prepared the spot zoning remarks before the Chair brought themup today,and I do think this is spot.zoning.. This is illegal spot zoning. It's Page 62 of 79 January 17,2019 actually spot planning leading to spot zoning,which, in my opinion, is even worse. You cannot legislate your way out of a spot zoning situation. That has been--that's judge-made law in the state of Florida. If anybody wants to see the cases on it, I can't remember . the name or the--of all the cases, but probably one is--the biggest one's called Bird Kendall t7Homeowners Associalion. I think it was a Dade County case. But that's where you plop something into an area that is incompatible with everything else in the area. And what you've �„- heard most of the day,actually from everybody, is that we have a proposal to put a veryhighly--a fl high densitydevelopment,apartment type of development into an area that is clearly low density C.) single-family residential. In a county that's larger than at least two states,there are plenty of places to put something like this. You don't have to put it somewhere that is,under your Comprehensive Plan, incompatible certainly as it applies to density and also as it applies to-- in the zoning this applies to uses. So that's what's being done. That's what's being proposed. The idea of planning and zoning--and I certainly don't want to lecture you,because you know this and see this probably more than I do, but the idea of planning is that you spent--and this county spent a lot of time and a lot of effort coming up with its districts. Next thing you know, we have developers wanting to create subdistricts to suit their purposes,so we wind up with a certain number of subdistricts. Why? Because generally in an ad hoc manner there's an attempt to get around the Comprehensive Plan,the GMP. That's what's being done here. Now, it's one thing-- if it's really pretty close and it's really about the same and the uses are not too far off,that's one thing. And the densities are similar,but this is nowhere close,as you heard a lot of people say today on both sides. And the problem is --another problem that I see is that the PUDs,which are a great idea in their place--planned developments are a great idea in their place--are being used improperly as the means to accomplish illegal spot planning,spot zoning when you get to the zoning aspect of it, so you wind up with PUDs going around that. It's one thing for PUDs to say,well, we're going to have this mixture of uses or we're going to have this type of use,et cetera,and to give up some setbacks and some height and things like that exchanged for amenities for the PUD, but it's a totally different thing to plop a PUD into a place where it doesn't belong,and it's even worse to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate that. Mr.Mulhere,I think, said--at least gave the impression to me,maybe to you, that, well, it's residential. Residential's residential. Well,that's not really correct because at least going back-- if you go back into history far enough, all the way back to the first zoning case that everybody had to learn from the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a case having to do with putting apartments into residential districts. /, And if I may, let me quote this. Suspend your disbelief just long enough to pick out some nuggets that I think are relevant to this case,and then I'll open it up for questions, if you want. ( J But the U.S. Supreme Court said, "With particular reference to apartment houses,it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private-house purposes;that in such sections,very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover,the coming of one apartment house is followed by others interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which, otherwise,would fall upon smaller homes,and bringing as their necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business and the occupation by means of moving and parked automobiles; larger portions of street,thus detracting--almost Page 63 of 79 January 17,2019 done --from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open places for play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until,finally,the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. "Under these circumstances, apartment houses which in a different environment would not only be entirely unobjectionable,but highly desirable,come very near to being nuisances." This was Village of Euclid versus Amber Realty, 1926. It could have been written last month. That case is still a good case,and it's good law. Without that case,we would not all be here. That was the case that upheld that zoning in its proper place is okay. And so the point is that this is not a new issue. This is something--the issue of compatibility,even among--even between one type of residence and another type of residence has been recognized since the beginning,since the landmark case,and that is certainly something that should guide us in saying you have to follow--developer,new person coming in, buyer, whoever you are,you have to follow the rules that we have in our Comp Plan,and we're not going to bend our rules just to accommodate you. I spent 13 years on a--as City Attorney for a small area--a small city in Lee County. They have not increased density one unit except for affordable housing since 1988. So sometimes you just say no: This is not it. This is not the place,and this is not it. And all that stuff about trying to accommodate somebody when they really don't have the proper reason for it, is really kind of a waste of time, in my opinion. So I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Could you send me that case? MR. PRITT: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just cited, the Euclid case. MR. PRITT: Oh,yes, Village of Euclid. We all know about Euclidian zoning;that's where that came from. Not from Euclid of old,but it's named after the city, and that was the beginning of zoning. That's the case that said zoning is allowable. And from that case, everything has--that we talk about in planning and zoning has come out of that. I'll be glad to send you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will-- MR. PRITT: And also Bird-Kendall-- I didn't think to bring it,but that's one that--on spot zoning that is relevant CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,obviously,I'll give Mr. Yovanovich an opportunity to send any case that he wants to utilize to offset the one you've just mentioned. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick comment for you, Mr. Pritt. Would it be all right if I obtain a transcript of your remarks so that I can quote you to the Planning Advisory Board? MR.PRITT: Absolutely. CONL I.SSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: I've said that, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another board besides ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amazingly enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Karl. MR.PRITT: Well, until a couple days ago.I was City Attorney for Naples,as most of you know,as many of you know. and I've turned that over to partner now,but I still am working on a lot of the planning andzoning issues. Page 64 of 79 HUD P3&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Florida a*r.> QTc' a` it Pr illiFiliT 11 1 , , - , - , Ill i li ; ! iv m Quick Facts About Naples-Immokale Marco Island By Diana Villavicencio 1 As of March 1,2017 Current sales market conditions: balanced. Current apartment market conditions: balanced. OVerUieW The Naples-lmmokalee-Marco Island(hereafter, Naples)metropol- Tourism is the primary catalyst of economic itan area is coterminous with Collier County on the southwestern activity in the metropolitan area,which is known coast of Florida.The temperate climate and more than 90 golf as the"Paradise Coast" with nearly 30 miles of courses in the metropolitan area(The Greater Naples Chamber beaches on the Gulf of Mexico and the Ever of Commerce)have supported tourism and transformed the glades National Park. In 2016, more than 1.79 metropolitan area into a major retirement destination. People aged million people visited the metropolitan area, 65 and older accounted for nearly 29 percent of all out-of-state generating nearly$2 billion in economic actio- arrivals to the metropolitan area during 2015(most recent data ity, up from the 1.38 million visitors and$1.17 available,American Community Survey 1-year estimates). billion economic impact in 2010 (Research Data Services, Inc.). • As of March 1, 2017,the estimated population of the metropol- itan area is 368,800,an average increase of 7,275,or 2.1 per- rt— _ cent,a year since 2011 (Census Bureau population estimates '' ilbi._ ; as of July 1). Improving economic conditions during the period contributed to average annual net in migration of 7,200 people and accounted for nearly 99 percent of population growth. �_ _ J • From 2006 to 2011, population growth averaged 2,975 people, when weak economic conditions I i �� a or 0.9 percent,annually -�—� slowed net in-migration to an average of 1,925 people a year. '`l • During the peak growth period from 2000 to 2006, population growth averaged 9,800 people,or 3.6 percent,annually.Strong job growth during the period contributed to average net 0EN7ENTOF ,c. liI Ill*G�, in-migration of 8,525 people a year. N y20 IIIIIIII i IDR A 3 �V_ ( i G9e4N DEVe-'99 �` ` _.. t!per. ii ii, 1'- - I Al U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research 0 HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles rdapi-s Imn1nik,lFF Li:,,,(l-i,nd. FL As of March 1,2017 The mining, logging, and construction sector accounted for 71 percent of total job gains in the Naples area during the 3 months ending February 2017. 3 Months Ending Year-Over-Year Change February 2016 February 2017 Absolute (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) Percent Total nonfarm payrolls 143.9 145.6 1.7 1.2 Goods-producing sectors 17.8 19.5 1.7 9.6 Mining,logging,and construction 14.3 15.5 1.2 8.4 Manufacturing 3.5 3.9 0.4 11.4 Service-providing sectors 126.1 126.1 0.0 0.0 Wholesale and retail trade 25.7 25.5 -0.2 -0.8 Transportation and utilities 2.0 1.9 -0.1 -5.0 Information 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 Financial activities 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Professional and business services 15.9 16.0 0.1 0.6 Education and health services 21.0 21.7 0.7 3.3 Leisure and hospitality 29.1 28.1 -1.0 -3.4 Other services 9.1 9.4 0.3 3.3 Government 13.7 13.8 0.1 0.7 (percent) (percent) Unemployment rate 4.6 4.7 Note:Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding. Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics During the 3 months ending February 2017, nonfarm payroll growth in the Naples area slowed to a rate lower than the national rate for the first time since Economic Conditions 2010. Naples area The economy of the Naples metropolitan area has strengthened -Southeast/Caribbean region -Nation since 2011. From 2011 through 2013, nonfarm payroll growth o' 6.0 averaged 3.3 percent a year before accelerating to an average of '�rn 4.0 -- 5.1 percent a year from 2014 through 2016.Although job growth CI-m 2.0- ••••s..� has moderated during the 3 months ending February 2017,current 2 ' 0. t• w= nonfarm payrolls total 145,600 jobs,surpassing the prerecession 0 o- 2.0 peak of 135,600 in 2007 by more than 7 percent. 5 E -4.0 During the 3 months ending February 2017- c s_ -6.0••4 I. m • Nonfarm payrolls increased 1,700 jobs,or 1.2 percent,com- m a -8.0 ••s pared with the average number of jobs during the same 3-month d -10.0. period in 2016.This year was the first since 2011 that the rate (1, rl, (15) ri, rP c (19 cP (19 c 19 of job growth in the metropolitan area was lower than the rate in <0P �� «0 (<° «0 <<0a <e «ems (<e� <P the Southeast/Caribbean region and the nation,which were up Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics 2.1 and 1.6 percent, respectively. • The mining, logging,and construction sector added the most Largest employers in the Naples area jobs, expanding by 1,200,or 8.4 percent,to 15,500 jobs.The Name of Employer Nonfarm Number of sector benefited from increased residential,commercial,and in- Payroll Sector Employees dustrial development projects and has been the fastest-growing NHC Healthcare System Education and health services 4,000 sector in the metropolitan area since 2011.The number of jobs Publix Super Markets,Inc. Wholesale and retail trade 2,800 in the sector, however,remains 35 percent below the prereces- Collier County(excluding Government 2,125 Sheriff's Office) sion high of 23,900 during 2006. Note:Excludes local school districts. continued on page 3 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,2016 ��QS WENT,,FyO N. X16*II' * �a,,, . " U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development i Office of Policy Development and Research © HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island. FL As of March 1,2017 continued from page 2 • The manufacturing sector had the fastest rate of growth, percent,annually. During 2016,tourist counts fell 2 percent from increasing by 11.4 percent,or 400 jobs,to 3,900.Arthrex,Inc., a record 1.83 million visitors during 2015.As a result, during the a medical device manufacturer,added 350 jobs following the 3 months ending February 2017,the leisure and hospitality sector completion of a$47 million,218,000-square-foot expansion of was one of only three sectors to lose jobs,declining by 1,000 jobs, its surgical device and implant manufacturing facility in Decem- or 3.4 percent,to 28,100 jobs.Despite this decline,the leisure and ber 2016. hospitality sector is the largest sector in the metropolitan area and • As job growth moderated,the unemployment rate averaged 4.7 accounts for more than 19 percent of total nonfarm payrolls.The percent,up from 4.6 percent during the same period 1 year ear- sector benefited from the expansion and completion of several tier, but significantly lower than the peak of 11.5 percent during large-scale projects,with additional development under way.A the 3 months ending February 2010. $12.5 million casino expansion and a new 99-room hotel at the Seminole Casino Hotel were completed in 2015,creating approxi- Beginning in 2010,after 2 years of job losses in the leisure and mately 100 jobs.The new$20 million Hyatt House was completed hospitality sector,improved national economic conditions contributed in 2016;jobs added are unknown. Phase 3 of the$320 million JW to job growth in the sector. From 2010 through 2015,the number Marriott®Marco Island Beach Resort renovation is currently under of visitors to the metropolitan area increased every year by an aver- way,with completion scheduled for October 2017.On completion, age of 6.4 percent annually. During the same period,the leisure the property will have 810 guestrooms and suites across 3 towers and hospitality sector increased by an average of 900 jobs,or 3.9 and more than 800 employees. Sales Market Conditions The sales housing market in the Naples metropolitan area is currently averaged 12,550 a year.The recent decline in existing home balanced,with an estimated 2.2-percent vacancy rate,down from sales was largely caused by a 20-percent decrease in regular 5.7 percent in April 2010.Conditions have improved since 2010, resales,which totaled 10,950; regular resales had generally when the contraction in the housing market had significantly impacted trended upward since 2011 until this decline. REO sales also the metropolitan area. In April 2010, 16.8 percent of mortgages declined during the past 12 months 44 percent,to 820,and were seriously delinquent(90 or more days delinquent or in foreclo- accounted for 7 percent of existing sales. sure)or had transitioned into real estate owned(REO)status,a rate • The average sales price for existing homes rose 2 percent,to that declined to 1.8 percent as of January 2017(CoreLogic, Inc.). $489,900,up from$481,400 during the previous year.Existing The current rate of seriously delinquent loans and REO properties home sales prices have recovered from a low of$347,500 during is lower than the 3.7-and 2.6-percent rates for Florida and the 2010,when REO sales accounted for 30 percent of existing sales. nation,respectively. During the past 12 months,the average REO home sales price During the 12 months ending February 2017— was approximately one-third the average regular resale home • The number of new homes(including single-family homes,town- sale price of$500,000 in the metropolitan area. homes,and condominiums)sold totaled 2,625,down 1 percent Single-family homebuilding activity,as measured by the number of from the 2,675 homes sold during the previous 12 months single-family homes permitted,trended upward from 2010 through (Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by the 2015.Activity declined in 2016 but remains high. analyst).The average sales price for new homes was$560,600, • The number of single-family homes permitted totaled 2,600 nearly unchanged from the price during the same period 1 year during the 12 months ending February 2017,down 10 percent earlier.The rates of change for new home sales and new home from 2,900 homes permitted during the previous 12 months sales prices are lower than the average annual increases of 15 (preliminary data). and 5 percent from 2011 through 2016, respectively. • Single-family homes permitted averaged 640 annually from 2008 • Existing home sales totaled 11,750,down approximately 17 percent through 2009,before increasing 15 percent annually,from 770 from the 14,200 sold during the 12 months ending February 2016. homes permitted in 2010 to 3,075 in 2015. By comparison,from 2011 through 2011,existing home sales continued on page 4 TogEN 00 41 No' ° 1�i� U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research 0 HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Nap es in,„okalee-f f,,r <, i `i As of March 1,2017 continued from page 3 • Since 2011,approximately 89 percent of single-family home • Del Webb,an age restricted subdivision in the Ave Maria com- munity,will have 2,000 homes at buildout and includes a golf construction has occurred in the unincorporated portion of the metropolitan area. One of the largest developments in the course. Home prices start at$204,990 for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom home and$318,990 for a three-bedroom,three- unincorporated area is Ave Maria,a 4,000 acre master planned community,35 miles northeast of the city of Naples.Construction bathroom home.The Ave Maria community also includes Coquina of the 8 subdivisions in the Ave Maria community has been in Maple Ridge,a subdivision that will have 277 homes at buildout; ongoing since 2007,with approximately 1,300 of the 11,000 prices start at$196,990 for a two-bedroom,two-bathroom home. homes completed that are planned at buildout. Existing home sales prices in the Naples area Existing home sales in the Naples area have de- increased slightly in the past year partially because clined since early 2016, whereas new home sales of a 44-percent reduction in the number of REO have decreased since February 2017. properties sold. —New home sales co —New home sales prices —Existing home sales ° 20.0 —Existing home sales prices 50.0 >y ro m 40.0 A: _ V. >, a m 10.0 ��+ 30.0 E 0.0 ,_L.<.,�!' o._ y �'Air rn 20.0 Ai 10.0 r=77.1, as 10.0 tNt 7 —20.0Em 0.0 I w °L t' ki -30.0 rno —10.0 CD T 40.0, tri i• ,�O ,` ,\cL �O r\i'' �O �O �1 N —20.0 • 000 0 O O O O O O O —30.0 0.. rL CV ti CP rL cl. rl. cL rL CP U T 09 09 < 46) e �(9 (<e° 0° 0) <�° 0° c v -40.0 REO=real estate owned. a) –50.0 Note:Includes single-family homes,townhomes,and condominiums. Source:Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by analyst –60,0. �c• CPO OHO O\N O,`� O,�O p'`t p'`� p,$) O'�\ The rate of seriously delinquent mortgages and REO ��'0 F�'0 FV �Vti�0 F6) .2����'0 ��'0 ��.0`� properties in the Naples area has been below the national rate since 2015. Note:Includes single-family homes,townhomes,and condominiums. Source:Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by analyst Naples area • 20.0 —Florida —Nation Single-family home permitting increased in the Naples o-� 18 o area from 2010 through 2015 and remained elevated. Dc16.0 ' '' X3,500 cn• .0014.0 • 3,000 o ° a 2,500 12cr, .0 m E m 10.0 •.�'ti o 2,000 °� L 1,500 rn o 8.0 T CI) m E 1,000 o ° 6.0al0 o m 500 lloiu 4.0 rn 0 p 2.0 •-... in 004) CPO ON0 ON ON ONO ONR OHO ON ON rl, rL rl. cL ti �l rL cL rL rL i ° 0.0 tL 0c) �O �`� �� .. ,. ,�4D eco �A Note:Includes preliminary data from January 2016 through February 2017. (1>' V (O (LO V cli) V, cli,��0,�V Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Building Permits Survey , � , REO=real estate owned. Source:CoreLogic,Inc. OY if-)2 %* ,lil * ', :,toE ei U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development l Office of Policy Development and Research 0 HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island,FL As of March 1,2017 Apartment Market Conditions The apartment market in the Naples metropolitan area currently is Multifamily construction activity, as measured by the number of balanced compared with soft conditions in 2007. Increased renter multifamily units permitted, has increased since 2013 in response household growth contributed to the absorption of excess units to increased rental demand but remains below construction levels since the late 2000s. before the recession. During the fourth quarter of 2016- • During the 12 months ending February 2017, 1,025 multifamily • The apartment vacancy rate was 4.6 percent, up from 2.7 percent units were permitted, up from 940 units permitted during the during the fourth quarter of 2015(Axiometrics, Inc.). Relatively previous year(preliminary data). high levels of multifamily construction,from 2013 through 2016, • Multifamily permitting averaged 2,750 units annually from 2000 contributed to the recent increase in the apartment vacancy rate. through 2007, before slowing to average 360 units permitted • The apartment vacancy rate is much lower than the 19.2-percent annually from 2008 through 2012,the lowest level in recent peak during the fourth quarter of 2007. High levels of newly history. From 2013 through 2015,multifamily permitting rose to constructed units,from 2000 through 2007,contributed to soft an average of 1,000 units annually. apartment market conditions. • In south Naples,the 296-unit Milano Lakes Apartments is currently • The average monthly rent for an apartment was$1,350, up under construction.The property will comprise eight buildings 5 percent from the fourth quarter of 2015 and up an average with one-,two ,and three-bedroom units.The first four buildings 5 percent annually from the fourth quarter of 2007. are expected to be completed during the fall of 2017, and the project is expected to be complete by April 2018. Rents have Although apartment vacancy rates declined during not yet been released. the fourth quarter of 2016, increased apartment • Luxury developments intended for retirees are currently under construction in the Naples area has contributed to construction, including 4 properties combining 460 apartments relatively elevated vacancy rates and slowing rent and assisted living units for seniors.The All Seasons Naples, growth since the second quarter of 2016. currently under construction in the city of Naples, will have 100 c ----Asking rent independent living and 62 assisted living one-and two-bedroom ED_ -Vacancy rate o, 16.0 20.0 units.The project is scheduled to be completed in the summer Y 14.0 18.0 of 2017. Proposed rents have not yet been released. ca c 12.0 (111\1V16.0 .--2-. Developers have responded to rent growth and low ;, 10 .0 14.0 vacancy rates with increased multifamily permitting 2 8.0 12.0 Q in the Naples area since 2013. m 6.0 10.0 m 1,200 2 4.0 8.0 0 E 1,000 2.0 6.0 0 ° > 0.0 4.0 > ca 8000 c 600 0 2. 0 2.0 -' 400 m } 4000 0, O,\0 0; O\h O,; O.." ,NL ONS 0.0 200 d' o' o' o- o- o- o- o- o- 2 0 00� 00 00 0�i O�rL 0�0 0�� Ooh 0�0 O�'l Q4=fourth quarter, rl (L rL rL (L (L rL (1, rL Source:Axiometrics,Inc. Note:Includes preliminary data from January 2016 through February 2017. Source:U.S.Census Bureau.Building Permits Survey � 0MIENT,,y sO*I�u :J' * O % l�B�N 0E0, � U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research MORRIS EW 2914 Cleveland (,2 )yn3uwe3w7 w3. ro Frro -dMe ypers, Florida lorida 3390 1 ip . � , 993 Toll Free (866) 337-7341 341 ew.com ENGINEERS • PLANNERS •SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Analysis: SD Livingston, LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26, 2018 Revised:January 16, 2019 Introduction and Background The requested GMPA would add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Residential Subdistrict category to the Future Land Use Element, allowing up to 12 units per acre on the 35.57-acre subject property. (A companion rezoning request would change the zoning from the A, Rural Agricultural and Residential Planned Unit Development (Della Rosa) zoning districts to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to develop a multi-family residential project of 3681 dwelling units, a clubhouse and accessory uses on the±35.57-acre site.)The GMPA request, however, would allow up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The subject site is located on the east side of Livingston Road, and south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. According to the documents accompanying the Site Development Plan request, the maximum building height would be 50', zoned, and 60', actual. Buildings would be four stories in height, and buffers would range from a 10'Type A up to a 20'Type C.There would be 15'Type B buffer adjacent to approved single- family residential uses to the east of the subject property. Approximately 42%of the site qualifies as wetlands of varying quality. The subject property is currently designated Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict provisions allow a maximum density of four(4) dwelling units per acre (DU/A) as a base density. The subject property is located within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, and TCMA and Affordable Housing bonuses could increase that number to a total of 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant, however, is not requesting bonus density, but rather a GMPA that would increase the total allowable density per acre up to 9.84 dwelling units. The proposed amendment states: "The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57± acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard.The purpose of this 1 Documents for the accompanying submittals variously describe the subject property as between 35.57 acres up to 35.91 acres,and the final development plan between 336 up to 368 mufti-family units.The boundary survey lists the total acreage as 35.566 acres.As noted above,the GMPA,if approved,would allow up to 12 units per acre. Fort Myers I Tallahassee I Destin -.,761"IfO33I Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 2 Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 9.84 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 350 units. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.3 by providing two or more of the following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west: and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multi-family units (a density of 7.0 units per acre) until the applicable facilities and/or interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. d.The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses." 11 yy i ,O 'fit r f • w , ,g �..- 3.1 rvs. 161= 3 ;1F-2-1 r, Figure 1:Subject with Surrounding Development Surrounding land uses include the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development to the east and south, Royal Palm Academy to the southeast,The Enclave Residential Planned Unit Analysis:SO Livingston,LLC-Allure PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 13 Development to the southwest, undeveloped C-1 zoning to the west, Agriculture zoned property to the west, and the Mediterra Planned Unit Development to the northwest, north, and north east.The C-1 parcel located to the west of the subject property is designated as the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Blvd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Discussion and Analysis Objective 5 of the Future Land Use Element indicates that the County will promote sound planning that ensures, among other things, the compatibility of land uses. Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element states, "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Development Acres I Units Units per Acre FLUM Category Mediterra I 1,168 750 0.64 Urban Residential Brandon II 51.1 204 I 3.99 Urban Residential 1 The Enclave I 28.38 114 ; 4.02 Urban Residential i Royal Palm Academy 162.7 550 ; 3.38 Urban Residential Table 1:Surrounding Development Summary Based upon the surrounding land uses, the requested density of 9.84 units per acre represents an increase ranging between 245% up to 1,538%of the existing densities.The plan amendment does not provide for any incentives for density beyond those that would normally be available for the additional 3 units per acre available for proposed TCMA improvements. Under the existing designation, there would normally be a requirement for provision of affordable housing, but the current request eliminates that necessity. The property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) which potentially makes it eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus, potentially increasing the total density for 4 units per acre to 7 units per acre, without a change in land use designation. Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element indicates that a TCMA will be designated to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple,viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. In order for a development to be exempt from link-specific concurrency requirements, developments within the TCMA must provide not less than 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as detailed in the Land Development Code (LDC).According to LDC Section 6.02.02(L) states, "In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least 2 of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a. Including neighborhood commercials uses within a residential project. b. Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c. Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d. Including 111.1111.01.1.1.111111111.1111. Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 14 affordable housing (minimum of 25%of the units)within the development. e.Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties."This language echoes that found in FLUE Policy 6.5. The applicant has indicated an intention to provide a transit shelter and connection to the adjoining commercial development, once that development is undertaken.The latter commitment is dependent upon the ultimate design of the commercial property and may be outside the applicant's ability to guarantee. The applicant has not committed to any of the other TDM strategies. The applicant has submitted studies regarding demand for the proposed development as a rental community.The first study, by Axiometrics, indicates that the property would consist of 320 units- 144 one-bedroom units (45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%) and 32 three-bedroom units (10%).This is 106 dwelling units less than that which would be allowed under the proposed GMPA. Further, this study indicates that the proposed development should have luxurious interior amenities to be competitive within the market and command higher rental rates. Thus,the proposed analysis is not targeting affordable or workforce housing. Additionally, an analysis by Myers Research was provided discussing demand and supply of new market based rental property.That study concluded that net demand by 2022 would reach 2,672 units, with supply amounting to 2,732 units (including the proposed Allura development). The Myers study includes rental units with monthly rates up to $2,500;this is clearly not affordable/workforce housing, and there is no discussion regarding the socioeconomic status of the proposed renters for the subject property. Further, the increase in demand for renter occupied housing units projected between 2018 and 2023 is only 645 units for the County. There appears to be little support for the need to increase overall density on the subject property to a level between 2.5 times up to over 15 times the properties in the area. The Myers Research report does note that the employment centers are located to the west and south of the subject property. A review of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) accompanying the request suggests that traffic on Immokalee Road, west of the intersection with Livingston, is problematic. Since that is the direction of the majority of employment and support services, it is clear that increased traffic resulting from the approval of the proposal will impact that situation.The TIS also indicates that the improvements to Veterans Memorial Blvd. will not be undertaken until 2022, an does not indicate when those improvements will be completed. Chapter 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS indicates that plan amendments must be based upon data and analysis including the amount of land necessary to accommodate anticipated growth,the projected seasonal and permanent population, and the character of the undeveloped land.The request for a GMPA adds 171 dwelling units to the subject property that it could not achieve without provision of affordable housing. At 7 units per acre,the density with the proposed TDM strategies met on site, the total number of units to be permitted would be 249. No GMPA would be required, and there has been no indication that the existing land use designation is Analysis:SD Livingston,LLC-Allura PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 November 26,2018 Revised January 16,2019 Page 15 somehow burdensome to the land owner.There are economically viable development options for the subject property as shown both by the market studies provided as well as by the existing development patterns in the area. There is no compelling necessity to provide for such a significant increase in development density on the subject property. Further, there has been no data and analysis provided that would suggest a compelling reason for waiving the requirement of providing affordable/workforce housing as an incentive for added density. Staff indicates that at a macro level, the proposed GMPA may well be compatible with the area in which it is located.The Staff Report goes on to note that the rezoning petition must by analyzed with regards to specific compatibility measures.The proposed Site Development Plan shows buffers of 15' between existing single-family residences and the development.The proposed rezoning allows heights of up to 50' (zoned) and 60' (actual), for a series of massive, four-story buildings, all of which are necessary to place the 350 dwelling units on a property with significant wetlands that encompass over 40%of the site. Conclusion The GMPA requested is unnecessary and fails to demonstrate any kind of deficiency which it is intended to address.The subject property has an economically viable and reasonable use, the applicant can achieve a reasonable density through the utilization of existing provisions of the Growth Management Plan, and the documents submitted for the companion requests demonstrate that compatibility with adjoining and proximate development will not be achieved based upon the current development plans. Although the traffic analysis has not identified any specific problems associated with the development, it is noted that the employment centers and commercial development servicing the subject property are located primarily south and west of the subject property.The additional traffic proposed by the development will certainly add to congestion of the roadways in the area, and the east-west improvements to Veterans are not scheduled to commence until FY 2022. David W. Depew, PhD, AICP, LEED AP Principal & Co Founder Morris-Depew Associates, Inc. �r. ç' \ l ‘ . •• f es 4144 \Iii V 41 / , ( \ s 40.161. Gr i S ' + t Y / * '•F_;" i f, i a/ - lr ,,/ 1 w �'k' � I 1 1k : • J. � / Av r I ' - ./1( ' ' t r X t i\ i 1 j s ktk, \ ., , t .. ,. . . ,,, # k c I.i.:„.g::::',4 i ., , L \ „ , , , ..,. , . :4 ,. 4 .. ..,,4..,i ii _ ,, \4 ., ,,, tli 3 \ R J. 3 i , i ;i: a t\ R .wsw r k: `i 1 d e F. V. ti illI\ , . ism .. , .' *1 ' a 4 ,, g s six —'•�_ - NIIIIIIIWIMIIIIIIIIIIIIINNIMMIO • 1 it 1 is 't V if . ',, i 4t r ,i'l _ / ;#1'.r sr SSS ',,, §._5 t�t� . moo ' 1/ ' if t ir .-. f ..... \ I.. ' ? •i` try ; 7,11, \ Irl p 1 Robert Walczak 16285 Aberdeen Way Naples Fl 34110 Penny Taylor Collier County Commissioner District 4 Dear Commissioner Taylor, "I am sending this email in regard to the Allura Project proposed to be literally built in my back yard. I am a firefighter in Naples and my wife is a nurse. We have 3 small boys and I am very disappointed this project has even been considered. We moved to Barrington Cove for a better sense of community and safety. This project is going to be a eye sore to me as my backyard will be facing the buildings. My pool faces the parking area. I promise you that the safety concerns are very real for me. I have been in many similar buildings in the county and nothing I want in my back yard! This is NO sense of community and very upsetting for us. I worked very hard to get my family into our neighborhood. This all will change if this project is approved. Serve your citizens! Put our communities/families first and not someone's pockets! �'` x ;.`vr' �R 44. yC'fiC.i' - .,.1 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD r L ::!: ZBARRINGTCN A wRa COPE LI ,.. • "Sincerely, Rob Walczak `�rrrrrrrrrrrrir :21(:)4.6: 5 N1 N2 ) yO (.0 co 0.)if ,,,,.,, -icsF DePSSY Jm\� J� 'r,0asinoa iron ku`jadusl ��9 0 S 14 fft Iril ot ,?3 fSM"$,�- 't FT3V 4$ CD cl c* • t (CD F a) n v cel = „.., R u,co o �#� t+ CD � ns� (2`.,, d co N 3 fb C1 CO _?, CD O 71 m co r c. 4 5 n o (CI I 14)1 WTI zo Q CD cCD ; 3 E So -n s,T g m, 1 3' m� 0 m coI. ., C Q. -3 4 p . O S O q= I CO ;o N ;5c d < a m m. D `°70 pa uols6uini1 pa uols6u!An pa uols6uiA!1 pa uoisf N co COA.r CD0 °-.. 0 i46' O n mO 0 a- . 117 *% m m J nr I ul ou)Jel9 m 0 3 -t, ,,.,-1 --ti Aberdeen Way $ o o m H ✓ m o_ c] -o .,) J Aem ou ID O N < m O o O 13 O0 `.< �� O () Q co C - m (D Q m (, a cncco CO[ 1 co t ,o < 11112) c m $ N 3 7 o T = - Gz a (.° W ATT00001.txt 2) Compatibility with the surrounding developments. All residential single family homes, condo, no apartments. This four story building does not fit the surrounding communities. Also we should consider the fire station; this project will have a negative direct impact. 3) The immense size of the project. The Allura project is asking for 304 units, with 2 3 story buildings and 4 4 story buildings, along with numerous garages. We ask that you carefully review this Allura project and take into consideration the existing neighbors living in this area. Sometimes it's not all about the revenue. We vote no for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact us via email. Sincerely, Meggie and Juan Carlos Barboza Barrington Cove residents Naples, FL 34110 Page 1 GrecoSherry From: Tim Richards <TimR@mediterraca.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:34 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted: Allura - representing Homeowners in Mediterra (Robert D. Pritt, 239-649-2714) &Tim Richards—Mediterra Manager 1 GrecoSherry From: Carmen <cs3619@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:33 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Penny Taylor Please do not vote for Allura or you lose our vote. Thank you. Carmen Gurgone Sent from my iPad 2 GrecoSherry From: Josephine Sabillon <jsabillon1@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:11 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: If you vote Pro ALLURA, I won't be voting for you! I am a full-time resident of The Strand and feel that Naples is loosing its charm with the over-saturation of the market with high-density housing. Please do not allow our unique community to turn into a Ft. Lauderdale or Miami and the inevitable societal ills that come with it. According to the Urban Land Institute, contrary to what some of your constituents may have you believe, we are not under any affordable or otherwise housing crisis, we are just fine and need to focus on maintaining the unique integrity of our Naples/Greater Naples community. Thank you for your time and concern,this is a quality of life issue to all of us! Josephine Szmuc 3 GrecoSherry From: bob1175@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 11:01 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura IF YOU VOTE FOR ALLURA, WE WON'T VOTE FOR YOU! Robert Cherry 4 GrecoSherry From: John West <johncwwest@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 5:31 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allure Development Dear Commissioner Taylor, I would like to voice my concern over the proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I live in the Delasol community, off Livingston, across from Carlton Lakes. I have lived in Delasol for over 14 years. I am confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add my name to the list of people who are concerned over the additional traffic,the over crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities. I stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage in the streets.The addition of an extra, minimum of 600, cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets, and services.The area is already busy with cars,trucks, buses, motorcycles, bicycles, walkers, children and adults.We occasionally have black bears, deer, bob cats,foxes and turtles at the same intersection. Our community has the endangered golfer tortoises. Livingston has become extremely busy with traffic. It has become most difficulty to turn left on to Livingston from Delasol especially during season. When the Bonita Springs exit on 175 closes or traffic slows down, motorists exit the highway at Bonita and take Livingston back to Immokalee to join back on 1-75.There are times that Livingston is at a crawl. The former Albertsons will open as "Seed To Table" in November. Again, there will be an increase in traffic. Have you considered having the Allura Development built in another location? Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not allow this large unit apartment complex to be built. Thank you and please vote NO. Sincerely John West 16144 Parque Lane 5 GrecoSherry From: Sent: To: Jay Bombero <jaybombero@yahoo.com> Monday, February 25, 2019 4:00 PM TaylorPenny Subject: Allure Development Dear Commissioner Taylor, I would like to voice my concern over the proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I live in the Delasol community, off Livingston, across from Carlton Lakes. I have lived in Delasol for over 14 years. I am confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add my name to the list of people who are concerned over the additional traffic, the over crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities. I stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage in the streets. The addition of an extra, minimum of 600, cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets, and services. The area is already busy with cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, bicycles, walkers, children and adults. We occasionally have black bears, deer, bob cats, foxes and turtles at the same intersection. Our community has the endangered golfer tortoises. Livingston has become extremely busy with traffic. It has become most difficulty to turn left on to Livingston from Delasol especially during season. When the Bonita Springs exit on 175 closes or traffic slows down, motorists exit the highway at Bonita and take Livingston back to Immokalee to join back on 1-75. There are times that Livingston is at a crawl. The former Albertsons will open as "Seed To Table" in November. Again, there will be an increase in traffic. Have you considered having the Allure Development built in another location? Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not allow this large unit apartment complex to be built. Thank you and please vote NO. Sincerely, John Bombero 16144 Parque Lane Naples, FL. 34110 6 GrecoSherry From: aprilstaples@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 2:19 PM Cc: FialaDonna; Esq.andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Re: Allura As County Commissioners, we know what a big and important job you have REPRESENTING US, YOUR CONSTITUENTS. It was heartening to read last week's article re: Commissioner Fiala's time and energy put into tracking affordable housing in Naples. Analogously, we NEED your Planning Board to revisit the Stock Allura Apartments project. Hopefully, the long and informative article in Naples Sunday's paper tracking Stock's history in our area, will provide necessary information to change your previous vote of 4 to 2 that supported Stock's Allura Apartments. We do not need more rentals in this area and it certainly is in the best interest of local residents to keep the density as low as possible under our zoning ordinances. Immokalee road is already one of the busiest in Naples and traffic on Livingston is very steadily escalating. Just wait till Oakes is finally completed and the traffic east of 175 continues to heavily expand. Please know that we very much appreciate all the time and energy that you expend on our behalf. Your services make the Naples we proudly call home. Thank you, April Staples 5653 Whisperwood Blvd, #301. Naples, Fl 34110 7 GrecoSherry From: Donna Bradshaw <dbinnaples@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 1:07 PM To: FialaDonna; Esq.andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Allura As County Commissioners, we know what a big and important job you have REPRESENTING US, YOUR CONSTITUENTS. It was heartening to read last week's article re: Commissioner Fiala's time and energy put into tracking affordable housing in Naples. Analogously, we NEED your Planning Board to revisit the Stock Allura Apartments project. Hopefully, the long and informative article in Naples Sunday's paper tracking Stock's history in our area, will provide necessary information to change your previous vote of 4 to 2 that supported Stock's Allura Apartments. We do not need more rentals in this area and it certainly is in the best interest of local residents to keep the density as low as possible under our zoning ordinances. Immokalee road is already one of the busiest in Naples and traffic on Livingston is very steadily escalating. Just wait till Oakes is finally completed and the traffic east of 175 continues to heavily expand. Please know that we very much appreciate all the time and energy that you expend on our behalf. Your services make the Naples we proudly call home. Thank you, Donna Bradshaw 5875 Whisperwood Ct Naples, Fl 34110 8 GrecoSherry From: Anne Gaudet <anne.gaudet@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:12 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Fwd:Allura Apt. Proposal Begin forwarded message: From: Anne Gaudet <anne.gaudet(a�comcast.net> Subject: Fwd: Allura Apt. Proposal Date: February 25, 2019 at 12:06:30 PM EST To: Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov Dear Ms.Taylor, Begin forwarded message: From: Anne Gaudet <anne.daudet(a comcast.net> Subject: Allura Apt. Proposal Date: February 25, 2019 at 12:03:26 PM EST To:Andy.Solis(a_colliercountyfl.gov I am writing to request you vote "NO" on the project in this location on Livingston Rd. If you think it's a good idea to go ahead with the plan, park your car at the corner of Livingston &Veterans Pkwy any afternoon between 4&6pm. You will see that adding a minimum of 300 cars to that area is logistically untenable. If you choose to vote "Yes", you've lost my vote in the next election. Sincerely, Anne Gaudet Registerd Voter 5621 Whisperwood Blvd., #902 Naples, FL 34110 9 GrecoSherry From: Lisa Delfin <lisa.delfin@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 7:13 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: North Naples Allura Project Please do not vote for Allura or you lose my vote!! 10 GrecoSherry From: Arnisas <arnisas@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 6:14 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Subject: Re:Allura Apartment Proposal for North Naples Dear Ms Fiala: Thank you so much for your most enlightening recent commentary in the Naples Daily News regarding the purported "crisis" for affordable housing. I commend you for taking the time to investigate first hand as you did by getting out there and viewing the reality of the situation. I have written previously as an opponent to the proposed construction by Stock Development of the Altura apartments in North Naples on Veterans Memorial Blvd near Livingston Rd. Although not in the "affordable housing" category, they would be adding to the enormous overstock of rentals currently or soon to be available (over 4000, as you stated) in the greater Naples area. We do not need 304 more apartments in Naples, and more specifically, not in an area predominantly consisting of single-family homes and condominiums of no more than two floors. From a simple online search for available apartment rentals, it is more than apparent that apartments are not fulfilling the housing needs of people desiring to live in Naples. Like you, I also did a little first hand investigating and drove down to see the Inspira apartments on Rattlesnake Hammock, a complex similar to the proposed Altura also built by Stock. Although quite imposing on its own in size, it is not out of place with neighboring developments. Coming from Collier Blvd, I drove by the Sierra Grande (4 stories) and College Park (3 stories) apartment complexes as well as a CCPS bus facility shortly before arriving at Inspira. The access to Inspira is on Grand Lely Dr., a four-lane, median divided road with turn lanes, unlike Veterans Memorial's undivided two lanes which already provide access for three gated communities. My feeling is if any developer is granted permission to build housing with access to Veterans Memorial near Livingston, they should be required to widen the road to four travel lanes plus turn lanes. Finally, in light of all the litigation Stock Development is facing concerning faulty construction as revealed in today's Naples Daily News, I think the commissioners should seriously consider not granting them any kind of PUD amendments until they are able to clear up all of this and make good on all complaints against them. PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CURRENT PUD. VOTE AGAINST ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALLURA OR ANY OTHER LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT. Thank you again for your consideration. Arnold Saslaysky, The Strand On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 2:43 PM Arnisas<arnisas@gmail.com>wrote: Hello: 11 I am a resident in The Strand and opposed to the amendment of zoning that would allow Stock Development to construct Altura, four-story buildings with 304 apartments at the intersection of Livingston Rd and Veteran's Memorial Blvd. I attended the Feb. 7 meeting of the Planning Commission who after hearing from many objectors still voted in favor of moving forward with only two commissioners dissenting. Those who spoke at the hearing reiterated the more obvious objections such as congested traffic patterns, schools at capacity, wetland, green space, and bear habitat protection. The following objections got little or no attention: • The proposed apartment complex zone changes would be an example of 'spot zoning', which is a bad development concept. Almost every property within two miles of the proposed apartments is a single-family home or low-rise condominium. • The proposed apartment complex will have no standards or controls such as the developments near the site have that control the operation, maintenance, and behavior of the owners through the association mechanism with a board of directors. • The developer, Stock, will have no control of over what this proposed apartment complex will look like in 10 years and beyond. They will most likely sell the project to an investor who could then do anything they desired. During a downturn in the real estate rental market, the owner could forgo maintenance work, hence reducing the `luxury' apartment to something much less than "luxurious." • The incompatibility of the apartment architecture, given that of the neighboring developments, is of a density that requires 3 to 4 levels. This will do doubt negatively affect property values of adjoining real estate. • Buyers looking to purchase a home in the area may be negatively influenced by an apartment complex in the middle of this area. This could negatively affect home values in a very significant way. • Zone changes or variances are generally granted due to a hardship on the part of the property owner. However, this does not seem to be the case in this instance. The land in question has been zoned for a long period of time. All the surrounding property has been developed in compliance with the current zoning. The folks who purchased in the surrounding developments did so relying on the fact that neighboring projects would be of a like kind. Changing the adjoining land to allow an apartment project is unfair to those taxpayers. I realize growth and development are inevitable in Collier County, but it should be "smart" growth and development that maintains and is compatible the appearance and quality of life for those who live in the surrounding area. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Arnold Saslaysky 12 GrecoSherry From: Arthur Bradshaw <artbradshaw@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 6:12 PM To: FialaDonna; Esq.andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Allure Donna Fiala did a wonderful job of covering the availability of rental property in Collier County. Today's Naples paper pretty much shows Stock Builders as a questionable developer at best. We don't need more rentals especially in the area targeted by Stock. The residence may be fine people but they have no investment in the property or the area. The landlord is motivated by profit. Lets develop as low a density as possible under the zoning and keep it condos. The traffic on the local roads is already beyond what they are designed for and adding more than allowed is adding to the problem. Thanks for your service, Arthur Bradshaw 5875 Whisperwood Ct Naples, Fl 13 GrecoSherry From: Madeleine Gunderson <madeleine.gunderson@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 12:33 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Stop the Allura Project I live at The Strand near the proposed Allura Project and am very concerned about the negative impact building a 300+ unit apartments complex will have at this location. Livingston Road &Veteran's Memorial Parkway cannot handle the additional increase in traffic, quality of life and environmental issues this Project will bring. As it is, the traffic on Livingston Road already backs up from Veterans Memorial Parkway to Bonita Beach Rd every rush hour. The proposed Allura apartment complex will cause an already intolerable situation to become even worst. In addition, 3-story buildings at this site does not fit the neighborhood private residential environment. This massive complex DOES NOT FIT! Unfortunately,the land was incorrectly zoned and is being taken advantage of by Stock Development. Times have changed since the 2007 zoning approval.. Don't ruin beautiful North Naples by approving the Allura Project. I strongly ask that you vote against this proposed project. If this project goes through don't expect my vote come next election. Sincerely, Madeleine Gunderson Florida and Collier County Resident 14 GrecoSherry From: Virginia Burkley <sheri164@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 10:17 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Vote no on Allura or I will vote against you in the next election. The traffic situation on Livingston Rd is a nightmare already-add 300-600 more resident's cars- plus the comings and goings of Seed to Table's customers 7 days a week and we will have a horror show of a traffic problem in this formerly peaceful residential area. Think twice before you vote against your future and the future of our lovely neighborhood. Virginia Burkley 15 GrecoSherry From: Sally King <sally@grizzled.com> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 10:17 AM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; Donna.Flala@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Opposing Allura Apartments Dear Commissioner , Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks, the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets. The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term —whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new subdistrict. Thank you, Sally King, 16293 Camden Lakes Circle, Naples,FL 34110 16 GrecoSherry From: Fran Occhiuto <frano@optonline.net> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 9:49 AM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Opposing Allura Apartments Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks, the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd.The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra,Talis Park,The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets.The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by§163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.),there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction.These should provide a context for the use of the term—whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts,whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. 17 It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new subdistrict. Thank you, 18 GrecoSherry From: Bill Arndt <bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 9:41 AM To: Robert Aufdenkampe Cc: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Re: Traffic @ 4:45PM @ Proposed Stock Allura Apartment development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I have a video of the same jam On Feb 23, 2019 at 9:30 AM, <Robert Aufdenkampe>wrote: Commissioners: Here are some photos of the traffic congestion at Livingston and Veterans Memorial intersection. The first 4 photos taken at 4:45 PM coming south on Livingston turning east onto Veterans. The 5th photo was taken at 5:15 PM traveling west on Veterans trying to turn right onto Livingston. All pictures were taken on Friday, February 22, 2019. We have sat through 1 presentation by the Stock Corporation on the Allura project and 2 Planning Commission meeting telling us that there is no issue with traffic at the proposed intersection for this development. I am by no means a traffic expert but looking at this mess would lead me to believe that building 350 apartments at this intersection with at least 600 more vehicles traveling here would cause massive gridlock. Both the developer and your county staff have indicated that the ITE traffic study Revision#10 indicate that there are no issues. I respectfully submit that's not the case. Approval of any development that size at this location would essentially make Barrington Cove residents prisoners unable to travel on the roadway, during the morning and evening rush hours. Respectfully, Robert Aufdenkampe 16360 Aberdeen Way Naples, FL 34110 561-289-5431 Barrington Cove 19 { 3 . - . ' I py~ .. s _ �y X1.1 -1` .+ ' E yy� ----411011111111111 02/22/2010 1 20 4Ad,,, t w 4 ]_ I. i . E # . . J r. i. -.. . # ... f7 a g-; . 4 r 21 tib' � . '"f"."."4"1 --- -1. r am rola - 2,129P019 22 ,....: •-_, ' -.;-•'••-- ikig.,,"...f: - ; 1.! "11171 0. 1141 i rr; - ,T r, 1 r%I�)ri'' Till i' A . .., tt ,---- �+. _,+ li r _ 1 a v • ; -� i-• 1.74.-40.,""r c), , is s 02/22/2019 �► ` ' - rv... t ,mak 23 GrecoSherry From: Robert Aufdenkampe <bobaufde@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 9:30 AM To: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Fwd:Traffic @ 4:45PM @ Proposed Stock Allura Apartment development Commissioners: Here are some photos of the traffic congestion at Livingston and Veterans Memorial intersection. The first 4 photos taken at 4:45 PM coming south on Livingston turning east onto Veterans. The 5th photo was taken at 5:15 PM traveling west on Veterans trying to turn right onto Livingston. All pictures were taken on Friday, February 22, 2019. We have sat through 1 presentation by the Stock Corporation on the Allura project and 2 Planning Commission meeting telling us that there is no issue with traffic at the proposed intersection for this development. I am by no means a traffic expert but looking at this mess would lead me to believe that building 350 apartments at this intersection with at least 600 more vehicles traveling here would cause massive gridlock. Both the developer and your county staff have indicated that the ITE traffic study Revision#10 indicate that there are no issues. I respectfully submit that's not the case. Approval of any development that size at this location would essentially make Barrington Cove residents prisoners unable to travel on the roadway, during the morning and evening rush hours. Respectfully, Robert Aufdenkampe 16360 Aberdeen Way Naples, FL 34110 561-289-5431 Barrington Cove 24 . $. msµ, AkAlik ff K, K- ! 1 . i ._ . aw <4 f 02/22/201 25 • ..r . ti .1, ,ter ,.;,,';',_ :_'-- . . s.r 1 f' t I, i i �_ ._ ...._ f a tea . 3 : i CMINNIL.,, .' V 1 - til° ,_., __ , , _ , , . 26 7 i • , . .q p,ref r#i< • • 27 I I . 0 , , _, -.,' :'• : . ' : i `' } ,.. . . f se 'sI {' �� 4 �a v , a k �' x Illik' � ,.� t,. .. ."*. INIFIB,_,____ ___ ,., w� * q ., 44) -,. .. . r I. i P f ,; 'gip, ... ,,,,. 0,4'. ,.,. r;3.• 0 161011° ' : M - 02/22/2019 r 1 ,. Yry t ' {{ tib- • I ♦, a x T _ I. II ....:tea i.. 02/22/2i. • 28 GrecoSherry From: Juan Barboza <barbozajc@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:36 AM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Apartments subdistrict approval - Livingston Rd, Naples FL Attachments: Video.MOV;ATT00001.txt Hello collier county commissioners My family resides in Barrington Cove: Aberdeen Way. We are against the Allura project as it is not compatible with the area. Here are a few reasons why we think this project will negatively impact our surrounding areas: 1) Traffic. These past few weeks the traffic has been unbearable; bumper to bumper. Livingston and Imperial are a bottleneck. Both of these roads have not been designed to hold the capacity of vehicles currently transited. Especially during rush hours and school times. And with the plans to open up a new high school! Can we imagine the traffic congestion these apartments will bring to our area? It could turn into a real nightmare. If you haven't been into this traffic, please come by and try it out. I have attached a video from Friday February 22, 2019. The video was taken at 458 pm leaving Veterans Memorial Elementary after picking up my children. 29 GrecoSherry From: phil@gennexresourcing.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 9:53 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote no to Allura Commissioner Taylor- Thank you so much for serving on the board first of all. I know it's a job that is probably very thankless in general so I really want you to know how much I appreciate that. As you've probably heard, me and my neighbors are extremely against the proposed development project on the corner of Livingston and veterans. Aside from the traffic concerns and the number of seats in our schools that such a project would take, The project itself would lend a completely different feel to our community relative to the other properties which have been developed. We think it's fantastic that the property set says it does full of woods and trees just like the neighboring property across the street. There is a premium to live in this area because we have that type of land near here. The golf courses to the north or very peaceful and have done a beautiful job of creating foliage on the edge of their property to create a nice deal for the road outside despite the fact that they chopped down the natural habitat that used to occupy this land. The communities to the south, one of which I live in, have come in nicely and responsibly but they have created more of a commercial feel to the southern side of Livingston and it's just not as beautiful. For the betterment of our children, our community, nature, and really all involved, please please please vote no for this project, It really means a lot to my family and our neighbors! Have a great weekend! Phil Auerbach 16234 Camden Lakes Circle Naples, FL 34110 Phil Auerbach 212-829-8749 30 GrecoSherry From: bsuden@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:44 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Allura Development Dear Commissioner Solis and other County Commissioners: I would like to voice my concern over the proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I live in Delasol, off of Livingston. I am confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add my name to the list of people who are concerned over the additional traffic, the overcrowding of the schools, and the drain on public utilities and the infrastructure. This morning, trying to leave Delasol to go south on Livingston, took me an unbelievably long time as the traffic just didn't stop flowing. The addition of an extra, minimum of 300 cars, will place an even greater strain on the neighboring streets and services. Livingston is already extremely busy with cars, motorcycles and trucks. When the Bonita Springs exit on 175 closes or traffic slows down, motorists exit the highway at Bonita Beach Road, and take Livingston to Immokalee to get back on 175. At these times, Livingston is at a crawl. Livingston, going north, is also at a crawl on weekdays from the Firehouse to Bonita Beach Road anytime after 3:30 PM. Please do not allow this large complex to be built. Thank you for your time and consideration and please vote NO. Barbara Suden 31 GrecoSherry From: Ben Gunderson <gunderson.ben@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 5:30 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote NO on Allura Project I am opposed to the Stock Development Allura Project on Livingston Road &Veterans Memorial in Naples.The 300+ apartment unit complex on a small parcel of residential land in my community makes no sense.This project dose not fit in our neighborhood.The land should never be zoned for a massive apartment complex. The roads cannot handle the traffic and will further exaserbate the traffic issue in our neighborhood.The facts are clear. This project will negatively effect the quality of life in our community. Stop giving approval to Stock Development on very project.This one is an abomination. Sincerely Bernard Gunderson 5980 Pinnacle Lane#2101 Naples, Fl 34110 P.S. I live one mile from the proposed Allura project and I vote! 32 GrecoSherry From: Cheryl Armstrong <cearmstrong30@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 4:53 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allure Apartments Ms. Taylor - Do not vote for Allura or you lose my vote! Cheryl Armstrong 33 GrecoSherry From: ScottTrinity Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 3:46 PM To: JAMES WELDING; 1982SWM@gmail.com; SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; FialaDonna; mjsalasky@gmail.com Cc: ScavoneMichelle Subject: TP 7406 Allura Proposed Development Mr. Welding, We are in receipt of your inquiry about Allura. It has been forwarded to the appropriate staff for a response by close of business day on March 1, 2019 or sooner if possible. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Co er County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov From:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:14 AM To:ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov>; 1982SWM@gmail.com; SolisAndy <Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>;TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; McDanielBill <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov>; FialaDonna <Donna.Fiala@colliercountyfl.gov>; mjsalasky@gmail.com Subject: RE:Allura Proposed Development Scott: I thank you for taking the time to follow up with my request to review the Traffic Study for this proposed project. 34 As I read through the report,I find most of the "conclusions" preposterous. The predicted number of vehicle activity based on the proposed Units seems way out of line on each chart. It does not include the School Bus activity or the Delivery Truck activity. Where does it address the 24 month construction activity as the project is built ? The other glaring error is the pictured Exit and Entrance locations. How do residents navigate to get South on Livingston Road ? The Exit shown on Livingston means that a driver has to make a mad dash across 3 lanes in a limited space to make a U-turn. Not Safe. The Entrance and Exit on Veterans Blvd is also a safety hazard. Again, people trying to go South on Livingston have to make a left turn onto a busy Veterans Blvd behind cars and trucks already lined up at the Light. You can guarantee there will be a lot of honking horns and possible road rage incidents with that proposal. I understand that the Traffic Consultant Report has to work through Statistics that they have used or developed from past projects, but sometime "Common Sense" observation should prevail. Jim Welding Strand Resident On February 20, 2019 at 3:39 PM ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov>wrote: Mr. Welding, I just resent the email and have reduced the files sizes. If it still does not get through, I will break it into separate emails. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager CO er County 35 Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov From:James Welding<shakenns@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 5:25 PM To: ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Allura Proposed Development Timothy. I did not receive. Please address"failed traffic study".Thanks.Jim Sent from my iPhone Jim Welding On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:47 AM, ScottTrinity<Trinity.ScottCa@colliercountyfl.gov>wrote: Mr. Welding, Sorry to bother you. However, I sent you an email last week on February 11 providing you information. Due to the size of the email, I had asked for a confirmation that you had received the email. I haven't received such a confirmation, so I am inclined to believe that the email was either sent to a SPAM folder or you did not receive due to the size. Can you please advise if you received? If not, I will try to reduce the sizes of the attachments and resend. Respectfully, 36 Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager <image003.jpg> Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 37 GrecoSherry From: Sharon L Phillips, MD <sllmd10@aol.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:30 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US.It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks,the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward.On behalf of the Camden Lakes community,we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd.The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before,but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra,Talis Park,The Strand,Barrington Cove, Milano,Carlton Lakes,Verona Pointe,Delasol,Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs)who are concerned about the additional traffic,the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities,this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets.The addition,at a minimum,of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services.The area is already busy with cars,walkers and cyclists,both children and adults.And,we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally,since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by§163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.),there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction.These should provide a context for the use of the term-whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically,whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one),etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway,but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density.Also,we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict.We welcome any building in the proposed area,but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new subdistrict. Thank you, Sharon L. Phillips, MD, MBA Camden Lakes Homeowner 38 GrecoSherry From: Harry Shiroff <harryshiroff@me.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:25 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Please vote No when you vote on approval of Allura Apartment proposal North Naples. Harry & Barbara Shiroff 5963 Sand Wedge Lane, unit 201 Naples, Florida 34110 Sent from my iPad 39 GrecoSherry From: Barry Weissman <bwweissman@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 11:41 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Please deny Altura Apartments Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks, the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets. The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term —whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new subdistrict. Warm Regards, Savoy 4-Ire W 16353 Camden Lakes Circle Naples, FL 34110 Home: 239-431-7944 40 . bwweissman@comcast.net 41 GrecoSherry From: Kathleen Fredberg <KappyPetel @msn.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 10:08 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Please Vote NO on Allura Dear Commissioner Taylor: I would like to voice my concern over the proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I live in the Camden Lakes community, off Livingston at Learning Lane. I am confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add my name to the list of people who are concerned over the drain on public utilities and the additional traffic. I stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in our streets from the lack of appropriate generators for our pump station until the electricity returned. I feel that an additional 300 units would over-tax the infrastructure in our area. The density is just too great an additional burden. Currently If you were to travel Livingston Road mid-day, you would not notice much traffic. However, travel it between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m., and the road becomes a parking lot. There is often a "back-up" of cars from Veterans Parkway all the way north up to Bonita Beach Road, and that is when 1-75 is accident-free. We no longer even consider going north on Livingston Road late in the day, as we may end up sitting in traffic in excess of 20 minutes just to get to Bonita Beach Road. Once the proposed new high school is built, there will be additional traffic problems at the Veterans Parkway and Livingston Road intersection, but that amount of traffic is understandable due to the county's growth. However, this proposed over-dense Allura complex is not justified. Please consider reducing the number of units allowed in this new Stock development. I feel townhouses or carriage homes with garages would be much more appropriate for this area. The surrounding communities are all well-kept and contribute greatly to Collier County. Please help us maintain our quality of life, and vote NO on this Stock project. Thank you, Kathleen Fredberg 16092 Camden Lakes Circle Naples, FL Sent from Mail for Windows 10 42 GrecoSherry From: Pritt, Robert <RPritt@ralaw.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:12 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Allura - representing Homeowners in Mediterra (Robert Pritt -239-649-2714) 43 GrecoSherry From: alfred russo <sarus226@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:25 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA Do not vote for ALLURA or you loose our Vote!!! Sent from Mail for Windows 10 44 GrecoSherry From: Michael Zubrow <mkz.mkzgroup@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:35 AM To: FialaDonna Cc: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Do not vote for approval of this apartment project.The traffic is bad enough as it is right now. And would you rather have the thousands of votes that you would get or a few hundred from the apartment complex.To me the math is clear. Vote No Thank you Michael Zubrow The Strand Mike Zubrow MKZ Group 45 GrecoSherry From: Juan Rocha Jaje <jjaje@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:51 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt Subject: Re: Information opposing the need for Allura Apts. County Commissioners, I just wanted to let you know that I agreed and support 100% of what Mr. William Arndt (my neighbor) mentioned in the email below. Our family wants to live in Naples, in a city that grows but in order, consistently, not creating chaos in transit or overpopulation. We are also really concerned about the availability of realistic affordable housing for workers that want to come to the area and bring services. Allura won't be affordable at all. Please, help us to continue living in a city with future and progress. Thanks in advance, Juan Rocha Jaje 16204 Aberdeen Ave Naples, FL 34110 Barrington Cove jjaje@hotmail.com From:William Arndt<bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 AM To: Bill.McDaniel@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Andy.Solis@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Donna.Fiala@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Burt.Saunders@CollierCountyFL.Gov Cc: annemariecadw@hotmail.com; bill.arndt@mail.com; AdrianSabatino@yahoo.com; Andy@bonitatitle.com; brucejhopkins@gmail.com; tony16189@gmail.com; zannosgrekos@gmail.com; notification+kr4ybbmx4r2r@facebookmail.com;jrkuzie@aol.com; davevandermolen83@gmail.com; bthemmert@yahoo.com;jwhuntt@gmail.com; timdiegel@mac.com; mbh@hlhlawgroup.com; gpetisco@bellsouth.net; tarpon569@aol.com; nwoessner@me.com; irenebenfatti@yahoo.com;jeffpcm@yahoo.com; TimR@mediterraca.com; Ipmail2@yahoo.com; SDorcy@INNatPelicanBay.com; katywrede@gmail.com; ilrosenblatt@earthlink.net; ajohnson48304@comcast.net; bnprins@yahoo.com; cmcconnell@insightboston.com Subject: Information opposing the need for Allura Apts. County Commissioners, Thanks for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. In the next month the 4 story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. In this morning's Naples Daily News it sounded like factual information is needed to make this decision, so, to that end, I have attached the latest two HUD studieds for our area concerning rental. I have also included a list of the apartments coming on line in the near future, which does not include the Bonita 46 11111.11111111111111111111111110111.111110111111111, Springs project 1 mile outside Collier County that starts leasing its 240 units in June and last I have attached a discussion about the the definition of compatability. We gave a petition to the Planning Board prior to their hearing that was placed in the record signed by over 1000 North Collier County residents opposing the developement. The communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Camden Lakes, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) are greatly opposed to this development. Stock Development already owns the 15 acres of the DelaRosa and can build their 140+ appartments there since it was approved in 2007. It is obvious there will be additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building in the proposed new district be limited in density. Also we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes cited below; It is surprisingly difficult to find a clear definition of it; most regulations do not define compatibility. One very relevant one is the newly amended §163.3164(9), F.S. (2011), which brings the former Section 93-5.003(23), F.A.C. definition into the statute. It defines"compatibility" 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 use or condition."When §§163.3177(6)(a)3. and 163.3202(2)(b), F.S., require that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the implementing land development regulations, respectively, must include provisions addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses, this is the"compatibility"that is required. Since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the Plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term - whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and wish to ask you to block the increased density and the new subdistrict asked for. Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell 47 GrecoSherry From: Blair Gurick <ylblair@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:41 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Camden lakes Hi! I live in Camden Lakes with my husband and three children who attend veterans memorial elementary. Please please please consider not allowing these apartment buildings (allura) to go up, our kids are literally in constant danger to and from school the roads on Livingston by veterans Memorial elementary have gotten insanely crowded and cars are driving down the streets going 70 to 80 miles an hour. The school is already so overcrowded and the roads in and out of the middle school are over packed and with the new high school going in it's going to be chaos on the roads if these apartments are built. please consider NOT doing this at least for the kids, as the roads are slammed with cars and speeding. Thank you for considering. Love, Blair Gurick 48 GrecoSherry From: STEVE <rozfishski@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:52 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura project I suggest that the allura project be voted down as 2 votes are riding on it . Thanks Sincerely Steve and Midge Rozen 5811 Persimmon Way Naples 34110 Sent from my iPhone 49 I GrecoSherry From: Michael Osterman <mtosterman2@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:25 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura development Please vote NO on the Allura development at Livingston and Veterans. I am a very concerned member of a nearby community, Camden Lakes. Regards, Mike Osterman 650-346-7457 • 50 GrecoSherry From: William Kearney <strider12@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 4:10 PM To: William Kearney Subject: Allura Apartment Proposal Collier County Official, The Allura Apt. Project is not good for our area. Since you represent me as a constituent, please vote against this project, or you will lose my vote. Sincerely, Bill Kearney Ana's Place The Strand 51 GrecoSherry From: Tom &Joyce Riedel <tandj81632@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:44 PM To: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; burtsaunders@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Allura Apartment Proposal Just wanted to let you all know that I am opposed to the Allura development. I live in The Strand. It is not the right usage for the parcel in our neighborhood and will cause greatly increased traffic problems. Please vote NO on this proposal. Thank you. Tom Riedel 52 GrecoSherry From: Tom &Joyce Riedel <tjr81632@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:41 PM To: FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; burtsaunders@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Allura Apartment Proposal Just wanted to let you all know that I am opposed to the Allura development. I live in The Strand. It is not the right usage for the parcel in our neighborhood and will cause greatly increased traffic problems. Please vote NO on this proposal. Thank you. Joyce Riedel 53 GrecoSherry From: ScottTrinity Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:38 PM To: shakenns@comcast.net Cc: TaylorPenny;GrecoSherry; CasalanguidaNick; CohenThaddeus; PattersonAmy Subject: RE:Allura Attachments: Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures.doc;Allura Planned Unit Development TIS - Reduced.pdf; PL20170004419 Livingston_Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict aka Allura GMPA TIS Reduced.pdf Mr. Welding, Per our email yesterday, I am resending my prior email from last week and have reduced the size of the files. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager mi ow a •r .n•t•Y Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.S cott(n,colliercountvfl.gov From:ScottTrinity Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:46 AM To: 'shakenns@comcast.net' <shakenns@comcast.net> Cc:TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov>; CasalanguidaNick<Nick.Casalanguida@colliercountyfl.gov>; CohenThaddeus<Thaddeus.Cohen@colliercountyfl.gov>; PattersonAmy<Amy.Patterson@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:Allura Mr. Welding, Collier County has developed guidelines and procedures for traffic impact studies for development requests. These procedures are applied as developments proceed forward in their various stages. With the County's transportation review, a traffic impact study (TIS) is required for each development phase. In the case of Allura, the applicant prepares the study for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development and ultimately if those two are approved a site development plan. Attached you will find the Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures. 54 The applicants for the Allura development have submitted a TIS for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, which I have attached. The TIS analysis was developed based on 420 multi-family residential units, which the applicant subsequently requested to be reduced to 350 at the beginning of the Collier County Planning Commission. As part of the submittal for the Planned Unit Development petition, the applicant submitted a separate TIS which analyzed 350 multi-family residential units. This email contains a few large attachments, and I want to make sure that you receive the information. If you could please confirm receipt of this email, I would greatly appreciate it. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Co er Col4nty Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 55 GrecoSherry From: Bob Bassin <bsbassins@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:05 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Planning Board Members: We feel strongly that building more than 300 apartments "Allura" at Livingston Road and Veteran's Parkway, as recently proposed by Stock would negatively impact our environment, and we cannot support you in the future if this proposal is approved. Robert Bassin 6095 Fairway Court Naples, FL 34110 56 GrecoSherry From: Charles White <clwhite@whitemotors.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:44 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Project - Veterans and Livingston Dear Commissioners, I urge you to vote AGAINST this project.This site was originally zoned for single family homes . Increased density in this area will only cause additional traffic issues for residents of The Strand and surrounding communities. Please vote NO. We will be watching and I will not vote in the future for anyone who supports this project. Enough is Enough. Charles L.White 6021 Ashford Lane Naples, FL 34110 57 GrecoSherry From: Linda Strom <hellostrom@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 12:04 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Please vote NO on the Allura Apartment Project proposed for Livingston and Veterans Parkway. Traffic on Livingston is already ridiculous and will clearly worsen, as would Veterans Parkway, if this project is approved. Linda Strom 58 GrecoSherry From: Maryellen Nelson <emenels7@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:25 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Subject: Proposed Allura Apartment complex, at the southeast corner of Livingston and Veteran's Rd. Greetings, Please note that myself and my family live at 6053 Ashford Lane, unit 301 in Naples Florida. I am writing to consider all facts before allowing for the development of the above proposed high density rental property to go forward. This will bring a substantial burden on the already highly trafficked local roadways of Livingston road &Veterans Rd. Presently,the character of the neighborhood is mostly an over"50" year old demographic primarily of home ownership that pay substantial taxes to local government agencies. Rental properties do not support local taxed services per se'.There will be, most likely a certain amount of children attending local schools.This could mean up to 25%of the units inhabited will have children. This means buses on the roads, more pollution & backed up traffic. It also is a burden on our local schools that may not be able to support the extra students that are not paying taxes into the school districts. Finally, the safety issues have not been studied to ensure how the bussing &children will be managed to ensure maximum safety. Our quality of life will most certainly be negatively impacted. As it is now,traffic in the area is growing & so is noise & exhaust pollution. Therefore, I am requesting that you vote a resounding NO for approval on this project. Respectfully, Mrs. Maryellen Nelson. Sent from my iPhone 59 GrecoSherry From: Stan Lewis <whitesail01 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:05 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: No to Allure development Do not vote for Allure. Single family homes only. Sent from my iPad 60 GrecoSherry From: markie snow <markiesnow@fishermansmarket.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 11:17 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Do not vote for Allure or you will lose our vote Marketa and Monte Snow 1 GrecoSherry From: Rita Nudo <Rita@nudo.net> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:13 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: 304 apartment complex at Livingston and Veteran's Memorial Drive I am a resident of the Strand and I do not want Stock Development to build 304 apartments on the aforementioned corner. I certainly will not vote for anyone who allows Allura Apartments to go forward. Also, based on Sunday's February 24 front page stories, I believe it would be criminal to let Stock Development build anywhere in Collier County. Rita Nudo rita@nudo.net 1 GrecoSherry From: Diane Fischer <dianecfischer@me.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 9:39 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Subject: Stock Development Allura Apartments- Please vote no Dear Commissioners, I am not opposed to Stock Development building in our area, but I am opposed to such a large complex in an already congested area. Plus, I believe this would be an additional safety issue during peak traffic times for our children attending the two near by schools, Veterans Memorial Elementary and Naples Middle School, especially Veterans Memorial Elementary school.The Veterans Memorial Elementary school's only entrance is at the Livingston/Veterans Memorial Parkway corridor. Children ride their bikes and some walk. Safety first! Thank you for your consideration to review the proposed Alllura Apt. development further. Sincerely, Diane Fischer 1 • • GrecoSherry From: Jennifer Suden <jennifer.suden@regions.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 9:24 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura - please vote no Dear Commissioner Taylor, I would like to voice my concern over the proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I live in the Camden lakes community, off Livingston at Learning Lane. I am confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add my name to the list of people who are concerned over the additional traffic, the over crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities. I stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage in the streets. The addition of an extra, minimum of 300, cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets, and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers, both children and adults. We occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Livingston is already extremely busy with cars, motorcycles and trucks. When the Bonita Springs exit on 175 closes or traffic slows down, motorists exit the highway at Bonita and take Livingston back to Immokalee to join back on 175. There are times that Livingston is at a crawl. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not allow this large unit apartment complex to be built. Thank you and please vote NO. Jennifer Suden, CFA, CAIA VP, Portfolio Manager Regions Private Wealth Management 4851 Tamiami Trail N. I Naples, FL 34103 Office: (239)434-1130 I. REGIONS PRIVATE WEALTH MANAGEMENT (fib Do what is right cab Put people first A Reach higher A Focus on your customer A Enjoy life PRIVACY AND SECURITY STATEMENT This message is for the named individual's use only.It may contain confidential,proprietary or legally privileged information.No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any accidental transmission.If you receive this message in error,please immediately destroy it and notify the sender.You must not,directly or indirectly,use,disclose,distribute,print or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient 2 GrecoSherry From: Sue Reno <suecreno@aol.com> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 9:07 AM To: TaylorPenny • Subject: Allura Apartments I oppose the proposal of Allura Apartments at Livingston &Veterans Memorial. Please vote not in favor of this proposal. Susan Reno 6075 Pinnacle Ln Unit 1104 Naples, FL Sent from my iPhone 3 r GrecoSherry From: JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:14 AM To: ScottTrinity; 1982SWM@gmail.com; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; FialaDonna; mjsalasky@gmail.com Subject: RE: Allura Proposed Development Scott: I thank you for taking the time to follow up with my request to review the Traffic Study for this proposed project. As I read through the report,) find most of the "conclusions" preposterous. The predicted number of vehicle activity based on the proposed Units seems way out of line on each chart. It does not include the School Bus activity or the Delivery Truck activity. Where does it address the 24 month construction activity as the project is built ? The other glaring error is the pictured Exit and Entrance locations. How do residents navigate to get South on Livingston Road ? The Exit shown on Livingston means that a driver has to make a mad dash across 3 lanes in a limited space to make a U-turn. Not Safe. The Entrance and Exit on Veterans Blvd is also a safety hazard. Again, people trying to go South on Livingston have to make a left turn onto a busy Veterans Blvd behind cars and trucks already lined up at the Light. You can guarantee there will be a lot of honking horns and possible road rage incidents with that proposal. I understand that the Traffic Consultant Report has to work through Statistics that they have used or developed from past projects, but sometime "Common Sense" observation should prevail. Jim Welding Strand Resident On February 20, 2019 at 3:39 PM ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov>wrote: Mr. Welding, 4 I just resent the email and have reduced the files sizes. If it still does not get through, I will break it into separate emails. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Co aCoirnty Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov From:James Welding<shakenns@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 5:25 PM To:ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Allura Proposed Development Timothy. I did not receive. Please address"failed traffic study".Thanks.Jim Sent from my iPhone Jim Welding 5 On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:47 AM, ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov>wrote: Mr. Welding, Sorry to bother you. However, I sent you an email last week on February 11 providing you information. Due to the size of the email, I had asked for a confirmation that you had received the email. I haven't received such a confirmation, so I am inclined to believe that the email was either sent to a SPAM folder or you did not receive due to the size. Can you please advise if you received? If not, I will try to reduce the sizes of the attachments and resend. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager <image003.jpg> Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott(a colliercountyfl.gov • Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 6 GrecoSherry From: elizabeth smith <elizabeth.k.smith55@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:42 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Opposition to Allura Apartments Dear Commissioner Taylor, I am writing to you regarding my concern over the planned apartment project by Stock Development. First, thank you for your time and consideration. As I understand, the 4-story Allura apartment project will come to the council for a vote. I am very concerned that Stock, during the recent the public debate/meeting, stated it would be forced to build Della Rosa (69 feet high and 107 multi-family units previously approved) if Allura was not approved (Ref: Stock's Attorney; Naples Daily News, 17 Jan 2019). That sounds like a threat to public officials and the community. As a former Federal employee and Inspector General, that is very concerning in and of itself by a commercial entity. I am a transplant to Naples Florida (2015) and a current resident of Camden Lakes, a community that backs to Learning lane and adjacent to the proposed development site. I am very concerned about this project for a number of reasons. Those reasons include the following: increased traffic on an already significantly trafficked road; school overcrowding; inconsistency with the current housing footprint in the area (that includes only single family homes); devaluation of our properties and more importantly, a strain on public utilities (mainly sewage/water). Sewage was a huge issue in our development after the Hurricane — e.g., there was sewage backup in the streets. Given significant changes in weather patterns and increased forecasting in hurricane activity — this potentially poses a threat to public health. In addition, there was an increase in the bear and snake population in the area. Development of this magnitude will further erode the environment/ habitat where they live. When Federal property is acquired for development, an environmental and community impact survey is required. We have to wonder what impact survey Stock provided to the council / city planners. I also question the need for so many units given there are numerous rentals available in Collier county, to include those that are either completed or nearly completed (based on HUD reports, those approved for construction and completed in 2018 satisfy that need). Collier county ranks 7th in Florida favoring buying versus renting (2018 — "SmartAsset Study" — Naples Daily News, 3 May 18) For example, Collier's average home price is $450,694. That translates to an average monthly mortgage cost of$1,712 for principal and interest. The average rent in Collier is $1,737, potentially making buying a wiser investment. Rents in Allure will exceed this amount (up to $2000) thus making a potential renter look elsewhere for more economic rentals. There are other areas in Collier County that will fulfill this need, if it is indeed valid. I question the forecasting that Stock used and whether they presented that data to the board and whether it was consistent with the state and county codes / plans. (§163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.). If it is indeed a valid need, I am certain that these concerns were previously voiced but this is our community and our investment this project of which will forever impact our lives and, potentially drive out permanent residents. I appreciate your time in reading this letter and consideration in voting against this project. Thank you, Elizabeth Smith 16339 Winfiled Ln, Naples, FL 34110 8 GrecoSherry From: Pritt, Robert <RPritt@ralaw.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:12 PM To: TaylorPenny 01 Subject: Accepted: Allura - representing Homeowners in Mediterra (Robert Pritt -239-649-2714) 9 GrecoSherry From: Jimmy Crick <jpcsoccer17@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 4:46 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks, the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd.The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park,The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets. The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term—whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new subdistrict. Thank you, James P. Crick,Jr., PT, DPT Physical Therapist 1.0 GrecoSherry From: kim kissel <kkissel45@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 3:24 PM Cc: Kimberly Kissel Subject: Opposing Allura Apartment Dear Commissioner, Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks, the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets. The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term —whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Sub-District. We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new Sub-District. Thank you, Kim & Juergen Kissel Camden Lakes Homeowners Naples, Florida 11 GrecoSherry From: Olga Cobb <olgacobb@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:36 PM To: SolisAndy; FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Objecting to proposed Allura Apartment complex Dear Commissioners, As a retired and full time resident of the Camden Lakes community, I would like to add my voice to others, expressing our concerns and objections to this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are aware that residents of other neighboring communities such as Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) are also ALL concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities this proposed development will inevitably create and are TOO greatly opposed to this development. Many residents of our community stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember only too well the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets. The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Among our residents we have a lot of younger families with kids of all ages. The schools are full already. This is not just a question of convenience, but ours and our kids' safety and maintaining a healthy and safe environment for ALL. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term —whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. Any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this matter and ask you to support us in opposing the proposed Allura complex for all the above mentioned reasons. Thank you, Sincerely, Olga Cobb 630)300-4816 16300 Camden Lakes cir Naples Fl 34110 13 GrecoSherry From: Brenda Fitzgerald <brenjfitzgerald@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:53 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project It is a travesty that this has been approved. The impact on traffic alone will be horrendous. If this project does through you may be assured that there will no vote from us for the present commission. John E. & Brenda C. Fitzgerald 5997 Trophy Dr. - 1104 34110 14 i�. GrecoSherry From: Gmail <bonitajetskikevin@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:40 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Alurra developers Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks, the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd.The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra,Talis Park,The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes,Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets. The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services.The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction.These should provide a context for the use of the term—whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new subdistrict. Thank you, Kevin Nobis Bonita Jet Ski & Parasail Inc. Bonitajetski.com 15 GrecoSherry From: Camden Lakes Board <Board@camdenlakeshoa.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:25 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Tom Michaels; Tom Michaels; Susan King; Mike Azzolino; barbara520george@aol.com; Chris McConnell Subject: Opposing Allura Apartments Dear Commissioner Taylor, Thank you for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. It is truly appreciated. In the next few weeks, the 4-story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. On behalf of the Camden Lakes community, we would like to voice our concern over this proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. The Camden Lakes community is just off Livingston at Learning Lane. We are confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add Camden Lakes to the communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) who are concerned about the additional traffic, the over-crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities, this proposed development will create and who are greatly opposed to this development. Many of our residents stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage backing up in their houses and in the streets. The addition, at a minimum, of an extra 300 cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers and cyclists, both children and adults. And, we occasionally have black bears and deer at the same intersection. Finally, since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term —whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. It is obvious there will be an additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building be limited in density. Also, we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area, but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and ask you to block the increased density and addition of a new subdistrict. Thank you, 16 Thomas M. Michaels, Jr., President Camden Lakes Homeowners Association Naples, Florida I 17 GrecoSherry From: Bill Young <wwmyoung@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 11:58 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura PROJECT The Allura project is not in keeping with our neighborhood Bill Young 239-566-2384 Home 239-248-2978 Cell 18 GrecoSherry From: Ted Goldberg <teddy.gold@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 11:32 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA APARTMENTS BY STOCK I urge you to not accept the Stock proposal to build the subject apartments that the Collier County Planning Board approved. The original zoning for single family homes should not be over turned. My vote for your candidacy in the next election is at stake. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 19 • GrecoSherry From: Jon Davis <jondavis1040@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:41 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments-opposition Please reconsider and withhold approval of the proposed Allura Apartments development. A four-story building would be out of place in the area.There is already more than enough traffic in the area due to schools and other residents. Ever try to drive north on Livingston late in the day?This would just add more congestion to the already overcrowded infrastructure in the area. The real estate market is over-saturated already.There are many reports from the real estate industry about slowing sales and build up of inventory in the area. The schools in the area appear to be over crowded already. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that you vote no or deny the permits or whatever related to the building of the Allura Apartments. 20 GrecoSherry Subject: Allura - representing Homeowners in Mediterra Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Start: Wed 2/27/2019 11:00 AM End: Wed 2/27/2019 11:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: TaylorPenny Required Attendees: Bob Pritt This will confirm your meeting with Commissioner Taylor on the above mentioned date and time. GrecoSherry From: alfred russo <sarus226@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:25 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA Do not vote for ALLURA or you loose our Vote!!! Sent from Mail for Windows 10 2 2i t a 4. , OW __ fakilS5 GrecoSherry From: Michael Zubrow <mkz.mkzgroup@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:35 AM To: FialaDonna Cc: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Do not vote for approval of this apartment project. The traffic is bad enough as it is right now. And would you rather have the thousands of votes that you would get or a few hundred from the apartment complex. To me the math is clear. Vote No Thank you Michael Zubrow The Strand Mike Zubrow MKZ Group 2 GrecoSherry From: Juan Rocha Jaje <jjaje@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:51 PM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt Subject: Re: Information opposing the need for Allura Apts. County Commissioners, I just wanted to let you know that I agreed and support 100% of what Mr. William Arndt (my neighbor) mentioned in the email below. Our family wants to live in Naples, in a city that grows but in order, consistently, not creating chaos in transit or overpopulation. We are also really concerned about the availability of realistic affordable housing for workers that want to come to the area and bring services. Allura won't be affordable at all. Please, help us to continue living in a city with future and progress. Thanks in advance, Juan Rocha Jaje 16204 Aberdeen Ave Naples, FL 34110 Barrington Cove jjaje@hotmail.com From: William Arndt<bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 AM To: Bill.McDaniel@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Andy.Solis@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Donna.Fiala@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Burt.Saunders@CollierCountyFL.Gov Cc: annemariecadw@hotmail.com; bill.arndt@mail.com; AdrianSabatino@yahoo.com; Andy@bonitatitle.com; brucejhopkins@gmail.com; tony16189@gmail.com; zannosgrekos@gmail.com; notification+kr4ybbmx4r2r@facebookmail.com;jrkuzie@aol.com; davevandermolen83@gmail.com; bthemmert@yahoo.com;jwhuntt@gmail.com; timdiegel@mac.com; mbh@hlhlawgroup.com; gpetisco@bellsouth.net; tarpon569@aol.com; nwoessner@me.com; irenebenfatti@yahoo.com;jeffpcm@yahoo.com; TimR@mediterraca.com; Ipmail2@yahoo.com; SDorcy@INNatPelicanBay.com; katywrede@gmail.com; ilrosenblatt@earthlink.net; ajohnson48304@comcast.net; bnprins@yahoo.com; cmcconnell@insightboston.com Subject: Information opposing the need for Allura Apts. County Commissioners, Thanks for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. In the next month the 4 story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. In this morning's Naples Daily News it sounded like factual information is needed to make this decision, so, to that end, I have attached the latest two HUD studieds for our area concerning rental. I have also included a list of the apartments coming on line in the near future, which does not include the Bonita 3 Springs project 1 mile outside Collier County that starts leasing its 240 units in June and last I have attached a discussion about the the definition of compatability. We gave a petition to the Planning Board prior to their hearing that was placed in the record signed by over 1000 North Collier County residents opposing the developement. The communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Camden Lakes, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) are greatly opposed to this development. Stock Development already owns the 15 acres of the DelaRosa and can build their 140+ appartments there since it was approved in 2007. It is obvious there will be additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building in the proposed new district be limited in density. Also we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes cited below; It is surprisingly difficult to find a clear definition of it; most regulations do not define compatibility. One very relevant one is the newly amended §163.3164(9), F.S. (2011), which brings the former Section 9J-5.003(23), F.A.C. definition into the statute. It defines "compatibility" 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 use or condition."When §§163.3177(6)(a)3. and 163.3202(2)(b), F.S., require that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the implementing land development regulations, respectively, must include provisions addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses, this is the "compatibility"that is required. Since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the Plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term - whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and wish to ask you to block the increased density and the new subdistrict asked for. Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell 4 GrecoSherry From: Blair Gurick <ylblair@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:41 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Camden lakes Hi! I live in Camden Lakes with my husband and three children who attend veterans memorial elementary. Please please please consider not allowing these apartment buildings (allura) to go up, our kids are literally in constant danger to and from school the roads on Livingston by veterans Memorial elementary have gotten insanely crowded and cars are driving down the streets going 70 to 80 miles an hour.The school is already so overcrowded and the roads in and out of the middle school are over packed and with the new high school going in it's going to be chaos on the roads if these apartments are built. please consider NOT doing this at least for the kids, as the roads are slammed with cars and speeding.Thank you for considering. Love, Blair Gurick 5 GrecoSherry From: STEVE <rozfishski@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:52 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura project I suggest that the allura project be voted down as 2 votes are riding on it . Thanks Sincerely Steve and Midge Rozen 5811 Persimmon Way Naples 34110 Sent from my iPhone 6 GrecoSherry From: Michael Osterman <mtosterman2@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:25 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura development Please vote NO on the Allura development at Livingston and Veterans. I am a very concerned member of a nearby community, Camden Lakes. Regards, Mike Osterman 650-346-7457 7 GrecoSherry From: William Kearney <strider12@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 4:10 PM To: William Kearney Subject: Allura Apartment Proposal Collier County Official, The Allura Apt. Project is not good for our area. Since you represent me as a constituent, please vote against this project, or you will lose my vote. Sincerely, Bill Kearney Ana's Place The Strand 8 GrecoSherry From: Tom &Joyce Riedel <tandj81632@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:44 PM To: FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; burtsaunders@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Allura Apartment Proposal Just wanted to let you all know that I am opposed to the Allura development. I live in The Strand. It is not the right usage for the parcel in our neighborhood and will cause greatly increased traffic problems. Please vote NO on this proposal. Thank you. Tom Riedel 9 GrecoSherry From: Tom &Joyce Riedel <tjr81632@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:41 PM To: FialaDonna;TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; burtsaunders@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Allura Apartment Proposal Just wanted to let you all know that I am opposed to the Allura development. I live in The Strand. It is not the right usage for the parcel in our neighborhood and will cause greatly increased traffic problems. Please vote NO on this proposal. Thank you. Joyce Riedel 10 GrecoSherry From: ScottTrinity Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:38 PM To: shakenns@comcast.net Cc: TaylorPenny; GrecoSherry; CasalanguidaNick; CohenThaddeus; PattersonAmy Subject: RE:Allura Attachments: Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures.doc; Allura Planned Unit Development TIS - Reduced.pdf; PL20170004419 Livingston_Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict aka Allura GMPA TIS Reduced.pdf Mr. Welding, Per our email yesterday, I am resending my prior email from last week and have reduced the size of the files. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Colt. County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov From:ScottTrinity Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:46 AM To: 'shakenns@comcast.net'<shakenns@comcast.net> Cc:TaylorPenny<Penny.Taylor@colliercountyfl.gov>; GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov>; CasalanguidaNick<Nick.Casalanguida@colliercountyfl.gov>; CohenThaddeus<Thaddeus.Cohen@colliercountyfl.gov>; PattersonAmy<Amy.Patterson@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:Allura Mr. Welding, Collier County has developed guidelines and procedures for traffic impact studies for development requests. These procedures are applied as developments proceed forward in their various stages. With the County's transportation review, a traffic impact study (TIS) is required for each development phase. In the case of Allura, the applicant prepares the study for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development and ultimately if those two are approved a site development plan. Attached you will find the Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures. 11 The applicants for the Allura development have submitted a TIS for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, which I have attached. The TIS analysis was developed based on 420 multi-family residential units, which the applicant subsequently requested to be reduced to 350 at the beginning of the Collier County Planning Commission. As part of the submittal for the Planned Unit Development petition, the applicant submitted a separate TIS which analyzed 350 multi-family residential units. This email contains a few large attachments, and I want to make sure that you receive the information. If you could please confirm receipt of this email, I would greatly appreciate it. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager C0mT Cou.nty Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees &Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 12 GrecoSherry From: Bob Bassin <bsbassins@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:05 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Planning Board Members: We feel strongly that building more than 300 apartments "Allura" at Livingston Road and Veteran's Parkway, as recently proposed by Stock would negatively impact our environment, and we cannot support you in the future if this proposal is approved. Robert Bassin 6095 Fairway Court Naples, FL 34110 13 GrecoSherry From: Charles White <ciwhite@whitemotors.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:44 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Project -Veterans and Livingston Dear Commissioners, I urge you to vote AGAINST this project.This site was originally zoned for single family homes . Increased density in this area will only cause additional traffic issues for residents of The Strand and surrounding communities. Please vote NO. We will be watching and I will not vote in the future for anyone who supports this project. Enough is Enough. Charles L.White 6021 Ashford Lane Naples, FL 34110 14 GrecoSherry From: Linda Strom <hellostrom@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 12:04 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Please vote NO on the Allura Apartment Project proposed for Livingston and Veterans Parkway. Traffic on Livingston is already ridiculous and will clearly worsen, as would Veterans Parkway, if this project is approved. Linda Strom 15 GrecoSherry From: Maryellen Nelson <emenels7@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:25 AM To: Fiala Donna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: Proposed Altura Apartment complex, at the southeast corner of Livingston and Veteran's Rd. Greetings, Please note that myself and my family live at 6053 Ashford Lane, unit 301 in Naples Florida. I am writing to consider all facts before allowing for the development of the above proposed high density rental property to go forward. This will bring a substantial burden on the already highly trafficked local roadways of Livingston road &Veterans Rd. Presently, the character of the neighborhood is mostly an over"50"year old demographic primarily of home ownership that pay substantial taxes to local government agencies. Rental properties do not support local taxed services per se'. There will be, most likely a certain amount of children attending local schools.This could mean up to 25%of the units inhabited will have children.This means buses on the roads, more pollution & backed up traffic. It also is a burden on our local schools that may not be able to support the extra students that are not paying taxes into the school districts. Finally,the safety issues have not been studied to ensure how the bussing&children will be managed to ensure maximum safety. Our quality of life will most certainly be negatively impacted. As it is now, traffic in the area is growing&so is noise & exhaust pollution. Therefore, I am requesting that you vote a resounding NO for approval on this project. Respectfully, Mrs. Maryellen Nelson. Sent from my iPhone • 16 GrecoSherry From: Sue Reno <suecreno@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:05 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments I oppose the building of the above mentioned apartments. Please vote against this proposal. Susan Reno 6075 Pinnacle Lane unit 1104 Naples, FL 34110 Sent from my iPhone 1 I GrecoSherry From: katywrede@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:42 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: RE: Allura Project As a resident of the Strand and a member of the Strand Master Homeowners Board of Directors representing 1,074 residences, I want to thank you for considering our direct appeal to you, as our Commisioners, regarding the request by Stock Development to rezone the 35-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Livingston and Veteran's Memorial Boulevard to build a three story 350-unit rental apartment complex. While we appreciate Collier County's need for affordable housing in Collier County, Stock admittedly said this is not 'affordable housing,' but rather high-end luxury apartments and "need" is the operative word. There is no shortage of housing in this area. We, along with numerous communities in the area, stand strongly opposed to this rezoning request for a host of reasons. As a long-standing community of 1,074 residents, we hope our voices are heard. First and foremost, is the untold traffic impact this will have on the stretch of Livingston from Vanderbilt to Bonita Beach Road. Currently all communities whose egress and ingress are on Livingston are virtually 'house bound' in the morning and afternoons from 3:30-6:30. Traffic does not move and is backed up at a dead stop from Immokalee to Bonita Beach Rd. going North. In addition, Immokalee, where our front gate is located, is backed up both east and west.This is the current reality before the two new communities, already underway along Livingston between this same stretch, are completed. Additionally, a new Marriott Hotel is set to open on Immokalee just west of Livingston and a large Oakes Farms Market will open in 2019 at the corner of Immokalee and Livingston. As well, it must be considered what the traffic impact will be when the new high school is built in 2023 using Livingston and Veteran's Memorial Blvd. We implore you to begin thinking of the long term and growing problems North Naples is experiencing with traffic which are not being addressed nor taken into consideration when allowing even more housing developments on this already busy corridor. North Naples has quickly become oversaturated with developments at an alarming rate. These additional developments do not only impact traffic, but also the natural wetlands and flood zones. The parcel of land Stock is considering for its Allura Project is a wetland. It is easy to see what all the building has done to these natural flood zones. When it rains profusely and/or there is a hurricane such as last year, the residents along the Imperial River are flooded. Where is all the water to go if development and building continues unabated? Surely there are large tracts of land east of 1-75 available for development like Allura project that would be much more compatible and have much less impact on established single-family home developments already exist at the current proposed location. Additionally, this 4 mile stretch of Livingston between Vanderbilt and Bonita Beach Road, has 3 schools and a fire station, all of which add to congested and dangerous traffic patterns in the mornings and afternoons. It's hard to imagine how everyone will get out and complete their U-turns on Livingston when the fire station there turns on its red lights for fire truck to exit and enter the station. It is also our understanding that the elementary school at the end of Veterans is already at capacity and would not be able to enroll additional students. Veteran's Memorial Boulevard is an extremely short stretch of a narrow two-lane road with no bike lane or shoulder and comes to a dead end, both east and west. Currently 3 neighborhoods already have gates that empty onto this less than half mile stretch between Livingston and the east dead-end. This project proposes to place a gate for this apartment complex residents on this same small stretch. When the gardeners are working (weekly), it is down to one lane, a dangerous wait and pass situation. This also happens when commercial trucks line up and block the north gate of The Strand. 2 In addition to traffic woes,you should also be aware of that fact that we are faced with a growing population of displaced bears who are invading our neighborhoods daily.This has become a problem beyond the capacity of Florida Wildlife Commission which reports they have nowhere to move them. Five communities in the area have formed a committee, met with SWFWC, met with Kathleen Passidomo and Andy Solis in recent months to outline the serious issue we face. Unfortunately, bears appear daily roaming mid-day in people's garages, and even in an open window of a home recently. The few remaining wooded areas we have left in North Naples should be preserved as a habitat for these bears since currently the only plan FWC asks community member to learn to live side by side with the bears. Lastly, research tells us that the proximity of such a rental apartment complex of this size and capacity will undoubtedly affect the values of our properties and this in turn, will ultimately negatively affect the County tax coffers. When long standing residents bought homes in the area, they no doubt, hoped this land would never be developed, but assumed if so, it would also be single family homes as zoned for the past several years. It is unfair for them to suddenly find they have invested in homes that will now be next door to a large rental apartment complex. It is my understanding that rezoning requests are usually due to a hardship. This does not appear to be the case in this request. We implore you to give this matter every consideration and deny this rezoning request. We invite you to come visit us at the Strand and please come during season at 4:00 and try to get in the gate on Veteran's Memorial Drive off Livingston or the front gate off Immokalee. Like the over 10,000 residents of Barrington Cove, Mediterra, Del a Sol and Talis Park, this is our only means of getting to and from our homes and we certainly can't imagine how much more difficult movement may become if Allura were to come to pass. Vote NO, if you want our vote next election. • 3 GrecoSherry From: Harriet Matz <harrietsoulprint16@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 7:50 AM To: TaylorPenny DO NOT VOTE FOR ALLURA OR YOU LOSE OUR VOTE 4 GrecoSherry From: ronald leavitt <ronleavitt@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:15 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Do not vote for Allura or you will lose our vote. Ron Leavit Sent from my iPad • 5 GrecoSherry From: Karyl Leggio <kbleggio@loyola.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:06 PM Subject: Oppose Allura development Good evening, My husband and I are residents of the Strand housing development, and we oppose the rezoning of the property on Veterans Parkway to allow for 300+ apartments instead of single family homes as originally planned. The traffic is already very difficult during busy season, particularly, but in the evening, every work day. These additional apartments will exasperate a difficult situation. We will oppose your re-election if you support this proposal since our property value will be negatively influenced. Please let me know if you would like to discuss. Karyl Karyl B. Leggio, Ph.D. Professor of Finance LOYOLA Sellinger "44 VNIVFRSTTY MARYLAND school of$eaxons Loyola University Maryland 2034 Greenspring Drive Timonium, MD 21093 410-617-2097 kbleggio@loyola.edu • 6 GrecoSherry From: Robert Savage <rfsavage@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:10 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Vote against this Stock project planned on busy Livingston Rd. Sent from my iPad GrecoSherry From: Shirley Koepcke <shirlkoepcke@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:15 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Please do NOT vote for Allura.You will lose my vote by doing so. Concerned Strand resident Shirley Koepcke Sent from my iPhone 8 GrecoSherry From: Marti Odle <martiodle42@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:01 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Proposal Penny, DO NOT VOTE FOR ALLURA, or you will lose my vote!! Marti Odle The Strand 9 GrecoSherry Y From: Linda Davis <Iddavis123@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:00 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura project Dear Councilwoman, I am a resident of Collier County and would like to voice my objection against the Allura project. I don't know why there is initial zoning when every rezoning seems to go through undetered. People make the decisions about the biggest expense in their life based on zoning of areas around them. Then BIG developers come in and alter the playing field. This planned area doesn't fit in at all with the existing development in that area. The builders reduce the density by a marginal amount and somehow get it to slide by. This project is too high and too dense. Thank you for listening. Linda Davis Sent from my iPhone 10 GrecoSherry From: Jeanne <jeannesav@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:00 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura If you vote for Allura you will lose my vote. Sent from my iPad 11 t GrecoSherry From: Susie Cell Phone <susiepieky@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 3:02 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Do not vote for Allura or you loose my vote. Susan Piekenbrock Sent from my iPhone 12 011111011111.111111101111.11111111111111111111 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT,SUITE 503 'ATR TRANSPORTATION FORT MYERS,FL 33901-9356 OFFICE 239 278 3090 FAX 239.278.1906 CONSULTANTS, INC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPUD PL#20170004419 (GMPA) PL#20170004385 (RPUD) (MAJOR STUDY REVIEW FEE - $1,500) (METHODOLOGY REVIEW FEE - $500) (PROJECT NO. 1712.10) PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Certificate of Authorization Number: 27003 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-9356 (239) 278-3090 Revised: November 16,2018 °ems % TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VII. CONCLUSION TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for projects seeking Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and rezoning approval. The approximate 35.57 acre subject site is located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking the aforementioned approval. The approximate location of the subject site is illustrated on Figure 1. Currently, the future land use designation for the subject site is Urban Residential Subdistrict which allows a density of up to 4 residential units per acre. The proposed GMPA will establish a Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 350 multi-family residential units. Currently, a 15.38 acre portion of the subject site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD) which allows up to 107 multifamily units. The remaining 20.19 acres of the subject site is zoned A-Agriculture which allows up 1 residential unit per 5 acres. The proposed Allura RPUD rezoning will allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 350 multi-family residential units. The analysis in this report will determine the impacts of the proposed change in land use as well as rezoning to allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 350 multifamily residential units. The transportation related impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and proposed rezoning will be evaluated based on the estimated build-out year of the project and the impacts the proposed amendment and rezoning will have on the surrounding roadway infrastructure. Access to the subject site is proposed to be provided to Veterans Memorial Parkway via a single full site access drive and to Livingston Road via an exit only. Page 1 :�+ r J t( i'3?' 'T-'� r. ,.41:iF rrT'l � 'N LL, f i- -:� �y� .r� ,5 ^ iii - ;i A _.a. iiR . rt • e + -r--•----- F ' t. . .4 '' - _....._:::_r_ ,77.: , . . -.-_— tom_ _( - 4_ , . to.rt,d b ��• # *_. � ' „ ,_.... .. .., 1 ,..i. ..,__..... F ri ,,,....t...4 „,_,.....„,.....„......,....,,� t ....... I . i.z. k1 r to Y j-�- : 7,:7-.-. 4 _' -...."`-',•44-).1. r ie r r� - PROJECTSITE ' ;. 1. i. g 4 //,,}ice ; y • r''. .- w� .r W Lt) Itir .: 114 rte_ . ...,-...x.'"4tY.a-� 4.a1�*i I.%!.:� v 3 . _ yNV• `.♦ s.rE ; • of �+pi!ww.:+ `'sJ`� ` ` }: ` , P r , r :.t-'°A -to ' .,a _s-. s _ • i }.ter^.. i' .. :tiEiI: :±i + -*' i i l • • i it 1. • ' _ t 7 ' .---- _ i11 ti ''Ny .� „� fr . z- 4• 1 r _ -y ._ art" • _ %•� �,1 i :4'-'4,:":„%r 1� � 1 a u �- ��i�.� , rI k -1 air 13.1L..Hilt wow Ai _. 2„...2„4„,0,-. i. £', _. 4,'. J t fi t a !6 -,y moke2846I!" C' .04... . .--..,..„1-.. ..., .�w ,� r --I = . ;tea = < ,, f'-� �``�- 0 �. . ', , 1— . ` ..I...dw... N--nt. ) !_ ., a, - iia: ` t • 2 _r,-,;_,.+r—. �• .1..- -.. _� , XI ° •• ,_ .r+' ! p ca„ . ff i i.\:- , i t.Y.�� ^"I -riiY. ,t ` . --,-, . ' It 7 ..,.. _,. .77' 7.4 •'- ,: d,� _ TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LOCATION MAP // TR CONSULTANTS, ONC LIVINGSTON RD./VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 1 • 7ATR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Methodology meeting notes were exchanged with Collier County Staff via e-mail in order to discuss the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and rezoning of the subject site. The initial meeting checklist and the latest methodology notes are attached at the end of this document for reference. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the various roadways within the study area will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding roadways. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The site is bordered by Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the north, Barrington Cove Neighborhood residential uses to the east, vacant land to the south, and by vacant land and the North Collier Fire Station #48 and Livingston Road to the west. The subject site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA). The Northwest TCMA is bounded by the Collier/Lee County Line to the north, the I-75 right-of-way to the east, Pine Ridge Road to the south and the Gulf of Mexico to the west. Veterans Memorial Boulevard is a two lane undivided roadway that borders the subject site to the north. Collier County's 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) does not report any data for Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Veterans Memorial Boulevard in the Collier County's Needs Plan is shown to be widened to four lanes as well as being extended from Livingston Road to US 41. Collier County's Needs Plan is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. Veterans Memorial Boulevard, east of Livingston Road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Collier County Department of Transportation. Livingston Road is a six lane divided arterial roadway that borders the subject site to the west. Livingston Road north of Mediterra Boulevard is a four lane divided arterial roadway. Livingston Road from Imperial Street to Immokalee Road has a minimum Peak Hour, Peak Direction Level of Service Standard (LOS) of "E". The Level of Service Page 3 f' TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Standard Volume for this segment of Livingston Road (Roadway Link ID# 51.0) is 3,000 vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction. Livingston Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Collier County Department of Transportation. III. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING The proposed Land Use Amendment would change the future land use designation on the approximately 35.57 acre subject site from Urban Residential Subdistrict to establish a Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict which will allow the subject site to be developed with up to 350 multi-family residential units. Table 1 summarizes the land uses that could be constructed under the existing land use designation and the intensity of uses under the proposed land use designation. Table 1 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Land Uses — Existing/ Proposed Land Use Category Intensity 142 Multi-family Existing Urban Residential Subdistrict Dwelling Units (4 DU/Acre) Livingston Road/Veterans 350 Multi-family Proposed Memorial Boulevard East Dwelling Units Residential Subdistrict Additionally, a 15.38 acre portion of the subject site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD) which allows up to 107 multifamily units. The remaining 20.19 acres of the subject site is zoned A-Agriculture which allows up 1 residential unit per 5 acres. The proposed Allura RPUD rezoning will allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 350 multi-family residential units. Table 2 summarizes the land uses that could be constructed under the existing zoning category the intensity of uses under the proposed zoning category. Page 4 '// TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Table 2 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Land Uses — t Existing! Proposed Zoning District Intensity RPUD (15.38 acres) 111 Multi-family Existing A-Agriculture (20.19 acres) Dwelling Units 350 Multi-family Proposed Allura RPUD (35.57 acres) Dwelling Units IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION The trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Based on the request from the Collier County, a trip generation utilizing the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation report was also provided. This data was provided for informational purposes only and is attached in the Appendix of this report for reference. Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise) from the 10th Edition of the report was utilized for the trip generation purposes of the proposed multi-family dwelling units. Table 3 outlines the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation based on the existing land use category. Table 3 outlines the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation based on the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning. The daily trip generation is also indicated in this table. Table 3 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trip Generation Based on Proposed Land Use Amendment and Rezoning Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Multi-Family Housing �0 87 117 90 i 57 147 1,906 (350 Dwelling Units) _ Page 5 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate were assigned to the site access drives and the surrounding roadway network. The project traffic distribution was determined in the methodology with staff and is illustrated on Figure 2. Figure 2 also illustrates the assignment of the total project trips to the site access drives based upon the project traffic distribution. V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test. The trips generated as a result of the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning on the subject site was compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Based on the information contained within Table IA, no roadways are anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed development. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 2A includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2017 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). A five-year planning analysis was also conducted. In order to estimate the projected 2023 background traffic volumes, the existing 2017 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2017 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2017 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2017 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2023 background traffic volume. Page 6 _ _ _ LEE COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY W E 1� / I\ S N.T.S. (90)30 �� t v� r I � v o 18 (12) - °' VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. 1 j 57 (37) E •C N SITE U- Ci z 12(8) O0 -21 (0 Mop IMMOKALLE RD. 4' + o t6 (18) 410-30%-110. (27)9." + 40-20%♦ 0 LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC 4I-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC 420%♦ PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION // TR TRANSPORTATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS, ON LIVINGSTON RD./VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST INCRESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 2 74 TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The concurrency analysis was then performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes that will result with the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning from the 2023 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the net new traffic associated with proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning approvals. Based on the information contained within Table 2A, there will be sufficient capacity on all surrounding roadways, except on Immokalee Road, west of Livingston Road to serve the net new trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is projected in the year 2023 to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is considered as a pre-development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. Figure 3 was created to indicate the results of the concurrency analysis on the adjacent roadway network. As can be seen • within Figure 3, a positive capacity is shown after the addition of the peak hour trips from the proposed development on all roadway links, except for Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road. Additionally, Veterans Memorial Boulevard in the Collier County's Needs Plan is shown to be widened to four lanes as well as being extended from Livingston Road to US 41. Should this improvement be constructed, the traffic congestion may be alleviated on Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road. Collier County's Needs Plan is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. The Developer is committing to meet at least two of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies listed in Policy 6.5 of the Future Land Use Element contained within Collier County's Growth Management Plan. Policy 6.5 is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. Page 8 LEE COUNTY — — N COLLIER COUNTY W i� E / 1,671 (1,641) S [1,651] N.T.S. 1.05% co n. . VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. t—_1.. ' 0 I I c-5 I c i t——t r--,-! \<I TE 0 1,671 p (1,652) Ow [1 Ow .117— 1.95%95% J IMMOKALLE RD. 214 730 (-240) 1,287 (712) [-231] (1,282) [718] 0.87% [1,273] 0.51% 0.44% LEGEND 000 2023 CURRENT REMAINING CAPACITY (000) 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY W/AM PROJECT TRAFFIC [000] 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY W/ PM PROJECT TRAFFIC 0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE TRANSPORTATION 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED LINKS TR CONSULTANTS, INC LIVINGSTON RD.!VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) &ALLURA RPD Figure 3 // TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Based on results shown in Table 2A, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is shown to operate above the volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 in the year of 2023. Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element states that "each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards." Attached to the Appendix of this report is the Northwest TCMA report which shows that the Northwest TCMA currently meets 98.9% of its lane miles above the LOS standards. With the addition of the Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road insufficiency, the projected percent lane miles meeting the LOS Standard will decrease to approximately 94.8%. Therefore, with the addition of the project traffic to the surrounding roadways and based on the results of analysis containing within this report, the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning meets the minimum 85% threshold as described in Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element. Policy 5.7 is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS An intersection analysis was conducted utilizing the latest version of the program SYNCHROc to determine the operational characteristics of the signalized intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted by TR Transportation at the intersection in January, 2018, after the start of Collier County public schools. The peak hour turning movements were adjusted for peak season conditions based on peak season factor data as provided by FDOT in their Traffic Information Online resource. The FDOT peak season correction factor is included in the Appendix of this report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2023 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2023 background volumes to estimate the future 2023 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. Page 10 101111.101111011111111111111111111111 7 TRANSPORTATION TR CONSULTANTS, INC The SYNCHRO© summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2023 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "B" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. Turn lane improvements at the site access drive intersection will be evaluated at the time the project seeks site development plan approval application. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning is to allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 350 multifamily residential units. The site, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2023 build-out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways, except for Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road in 2023 both with and without the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning approval. Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is projected in the year 2023 to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is considered as a pre-development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. In addition, the subject site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA). Based on the concurrency analysis contained within this report, the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning meets the minimum 85% threshold as described in Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element. Page 11 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Intersection analysis was conducted at the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The results of this analysis indicate that the signalized intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2023 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Therefore, no roadway improvements are recommended in order to accommodate the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning. K:`,20I7\12 December`I0 Della Rosa RPUD Zoning Comp Plan CollierNovember Update to 350 Units\•I 1-16-2018 Report.doc Page 12 APPENDIX METHODOLOGY MEETING NOTES ommimiliom APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Location: via e-mail People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Stephen Baluch, Collier County Transportation, (239) 252-2361 2) Michael Sawyer, Transportation Planning(239) 252-2926 3) Ted Treesh, TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., (239) 278-3090 Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: Ted Treesh Organization: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Address &Telephone Number: 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, FL 33901 (239) 278-3090 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name &Title: Stephen Baluch, Site Plan Reviewer, Transportation Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name&Title: Organization &Telephone Number: Applicant: Applicant's Name: Stock Development Address: Telephone Number: (239) 449-5227 Proposed Development: Name: Livingston/Veterans PL20170004385 (RPUD) PL20170004419 (GMPA) Location: Southeast quadrant of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Pkwy Land Use Type: Multi-Family Residential ITE Code #: LUC 221 —Multi-Family Housing(Mid-Rise) Proposed number of development units: 420 Dwelling Units Other: N/A Description: Multi-Family Housing ;. .s- ,tyr!eat!gWt=s!-! !7'3.wc PUDA/GMPA Existing: Currently the site is vacant. A portion of the site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD). A Growth Management Plan Amendment will request the land use change from Urban Residential to establish the "Livingston Road/Veterans' Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict" to allow an increase in residential density from 4 dwelling units per acre to 12 dwelling units per acre. Comprehensive plan recommendation: Change from Urban Residential to a Subdistrict to allow an increase in density from 4 units/acre to 12 units per acre Requested: N/A Findings of the Preliminary Study: Project is anticipated to generate less approximately 212 net new PM peak hour trips. See the attached trip generation tables. Study Type: Small Scale TIS [ Minor TIS [ Major TIS Study Area: Boundaries: Livingston Road County line south through Immokalee Road (Links #51.0, 52.0 and 53.0). Immokalee Road east and west of Livingston Road (Links #42.1 & 42.2) based upon the Collier County 2%-2%-3% Significant Impact Criteria. Additional intersections to be analyzed: Livinston Road (), Veterans Pkwy Horizon Year(s): 2023 Analysis Time Period(s): AM & PM peak hours Future Off-Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation, 10`h Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: Pass-by trips: None Internal trips (PUD): None Transmit use: n/a Other: n/a Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: None Methodology& Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates: 2017 AUIR Site-trip generation: ITE Trip Generation 10`h Edition — LUC 221 (Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise) '1i2 ec8/nteA?t) Atsd•' __�cy.... "3r•..�_• Trip distribution method: By Hand — 35% to/from the north on Livingston Road, 65% to/from the south on Livingston Road, 15% to/from the south of Livingston Road south of Immokalee Road, 30% to/from the west on Immokalee Road and 20% to/from the east on Immokalee Road Traffic assignment method: By Hand Traffic growth rate: From comparison of the 2010 & 2017 AUIR's Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: One full-site access to Veterans Parkway Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On-site parking needs: Data Sources: ITE Trip Generation Report, 10th Edition Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES 77: Study Prer Reviewers Applicant asrmr '. ta;Od;04P,ZM.rye7mu _•.. •_ _ ..,3ix TRIP GENERATION LIVINGSTON/VETERANS GMPA/PUDA ALLURA Table 1 Trip Generation Multi-Family (Mid-Rise) ITE Land Use Code 221 Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Multi-Family Housing 36 104 140 107 69 176 2287 I (420 Units) Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Description Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels(floors). Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing(high-rise)(Land Use 222), off-campus student apartment(Land Use 225), and mid-rise residential with 1st-floor commercial (Land Use 231) are related land uses. Additional Data In prior editions of Trip Generation Manual,the mid-rise multifamily housing sites were further divided into rental and condominium categories.An investigation of vehicle trip data found no clear differences in trip making patterns between the rental and condominium sites within the ITE database.As more data are compiled for future editions,this land use classification can be reinvestigated. For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available,there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 95.7 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. Time-of-day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the eight general urban/suburban sites with data,the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 and 5:45 p.m., respectively. For the four dense multi-use urban sites with 24-hour count data,the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m. and 4:15 and 5:15 p.m., respectively. For the three center city core sites with 24-hour count data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 6:45 and 7:45 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., respectively. For the six sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents,there was an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and total dwelling units, an average of 95.7 percent of the units were occupied. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the five center city core sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.84 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.94 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.07 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.59 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2'Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 71 The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 32 dense multi-use urban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.90 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.90 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.00 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.08 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 13 general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.56 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.88 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.70 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.07 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), British Columbia (CAN), California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ontario, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, Source Numbers 168, 188, 204, 305, 306, 321, 357, 390, 436, 525, 530, 579, 638, 818, 857, 866, 901, 904, 910, 912, 918, 934, 936, 939, 944, 947, 948, 949, 959, 963, 964, 966, 967, 969, 970 72 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 4 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) • (221 ) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 27 Avg. Num.of Dwelling Units: 205 Directional Distribution: 50%entering, 50%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 5.44 1.27- 12.50 2.03 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 X X 2,500 X X 2,000 X X X X H 1,500 X / X 1.000 X X X X XX 500 X X X X X 00 100 200 300 400 500 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:T=5.45(X)-1.75 R'=0.77 „e=mr Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 73 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221 ) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 53 Avg. Num.of Dwelling Units: 207 Directional Distribution: 26%entering. 74%exiting - Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 036 0.06- 1.61 0.19 Data Plot and Equation 300 X X o. 200 X X • X X X X x 100 x ,, x x - x • x x,9,. x , - A X X<X x X X 0 ?( 0 200 400 600 800 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:Ln(T)=0.98 Ln(X)-0.98 R'=0.67 itirmr 74 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221 ) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 60 Avg. Num.of Dwelling Units: 208 Directional Distribution: 61%entering, 39%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.44 0.15- 1.11 0.19 Data Plot and Equation 400 X 300 a X X X X X 200 X X X X XXX 100 X X< - X X • X X X X XxX X X X X X X 00 200 400 600 800 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:Ln(T)=0.96 Ln(X)•0.63 R'=0.72 RE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 75 I- zh • F- LL z 2 2 Z 2 a 2 2 N 0 F- F l 0 0 O 0 0 O M t0 t0 0 '-N .- O O O EZ• 7 f a u. 0 y 7 v o K J 0 V N N F- O F- > U -- W 0 aF- 0 N o 0 0 e e 1 F co Q ca 0 CV 0 o 2 W• J 0 N 0 0 a `x e H W 0 Z0 V 0 0 V N 0 J 0 h M Cr 0 a > 0 C Z H F o e °° e eco • 0R N 0 N 0 W OJ O N O O • U 2 — F- W IL W 7 (n M N _J m tt M 0 0 J U > > W 0 W . -, F- J O U) ; e e e e 0 0 yNNO N- 0 1- < Q Oa W n 0Q 2JcO O p a a ce ta CC o 1- I= - ga Cn � a NCN � U > 0 z 0 JU' F= m U- QQ O• U 0 r Q V -,C13 WO O OzoW W W I- Q a J U W z z - CO Q W F- 0 7 F- Qd 1- c Q, U F- o e e e e e Z PC W oo co W 7 m in O O W - G o m F c D N 0 0 7 I- d F- O a Z co Q 0 z 0 C N U W c_, z W H F 1- U U. 7 e L e e e I- a LL =O 07 Ce d Q Z m coo .- N o a Z CD Z Z 0 V) — C W J CO 0 0 o O o 0 CO O O o, w 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 J >- a a „, `Oo 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 < J UD CO c0 c0 0 O 0 0 I- ' 2 II II W211 1 O O C'' N 2 Z '- N (', N N o o C V W . In Z• n W W N 2 03 N N N N N N lY I d W 7 W > > N z a o co o r- 0_ 0_ W IL T a W W3 Y 3 0 Ti Q Q Y - s d a 0 F- F- CC w ,p c 1- 1-0 0 W W 0 -g- 3 0 0 Z0NCY 1.> > J a a W 0 0 0 o 0 LI a 0 v7 Z N ui ui § 0 0 O 0 Y Y D Q a 0 W W N o n. a 0 0 a s a o a, Ra, a- a 0 c FF - E 0 0 0 J 2 IMMEMMIMMIMMF • 4g3i p ▪ ,i(J(,[,nn:.mv,Jmm GnnvmmGmnv 0000'✓m GOnmGm'vLVLmn:.GGwn^^^ ^O' -n sG mg'mbu.�Sgb bSl.kbb4S S.G.:::S �5- sb :;b ,rya`-�� Otl'I+tK'S.`0^..>^"0KIP'Z4t4«i4..xc;r,2 " -^oxxr,o rs xaaa-_ «names: t12 =..3 WI =m _":. ---• o ��.., - 0-_.r.-„ o e o r .,�,...... 'o a o a o T,T gg .1. 2211 • f 11)3 r.▪=m' • IgzzzzzzNNw zNv+:iuu..uw3w�+.sswwwwzzzzzuzznzzzzzzzzzzzzww3w;ww;i wwwwwwccnn^wnnnncnwmwwwnnwwwwnnwwnncnw,=wwwnnn^__wwwwu.... w • :• 4,!, 11 n=nc cc+e iei2:-ran22i r,w.oaa000a°i°az°•`enT°in °=a2=- _ _ - 7;, 7.1 Y 4 x F O"' r e ,_ - _Y 7=3 .xis . ; .e TszAyz I.0,2m 15t2 �E6��$� z zs �c sa � %-z s 1 mY >' jf.eK1m4m 3 CegLYKC 4 ii ,o '.` zz .al-x o y_ w !'-:_, —.7,, V 4L:..._, =—7.=m a CC—c1,,_v m==:...m===mmmL 1.m C:,G v V=m G=mt..CCC;J ^v . -,.. a &— > 244 ;4^x .23.".....s.. P22 '42A43^oedo :S='44n,R^.. ^^a m _ =x> . q, Lixx;_S: ;33«sex »kms T R _ o! = .e-Ari c`-Y•_".- �sfs. d n � Q i x-,Too-��.3Ai2iE. ,A _ Fe_ _ CA .n... L-v. - L.%v.-r 2 aC_-O7 i Om5. - Vgfl _ n' C R 6 o C C C..C-C C C....C C C 7 C. v.T.4,-__C__L .C O'_- C_a ae-C C _ S e r, C3n=S C...'. `-.7 -n, O O v n, C x -., C ni-- v -a n,- - $ 280, 6.. g I -- - «o _ of x .4 n ,,111^ - ---r3 -k- i> F s$ g =2 ,=ea_OeR= 4 - _ -_ =8«3'*2°R3= a8S:=ooeegL388888RSR4 _ . �F3, 232=43g.. *:f `-- -Tz5--- =--4.1HX-t-_,H=^^^ .B4�,,� , .4k PJF..”iFi7jET;f4FF”?aLliMAFUi.U.M.-**MH!,”An'EEirnIMMa � . - �S_?43. -lRiFi5U,111`,1AA ME3F.F.F.!---nor.”3i _HiF12s7 g= c - 1 - .n x— Sar __0 «x . sass 8fia xi? § § §` _--- _,,:wA.z»ZZZ.ZZZwv:zww3.nw13W35332ZZAZZZZ ,,.nmw.::c.wW_u..3-1ZZZZZ 1�� 'a - u.C C C C C C W w w W C C C C C W W w w w w C G C C C_ m C W w w C G C C G G C n C w w w w C C C C C W W w w w ` $.x..vav,:,y$R=air. v.a'E.='.....ay.vY r.r.. - iz-+ G C'�C C C 2 3 C G 2,=C r C a L C C i C C C G C T,C w i C C C-- ° =» C i C C i C C i C C O 2 a � s .. ..a o� ..., � a�e, .. =a nen, om 3_ j 44°Ii°� sa = r ='e l.." -"/“.52b-1:P. / tee ,. _ P 3 = � , i gi i l'!6, ;i1 l :43 �,l-- km_ l=—. So„v—c T.P on'. Fy — i e!:;114 3E.n !.;5>B>'a3a2 '44cini== v:Cuc�,is'.�.'}dYSYYnYr;f e2 .: `nu a>''vi L11 C: , x=.� oc:SFt= r3 a.YZ 3 23Tayi R w '1114nYti s,1 m7 - = 33 iE 'L = 3a4Y?gE sn =r1?24i ,:, ;a4c - i li 6 '3Ci ' E>a ' C . :5n'=: ..n3E =bst ^ -1 Y=z z k Y i 2 i i X a7a a Z.,_ 'E ,,- 3 coo -- 1 = 29gAfil w ` w -uwizZZZ q }j4;, = =”Yaai .�C YCYYYY YCYi i1C e1 -?,.i 7�i 1niniane'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ en:ne _ -1 iii ..-= .*f**41I*443222ligerzoa. zxszz cvmRszHH.Hgg.H3Y YY6G u„ : .., ,, "�� o e q _o- o 0 o c c o o c o o �o 0 0 0�c o 0 0- ,n.0 0 0 0 - eeeeeo.. h;,;.as.a,o�go S�;01;; ^^r-,,..^;a;xxx.::'2xx;_ _ . ae, o_ ;:i__ TABLES 1A, 2A & 3A a 7d C. I- LL 4 z z z z z m 0 I- • y U) t ;I- (A Q <0 u7 D v>W O0 NN J •- .- O O O 0 = e I 15 W 02 U = N r co H N J co N a) 0 I-0 > w0 -) I- 0 v> o 0 H it- in Ix • co O (( 0)) , a Co m 2 w --1 o '_ 0 CO a x' a ~ W 0 2 0 Q O Z .=.I ON uupp ,- ,- N Q a. 0 0 4 C? o ai F_ In a >° ;\ e w • V w O (� v0 \ •0 0 0 0 cc Ce 0 = w I— o rn N LL j w y = - f <0 N O F_ w In F_ 0> > 0 W ' 0 0 e o 0 Q 0. (n O N U a 4LL Co ~ S = J 0 0 0 0 Q Z a X O w z w I Q 0 z 0O N an O) w J W 0 O 3 w z as o y > > w o F- N o0 w ~ w C • = E o Z o w 4 E J < > z Z z CCI a J J I- r- ° 1 0 ; Li 0 I— CO J c n -w> = m M co o o CL - a ° m F- Q Z _ y om z a OV II II z O p U Z ULLNF- U I Z e - 0 0 0 LL- w D Q O UU') an a, O O Z NI el 0 Z 2 0 0 W < z v) V U) Lu N Q (A 0 0 0 O 0 0 n� JJ O O In W w Q l") co CO. Co Co 0 I— w < N O o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 co m U 0O (D (D (O CC z Z ~ Z 0 II II W Z Z 0i# O O O N �I— N N N Cl) w u7 LD Li-, V V' O y Z z ce M N. w W N 2 2 0) N N N N N J a a w W > > V) z 1 I-- r- a V • a > > CO co O 0 c m LL w 0 O a _ X 2 2 m = C F- I- C N 0 p § N 0 C C N p Y N W w Z D c m 0 0 w > > E J J • a s w '0 0 0 0 ° X X In vi vi ui O 0 I I • Y .o Q Q w w m O o. CL D 2' 2 2 a s a C v Q s F- I- Q c D 0 0 O= J £ ( } Ct13)0 0. 0 CC ill Lu 0 § / LLI» >co cf) ( 2 ( % j ] / / = b t \ \ ( . ) a # — \ \ 2 § C-- d § B \ \ 0.5- , a o § Q. j g csi LI § < 0 - - , , r o re Z I \ \ , , CI Ib „ ` 2 ›- M \ ( \ \ ( � - & Z _ ° # ! LLI CA CI Q § ) § ) (Ni _1 cc / ® § 2 $ m m , , \ 0 >. uj Ce § \ § § f \ \ \ \ § Zig W CslI 0 a < ` ~ r » ` , , , , « 03 C4 o I _1 D # I- g -1 co nn - 0 t 8 3 ! S- « , , , § & & \ 0w GG m0 ) R@ ® , , — E a ] U) > z ) ( \ (k ( ( ` ® tF} co \ ! ( - - - J ) \ \ } U ` ° \ / 0 - Q. Q. / , rsi, ( § c O — z ; 7 _ > Til , , 2 22 ! f [ / § 1' § \ G b $ co _ { la / ( ) k « £ - co2 , , s 5 % § § ; Z w a j k { 12 Y i ) \ 0. » 0 : £ > j ( 4 { - u £ TABLE 3A ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2011 2017 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE Livingston Road Imperial Parkway to Immokalee Road 51.0 1,074 1,180 6 2.00% 1.58% Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road 52.0 1,667 1,610 6 2.00% -0.58% Immokalee Road Livingston Road to 1-75 42.2 2,461 2,460 6 2.00% -0.01% Airport Road to Livingston Road 42.1 2,349 2,790 6 2.91% 2.91% All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2011 &2017 Annual Update Inventory Reports(AUIR) • In instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or insufficient data was available to calculate a growth rate due to construction,a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0%was assumed. SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2017 AUIR ^(1/Yrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate(AGR)= -1 2011 AUIR 1,180 ^(116) AGR(Livingston)_ -1 1,074 AGR(Livingston)= 1.58% 2017 AUIR REPORT gni S r r r r �« r A A2 P5 w. gitro ,,,,,„..,=,,,,..„...,..,..,.,..,....,......„,u,,,=0„,,.....,... ` ,leemeg4x4eg4dgeegeem Kx,sz,,reay . sex et4 44x,4 - s'd.iffier=$,'t3r:^re �. A4,$*: ,T3Z;AE^aAxRa:EEaE:3€a3'SPRP:e$xAi= i :7-!:. - ��c i i,v.iiiiIi aN=IZ 6'4v'_� E! :s,:.f§r z N sg it M a E a e M ' - 5. 3 41.in«oag«,.ESS.�_ MiMi_Ehs x.. z.'=.ii�.r._-.,`--'3n .'i nt=rxry: C M 3 � «n n « « _^2 r_--n'= m$_.«€-- a_r==0 0 0= L '_4 a A:=e'=== __ '===armrySRS;#S,. PI - _ " =_3:;3Eas .jr". .r.,!,f-,v:oa=.^.«-'or=«: ',13,;;=^ ,457: ::= T. .i - 1 ;1 x:==s_ va�a04g_ - :;a =1liztrt'T'-zS.nc^1,'-.,z.UWPS M �3 = a• r,_ ;3 ---_rvM- n ro ry r z z « « r.,.r �.. n« n- g 4 r` aE_ -Ts:a4-Fps-N0«._xx.-« aa<.F-.-,n -« ';3 h = 310115 igaix= --M$sx-x fxaaa.!a. -=-s-xaM�.---a=-=s,s.a a • zzzzzznv:vzr,_.uu m3y:uwww�mzzzzzUuzz,nzzzzzzzzzzzzm::3m3m:us, 3 =:u mmmm a3c^,,^^. ,.,.m n=ommum c OO wm:u a-ma to v mm.4m mn m e n JJ-2::u.0 a .T.i'' =_ _ -0=3„ ... l I,,- rico - s.snnr �� .. � 'a3v.r.h.a$.3r�v.r. E„ 3= 33�.�_,Y. a ii.ieii..e: ..nie-i:aav iic e.ie:tiea<i of a a:is x2a a Ze a ra o 7ftx0 � ' >. s ' i i f ' >$� 3fi a s =i es 1▪ . 1/31 . i !? n, , H ,i 3iid<=9_d. 1' ,. 7,2= 3 , , ,'=1 i a 1=3j 4R d3 3 s 3 5 ao=- ; e i t R dz j$ dsi , i3 3 ?= Vail s 1 -. '� -- - a _ )/".11401224A44 ai- __ w "; -_ 1......—; —.t, 4i 3 - sas 1 - t_ R- - fa1: -1C17iF, 1 34L ¢ z1- s1 1s/31-'L2 7 >ua ,zAP= zI¢1G ;>6=„ =»3i;5dc 3«s» _ �.: _�{3 y= ii; -x 1 $as '1 Y3__ " _ ;= h a - I'1 ."3;z 41-' i 35a -x1 �ja1#1i: m" 1a J11 ; 31=53gai '� i s z a. -.x i—; T 3,v 2 k 1 n:i g =i i 3 z 5 i=—Z a-L i_3; 7 T ' i 44176111 c'i zi 4 i _=ce_ __ e / zzzax wIt111151.41111 ,1aafi 3i1 13as? I3iiiii -4444 11=20 t il e� g r a i 1 3 3 d 3 'g't-- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3_3 3 5 3 3 3 4 y . R -IIfII.�?= i8" -> - = > tiii.53-.3,1141 ' 24 § § 4Hsh sn = n2 .1. 1 ,I -7.. <n'3�..x^'E^= =.,,58c33a3CC,5dd;863 -...:.,:,...,:..,:.3.,.,..-- s": ` a „ a. :"" OL Y Y f nI fr��y]L`YYY Y Y Ve.,C°�,C, C,mum 7..+""s."-...".....z..a[KK]L]CY Y Y V Y�Yi' _ r .,,__ 3m« _ _--H�---N =" .ova 2- �`: 2.T_,�,-.:_r..i4�k«a': ::x 22�_iSZss i i',II3 II+E3 3f eras t laif$aaa$i$�Lii.iii=aa$ 3tx;3; ffi ,,.. ; 14x::.e rrr -a.e: x .:rrg'e:x- _v.E-__aax _ -I««,.♦ -ry r.. nn.. «««ro«n«nro=.r...r. ... .-,-.r. -ro -.-. 101110111111101111111.111111111, • rle n = ` = z ««3 a r t= ;la `n ... N E F _ y m L(.:.vC.m4mc.m mm I....m:i V LC.Om u m:..V m(.mmm..:. a m===sLCim O(.mGGmmOmm;.,00 m G c> €Gsg.16. M>:.-sxe sg s=g'$ix :o«iaa.v'.=n:*;:s:Y.7;3paf,1n�R3pn3 .„,,ii =Unnn-i a 3•Yn e=-E. i»' i=a l3 i i_2 N _ n i a f."v«$= F_A_A x=n gE ''';11:t:, g..3 _ P 475 .-..s - .-_11,n-=•6-r. o--n,1:,::_=75_=3$=-M="AR3 .n_ _=_ n O3 C9 w▪C ry 4._ -t, -.a---r.---7 s-_n-___ .3 3%_,2 n=3%n n== n--- n_.-.n _ E+3 =^r:a$_ -3n3,,:a_ 3 e-,¢q-q - e•riiSn_ ?s..pgn z=«s rir2;4�+- 's = _z: 33axe:=`a*'s_S=a«h=:1g.=3sas.7—s _;na_-_ 33s::as ms24 _ • --x3. 1 FF:F z3 fi '!r•f.N .aTi.F-aM1zR=J 3.S.”`a a -= - nnn_z zF y - e_ z Er:anrY.«? �.r•.'23 -- - a x:c",e 3 a _ai rtrv3 �; 4714 -- - _ « �..,r. y .._. r, F=a:.371«Y a rv- --=f i A n--i=-a- ---n,., f F r f.;FF :3 Nr«= i..= s ;E44445544''___ -R __ .%..#v.%.--.n i'F.;,:,..7.-- - 55"S'i i Yi...,,.=,,...._rt,n..nn 1 a L --z.hzz ,z.,,— swm33333zz ,rnz3Mr`N.......wmzzzzz Nrs 3 -1 s m m m m O C W m s:ui m_C m m m m m- ,s:m m m m m m.,m m x m m m m 0 0 0 m m O W-s:u m O 0 a m m m m m m m 7 '- '_nra3m5=`in-a .F„hv.r.r.ain,irnn.. iiiiai-a.a?a r.r.-alae rm -a i 'O7,a. .;.:;iaa.._a iiiiiii=iiim_z��"3�?.2 miiiiel.--•.«.i..,iii;i 4 1 aY 7. Iii"ee 3 T 's 't 4 Y -• 'a 33 ; 2 F 1- -4 ': Glly3 3 1 l 23,= ? '> t4i - a 3 1 � t d 3 S 3 e�Y =i� � �1 3 �-_i 3i S � '�� -s oib > 3dS�a2 3 z A111..411;t o e e 1 $ 4 G z 3 4 e .:-. ,i a z 71 3 g s $ Y 1 3,..413 zl3 r 5 3r: l3. lx3 m '4 l e $ A1V4 F s i Y i : �• s.. vY,���: � 3 .,�, =3S . m`§� '.�,v..s.� cY.tcx.�zn 4z. .. 5 } ga'=>3: I a d x s_ =1 3 r# y hi 1 Y 714 Ts _ z- g • _ xs ] rssaYI34 ?32 dtt4 ; = sr 1 e 8 Ix 1 : 415 „ x 4is .2A- 1, F $ >:4 = q s5iix . 6' zVfi = 3 = : 14 Y 23 =lTs% st -5z .Iifie ; p § z3 � • X30 >a33i>71:31m0_ i �n2C. a ' '4-0t1: _13.7j31 ,11 S'>- a 11-14 s-a4 pppp : :1y " ___ 3 iiE 3d3 7.47.”. 7111111 avzzz -'5=FF - EntW11111 :a4413z 1134 M4 %% 1 4 -1.4! =z3idw21. s1in3 ' 4Ta 1 :1 3 a i/Itt;i -ftos"s;3i_34133 ,g3RZHAnRA':�i3-jc-.eeiiiiie3 - _ ”. A . 3ZZ -J61i1YYYYYi31YNsxznNmxm2H " 54sr, > F 3 443 YY% Z*1$$$4#3.83333 vCHx `��e `ea '`zszzx t2ai: '7n73g�R13JS1 ,nnnxr..,. -=__ »»- Zs v s Y_�$_Y , 5112 +31 11227 ems 3ElE t $ia 831 Baa 4. . 3 -,-«3 «X.Z..w:na Al ---:.. mann X833 .:S r-R^.. .d _3____�3 � 9 ? _ �___ $ 71;;;11 71'.%;•;71 �Yr.? :1'3'4,2 6$Rnnnnng11.xx=x':Y%%z:sx __ 34V!,-in.i3=__ COLLIER COUNTY NEEDS PLAN & PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS ATTACHMENT "H" • qppencll.1..SPlian 4.00.10; ' . . , . . 1 23rd Street SW Brantley•Neon Avenue Golden Gale Boulevard Enhanced 2-Lane Collector 60 feet 3.0 2 Airport Pulling Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road(CR 846) 6-Lane Divided Artenal 132 feet 2.0 97 Bald Eagle Dr Collier Boulevard San Marco Road 4 lanes 100 feel 1.3 3 Benfield Road Tarniami Troll East(US 4)1 Wilson Boulevard Extension 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feet 16 4 Camp Kees Road Oil Well Road(CR 8581 Iningkalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Anenal 200 feet 5.2 5 Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 Golden Gate Canal Green Boulevard 8-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 2.0 6 CR 951 Extension Immokalee Road(CR 6461 Heritage Bay Properties 4-lane Divided Artenal 120 feet 1.5 7 CR 951 Extension Heritage Bay Properties Lee County Line 2-Lane Arterial 80 feet 1 5 8 Enterprise Avenue Airport Pulling Reed Livingston Road 4-Lane Divided Minor Collector 148 feet 1.0 9 Everglades Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Inenokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Arlene( 200 feet 9.3 9b Everglades Boulevard Interstate 75(1-751 Golden Gate 4-Lane Divided Arlene 200 feet 5.3 10 Ronda Tradeport Boulevard New Market Road SR 29 Loop Road 2-Lane Artenal 200 feet 2.8 1 I Golden Gate Boulevard Wilson Boulevard Desoto Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Artenal 150 feet 5.8 • 12 • Goodlette-Frank Road Crarge Blossom Dnve Vanderbilt Beach Road 6-Lane Divided Artenal 156 feet 0.9 13 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road(CR 8461 4-Lane Divided Artenal 40-156 feet 1.8 14 Green Boulevard Extension West Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Artenal 156 feet 2.0 14a Green Boulevard Extension West Over Interstate 75/1-751 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feel 92 15 Green Boulevard Santa Barbara/Logan Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard , 4-Lane Divided Collector 100 feet 1.0 i6 Green Boulevard Self 16111 Ave SW Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 23rd Street SW 4-Lane Divided Collector 148 feet 2.1 ; Green Boulevard Est f 1661806 SW 23rd Street SW Everglades Boulevard 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 6.8 18 Interstate 75(I-751 Collier Boulevard(SR 95,1 Golden Gate Parkway „ 6-Lone Freeway 360 feet 3.3 19 Interstate 75(1-751 Golden Gate Parkway Pine Ridge Road(CR 806) 8-Lane Freeway 360 feet 2.8 Interstate 75(1-75)High Occupancy Vehicles 20 (NOV)lanes Pine Ridge Road(CR 8961 Lee County Dee 4-Lanes Limited Access 360 feel 7.4 2Immokalee Road(CR 846) Oil Well Rood(CR6081 Shady Hollow Boulevard 5-Lane Divided Arterial 180 feet 1.4 22 Immokalee Road(CR 8461 Shady Hollow Boulevard Camp Keais Road 4-Lane Divided Artenal 120 feet 17.2 23 Immokalee Road(CR 8461 Camp Kees Road Eustis Avenue 4-Lane Divided Artenai 120 feet 2.5 24 Immokalee Road(CR 8461 SR 29 , Airpark Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Anenal 120 feet 0.4 25 Immokalee Road Extension Camp Keais Road SR 29 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 2.7 26 Keane Avenue 23rd Street SW Inez Rood 2-Lane Undivided Minor Collector 15-124 feet 0.9 260 Keane Avenue Inez Road Wilson Boulevard Exterrsion 2-Lane Undivided Minor Collector 16-124 feet 2.0 27 Leila Len.Rood Lake Trafford Road SR 82 4-Lane Divided Artenal 160 feet 4.1 28 Logan Boulevard Green Boulevard Pine Ridge Rood(CR 896) 6-Lane Divided Anerial 132 feet 2.6 29 Logan Boulevard Pine Ridge Road(CR 8961 Immokalee Road(CR 8461 4-Lane Divided Major Collector 148 feet 4,2 31 Massey Street Vanderbilt Beach Rood Immokalee Road(CR 846) 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 20 32 New Gordan River Crossing Goodterte-Frank Road Airport Pullen Reed 4•Lane Divided Minor Collector 102 feet 2.3 32v New Gordan Rwer Bridge at Gordon River 4/one raised median bridge 55 feet 0.4 Enhanced 2-Lote Divided Major 33 Northbrooke Dnve Immokalee Road(CR 8461 north to end of public nght-of-way Collector 60 feet 2.1 34 Old US 41 Tarniane Trail North(US 411 L.County Line 4•Lane Divided Maier Collector 150 feet 1.5 35 Cl Well Rood/CR 858 Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Grade Road 6-Lane Divided Arlene 216 feet 3.9 JO Cil Well Road 1 CR 858 Ave Mane Entrance Camp Kerbs Road 6-Lane Divided Artenai 200 feet I•0 31 Orange Blossom Dnve Airport Puling Road Livingston Road 4-Lane Divided Mee Collector 102 feet 0.7 38 Randall Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 8461 Everglades Boulevard 6-Lane Orvided Arlene 180 feet 31 39 Randall Boulevard Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Road(CR 8581 6-Lane Divided Arterial 160 feet 3.9 40 Rattlesnake Hamm.Road Tarniarni Trail East(US 411 Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 3.8 41 Rattlesnakeidammock Road Exteregn Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Benfield Rood Ext 2-Lane Collector 80 feet I 3 42 San Marco Road(CR 921 Collier Boulevard Taneami Trail East(US 41) 4•Lane Divided Artenal 102 feet 11.5 43, Santa Barbara Boulevard Painted Leaf Lane Green Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Artenal 132 feet 1.7 44 SR 29 !mestere 75(1-751 Immokalee Road Extension 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 14 8 45 SR 29 Immokalee Road Extension Immokalee Road(CR 8461 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 lent 5.0 45a SR 29 9th Street Immokalee Dnve 4-Lane Divided Arterial 130 feet 0.9 46 SR 29 Immokalee Dove New Markel Road Nonh 4-Lane Divided Artenal 130 feet I 1 47 SR 29 New Market Road North Hendry County tree 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 5.5 48, SR 29 Loop Road Immokalee Road(CR 846) Florida Tradeport Boulevard 2 lane undivided arterial 200 feet 2.4 49 SR 29 Loop Road SR 20(South) Immokalee Road(CR 846) 2-Lane Artenal 200 feet 13 45a SR 29 Loop Road Florida Tradeport Boulevard SR 29(North) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet SA 50 SR 82 SR 29 Lee County Line 6-Lane Divided Arterial 192 feet 7.0 SI SR 84iDavis Boulevard) Airport Pelting Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet SR 52 SR 951(Collier Boulevard) N.of Mar.Island Bridge Tower Road 6-Lane Divided Arlene! 132 feet 7,0 53 Trria.Trail East(US 41) Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 Greenway Rood blare Divided Anenal 200 feet 3.0 54 Tamiarni Trail East(US 411 Greenway Road 6 L Fame Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 25 55 Trade Center Way Extension Airport Pulling Rood Livingston Road 2-Lane Collector 60 feet I 0 56 Tree Farm Road Collier Boulevard(CR011 Massey St 2-Lane Collector 56 feet I 0 57 fern Eagles Boulevard Extension Vanderbilt Beech Rd Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Collect. 150 feet 2.0 58 Vanderbilt Beach Rood Tanuarm Trail North(US 49 Airport Pulling Reed 6 Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 2.1 59 Vanderbilt Beach Rood Collier Boulevard(CR 551) Wilson Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feet 55 59a Vanderbilt Beach Road Wilson Boulevard Desoto Boulevard North 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feet 5 7 60 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road Boo.Beach Road Enhanced 2-Lane Major Collector 100 feet 2 7 61 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Tamiami Trail North(US 411 Livingston Road 4.Lane Divided 0001101 150 feet 2_6 0 63 Weetclos Road Little League Road West of Carson Rood 2-Lane Collector 56 feet 0.9 64 Whppoonvill Lane Green Boulevard(Whippoorwill Way Pine Ridge Road 2.Lane Collector 56 feet 0.4 65 White Boulevard Collier Boule.rd(CR 951) 31s)Street SW 2-Lane Divided Collector 1021061 1.2 4-Lane Raised Median Bridge(22' Median)with its Bike Lanes and 6' . . 65a White Boulevard Bridge west of 31st Street SW Sidewalks 0.2 66 Wiggins Pass Road Vanderbdt Dnve , ramie.Trail East(US 41) Enhanced 2-Lane Major Coilector 12 het 1.0 • 67 Wilson Boulevard S Wil.n Boulevard Extension Golden Gate Boulevard 4-Lane Minor Arterial 150 feet 54 68 Wits.Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Artenal 150 feet 12 69 Wilson Boiilevard Ext,I White Lake Blvd Collier Boulevard(CR 951) , Benfield Rood 4-Lane Divided Arlene' 130 feet 2.2 70 Wilson Boulevard Ext./Black Burn Rd Benfield Road Wilson Boulevard ALane Divided Anenal 130 feet 3.7 71- Wolfe Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Boulevard(CR 951) 2 Lane Collector 56 feel 01 . ' - • • • •. . 72 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 540(064540(064ranee.Trail East(US 411 160510 0001 urban interchange . , 73 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 549)and Livingston Rood single point urban interchange 74 Cntical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 846)and Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 single point:Akan interchange • 75 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 346)and Randall Boulevard single point urban interchange 76 entice Needs Intersection Pine Ridge Road(CR 8136)and Arrport-Pulling Road single point urban interchange 77 Critical Needs Intersechon Prne Ridge Road(CR 896)and Livingston Road single point urban interchange partial cloverleaf interchange volh 2 78 entice Needs Intersection Interstate 75 0-751 and Collier Boulevard(CR 951) loop ramps 79 Cntical Needs Intersection Interstate 15(1-75)and Everglades Boulevard , Diamond Interchange 80 Critical Needs Intersection Tamiarni Tr.East(US 41)and SR 29 Signalization-Masi arm assembly 81 Cnteoel Needs Intersection Tatham Trail East(U541)and Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 single pant.tian interchange 82 Critical Needs Intersection Davis Boulevard(SR 04)0011 Airport Pulling Rood single point urban interchange 83 Critical Needs Intersection Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road single point urban interchange erit Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Trail North(US 41)and Golden Gate Parkway single point urban interchange 98 Critical Needs Intersection Tamrami Trad East(US 41)and San Marco Road(CR 92) sIngle point urban interchange 85 Bridge I 23rd Street SW one block North of White Boulevard 2 lane Bridge Construction 102 feet 86 Bridge 2 16th Street NE,south of 1001 Aver/.e NE Bridge Construction 55 feet ATTACHMENT H ...i...,.....,_ — tVeterana Hernaeal Wed Year Expeeed DeRowe 2023 IMMOKALEE RD E IA NSET Al I 2nifehe BRedweVe Nonnwest TCMA Bled N 1111CLogn :11, 20: I Bridge at 47th Ave.NE ROW:FY2018 Deugn&Miegauon.FY2020 (By°therm Design-FY2021 Construction(FY2022 Year Expected 0000012027 Intersecdon!movements De's erd 2D20 . Design:FY2019 i r Expectedm,2027 Inte No,uwest TC/rta Z' ''\i ai Immokafeer951 ROW FY2020 YeaDee Construction,FY2022 Widen to 4-Ln.RIPO Rnonty rsection(2015/161 dirtimm. us State SIS Fund:nay, -Prilcw^t 2C23 Ott.WELL rip Rowe St.Funding ..ontraest'CMI -is Ir.'t ro- ; P:7c Tree FarngWooduest d : 125,11,V ! , (By Others) si : Year Eir.ected i . yes nwswee sis.,,, Pectent 20.g 7.114011, ROAD FE' ,4111 ••••11104 1 I 111111b is %out-west-CVA C ...,IT RANDALL BLVD re trnmokalee Rd& L ii • aiii Budge at Elln St NE , Randall Intersection . 1 PD 6 E Underway , ' , vANDErtBuY eni... • I Corridor Study Underway - • S Z . - - , I. i.AN i.:rritt.3EA-1,RD BEACH RD EX= ;or,R •9 Or-v*9e B ussom la filndges at 16th St NE =110 .Viden io ci..arius z es. gP!NINMAMER ;te Deur A Itiebgaboru Fr 2019 0 Stud.,PY2,0*/ il 5r. '.=. . _ r'c' g ..., GOLDEN GATE Mut, re. 12' Constructor,FY2021 C. Design 1--Y20'.? 1 :r A. = ii-Ienng 4-lane r" ROw r-2(1i., L ,It ...in.... ' i Under Canstrucoon .1t 111 Under Construgnon Sorszucto^Future r..'. --- .,, ',E 'Di t'' r:f Year ExPected Dee:seri 2023 Destgrthilued FY2018 0 -n Year Expecrsid :. i j ,,..,,,,,,,,I •M ;,Inttrncure.Meador TD0A 1042/40/801ds derbet BeaRd.Est ,Derr er.,20:5 e.,.... 't; , i , 5 3e/0 • ---- sY2021& New 3-lane(of future 6-Laner TR Nennweut 7-CuA 6 i '-'. '-- ,4 Whis000rwili uslalestella _ _ ‘ Roadway to 0.4018Congesnon 0 :4 aLie "-- LSIMS Blvd newcomer:Nan granokatee Rd and Golden Gate Blvd. z Year Fess,. -41IrW"gtn,E. xATE.M. :Instruction NM Design FY2018 in De,-,gent 2025 i ----... ROW&Attegarront FY2019 TiClii.1, RA,,,,,,,,,..r( ii-71 _611.. _ ,75 Cordevaton.FY2021 i.75 - ----—------- - - _ ---- I- City Gab 13NcL N AFIBIOnfIlleCINum tntersecajiesin-inSPRNenwrNB—:ma2.1-44°11"(F°°=)T) --- ..4 A dS SUI182018 PoC,v.F Y2018 r ViAlson Benfield ii 'ri ,,Aikorm si, \ FY2021&2022 ROW FY2018-2020 .- 174 Cansinmson-FY2021 , Yeo,Expected Deficient 2025 allegation.FY2)18.FY2020-2021 Year Expected. .:,-,,- 2-2- It, , 'P War Expecte/Deficient l, 2023 i East 00i117,TCMA II , Inlereedion,rturownsents Legend ROW&Cerretruceom FY2018. Year Expected Deficent 2027 Continue iton., IMMI Capacey Enhancement Rnatect to P w2s1-11-f, -5 , Year&Mad DAIRMInt / 111111 Existing DefiCiency Year Expected Det/e0,01 202: . wait East Central TPA: Moen.61.0,POAP Fu.rtarsci(15716) 11Prole.ted Deficiency<5 Years Pursue Sore Fund/rig inallIDChwected Deficiency 5 to 10 Years S li'''V"E'P'U't?trrnt 2a" 4 , TCKWYCEA Boundary 'og., Yew Expected Deficient 2027 llit 'e Cunt nue.Monitor i • 0 1 2 _ .,6' :.. PROJECTlicOLLIEWUN .FWEFAENT ROADS - iles • • COLLIER COUNTY NORTHWEST TCMA REPORT 1 TCMA Report Collier County Transportation Concurrency Management System PkHr-PkDir I" Lane Miles @ AUIR 10 Street Name From To VIC Ratio Length Staines Lane Miles VC r_1.00 Northwest TCMA 90.0 Tamiami Trail North Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 0 71 1.67 6 10,0 1062 99.0 Tamiami Trail North Wiggins Pass Road Immokalee Road 0.94 1.52 6 9.1 9.11 100.0 Tamiami Trail North Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.75 1.51 6 9.1 9.06 101.0 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive 0 75 1.26 6 7 6 7 58 102.0 Tamiami Trail North Gulf Park Drive Pine Ridge Road 0.61 1.44 6 8.5 8.64 1090 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulfshore Drive Tamiami Trail 0.71 1.34 2 2 7 2.68 110.1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Road 0.81 1.87 4 7.5 7.50 111.1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.64 3.22 6 19.3 19.30 114.0 Vanderbilt Drive Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road • 0.48 2.52 2 5.0 5.03 115.0 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road 111th Avenue 0.46 1.49 2 3.0 2.99 117.0 Wiggins Pass Road Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 045 1.05 2 2.1 2.10 1.0 Airport Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.57 1.97 4 7.9 7.89 2.1 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.68 1.53 6 9.2 9.19 23.0 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.95 1.80 2 3.6 3.60 24.1 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.59 0.88 4 3.5 3.52 24.2 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Road ' 0.65 1.53 6 92 9.18 39.0 111th Avenue N. • Gulfshore Drive Vanderbilt Drive 043 0.51 2 1,0 1.01 40.0 111th Avenue N. Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 0.48 1.00 2 2.0 2.01 41.1 Immokalee Road Tamiami Trail Goodiette-Frank Rd. 0.66 1.47 6 8.8 8.84 42.1 Immokalee Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.90 1.96 6 11.8 11.79 to 51.0 Livingston Road Imperial Street Immokalee Road 0.43 3.31 6 19.8 19.85 52.0 Livingston Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beacn Road 0.53 1.99 6 12.0 11.96 53.0 Livingston Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 0.48 2.21 6 13.3 13.26 63.0 Seagate Drive Crayton Road Tamiami Trail 0.57 0.48 4 1.9 1 93 64.0 Pine Ridge Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Road 0.67 0.50 6 3.0 302 65.0 Pine Ridge Road Goodtette-Frank Road Shirley Street 0.70 0.67 6 4.0 4.05 66.0 Pine Ridge Road Shirley Street Airport Road 087 0.81 6 4.9 4.88 67.1 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.86 2.09 6 12.56 12.56 2.2 Airport Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Rd. 0.65 2.92 6 17.5 17.51 41.2 Immokalee Road Goodlette-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.84 2.47 8 14.8 14.81 42.2 Immokalee Road Livingston Rd 1-75 0.71 1.78 7 12.5 12.48 62.0 Old US 41 US 41(Tamiami Trail) Lee County line 1.09 1.57 2 3.1 0.00 110.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodlette-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.70 2.40 4 9.6 9.58 111.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Rd. Logan Blvd. 0.74 3.11 6 18.7 18.68 57.76 268.72 285.56 Total Lane Miles: 288.7 Lane Miles c=1.0 WC: 285.6 VIC Rates eased upon Total Traffic Including Traffic Counts•Trip Bank•tries Vested Trips Percent Lane Miles Meeting Standard: 98.914 MASTER Attachment F-2017(090617).xlsm TR-5 NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA (TCMA) I II • 1 .:4 ' - I ' - ) 0 1 N I . , f -i /' A 7 1 , 9m� i N I �' 0 f gN ' + i I I#, ; t ' V J w 1 r 1 m i ` � � w _ it 1 I I o" j F' • -' r, r , 1 t ' c � 0 I ,, 0 • `o.i �( t' I 1 a ii w I $ .1.••••••••••••••••• N OA1 NV 01 1 W I 1, 1. , „,�' § I .t i 4a an 61,6 n 1 1 - -.i..._ ii m illI ► G. J U I, ' En V • 6 • 0a N01SONIAil oo d 4111'''''-' 04 i11+. % it...7._ r.--'1.4 : . a, _ )' . .0 s OJ JNIl1f1d 12dOda1V .: C *15 iC1 ill r' ` Ce (Y •. . i • p# ! C 3 .. ., i. NN`IAA-311310009 . /f 0 No RI ._ ! ly .r .. t �a I- ii 0 i ^ r .•# • U) O + '�� NIldil VHlMI. o ff„ CA 1 r Z w E" to 1 w Cal C 4.1 Udi F- ash 1., i d — I 0f 2:10 CO ilk CO W N IOV „ h , Z __ C arg= ti v) O . t! S 5 i ci l ! ;u t w Ell T oo ll Pe_ 5 ;1gl ()+s 1711 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICY 5.7 Policy 5.5 -Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation will provide certification from the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends revisions. Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation must provide certification to the "Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Monitoring of the use of the TDM strategies must be included in the annual monitoring report and modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three years of development if they are deemed ineffective. Policy 5.6 - The County shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. Performance within each TCMA shall be measured based on the percentage of lane miles meeting the LOS described in this Transportation Element, Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this Element The following Transportation Concurrency Management Areas are designated: Northwest TCMA—This area is bounded by the Collier- Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side (Map TR-5). East Central TCMA — This area is bounded by Pine Ridge Road on the north side; Collier Boulevard on the east side; Davis Boulevard on the south side, and; Livingston Road (extended) on the west side (Map TR-6). Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends revisions. Commercial developments within the TCMA must provide certification to the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Monitoring of the use of the TDM strategies must be included in the annual monitoring report and modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three years of development if they are deemed ineffective. Policy 5.7 - Each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards described in Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this Element. If any Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for a proposed development indicates that fewer than 85% of the lane miles in a TCMA are achieving the LOS standards indicated above, the proposed development shall not be permitted where such condition occurs unless modification of the development is made sufficient to maintain the LOS standard for the TCMA, or the facilities required to maintain the TCMA LOS standard are committed utilizing the standards for committed improvements in Policy 5.3 of the Capital Improvement Element of the Plan. Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends text remains. Collier County reports on the operational status of the TCMA's each year in the AUIR. Policy 5.8 - Should the TIS for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1% of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS), yet 9 Transportation Element FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 6.5 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No.2017-48 adopted December 12.2017 h) Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and automobile work trips generated by the development. i) Including residential units as a portion of a commercial project that would reduce vehicle miles of travel. j) Providing transit shelters within the development(must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). (Xll)(XV)(XXX)(XLIV) Policy 6.5: In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development(must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. (XII)(XLIV) Policy 6.6: All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non-PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (XII)(XLIV) Policy 6.7: All new development, infill development or redevelopment within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area is subject to the historical and archaeological preservation criteria, as contained in Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (XIII)(XXX)(XLIV) OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (XLIV)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2017-22 on June 13, 2017 FDOT FLORIDA TRAFFIC ONLINE (2016) PEAK SEASON FACTOR 2016 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.87 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2016 - 01/02/2016 0.98 1.13 2 01/03/2016 - 01/09/2016 0.95 1.09 * 3 01/10/2016 - 01/16/2016 0.91 1.05 * 4 01/17/2016 - 01/23/2016 0.89 1.02 * 5 01/24/2016 - 01/30/2016 0.88 1.01 * 6 01/31/2016 - 02/06/2016 0.87 1.00 * 7 02/07/2016 - 02/13/2016 0.85 0.98 * 8 02/14/2016 - 02/20/2016 0.84 0.97 * 9 02/21/2016 - 02/27/2016 0.84 0.97 *10 02/28/2016 - 03/05/2016 0.84 0.97 *11 03/06/2016 - 03/12/2016 0.84 0.97 *12 03/13/2016 - 03/19/2016 0.84 0.97 *13 03/20/2016 - 03/26/2016 0.86 0.99 *14 03/27/2016 - 04/02/2016 0.89 1.02 *15 04/03/2016 - 04/09/2016 0.91 1.05 16 04/10/2016 - 04/16/2016 0.94 1.08 17 04/17/2016 - 04/23/2016 0.96 1.10 18 04/24/2016 - 04/30/2016 0.98 1.13 19 05/01/2016 .- 05/07/2016 1.00 1.15 20 05/08/2016 - 05/14/2016 1.02 1.17 21 05/15/2016 - 05/21/2016 1.05 1.21 22 05/22/2016 - 05/28/2016 1.07 1.23 23 05/29/2016 - 06/04/2016 1.10 1.26 24 06/05/2016 - 06/11/2016 1.13 1.30 25 06/12/2016 - 06/18/2016 1.16 1.33 26 06/19/2016 - 06/25/2016 1.15 1.32 27 06/26/2016 - 07/02/2016 1.15 1.32 28 07/03/2016 - 07/09/2016 1.15 1.32 29 07/10/2016 - 07/16/2016 1.14 1.31 30 07/17/2016 - 07/23/2016 1.15 1.32 31 07/24/2016 - 07/30/2016 1.15 1.32 32 07/31/2016 - 08/06/2016 1.15 1.32 33 08/07/2016 - 08/13/2016 1.16 1.33 34 08/14/2016 - 08/20/2016 1.16 1.33 35 08/21/2016 - 08/27/2016 1.16 1.33 36 08/28/2016 - 09/03/2016 1.17 1.34 37 09/04/2016 - 09/10/2016 1.17 1.34 38 09/11/2016 - 09/17/2016 1.18 1.36 39 09/18/2016 - 09/24/2016 1.15 1.32 40 09/25/2016 - 10/01/2016 1.13 1.30 41 10/02/2016 - 10/08/2016 1.10 1.26 42 10/09/2016 - 10/15/2016 1.08 1.24 43 10/16/2016 - 10/22/2016 1.05 1.21 44 10/23/2016 - 10/29/2016 1.03 1.18 45 10/30/2016 - 11/05/2016 1.01 1.16 46 11/06/2016 - 11/12/2016 0.99 1.14 47 11/13/2016 - 11/19/2016 0.97 1.11 48 11/20/2016 - 11/26/2016 0.97 1.11 49 11/27/2016 - 12/03/2016 0.98 1.13 50 12/04/2016 - 12/10/2016 0.98 1.13 51 12/11/2016 - 12/17/2016 0.98 1.13 52 12/18/2016` - 12/24/2016 0.95 1.09 53 12/25/2016 - 12/31/2016 0.91 1.05 * PEAK SEASON 21-FEB-2017 10:54:33 830UPD 1 0300 PKSEASON.TXT TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LIVINGSTON ROAD @ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD Ts 2 • OO V 01 N CO 00 M N O p (C OU 1.- M sr (C t0 r CO h r) o)n sr i O O O R coco o ui C N st O O N O td U O 0-3 a•ac+ 0 O M tl') N h h N 0 M O V O c C N Q 0 r h r In 00 01CI CO r N 0 M 00 •. C CO 7 O O 0 O C 0 0 in 'O F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z P O 0 VS ci m j o 0 c Z Gi 13 m O CD N 'O O 7 tU N r t0 CO l' r CO t)) CO t 0 Al st O R Y7 c1.0 o 7 O J �h"' O O O O N E N 0 m C w 7v, v, 0 a 0 0 0 r M Cr a to r N r 0 a o o Cin � m I— 0 0 0 0 0 C ro < in sr co t0 O N M cosr in ID NOat0 rN <. N h 0 0 01 Co C O 0 N a,O N 1.0 CO t0 h co h to t0 CO 0tw) 0 v COLO 00) 0. )A r 0 to CO K) CO N 0 0 p Q H r N N h CO N N N Or CO 0 0 r O O O to D= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p . V' 0 A 13 F O O C Z 7 !v r N M h •O.. l Ill 01 h r h ‘- Cal O tp O r p ,a M J N C`) O 0O 0 sr h N N Ca Y O 0 0 O O U)a L //V� 7 0 v 00 h CO M v) N 0 0 rn O CO 0 a h m `V O L eN01 in- r r r thf) N N N co 0 CO O O O h CO CO •i J Z r h M O 0 h t7 O 1 ECsLotD d _O r O r r et CO h r O M 0 h V r O thj CCO U O O O O O 5W G 1 co Q ji A N IC •-• 0 N N at CO 00 0 (0 h CO 0 1 co N CtSQ H r N N N h M M M N CO 0 N 0 h rN sr 00 Lo 0 c IllZ 4—.� 0 0 j '5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O `•r 0 to w CO 0 0 c Z <o.Q OC vCO M � r at N r N NO NO N. n CD J7 0 0 Nr r h O t0 O h. CO lb e- r N N O 7/ r O O N O O h r O Ce O O CO.• 1.0N O ? p1 M CO N CO h 01 O CO O 15N N CO 'a-i N o 0 0 M O U) m •\ m a COt0 O r t0 1 r COO M N CD 0 .y N 0 / M • Q F- N CO M O CO N N N 0 r O l'..: r 0 r N 0 0 r O O O g N C Z tT N co D = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O . sr o 0 s O CO d o Z a) 'o a u) O • C r. > C 0 N „...N N-h h NV N- h N O CO 0t0 Cr CL M Oh N O p J LO O O o sr 6 Cc N N L C C 7 ,_ M CO h h M N O CO 1.0 C N O a) o 14 t0 a) c0: d >tn r N N N 0 CO N N N Cal N O 0 O 0) C 0 C O 17) a) j N r rr O m` o to �._ L AlM r O .a. 0 m M t0 h N O e O O N o a N O A M t0 0) t 0 0 0 O A. O C Jtm C 7 F N 2 C O. al Z 0 O 0 r M � N O r co M 'Q O C t0 t0. CO 'Y = O U Z m u E. A A. ti A. o do CO do do 0 too a•= 0 o = Y > a O LL J0 F- o 0 0 o F- o o o o F- 0 F- Q F F Q a Q a Q 0 iimuimissimmor E O U vi (0 0 c O cc N O 0 0 6 hi m T° O 0 U -a i. in tii Veterans Memorial Blvd Q38 17 73 0 00 Right Thru Left U-Turn r N > �►� I r V" Ti m 00 ` o\ ,= to CU a 17 ,..• i= 0 to .a C E o 4 -0 E N Dt0 W— c) J h W .0 a C 0 UO L L L = = -. VTc co x 0 0 0 i \ r d' c t11 Q > L —► Rxxx T.) J co > a0a) m i g n. a o- cc_cn C> < E 2 2 ,_ 4-. 0-3 « < <C> 13, a CC O ",, > wnl-fl ual null Weld in To m �> 0 0 65 El. 9SZ o Ecu n PMB leyouiaw suereleA m c d C N O 0 a CC © 0,, c -0 (A 0 CC C c 0 O:cr) O C7<C , E O C J c[0 E c 1- iii O � C 1- O Z Z D 0 O O u_ J U To E O to N to r 00) 0 r to co 0 O r U I— U) t{ in K) N tD (t) Or CD CO N O O 0 r r O N 4.0 et '' N 0 c0 0 co ` O c a..+ N O cf r tO N CO O cO t") O O I.-. N Q~ N N N r NNNN 0) O 00 DOj O O O _ 0 O C 0 0 0 10 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O . 0 o co o 0 N- 2 03 D 1045 s O Q N D O O V a8 C `' N r t0 tl7 O O N 3111 £ O J M N tD M N M 0 N O O r N O O e- O N N to C W ` O O 2 t 0 r- N N 41 r- r- N CO 0 O M 0 O O ^C d F- o 0 0 o to G/ „ o LV Q7 O r t0 to r N O O LO tD en CO r 0 0 fD-- 40 �M/ / iE r to N r- N r• r O r r O O co csi c; 1` O W O C N 41 O.To, M R O OMi 'a to C' r' tO to O O C• a 0 M N M M e- e} M M O 0 r O N tO CO T"" e-f•- r r N O r- - O 1 ' 0 O co D z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p p . t-. O F- 0 0 t Z vI N : : : : : f II <DJO . to M O• O O O rOf rr. 0 inRS 7 : : : : CO CO et I, cel N C O O o M et •— J Z N N N M x- M M M M , 0 N C) to 0 C O Y O M dV ONTtraMrS I O tel r O O O O CrM •cre0 S 2 G > cn Q ,F O CO C O-.. O r r r O to CD O r r t0 O O r 0) /R a N N M N N N N CO 0 N O N- O co L O a , 0 0 0 2 ` --> > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o t4 m F- o o a- Z �� O L. C 41 r- tro t0 0 CO 'V N6 r• W \ l d d -JN O O t0 C E N ` CD N O O inr F v) IDO N r- r O O - N M 0 • O O O r..CO Ce M 01 CO t_ C YO el O ID Ei O j O r e- N r- to CO r• r t0 el M O to 0 O O O M r .I r O N a C CO > CO O.M O N O f7) O a r tD M 0 O O C O M O p.O co O O r r e} t0 O 0 CO p O O ..I a) ¢F- e- N N N CO N N N N p r N r O N C 0 0 O N j j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 ro m to F- o o Z d N CC mi c ' M t0 O CO e-: O o co CD a > C 6 C) to r- O D) M 0) r- CO M 0 r V O M co tU /.�) O.O J O O O t7 CC a cn = L. 0CL C ma- <0 O r 0 0 o r N N't OC•i.-. .�fn O O O N r N N N N 0)el 0 - O M O t O G > n, J O onm t M COO O O >t O COID M M M M V CO CO M O N O o 0 M r O: _Ti<CO (r O O O C C C 7 F- d O C 0. cc 0 O o to O N O N L V) F- Z m c O M rt Y O r- M a 'e C ili G o To o-IC 0U 5_ 5> 2)L Z N U tD tO tO tD O r O T. O G o O o o 2 Y 4. _ it J E- r- r r- ~ e- F- C7 F- Q F- F 6 a. d d a 0 0 E 0 U N co 0 a c ao - C O 0 N O 0 7.0 .0.;0 is v O 0 U a d v 3 (n N Veterans Memorial Blvd CL 33 3 61 0 CO Right Thru Left U-Turn -"Iii) ''\://' \i',. > • i r 13 m oh7A o ! O V N 01 \L'' M y p V ▪L to y a) co EO in = 7 V / \ 2 M Ce E T.') M _ N a)O co �` i c = O m to a r �_.i Uzi = fir/ o) Ol F. .,\.� da. Y Y Y J a) L CZ ea t0 2 a d e +.+ M - O d a O F O CD fiCas D V .a X U) 01 -o wnl-n 7101 null 14610 C m •> 0 0 ZL 8 9L `0 E M 2 PM8 lei'owaW sueJelan a) c a ro `a) 0 � n >/ a) © U co CC -a) it E a) o Q) _ C. . a, >,o c J(cn c 7 I- 2 E c a co 9z Z Vs Z D °' o O u- J 0 DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE YEAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES . \ \ \ \ / eJ ,- g C. \ eq ^ G = & J I— to $ co ~ Cof © q q $ n / r \rto n CO � ® � a + _J © e _ \ / \ \ C0) \ § \ 2 / 7 / © � / � & N \ N - N N N LU - \ © 2 2 & N ■ @ 2 / \ \ / ƒ n � � \ _ \ _ / @m N- O A CV > cn \ 2 \ / 0 r 2 2 \ \ \ / C r 1- ct O 0 % \ \ / / % - q il 1-0 / rq 1r, & " CD - 0 CO CO DO k \ � \ �co / © � / � \ \ \ © S 7 I- 2 (Ni & 03 SCD M in CD 5 / \ _ / r2 o2 / $ � ? / © Nr 7 � & & LL 2 D § i \ � % / © g / 2 / � % / rq 2k 4-• g Z & � & @ a E > O. U@wnw J # o R \ © E \ 2 / \ 7 ,- 9 % / 2 / © k 1- k Z / \ ,z, Lo co � & O o v- Zi-c.J Eo CO 1,1 • \• n m / \ \ to N I • C r0 0 5 = 01 Z ^ � ~ \ n CO 2 � � 6) 0 — 23 \ $ E e E § \ ( § \f OL � / c� oL \o = / = ® w o E ° . > ° — E t F _ E a_ E t = a E I 0 0 9 R \ + \ @ 9 ® \ + / § ® 5 = > = o ti § 3 = > _ 2 O $ o § c § S o co / § / o 7 \ \ \ ) CD) ± \ \ § % ± 3b % o = m 2g $ § ƒ I - $ § a \ 3 $ : ± @ I.') / / / / 2 = / \ CO / ƒ 5 £ o / t m kus "..E. 4f \ / \ \ �N 4 $ [ O N 'N / g < m = « o o < e = = 0 0 sO3 SIO C » t CL CV CLQO / » a 11 & INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEETS LIVINGSTON ROAD @ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD 2023 PEAK SEASON BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 ---► i' .- t t \* 4, 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ ) +14 r i ftt r Traffic Volume(vph) 60 15 296 85 20 44 329 924 43 53 1212 39 Future Volume(vph) 60 15 296 85 20 44 329 924 43 53 1212 39 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.960 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.992 0.972 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.915 0.392 0.115 0.279 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1520 0 0 701 0 214 5085 1583 520 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 236 25 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 64 16 315 90 21 47 350 983 46 56 1289 41 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 158 0 350 983 46 56 1289 41 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 16.4 16.4 46.5 40.3 40.3 31.3 26.3 26.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.42 0.35 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.92 0.82 0.36 0.05 0.19 0.72 0.06 Control Delay 22.0 76.9 34.5 12.1 0.1 10.1 25.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.0 76.9 34.5 12.1 0.1 10.1 25.1 0.2 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 f —► 'sr c .— 41 t t \* 1 Lane Group EBL BBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS C E C B A B C A Approach Delay 22.0 76.9 17.4 23.8 Approach LOS C E B C Queue Length 50th(ft) 67 63 116 115 0 10 210 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 171 #171 #250 147 0 24 264 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 582 207 467 2732 907 301 1780 687 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.76 0.75 0.36 0.05 0.19 0.72 0.06 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:75 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.92 Intersection Signal Delay:23.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd \*01 '02 —PTA —';.r =II 05 IF Oo 08 IMF IMII M. 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 iiiiiimolisioamoir ti Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 * Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. WBL WBT WBR, NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT ,SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ ) 1414 r 'I tt+ r Traffic Volume(vph) 14 9 88 71 3 39 106 1666 42 44 1081 35 Future Volume(vph) 14 9 88 71 3 39 106 1666 42 44 1081 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.893 0.954 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.994 0.969 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1653 0 0 1722 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.949 0.790 0.195 0.105 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1579 0 0 1404 0 363 5085 1583 196 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 94 31 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 15 10 94 76 3 41 113 1772 45 47 1150 37 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 119 0 0 120 0 113 1772 45 47 1150 37 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 9.8 9.8 45.5 42.6 42.6 40.7 38.2 38.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.61 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.52 0.28 0.55 0.04 0.20 0.39 0.04 Control Delay 13.1 28.8 6.4 11.0 0.1 7.3 11.8 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.1 28.8 6.4 11.0 0.1 7.3 11.8 0.1 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 idmils Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT, SBR LOS B C A B A A B A Approach Delay 13.1 28.8 10.5 11.3 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th(ft) 10 36 13 186 0 5 109 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 51 83 35 276 0 18 175 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 545 448 599 3251 1056 239 2914 994 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.27 0.19 0.55 0.04 0.20 0.39 0.04 intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:66.6 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.55 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Livin.ston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd ro01 t 0 —004 05 Oo 4-- 03 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 2023 PEAK SEASON WITH PROJECT TRIPS rm.= Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 11/16/2018 Lane Group;, EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ '1 44+ r "i fit+ r Traffic Volume(vph) 60 15 296 142 20 62 329 936 63 63 1212 39 Future Volume(vph) 60 15 296 142 20 62 329 936 63 63 1212 39 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.963 0.850 0,850 Flt Protected 0.992 0.969 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.905 0.420 0.119 0.275 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1504 0 0 753 0 222 5085 1583 512 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow(RTOR) 236 23 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 64 16 315 151 21 66 350 996 67 67 1289 41 Shared Lane Traffic(%) - - - --- Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 238 0 350 996 67 67 1289 41 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 20.0 20.0 46.9 38.2 38.2 31.5 26.5 26.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.59 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 0.71 1.14 0.85 0.40 0.08 0.24 0.76 0.06 Control Delay 19.0 136.9 37.1 14.2 0.7 10.9 27.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.0 136.9 37.1 14.2 0.7 10.9 27.1 0.2 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 11/16/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS B F D B A B C A Approach Delay 19.0 136.9 19.2 25.5 Approach LOS B F B C Queue Length 50th(ft) 68 —134 114 116 0 13 210 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 173 #274 #247 149 5 28 264 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 557 208 445 2462 830 284 1705 666 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 1.14 0.79 0.40 0.08 0.24 0.76 0.06 Intersept!® atrfthary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:78.9 Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.14 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.9 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min)15 Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd \to01tn2 EgIIIMIIIIIIIIII MEI MB 11111111 lI I 06 08 IMF 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 11/16/2018 f --I" `t 1 '_ k- `\ t P +� 1 Lane:Group EBS:. EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL;,, NBT NBR, SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 43 43 11 tett r ) t++ r Traffic Volume(vph) 14 9 88 108 3 51 106 1674 101 75 1081 35 Future Volume(vph) 14 9 88 108 3 51 106 1674 101 75 1081 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.893 0.958 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.994 0.968 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prat) 0 1653 0 0 1727 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.951 0.770 0.189 0.108 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1582 0 0 1374 0 352 5085 1583 201 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow(RTOR) 94 27 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 15 10 94 115 3 54 113 1781 107 80 1150 37 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 119 0 0 172 0 113 1781 107 80 1150 37 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 13.1 13.1 45.4 39.3 39.3 41.0 37.1 37.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.51 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.64 0.31 0.65 0.12 0.36 0.44 0.04 Control Delay 11.2 34.6 8.0 15.0 2.4 12.3 14.0 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.2 34.6 8.0 15.0 2.4 12.3 14.0 0.1 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 11/16/2018 f ---► - ' C4— 4 ' 4\ 1 , \* Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS B C A B A BB A Approach Delay 11.2 34.6 14.0 13.5 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 61 16 209 0 11 121 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 49 121 42 316 21 35 198 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 503 397 543 2736 908 220 2585 905 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.43 0.21 0.65 0.12 0.36 0.44 0.04 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 1%,: ":> -. . •.:c'si 1_ w. aat-ac* , s .:,,,, s`= $ a,,'.',- ',4 'k :E°*7:: Actuated Cycle Length:73 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 14.7 Intersection LOS:B Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd \*0i t02 —0'04 al ME MU 4— OS • 06 08 '.,:ii MEI 111111ati 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 h � 5 • ttoAri 'crd, 1. TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS rrr TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RD/VETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 10th EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Multifamily Housing Ln(T)=0.98 Ln(X)—0.98 Ln(T)=0.96 Ln(X)—0.63 Mid-Rise T=5.45(X)— 1.75 (LUC 221) 26%In 74%Out 61%entering 39%exiting T=Trips, X=Number of Dwelling Units Table 1 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Tri• Generation Weekday A.M.Peak Hour Weekday P.M.Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out I Total In Out Total (2-way) Multifamily Housing 1 Mid-Rise 30 87 117 90 57 147 1,906 (350 Dwelling Units) TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RD/VETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 9th EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Apartment T=0.49(X)+3.73 T=0.55 (X)+ 17.65 T=6.06(X)+ 123.56 (LUC 220) 20%In 80%Out 65%entering 35%exiting T=Trips, X=Number of Dwelling Units Table 1 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trip Generation Land Use Weekday A.M.Peak Hour Weekday P.M.Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total (2-way) Apartment (350 Dwelling Units) 35 140 175 137 73 210 2,245 GrecoSherry From: Karen Rabenold <outlook_2C965C667CC37523@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 2:53 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Subject: Stock's proposal for Allura Apartments Please do not vote for the Allura Apartments construction. I am strongly opposed to this construction This construction is not wanted by the Strand community. Thank you for listening to the constituents from the area where these apartments are being proposed. Karen Rabenold 5985 Pinnacle Lane#203 The Strand Naples, FL 34110 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 a - I 9 I 1 GrecoSherry From: Linda Ritter <Ileeritter@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 2:43 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA DO NOT VOTE FOR ALLURA OR YOU LOSE MY VOTE Sent from my iPhone 2 GrecoSherry From: Chuck MOOre <cjmoorebooks03@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:53 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura To support Allura is to lose our votes. Charles Moore 3 J GrecoSherry IFrom: John Pangonis <pangonisl @aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:28 PM To: FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; Andy Korn <andykorn57@gmail.com; Bill.Mcdaniels@colliercountyfl.gov; TaylorPenny Subject: Fwd: Allura Apartment Mistake Original Message From: JOHN PANGONIS <pangojb@comcast.net> To: John Pangonis <pangonisl@aol.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 19, 2019 1:08 pm Subject: Fwd: Allura Apartment Mistake Original Message From: JOHN PANGONIS <pangojb@comcast.net> To: John Pangonis <pangojb@comcast.net> Date: February 19, 2019 at 12:49 PM Subject: Allura Apartment Mistake Collier County Planning Board Members, Please take time to reevaluate your decision on rezoning land on the corner of Livingston Rd and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in North Naples FL. Consider the following negative aspects of this unwise decision: * Traffic has increased not only in season but the rest of the year as well particularly in the 7:30 - 08:30 AM, 03:00 - 06:00 PM times which will limit emergency vehicles dispatched from the relatively new Fire Station. Lives do count! * $1400 to $2000 monthly rentals will unlikely fill the needs of teachers, firefighters, and police personnel. * High density housing will devalue existing property values in adjacent Mediterra, Strand, Barrington Cove & Talis Park communities. * The plan to build apartments in Bonita Springs is already underway. How many units do we need? 4 * The new High School currently being planned for this area will place even more traffic and potential danger to students and parents. * What possible advantage does this bring to North Naples in making it look like NYC? * Stock Development can still turn a profit in building housing similar to existing units without greed. Yours truly, John D. Pangonis North Naples resident 5 GrecoSherry From: Joe Cornacchio <joecornacchio@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:22 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote No for Allura - Stock Development North Naples Dear Penny, I write in the hopes that you and your colleagues will opposed the construction of 304 luxury apartments by Stock Development (ALLURA) on the corner of Veterans Memorial Blvd and Livingston Rd in North Naples. The originally zoned parcel for 100 single family homes would make better sense. This area is highly congested and in close proximity to three schools, Royal Palm Academy, North Naples Middle School, as well Veterans Elementary. In addition, North Collier Fire Rescue Station #48 is located 150 yards from this corner. The proposed North Naples High School will also be built on an extension of the west side of Veterans Memorial Blvd., in the near future, which will add additional safety concerns for our children. The morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up of students is chaotic and dangerous at this location and the evening rush north to Bonita, as Livingston Rd narrows from three lanes to only two, backs traffic to the emergency lights at the Fire Station. I invite you to visit for a first-hand view of the congestion. The construction of 304 apartments, with the potential of an adding 450 to 600 vehicles to this area is a poor choice. Collier County Officials were elected to oversee prudent Common-Sense Planning. This project does not meet the criteria of affordable housing, which I support, but only adds to an already overtaxed North Naples infrastructure on both Immokalee and Livingston roads. Thank you ---Joe Cornacchio 6 GrecoSherry From: Pam Motichka <pmotich@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:43 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; Burt.Saunders@colliercounty.gov; BiII.McDaniel@colliercounty.gov; TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartment Project As a resident of The Strand, I recommend you, Do Not Vote for Allura or you will LOSE my vOt . Pamela Motichka Sent from Mail for Windows 10 7 GrecoSherry From: sgedmondson@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:40 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments I urge you to vote against the Allura Apartments project. It will cause too much congestion in the area. Single family homes should be built as was originally planned. My next vote for or against you may depend on your vote against this project. Stephen G Edmondson 5978 Amberwood Drive Naples, FL. 34110 239 514-8273 Sent from my iPhone • 8 GrecoSherry From: Pam Motichka <mpm2naples09@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:37 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments As residents of The Strand, we recommend you DO NOT VOTE FOR ALLURA OR YOU LOSE OUR VOTE. Pam and Michael Motichka Sent from Mail for Windows 10 9 GrecoSherry From: Sent: Sharon <sharon1504@comcast.net> Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:25 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Do not vote for Altura I lose my vote for you. Sent from my iPhone 10 GrecoSherry From: Nancy Baker <nreddiel l @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:08 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Please do not vote for Allura Sent from my iPhone 11 GrecoSherry From: Laurie Bentz <Inegribentz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 11:46 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Please do not vote for Allura or you will lose my vote. Thank you, Laurie Negri Bentz 12 • GrecoSherry From: P <pksotos@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 11:28 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA DO NOT VOTE for ALLURA OR YOU LOSE OUR SUPPORT! Dr. and Mrs. Lazaros Sotos Sent from my iPhone • 13 ■ GrecoSherry From: Brother Nancy B. <nbbrother@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 11:21 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Altura Do not vote for Allura or you lose my vote. Nancy Brother • 14 GrecoSherry From: Jerry Nebbia <jerrynebbia@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 11:18 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Development This email is to register my objection to the Allura develpment. I am against it becasue it's inconsistent with the surrounding existing developments, and the additional traffic congestion it will cause. Please DO NOT APPROVE. Thank you, Gerald Nebbia 16422 Barclay CT Naples, FL 34110 15 GrecoSherry From: Barry C. Nelson <1 bcn@optimum.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 11:17 AM To: FialaDonna Cc: SaundersBurt; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Subject: "ALLURA APARTMENTS" - BY STOCK DEVELOPMENT Tuesday, February 19, 2019 Hello Council Ladies and Gentlemen: Please take note and be advised My family and I are firmly against an over- development at the location of the Southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Allura Development is a proposed high density "rental" residential development surrounded by recently completed new single family residences and high end condominiums all in gated communities. This is a young and developing corridor between Immokalee Road to the south and Bonita Beach Road to the north. There are many large tracts of land now currently on the market and some soon to be made available. At this early stage of planned development in this Corridor of Livingston Road, which does straddle both Counties of Collier and Lee a conservative more astute approach and approvals is important to be followed. There is going to be future proposals that will be coming forward by other developers, that may use this (if) approved as a model and stepping stone to request even more density and a non-ownership occupancy. We believe that a conservative approval is very important in setting the foundation early on. We are not against development and will support a lower, density and a more compatible and harmonious proposed use and development. Please keep in mind this is a key, corner-stone parcel within the county on Livingston Road and between the main arterial roads of Immokalee Blvd. and Bonita Beach Road. There is a large fire department just south on Livingston and an elementary school west on Veterans Memorial. Traffic patterns now are developing and increasing let's consider what this project will bring and at least another 4-6 developments will bring in the next possible near future. Do Not Approve this Project and it's current density, height and access off of Veterans Memorial Blvd. Let the developer streamline the project. A more suitable density and ownership is extremely important at this time and junction! Lets put "conservation of quality of life", "health and safety issues", "property values" first and foremost. The developer will obtain substantial profits no matter what they build. Do not be afraid to say no! This is a well know and smart developer he knows how to make 16 money and lots of money. Please do not allow it on the backs of the good neighbors and tax payers in this county and community. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from all of you in a balancing of the locale community to a single large developer. Sincerely, Barry C. Nelson and family 6053 Ashford Lane, Unit 301 Naples, New York 34110 516-521 -4952 Email: lbcn@optimum.net The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Barry C. Nelson, and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services from this sender.The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed as it is confidential and privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer immediately. 17 GrecoSherry From: Randi Izdonavicius <randi.izdonavicius@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 11:00 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny Cc: Tom lzdonavicius Subject: VOTE NO ON ALLURA Hi Everyone, Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I live in The Strand in North Naples and we are concerned that these Allura apartments that will be on the corner by our back gate is a problem for multiple reasons. #1 we have a small child and the schools in this area are already overcrowded. The traffic in that area in the morning is horrible too because both North Naples Middle and Veteran's elementary are in the same corridor. I also hear a High School may also be built over there in the future.Their only exit will be on a single lane road which already backs ups in the mornings, afternoons, and rush hour. Additionally,these multi-story buildings stick out like an eyesore being SO much taller than the multiple surrounding communities and detracts from the values and beauty of our areas. This isn't just our neighborhood, its many surrounding areas. And it seems only the greedy developers are on board with this, because no one else does. Lastly, our area is OVER SATURATED with pre-existing homes that cannot even sell because of all of these apartments and new developments in the area.There is no shortage of housing so there is no need to be building "luxury" apartments when there is plenty of inventory for people and not enough people buying. I don't normally reach out or get involved in politics, but this is just so wrong on so many levels and none of your constituents benefit from this. We would appreciate you voting NO to the proposed Allura re-zoning/development. Best Regards, Tom & Randi lzdonavicius 5964 Sand Wedge Lane#307 Naples, FL 34110 18 GrecoSherry From: william bentz <docbillbentz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:57 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Please do not vote for Allura. Thank You, Bill Bentz 19 GrecoSherry From: Jennifer Stevens <jennifer.stevens@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:54 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura A vote for the Allura project to proceed means my vote against you in the next election. Sent from my iPhone 20 GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:45 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Accepted:Allura - Rich Yovanovich, Keith Gelder and Brian Stock 21 GrecoSherry From: Marilyn Vecchio <mavek@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:41 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Vote NO for Allura or don't get my vote! Marilyn Vecchio 5967 Trophy Drive Naples 34110 Sent from my iPad 22 GrecoSherry From: Jack Devlin <jack.devlin@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:33 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments I am a resident of Collier County and I currently live in The Strand. I recently found out that Stock's proposal for Allura Apartments was approved by a 4 to 2 vote of the Collier County Planning Board. I am sending you this note to let you know that I strongly oppose this measure for the following reasons: . 1. Traffic Congestion. As your Traffic Department will surely attest to, Livingston Road is terribly congested during weekday rush hours from 7:30am to 9:30am southbound and 4:30pm to 6:30pm northbound. Furthermore, Livingston Road northbound decreases from three lanes to two lanes immediately after crossing Veterans Memorial Highway which already is causing much of the traffic backup in the afternoon rush hour period. The addition of over 300 apartments will only further add to a near impossible situation in our neighborhood. 2. Entrance & Exit To & From Allura Apartments. Wherever the designer of these grounds will decide to put the entrance/exit to these apartments, it wiLl cause additional traffic congestion. a. if it is placed on Veterans Memorial Highway, the distance to Livingston Road is not sufficient enough,in my opinion,to provide for a smooth flow of traffic. It will become like the south end of Strand Boulevard where vehicles were entering the southbound lanes across the median and backing up; b. if it is placed on Livingston Road, in order for exiting traffic from Allura Apartments to go south, they would have to obey a right turn only sign and make a U-turn at the intersection of Veterans Memorial Highway. The only other option would be to install a traffic light at that entrance/exit. More congestion! 3. Access to the Rear Entrance of The Strand. In recent years,there have been two residential properties established in the area which are using Veterans Memorial Highway for residential and construction use: Talis Park and Barrington which have brought the traffic on this road to a level which, in my opinion, is now acceptable. Any additions would be intolerable. I know that the entire Strand development feels the same way as I do. We have organized groups to discuss this matter and will continue these discussions right up to the ballot box. Trust me when I say, if you vote for this, I will do everything in my power to see that you're not around anymore! Respectfully, 23 Jack Devlin 401.525.8830 • 24 GrecoSherry From: John Clark <candlewood22@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:27 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Please vote no against this project is wrong for the community with increased traffic and the size of the project John A. Clark 25 GrecoSherry From: Vic Kleinfelter <vic.kleinfelter@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:18 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote No for Allura Apartments Penny, I understand you will be voting on the proposal by Stock to build the Allura Apartments. " DO NOT vote for the Allura proposal or YOU will LOSE our vote" Victor and Rebecca Kleinfelter Sent from my iPhone 26 GrecoSherry From: Richard Galash <rgalash@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:14 AM To: FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; Andy Korn; Bill.Mcdaniels@colliercountyfl.gov;TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Proposed Apartment complex Dear Collier County Planning Board: It was with much dismay that the result of your last meeting you voted to allow this untenable housing project to move to the next level and remain alive with the vote as completed. Is so obvious to those of us full time FL residents that live in that area (STRAND) that the road structure and other factors which were presented to your hands in great detail somehow were not taken into account regarding this project in that area. Perhaps your concern for an improved tax base overwhelms the facts that other infrastructure needs may cost more than the project brings in to the area. Those of us who live full time in FL wonder when the density problems simply overwhelm resources and road structure. It has been mentioned about the similarity to Miami and of course its not a direct comparison but points out similar issues like traffic issues, the impossibility to get around , resources like water and sewer and others to numerous to mention. Perhaps there is a concern companies the size of stock may get frustrated and move to other areas in the state however he and his team of lawyers can delay, change focus and do any number of things that local citizens have a hard time countering to thwart our honest efforts to curtail this proposed project. Lets vote no to this project as it stands and ask ourselves what the needs really are for this area. 27 GrecoSherry From: stephen dorazio <sdorazio2117@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:14 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Stock proposal for Allura apartments I live in The Strand Community in North Naples. Please DO NOT approve the Stock proposal for the Allura apartment complex on Livingston and Veterans Memorial Parkway. This apartment complex does not belong in our neighborhood. Thanks you. Stephen D'Orazio Sent from my iPhone 28 GrecoSherry From: Frank M <mabrucc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:03 AM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill;TaylorPenny Cc: vcintron@vestapropertyservices.com Subject: Block Allura "Do not vote for Allura or you lose our vote!" Frank Mabrucco The Strand 29 GrecoSherry From: Ted Brother <tbrother2118@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:54 AM To: TaylorPenny Sect: Pleaseubjvote NO Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Allura Apartments NO • • 30 GrecoSherry From: frkjmartin@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:37 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: No on Allura DO NOT VOTE FOR ALLURA OR YOU LOSE MY VOTE Ken Martin 5991 Trophy Drive # 1304 Naples, FL 34110 31 GrecoSherry From: Cathy Miranti <cathymiranti@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:35 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura I am opposed to the Allura development. You will lose my vote Cathy Miranti Strand resident Sent from my iPad 32 GrecoSherry From: Celeste Villany <williamvillany@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:56 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Do not vote for Allura or you lose our vote 33 GrecoSherry From: Rodzice <absniosek@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:53 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Penny, Please do not vote for Allura or you lose my vote! Thanks, Aleksandra Sniosek Sent from my iPad 34 GrecoSherry From: Katrina Hohmann <katrinahohmann@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:52 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Vote NO to Stock Allura Apartment Complex Good morning, Please vote NO to Stock Allura Apartment complex to be built off Livingston Road. The traffic is already a nightmare on Livingston Road in the afternoons and will be a detriment to our beautiful community as well as those around us. I will follow your vote! Thank you, Katrina Hohmann The Strand 35 ■ GrecoSherry From: Jarek <jsniosek@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:49 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Dear Penny, Please do not vote for Allura or you lose my vote! Thank you. J. Sniosek Sent from my iPad 36 GrecoSherry From: gabe418@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:47 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA APARTMENTS DO NOT VOTE FOR ALLURA OR YOU WILL LOSE MY VOTE ! Sincerely, Steve Gabriele 37 GrecoSherry From: Mindy Young <myoung@johnrwood.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:45 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: allura Do not vote for allura or your lose our vote. Mindy and Bill MC4'tdy Yotkvt,g,, Realtor GRI John R. Wood Properties 239-248-0258 800-685-4444x 2713 Efax 239-449-2728 1185 Immokalee Road Ste 300 Naples, FL 34110 Supporter and Volunteer of the Humane Society of Naples 38 GrecoSherry From: Bob Lopes <boblopesl@me.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 7:00 PM To: SolisAndy;TaylorPenny; Donna.Flala@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Allure Apartments BOC Hearing Dear Commissioners, As a tax paying owner of a home @ the Strand, I strongly oppose the change in use that is being proposed by the planning board as I feel that the real mistake was made when a nearby parcel was changed to allow the building of apartments in a large area that was zoned for single and condominium owner-owned homes. That board "let the camel's head into the tent" by making the exception and this is the excuse this board will be using to continue this trend. I was appalled to have one of the Planning Board members explain to me and others that he agreed with us in opposing the change, but he knew that the developer would get the change and the only thing he could do was to vote for fewer units. "Now we can let more of the camel into the tent!" ? Only this board can answer this question. How about the people who did their diligence and research, concluding the adjacent property was zoned for individually owned homes.They purchased their homes,vote and pay real estate taxes and are now possibly faced with overlooking four story apartment buildings and parking for 700 vehicles abutting their community. YOUR CALL ! Are there not any rules as to use of conformity ?Wouldn't you think an area, 3.3 miles of Livingston Road from Immokalee Road to the Lee County border, originally zoned single and condominium owner-owned homes should be allowed to continue to be developed along these lines ? 'There are presently around 10 of these owner-owned communities on this stretch of Livingston Rd.containing thousands of homes valued from the $250,000 to over$2 million. All these owners pay taxes to Collier County. I would think this would be an easy call !! I am sorry that I may have been longwinded, but I feel, having been a resident and voting tax payer for over 20 years, we should speak up when a detrimental change and trend might be taking place in a well designed zoning plan. I know I speak for the many owners who attended the two Planning Board Meeting apposing this change. Sincerely, Robert Chase Lopes 6060 Fairway Ct Naples Fl 34110 39 GrecoSherry From: Bob Lopes <boblopesl @me.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:10 PM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; Donna.Flala@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Apartments Boc Hearing As an owner,tax payer&voter in the area I am apposed to making an exception to the existing zoning of this parcel of land, changing it to allow some 400 apartments to be built in area that is zoned for single family homes. Sincerely, Robert Chase Lopes 6060 Fairway Court, Naples Fl 34110 GrecoSherry From: Bob Lopes <boblopesl@me.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 4:12 PM To: Andy.Solis@collierrcountyfl.gov; TaylorPenny; Donna.Flala@colliercountyfl.gov; SaundersBurt Subject: Allura Apartments BOC Hearing AS A TAX PAYING OWNER OF A HOME AT THE STRAND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE CHANGE IN THE USE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. I FEEL THAT THE REAL MISTAKE WAS MADE WHEN A NEARBY PARCEL WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW THE BUILDING OF APARTMENTS INA LARGE AREA THAT WAS ZONED FOR SINGLE AND CONDOMINIUM OWNER-OWNED HOMES. 'THAT BOARD LET THE CAMEL'S HEAD IN THE TENT",AND THIS IS THE EXCUSE THAT IS BEING USED TO CONTINUE THIS TREND. I WAS APPALLED TO HAVE ONE OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS EXPLAIN TO ME AND OTHERS THAT HE AGREED WITH US IN OPPOSING THE CHANGE BUT HE KNEW THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD GET THE CHANGE AND THE ONLY THING HE COULD DO WAS TO VOTE FOR FEWER UNITS. "NOW WE CAN LET MORE OF THE CAMEL INTO THE TENT".?ONLY YOU CAN ANWSER THIS QUESTION! HOW ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DID THEIR DILIGENCE AND RESEARCH, WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WAS ZONED FOR INDIVIDUALLY OWNED HOMES, PURCHASED THEIR HOMES,VOTE AND PAY TAXES AND NOW ARE POSSIBLY FACING FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND PARKING FOR EIGHT HUNDRED VEHICLES ABUTTING THEIR COMMUNITY. YOUR CALL! ISN'T THERE RULES OF CONFORMITY ? WOULDN'T YOU THINK THAT AN AREA, 3.3 MILES OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO THE LEE COUNTY BORDER ORIGINALLY ZONED SINGLE AND CONDOMINIUM OWNER- OWNED HOMES, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO BE DEVELOPED ALONG THESE LINES. THERE ARE PRESENTLY AROUND TEN OF THESE OWNER-OWNED COMMUNITIES ON THIS STRETCH OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, CONTAINING THOUSANDS OF HOMES VALUED FROM THE $300,000 TO OVER$2,000,000. ALL THESE OWNERS PAYING REAL ESTATE TAXES TO COLLIER COUNTY. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY CALL! I AM SORRY THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN LONG-WINDED, BUT I FELT, HAVING BEEN A RESIDENT AND VOTING TAX PAYER FOR OVER 20 YEARS, WE SHOULD SPEAK OUT WHEN A CHANGE AND TREND MIGHT BE TAKING PLACE THAT DWAUFS A WELL DESIGNED ZONING PLAN. I KNOW THAT I SPEAK FOR THE MANY OWNERS WHO ATTENDED THE 2 PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS APPOSING THIS CHANGE. SINCERELY, ROBERT CHASE LOPES, 6060 FAIRWAY COURT •r bo. -0, fel. 1*5.c�wy} w ,�y }y'�g.,-��p .;5"*p 'y, ..}}N.[T �. _ - Yi ,.K '•- .i S3.�S 4S,it >'t#51,4II rir 4 ( 4v'... 1d**} sx GrecoSherry From: Ivan L. Rosenblatt <ilrosenblatt@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 1:00 PM To: 'William Arndt'; McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt Cc: annemariecadw@hotmail.com; AdrianSabatino@yahoo.com;Andy@bonitatitle.com; brucejhopkins@gmail.com; tony16189@gmail.com;zannosgrekos@gmail.com; notification+kr4ybbmx4r2r@facebookmail.com;jrkuzie@aol.com; davevandermolen83 @gmail.com; bthemmert@yahoo.com;jwhuntt@gmail.com; timdiegel@mac.com; mbh@hlhlawgroup.com; gpetisco@bellsouth.net; tarpon569@aol.com; nwoessner@me.com; irenebenfatti@yahoo.com;jeffpcm@yahoo.com; TimR@mediterraca.com; Ipmail2@yahoo.com; SDorcy@INNatPelicanBay.com; katywrede@gmail.com; ajohnson48304@comcast.net; bnprins@yahoo.com; cmcconnell@insightboston.com Subject: RE: Information opposing the need for Allura Apts. Bill, Good presentation and hopefully convincing to the County Commissioners. I wonder whether a petition circulated and signed by the bulk, if not all, of the residents effected would add to our case for dismissal? Just a thought. Ivan Rosenblatt—Resident of The Strand From: William Arndt<bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 AM To: Bill.McDaniel@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Andy.Solis@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Donna.Fiala@CollierCountyFL.Gov; Burt.Saunders@CollierCountyFL.Gov Cc: annemariecadw@hotmail.com; bill.arndt@mail.com; AdrianSabatino@yahoo.com; Andy@bonitatitle.com; brucejhopkins@gmail.com; tony16189@gmail.com; zannosgrekos@gmail.com; notification+kr4ybbmx4r2r@facebookmail.com;jrkuzie@aol.com; davevandermolen83@gmail.com; bthemmert@yahoo.com;jwhuntt@gmail.com; timdiegel@mac.com; mbh@hlhlawgroup.com; gpetisco@bellsouth.net; tarpon569@aol.com; nwoessner@me.com; irenebenfatti@yahoo.com;jeffpcm@yahoo.com;TimR@mediterraca.com; Ipmail2@yahoo.com; SDorcy@INNatPelicanBay.com; katywrede@gmail.com; ilrosenblatt@earthlink.net; ajohnson48304@comcast.net; bnprins@yahoo.com; cmcconnell@insightboston.com Subject: Information opposing the need for Allura Apts. County Commissioners, Thanks for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. In the next month the 4 story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. In this morning's Naples Daily News it sounded like factual information is needed to make this decision, so, to that end, I have attached the latest two HUD studieds for our area concerning rental. I have also included a list of the apartments coming on line in the near future, which does not include the Bonita Springs project 1 mile outside Collier County that starts leasing its 240 units in June and last I have attached a discussion about the the definition of compatability. We gave a petition to the Planning Board prior to their hearing that was placed in the record signed by over 1000 North Collier County residents opposing the developement. The communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Camden Lakes, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) are greatly opposed to this development. Stock Development already owns the 15 acres of the DelaRosa and can build their 140+ appartments there since it was approved in 2007. It is obvious there will be additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that 42 any building in the proposed new district be limited in density. Also we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes cited below; It is surprisingly difficult to find a clear definition of it; most regulations do not define compatibility. One very relevant one is the newly amended §163.3164(9), F.S. (2011), which brings the former Section 93-5.003(23), F.A.C. definition into the statute. It defines"compatibility"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 use or condition."When §§163.3177(6)(a)3. and 163.3202(2)(b), F.S., require that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the implementing land development regulations, respectively, must include provisions addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses, this is the"compatibility"that is required. Since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the Plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term — whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and wish to ask you to block the increased density and the new subdistrict asked for. Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell 43 GrecoSherry From: William Arndt <bill.arndt@mail.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 AM To: McDanielBill; TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt Cc: annemariecadw@hotmail.com; bill.arndt@mail.com;AdrianSabatino@yahoo.com; Andy@bonitatitle.com; brucejhopkins@gmail.com; tony16189@gmail.com; zannosgrekos@gmail.com; notification+kr4ybbmx4r2r@facebookmail.com; jrkuzie@aol.com; davevandermolen83@gmail.com; bthemmert@yahoo.com; jwhuntt@gmail.com;timdiegel@mac.com; mbh@hlhlawgroup.com; gpetisco@bellsouth.net; tarpon569@aol.com; nwoessner@me.com; irenebenfatti@yahoo.com;jeffpcm@yahoo.com;TimR@mediterraca.com; Ipmail2 @yahoo.com; SDorcy@INNatPelicanBay.com; katywrede@gmail.com; ilrosenblatt@earthlink.net; ajohnson48304@comcast.net; bnprins@yahoo.com; cmcconnell@insightboston.com Subject: Information opposing the need for Allura Apts. Attachments: Allura list of other apartments.pdf; NaplesFL-comp-17 rental property forecast.pdf; NaplesFL-HMP-Marchl7.pdf;What is compatibility.pdf County Commissioners, Thanks for all your hard work in making Collier County the number one place to live in the US. In the next month the 4 story Allura apartment project by Stock Development will come in front of you to decide whether to allow it to go forward. In this morning's Naples Daily News it sounded like factual information is needed to make this decision, so, to that end, I have attached the latest two HUD studieds for our area concerning rental. I have also included a list of the apartments coming on line in the near future, which does not include the Bonita Springs project 1 mile outside Collier County that starts leasing its 240 units in June and last I have attached a discussion about the the definition of compatability. We gave a petition to the Planning Board prior to their hearing that was placed in the record signed by over 1000 North Collier County residents opposing the developement. The communities and residents of Mediterra, Talis Park, The Strand, Barrington Cove, Camden Lakes, Milano, Carlton Lakes, Verona Pointe, Delasol, Palm River and Secoya Reserve, (over 4000 roofs) are greatly opposed to this development. Stock Development already owns the 15 acres of the DelaRosa and can build their 140+ appartments there since it was approved in 2007. It is obvious there will be additional build at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway, but it is the desire of our communities that any building in the proposed new district be limited in density. Also we do not see the need for a new Subdistrict. We welcome any building in the proposed area but any new building needs to be Compatible with current usage according to the Florida Statutes cited below; It is surprisingly difficult to find a clear definition of it; most regulations do not define compatibility. One very relevant one is the newly amended §163.3164(9), F.S. (2011), which brings the former Section 9J-5.003(23), F.A.C. definition into the statute. It defines"compatibility"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 use or condition."When §§163.3177(6)(a)3. and 163.3202(2)(b), F.S., require that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the implementing land development regulations, respectively, must include provisions addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses, this is the "compatibility"that is required. Since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by §163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.), there should be policies in the Plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction. These should provide a context for the use of the term - whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically, whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. We appreciate your time in considering this measure and wish to ask you to block the increased density and the new subdistrict asked for. 44 APARTMENTS 1. (NEW) Legacy Naples, on Santa Barbara & Davis, 304 units in March 2. (NEW) Milano Lakes, on Collier Blvd east of Rattlesnake Hammock, 296 units open now 3. (NEW) Addison Place, Immokalee Road, east of 75, 240 units, soon 4. (NEW) Inspira, Rattlesnake Hammock, north of Collier Blvd., 304 units 5. (NEW) Spectra, East Tamiami Trl. near Alico Road, Fort Myers, 324 units 6. (NEW) Springs at Hammock Cove, Thomasson Drive, west of Tamiami TrI. East, 340 units, Continental Properties, completed in January, 2020 7. (NEW) The Crest at Bonita Springs, off Bonita Beach Road between Imperial Parkway and 75, 264 units, WITH GAP HOUSING PORTIONS, The Residential Group, completed sometime in 2020 8. (NEW) The Crest of Naples, Tamiami TrI. East at Southwestern Blvd., The Residential Group, 200 units, sometime in 2019, 2020. 9. Monterra at Bonita Springs, Bonita Beach Rd. near Old 41, 244 units 10.Sierra Grande, Rattlesnake Hammock near Lely Elementary, 300 units 11.Mer Soleil, Green Blvd. west of Collier Blvd., 320 units 12.Belvedere at Quail Run, off Pine ridge Road west of Airport Pulling, 162 units 13. River Reach, Airport Pulling south of Golden Gate Parkway, 540 units 14. Regal Point, Pine Ridge east of 41, 55 units 15. Goodlette Arms, Goodlette-Frank Rd. west of 7th Avenue, 250 units AFFORDABLE HOUSING 16. Whistler's Cove, Tamiami TrI. East north of Lely Resort Blvd. 240 units, RENT SUBSIDIZED 17. Coral Palms, Golden Gate Parkway in Golden Gate near Sunshine Blvd., 288 units, AFFORDABLE HOUSING 18. The Reserve at Naples, Pine Ridge Rd. between Whippoorwill and 75, 300 units 19. El Dorado, Green Blvd. west of Collier Blvd., 120 units 20. Advenir at Aventine, Collier Blvd. between Radio Road and Rattlesnake Hammock, 350 units 21. Tuscan Isle, Weir Road, off of Radio Rd. south of 75 near Collier Blvd., 298 units 22. Aster at Lely Resort, Lely Cultural Parkway, 308 units 23. Whistler Green, off of Green Blvd., between Collier Blvd. and Sunshine Blvd., 168 units 24. Arium Gulfshore, Pine Ridge Road between Livingston and Airport Pulling, 368 units 25. Laguna Bay, Fountainview Circle off of Airport Pulling south of Orange Blossom, 454 units 26. Somerset Palms, Old 41, 168 units 27. TGM Malibu Lakes, Tarpon Bay Blvd., east of 75, off Immokalee Rd., 356 units 28. TGM Bermuda Island, corner Livingston Road and Vanderbilt, 360 units 29. Meadowbrook PreserveLOld 41, 268 units 30. Orchid Run, corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Rd., 282 units 31. Windsong, corner Livingston and Immokalee, 120 units 32. Amberton, Immokalee Rd., east of Collier Blvd., 306 units 33. Summer Lakes, off of Immokalee on Juliet just west of 75, 140 units, AFFORDABLE HOUSING 34. Pueblo Bonito, Bonita Springs off Old 41, 98 units, AFFORDABLE HOUSING 35. Oasis, Airport Pulling near Orange Blossom, 216 units 36. Bear Creek, Airport Pulling near Orange Blossom, 120 units 37. Lakeside Hideaway, Bonita Springs, between Old 41 and Imperial Highway/75, 78 units 38. La Costa, Pine Ridge Rd. west of Livingston, 276 units 39. College Park, Rattlesnake Hammock at Grand Lely Drive, 210 units 40. Jade at Olde Naples, 11th Street North, east of Goodlette Frank, 104 units TOTAL # UNITS (BY 2020): 10,130 t What is compatibility? Reprint fro _ ' s „ � For writers, administrators, users, and challengers of Florida land development regulations. https://floridaldrs.com/tag/compatibility/ Posted on February 18, 2011 UPDATED TO REFLECT THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS. As often as the term is used in the land use arena,you would think that"compatibility" would be a precisely defined concept. In reality, it is more often in the nebulous "I know it when I see it" category. If the term is going to be used to direct how development should occur and land uses should be located, however, it is important to have a bit better handle on the concept than that. As discussed in other articles, if a concept is used as part of a regulation, it needs to be sufficiently clear that a person to which it applies reasonably knows what the regulation requires and the decision maker applying the regulation does not act in an arbitrary manner. So, in the context of a land use regulation, what does compatibility mean—what does it require? It is surprisingly difficult to find a clear definition of it; most regulations do not define compatibility. One very relevant one is the newly amended §163.3164(9), F.S. (2011), which brings the former Section 9J-5.003(23), F.A.C. definition into the statute. It defines "compatibility" 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 use or condition." When §§163.3177(6)(a)3. and 163.3202(2)(b), F.S., require that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the implementing land development regulations, respectively, must include provisions addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses,this is the "compatibility"that is required. If every land development regulation included or referenced this definition, life would be a bit easier.There would be much less question about what is meant by"compatibility" in the code. But most LDRs don't do that. What happens when LDRs require compatibility, but it isn't defined? One recent case, Katherine's Bay, LLC v. Fagan, said that, when "compatibility" is not defined in the Comprehensive Plan (or, presumably,the LDRs), it is appropriate to use the State rules (now statute) definition. This certainly makes sense, but there may be other factors that shade what compatibility means in a particular jurisdiction. Two key factors are how the term is used in the Comprehensive Plan and how it is used in the LDRs. Since all Comprehensive Plans are required to address the compatibility of adjacent uses (by§163.3177(6)(a)3, F.S.),there should be policies in the Plan that speak to what is or is not compatible for that jurisdiction.These should provide a context for the use of the term—whether compatible uses are those that have similar external impacts, whether the compatibility concern is how uses relate to each other aesthetically,whether a use has to be essentially the same as the adjacent use to be compatible (might have some problems with that one), etc. Similarly,the LDRs, which are supposed to implement the Comprehensive Plan, most likely can put the term "compatibility" in some context. It is often much more difficult to ferret out the intent in the LDRs, however, because they frequently say little more than "the use must be compatible." It may be possible, however,to determine what is considered compatible by reviewing the uses allowed in the different zoning districts, based upon the presumption that uses grouped together are compatible. Are they grouped by function, by similarity of impact, by density or intensity?What dissimilar uses are allowed, especially what is allowed across all zoning districts; what is it about these uses that justifies their being allowed with dissimilar uses?Or are they seemingly randomly grouped (which would suggest there is no clear compatibility standard)?What uses are listed as special exceptions (conditional uses,special uses) and what is listed as ways to make the uses "approvable" (i.e. what are the listed incompatibility mitigation measures)?Or, since what is or isn't compatible in the Comprehensive Plan should dictate what is or isn't compatible in the LDRs, reading the two together may provide a context of what is meant by compatibility for that jurisdiction. But it should not be necessary to go digging for an understanding of such a fundamental term. As stated at the beginning of the article,to be able to know the rules and to apply them consistently, it is critically important that such an important concept as compatibility be clearly defined, and consistently used, in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs. What happens when the definition of compatibility in the Comprehensive Plan or LDRs, whether directly defined or determined by the context of the provisions, is inconsistent with the State definition? The definitions in the LDRs do not have to be exactly the same as those found in the statutes, but they cannot be inconsistent or conflict with the state definitions,when used in the same context. See also Definitions and Definitions from Florida Statutes and FAC Relevant to LDRs.This means that,whatever definition of compatibility is used by a jurisdiction, it needs to be consistent with how the term is used in the statutes,with "compatibility" being an assessment of the relationship of uses to each other—how they impact each other. There are several interesting aspects of the State definition and usage of the term "compatibility." The apparent goal of the State definition is that the uses not unduly negatively impact each other.This is a "no harm, no foul" type of goal; more in the line of not creating a nuisance than that compatible uses must create a positive relationship. So, at the State level, compatibility means not a negative relationship—not unduly harming. Interestingly,the statutes require that comprehensive plans and LDRs address "adjacent" land uses,suggesting a narrower area of concern in a compatibility analysis; limited to abutting uses, rather than a larger neighborhood or area.The State definition also addresses the time aspect of a compatibility analysis. The definition says that the review is of the whether the uses exist in a stable fashion "over time."This suggests that a use is not necessarily incompatible because it creates a fuss when first proposed or built, but whether, as time passes,the use will create negative impacts or be a destabilizing influence. These aspects of the State definition and use of compatibility raises the question of whether a local definition of compatibility must have only a "no harm" goal, only address adjacent uses, or only look at the relationship of uses over time. Given local government's extensive police powers and their ability to set higher(but not lower) standards than the State laws, it probably would be in the local government's power to address these aspects differently and still not be in conflict with the State definition. But,to be different,the intent to do so has to be clear. In the absence of a definition for compatibility in the local comprehensive plan or LDRs, it is likely that the default definition, and intent that goes with it, will be the State definition. Once there is a definition, or understanding, of what is meant by compatibility in a local comprehensive plan or LDRs, so what? How can it be determined if a proposed use will be "compatible" under that standard?As with all applications of the LDRs,there needs to be competent substantial evidence that the requested use does or does not meet the listed elements of the definition. See the article What is Competent Substantial Evidence in Florida Land Use Hearings for more on competent substantial evidence. And the definition has to be applied consistently, not on a varying basis (depending on arbitrary factors such as how many people are in opposition). Compatibility is an important, even required, aspect of land development regulation. As such, it is critical that significant thought be put into what it means in a particular jurisdiction and how it is applied. HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Florida LF.,k , Quick Facts About Naples-Imm• - — - - Marco Island By Diana Villavicencio As of March 1,2017 Current sales market conditions: balanced. Current apartment market conditions: balanced. Overview The Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island(hereafter, Naples)metropol- Tourism is the primary catalyst of economic itan area is coterminous with Collier County on the southwestern activity in the metropolitan area,which is known coast of Florida.The temperate climate and more than 90 golf as the "Paradise Coast"with nearly 30 miles of courses in the metropolitan area(The Greater Naples Chamber beaches on the Gulf of Mexico and the Ever- of Commerce)have supported tourism and transformed the glades National Park. In 2016, more than 1.79 metropolitan area into a major retirement destination. People aged million people visited the metropolitan area, 65 and older accounted for nearly 29 percent of all out-of-state generating nearly$2 billion in economic actio- arrivals to the metropolitan area during 2015(most recent data ity, up from the 1.38 million visitors and$1.17 available,American Community Survey 1-year estimates). billion economic impact in 2010(Research Data Services, Inc.). • As of March 1, 2017,the estimated population of the metropol- itan area is 368,800, an average increase of 7,275,or 2.1 per- cent, a year since 2011 (Census Bureau population estimates ,.,t;Lif., �,� as of July 1). Improving economic conditions during the period Ael■� 1 A*. contributed to average annual net in-migration of 7,200 people �� �s' and accounted for nearly 99 percent of population growth. i/.�� �' • 1111Torrirli � From 2006 to 2011, population growth averaged 2,975 people, or 0.9 percent, annually when weak economic conditions �� slowed net in-migration to an average of 1,925 people a year. fl • During the peak growth period from 2000 to 2006, population growth averaged 9,800 people,or 3.6 percent,annually.Strong job growth during the period contributed to average net s, ENTop awe o, in-migration of 8,525 people a year. '2*Ill*1 i r r-OR G 9NN DEVs--A } y i i_i°. 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research 0 HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL As of March 1,2017 The mining, logging, and construction sector accounted for 71 percent of total job gains in the Naples area during the 3 months ending February 2017. 3 Months Ending Year-Over-Year Change February 2016 February 2017 Absolute (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) Percent Total nonfarm payrolls 143.9 145.6 1.7 1.2 Goods-producing sectors 17.8 19.5 1.7 9.6 Mining, logging, and construction 14.3 15.5 1.2 8.4 Manufacturing 3.5 3.9 0.4 11.4 Service-providing sectors 126.1 126.1 0.0 0.0 Wholesale and retail trade 25.7 25.5 -0.2 -0.8 Transportation and utilities 2.0 1.9 -0.1 -5.0 Information 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 Financial activities 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Professional and business services 15.9 16.0 0.1 0.6 Education and health services 21.0 21.7 0.7 3.3 Leisure and hospitality 29.1 28.1 -1.0 -3.4 Other services 9.1 9.4 0.3 3.3 Government 13.7 13.8 0.1 0.7 (percent) (percent) Unemployment rate 4.6 4.7 Note:Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding. Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics During the 3 months ending February 2017, nonfarm payroll growth in the Naples area slowed to a rate lower than the national rate for the first time since Economic Conditions 2010. Naples area The economy of the Naples metropolitan area has strengthened -Southeast/Caribbean region - Nation since 2011. From 2011 through 2013, nonfarm payroll growth o 6.0 ••• averaged 3.3 percent a year before accelerating to an average of 5 4.0 - --. 5.1 percent a year from 2014 through 2016.Although job growth n. •� 2.0 __.._..X has moderated during the 3 months ending February 2017,current 2 al 0. nonfarm payrolls total 145,600 jobs,surpassing the prerecession "L-. -2.0 peak of 135,600 in 2007 by more than 7 percent. ro E -4.0 t co During the 3 months ending February 2017- c- -6.0 8 Q) • Nonfarm payrolls increased 1,700 jobs, or 1.2 percent,corn- E '' -8.0 .-.....2 . pared with the average number of jobs during the same 3-month - -1 0.0 • O period in 2016.This year was the first since 2011 that the rate QOM QOM QOM QOM ci9 (1,3 �0�� cP (15) ci? of job growth in the metropolitan area was lower than the rate in <<e' <<°� <e) •(<e) <o) <<2' <o) ��� <<�� �o� the Southeast/Caribbean region and the nation,which were up Source U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics 2.1 and 1.6 percent, respectively. • The mining, logging, and construction sector added the most Largest employers in the Naples area jobs,expanding by 1,200, or 8.4 percent,to 15,500 jobs.The Nonfarm Number of Name of Employer Payroll Sector Employees benefited from increased residential,commercial,and in- y dustrial development projects and has been the fastest-growing NHC Healthcare System Education and health services 4,000 sector in the metropolitan area since 2011.The number of jobs Publix Super Markets,Inc. Wholesale and retail trade 2,800 in the sector, however, remains 35 percent below the prereces- Collier County(excluding Government 2,125 Sheriff's Office) sion high of 23,900 during 2006. Note:Excludes local school districts. continued on page 3 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,2016 e-`,E ni c� yqN d` 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research 0 HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island,FL As of March 1,2017 continued from page 2 • The manufacturing sector had the fastest rate of growth, percent,annually. During 2016,tourist counts fell 2 percent from increasing by 11.4 percent, or 400 jobs,to 3,900.Arthrex, Inc., a record 1.83 million visitors during 2015.As a result, during the a medical device manufacturer,added 350 jobs following the 3 months ending February 2017,the leisure and hospitality sector completion of a$47 million, 218,000-square-foot expansion of was one of only three sectors to lose jobs, declining by 1,000 jobs, its surgical device and implant manufacturing facility in Decem- or 3.4 percent,to 28,100 jobs. Despite this decline,the leisure and ber 2016. hospitality sector is the largest sector in the metropolitan area and • As job growth moderated,the unemployment rate averaged 4.7 accounts for more than 19 percent of total nonfarm payrolls.The percent, up from 4.6 percent during the same period 1 year ear- sector benefited from the expansion and completion of several her, but significantly lower than the peak of 11.5 percent during large-scale projects,with additional development under way.A the 3 months ending February 2010. $12.5 million casino expansion and a new 99-room hotel at the Seminole Casino Hotel were completed in 2015,creating approxi- Beginning in 2010,after 2 years of job losses in the leisure and mately 100 jobs.The new$20 million Hyatt House was completed hospitality sector,improved national economic conditions contributed in 2016;jobs added are unknown. Phase 3 of the$320 million JW to job growth in the sector. From 2010 through 2015,the number Marriott®Marco Island Beach Resort renovation is currently under of visitors to the metropolitan area increased every year by an aver- way,with completion scheduled for October 2017.On completion, age of 6.4 percent annually. During the same period,the leisure the property will have 810 guestrooms and suites across 3 towers and hospitality sector increased by an average of 900 jobs, or 3.9 and more than 800 employees. Sales Market Conditions The sales housing market in the Naples metropolitan area is currently averaged 12,550 a year.The recent decline in existing home balanced,with an estimated 2.2-percent vacancy rate, down from sales was largely caused by a 20-percent decrease in regular 5.7 percent in April 2010. Conditions have improved since 2010, resales,which totaled 10,950; regular resales had generally when the contraction in the housing market had significantly impacted trended upward since 2011 until this decline. REO sales also the metropolitan area. In April 2010, 16.8 percent of mortgages declined during the past 12 months 44 percent,to 820,and were seriously delinquent(90 or more days delinquent or in foreclo- accounted for 7 percent of existing sales. sure)or had transitioned into real estate owned(REO)status,a rate • The average sales price for existing homes rose 2 percent,to that declined to 1.8 percent as of January 2017(CoreLogic, Inc.). $489,900, up from$481,400 during the previous year. Existing The current rate of seriously delinquent loans and REO properties home sales prices have recovered from a low of$347,500 during is lower than the 3.7-and 2.6-percent rates for Florida and the 2010,when REO sales accounted for 30 percent of existing sales. nation, respectively. During the past 12 months,the average REO home sales price During the 12 months ending February 2017— was approximately one-third the average regular resale home • The number of new homes(including single-family homes,town- sale price of$500,000 in the metropolitan area. homes, and condominiums)sold totaled 2,625, down 1 percent Single-family homebuilding activity, as measured by the number of from the 2,675 homes sold during the previous 12 months single-family homes permitted,trended upward from 2010 through (Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by the 2015.Activity declined in 2016 but remains high. analyst).The average sales price for new homes was$560,600, • The number of single-family homes permitted totaled 2,600 nearly unchanged from the price during the same period 1 year during the 12 months ending February 2017,down 10 percent earlier.The rates of change for new home sales and new home from 2,900 homes permitted during the previous 12 months sales prices are lower than the average annual increases of 15 (preliminary data). and 5 percent from 2011 through 2016, respectively. • Single-family homes permitted averaged 640 annually from 2008 • Existing home sales totaled 11,750,down approximately 17 percent through 2009, before increasing 15 percent annually,from 770 from the 14,200 sold during the 12 months ending February 2016. homes permitted in 2010 to 3,075 in 2015. By comparison,from 2011 through 2015,existing home sales continued on page 4 1111111 UEVEOQ•` U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research �h�N Nil 0 HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL As of March 1,2017 continued horn page 3 • Since 2011,approximately 89 percent of single-family home • Del Webb, an age-restricted subdivision in the Ave Maria corn- construction has occurred in the unincorporated portion of munity,will have 2,000 homes at buildout and includes a golf the metropolitan area. One of the largest developments in the course. Home prices start at$204,990 for a two-bedroom, unincorporated area is Ave Maria, a 4,000-acre master-planned two-bathroom home and$318,990 for a three-bedroom,three- community,35 miles northeast of the city of Naples.Construction bathroom home.The Ave Maria community also includes Coquina of the 8 subdivisions in the Ave Maria community has been in Maple Ridge,a subdivision that will have 277 homes at buildout; ongoing since 2007,with approximately 1,300 of the 11,000 prices start at$196,990 for a two-bedroom,two-bathroom home. homes completed that are planned at buildout. Existing home sales prices in the Naples area Existing home sales in the Naples area have de- increased slightly in the past year partially because clined since early 2016, whereas new home sales of a 44-percent reduction in the number of REO have decreased since February 2017. properties sold. -New home sales u, -New home sales prices -Existing home sales o -Existing home sales prices 50.0 m 20.0 m 40.0 aa) 10.0-- r. . fir '' 30.0 E ° 0.0 h��..4_ eno r111 . 6, 20.0 • o 10.0 � � ' as 10.0 rz N 20.0 •(�' 0.0 � U A EL -30.0 " ' cc -10.0 °' m -40.0 °7O m >, Ob O' O N'N ,�1, ,:`3 ,\' ,0 ,\o ,\'1 t N -20.0 a. 99 99 99 9O 99 99 9O (19 99 99 O T 0' <<6° 0) (<e) <<6a 0' 0) 0' <<6° <<�� - 30.0 o -40.0 REO=real estate owned. d 50.0 Note:Includes single-family homes,townhomes,and condominiums. Source:Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by analyst -60.0, �OOrb X0c§ LOBO (12 NO 92 95' �O,\O �O,\., 92 q5) �O,\O rLO,‹ The rate of seriously delinquent mortgages and REO ��' ��' ��• �0 boa ��a <<(6<< ��so ��� �o properties in the Naples area has been below the national rate since 2015. Note:Includes single-family homes,townhomes,and condominiums. Source:Metrostudy,A Hanley Wood Company,with adjustments by analyst Naples area 20.0 --Florida -Nation Single-family home permitting increased in the Naples 0-0 18.07Narea from 2010 through 2015 and remained elevated. -�, o -a a c 16.0 °= 3,500- c� 14.03,000 -•° a 2,500 o.� 12.0u, a� E m 10.0E 2,000 a. 0 rn o 8.0 >, 1,500 c m 6.0 - E 1,000 ccs , w 0 0 ai 500 4.0 C) o 2 0 c o 2.0 - •''' Co O. O°' 'O N' N`L ,�"b ,�� ,�� ,�0 ,�1 ai �O �O (O (O 9O (O (O �O (O 'O o c '- - 0.0 Oq 00 NO �O �.` �< �G ,, . Note:Includes preliminary data from January 2016 through February 2017. 95 95 Jb�V J�� Ja� Ja� v V V J��V ,��90,a� ,�� V V Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Building Permits Survey '�� J�\ REO=real estate owned. Source:CoreLogic,Inc. Q�S,.ENl C,�N i *IIIIIIII#' r d,N„ f - 1 Da U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Y • © HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island,FL As of March 1,2017 Apartment Market Conditions The apartment market in the Naples metropolitan area currently is Multifamily construction activity,as measured by the number of balanced compared with soft conditions in 2007. Increased renter multifamily units permitted, has increased since 2013 in response household growth contributed to the absorption of excess units to increased rental demand but remains below construction levels since the late 2000s. before the recession. During the fourth quarter of 2016- • During the 12 months ending February 2017, 1,025 multifamily • The apartment vacancy rate was 4.6 percent,up from 2.7 percent units were permitted, up from 940 units permitted during the during the fourth quarter of 2015(Axiometrics, Inc.). Relatively previous year(preliminary data). high levels of multifamily construction,from 2013 through 2016, • Multifamily permitting averaged 2,750 units annually from 2000 contributed to the recent increase in the apartment vacancy rate. through 2007, before slowing to average 360 units permitted • The apartment vacancy rate is much lower than the 19.2-percent annually from 2008 through 2012,the lowest level in recent peak during the fourth quarter of 2007. High levels of newly history. From 2013 through 2015,multifamily permitting rose to constructed units,from 2000 through 2007,contributed to soft an average of 1,000 units annually. apartment market conditions. • In south Naples,the 296-unit Milano Lakes Apartments is currently • The average monthly rent for an apartment was$1,350, up under construction.The property will comprise eight buildings 5 percent from the fourth quarter of 2015 and up an average with one-,two-, and three-bedroom units.The first four buildings 5 percent annually from the fourth quarter of 2007. are expected to be completed during the fall of 2017,and the project is expected to be complete by April 2018. Rents have Although apartment vacancy rates declined during not yet been released. the fourth quarter of 2016, increased apartment • Luxury developments intended for retirees are currently under construction in the Naples area has contributed to construction, including 4 properties combining 460 apartments relatively elevated vacancy rates and slowing rent and assisted living units for seniors.The All Seasons Naples, growth since the second quarter of 2016. currently under construction in the city of Naples,will have 100 c -Asking rent independent living and 62 assisted living one-and two-bedroom a� -Vacancy rate p units.The roect is scheduled to be com leted in the summer a, 16.0 20.0 � p 14.0- 18.0 of 2017. Proposed rents have not yet been released. • 12.0-al 16.0 ,' Developers have responded to rent growth and low C & 10.0 14.0 vacancy rates with increased multifamily permitting _c 8.0- 12.0 Q in the Naples area since 2013. U o 6.0 10.0 a) 1,200 a 4.0 8'0 c E 1,000 • 2,0 6.0 °-0 800 0 0.0 4.0 > E 600 °' 2.0 -- 2.0 o -'' 400 -4.00 O� �o , �� �� ^� � � 0.0 9 200 ›- (o (o (O (o qo 99 (O 99 (O '.k NtxCep 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- Cap 0- 0- g 0 �- �- o \ N0, N0 p<NNN �< �c0 �A 04=fourth quarter. q/ qO <O (O rt, (O q, cO (O rt. Source:Axiometrics,Inc. Note:Includes preliminary data from January 2016 through February 2017. Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Building Permits Survey eS,pENio,,ry !1!!L �'d4NUE`s,d'k2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development i Office of Policy Development and Research COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS illidli * Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Florida A U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development I Office of Policy Development and Research I As of January 1, 2017 /7:212 Summary Economy Rental Market Housing Market Area The economy of the Naples HMA has The rental housing market in the HMA grown since 2011 and has recovered is currently balanced,with increased all the jobs lost as a result of the most demand and low levels of multifamily recent national recession,which ended construction contributing to the absorp- in 2009.Nonfarm payrolls increased tion of excess vacant units since 2008. by 6,200 jobs,or 4.6 percent,during The overall rental vacancy rate(for Lee r; 52016 to 142,300 jobs,with significant year-round housing)is currently esti- growth occurring in the mining,log- mated at 9.5 percent,down from 16.9 ging,and construction sector.During percent in April 2010.During the the 3-year forecast period,nonfarm forecast period,demand is estimated payrolls are expected to increase by an for 2450 new market-rate rental units average of 3,500 jobs,or 2.4 percent, (Table 1).The 1,025 units currently annually. under construction will satisfy a portion G 1f fMexim of this demand. — `` Sales Market The Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island Table 1. Housing Demand in the The sales housing market in the HMA is Naples HMA`During the Housing Market Area(hereafter,Naples currently balanced,with an estimated Forecast Period HMA),on the southwestern coast 2.2-percent vacancy rate,down from Naples MIA* of Florida,is coterminous with the 5.4ercent in April During p Sales Rental Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island,FL 2016,the average home sales price Units Units Metropolitan Statistical Area,which increased while the number of homes Total demand 8,075 2,450 consists of Collier County.The HMA is sold declined,partly because of a Under construction 1,025 1,025 home to the Everglades National Park decrease in the number of distressed *Naples-lmmokalee-Marco Island HMA. and a major destination for retirees and home sales.Duringthe forecastperiod, Notes:Total demand represents estimated tourists because of the miles of white production necessary to achieve a balanced demand is estimated for 8,075 new market at the end of the forecast period. sand beaches.More than 80 percent of Units under construction as of January 1, homes(Table 1).The 1,025 homes 2017.A portion of the estimated 49,600 the land in the HMA is dedicated to currently under construction and a other vacant units in the HMA will likely parks and nature preserves. satisfy some of the forecast demand. Sales portion of the estimated 49,600 other demand includes an estimated demand for vacant units in the HMA that may 50 mobile homes. The forecast period is January 1,2017, to January 1,2020. reenter the sales market will satisfy Source:Estimates by analyst Market Details some of the demand. Economic Conditions 2 Population and Households 5 Housing Market Trends 7 Data Profile 13 r 2 Economic Conditions The Naples HMA,with nearly With the onset of the national reces- 30 miles of white sand beaches sion that began at the end of 2007, on the Gulf of Mexico and home to the local economy entered a down- the Everglades National Park,is a turn when people spent less money popular vacation destination.Tourism on vacations and,at the same time, is the major component of the local declining housing prices elsewhere economy,and more than 1.79 million significantly reduced net in-migration people visit the HMA annually.Tour- to the HMA.From 2007 through _ ism generated more than$1.98 billion 2010,nonfarm payrolls in the HMA N ✓ in economic activity during 2016 declined by an average of 5,400 jobs, Z (Research Data Services,Inc.).The or 4.4 percent,annually to 111,200.A a HMA has more than 90 golf courses reduction in residential construction w and is the self-proclaimed Golf Capital in response to fewer retirees moving of the World with the most golf holes to the HMA,which lowered demand a per capita of anycommunityin thehousing p for new units,affected the 0 country(The Greater Naples Cham- mining,logging,and construction Nber of Commerce).The beaches and sector.From 2007 through 2010,the D numerous golf courses have also mining,logging,and construction 0 = helped turn the HMA into a major sector had the greatest decrease in retirement destination. jobs,declining by an average of 3,700 Z From 2000 through 2006,when the jobs,or 21.4 percent,annually.The = first wave of baby boomers began national recession had a delayed Lu to retire and net in-migration to the impact on the leisure and hospitality cc g HMA was high,nonfarm payrolls sector,which declined from 2008 o increased by an average of 5,900 jobs, through 2009 by an average of 1,200 .� or 5.3 percent,annually to 132,900. jobs,or 5.1 percent,annually. With the increasing demand for hous- When the national economy started w ing,the mining,logging,and con- improving in 2011,and consumer a struction sector rose by an average of spending increased,the economy 1,800 jobs,or 10.4 percent,annually, of the HMA began to recover and faster than any other sector.During nonfarm payrolls increased.The rate o the same period,jobs in the leisure of nonfarm payroll growth from 2011 ,csand hospitality sector increased by an through 2015 averaged 4.1 percent, average of 900 jobs,or 4.5 percent, or 5,000 jobs,a year to 136,100.Dur- annually in response to the increasing ing 2015,nonfarm payrolls in the number of retirees and higher levels HMA surpassed prerecession peak 0of tourism in the HMA compared levels for the first time. Growth in E with the 2007-through-2010 period. the leisure and hospitality and the E From 2000 through 2006,the educa- mining,logging,and construction tion and health services sector increased sectors,which increased by averages by an average 700 jobs,or 5.4 percent, of 1,000 and 900 jobs,or 4.5 and 8.4 zct annually.Part of the increase in the percent respectively,a year,supported sector was because Ave Maria College job growth from 2011 through 2015. moved to the HMA from Ypsilanti, Growth in both sectors was partly the Michigan.The college became Ave result of the$12.5 million casino floor Maria University in 2007,when it expansion and the construction of a moved to its permanent campus in new 99-room hotel at the Seminole the northeast of the HMA. Economic Conditions Continued 3 • Casino Hotel,one of the largest em- During 2016,nonfarm payrolls in the ployers in the HMA(Table 2).The Naples HMA increased by an average completion of construction at the 6,200 jobs,or 4.6 percent,to 142,300 Seminole Casino Hotel in March 2015 (Table 3).The mining,logging and created over 100 jobs in the leisure construction sector continued adding and hospitality sector.From 2011 jobs in the HMA,increasing by 1,400 through 2015,increased expansion jobs,or 10.3 percent,the most of any and construction of other hotels also other sector.The leisure and hospitality `^ contributed to growth in both sectors, sector increased by 700 jobs,or 2.6 } including the$80 million,32-room percent.Notable gains during 2016 a expansion of the Inn on Fifth in 2012 also occurred in the education and z a and the new$20 million Hyatt House health services sector,which increased ,l that opened in 2016.Jobs added at by 1,100 jobs,or 5.5 percent. Growth ct each establishment are unknown. in the sector was partly because the a NHC Healthcare System opened the Table 2. Major Employers in the Naples HMA* Robert,Mariann and Megan Mac- = Number of Name of Employer Nonfarm Payroll Sector Employees Donald Pediatric Emergency Depart- vl o NCH Heathcare System Education&health services 4,000 ment at North Naples Hospital.The = Publix Super Markets,Inc. Wholesale&retail trade 2,800 number of jobs added is unknown.A w Collier County Government(excluding Government 2,125 large percentage gain also occurred in >_ Sheriff's Office) the manufacturing sector, by11.8 L^ Arthrex,Inc. Manufacturing 1,700 gu P z Collier CountySheriffs Office Government 1,400 Lopercent,or 400 jobs,in 2016.Arthrex, w The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. Leisure&hospitality 1,100 a medical device manufacturer,con- The Country Club of Naples Leisure&hospitality 1,050 a Seminole Casino Hotel Immokalee Leisure&hospitality 880 tributed to job growth in the sector. O Marriot International,Inc. Leisure&hospitality 780 In the summer of 2013,the company Li Employee Professionals Professional&business services NA added between 400 and 500 jobs *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. when construction was completed on 1 NA=data not available. 4-' Note:Excludes local school districts. a$25 million, 190,000-square-foot d Source:Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,2016 surgical device and implant manu- facturing facility near the Ave Maria cq Table 3. 12-Month Average Nonfarm Payroll Jobs in the Naples HMA,* community in the northeast area of by Sector the HMA.An additional 120,000 o o12 Months Ending c_, Absolute Percent square feet were added to the facility ms s ,t._ uxi.k i December December Change Change 2015 2016 in 2016.The unemployment rate fell y Total nonfarm payroll jobs 136,100 142,300 6,200 4.6 to an average of 4.8 percent during CU Goods-producing sectors 17,000 18,700 1,700 10.0 2016,down from 5.2 percent in 2015. c. Mining,logging,&construction 13,600 15,000 1,400 10.3 o Manufacturing 3,400 3,800 400 11.8 The current unemployment rate is far E Service-providing sectors 119,100 123,600 4,500 3.8 below the recent peak of 11.6 percent Wholesale&retail trade 24,500 25,200 700 2.9 in 2010(Figure 1). Transportation&utilities 1,700 1,900 200 11.8 y Information 1,500 1,600 100 6.7 Tourism dominates the local econ- Financial activities 8,000 8,000 0 0.0l:k omy,and the leisure and hospitality c Professional&business services 15,300 16,100 800 5.2 Z Education&health services 19,900 21,000 1,100 5.5 sector is the largest employment sec- Leisure&hospitality 26,500 27,200 700 2.6 tor,with 27,200 jobs,accounting for Other services 8,500 9,100 600 7.1 19.1 percent of all nonfarm payroll Government 13,200 13,500 300 2.3 *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. jobs in the HMA(Figure 2). Since Notes:Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding. Based on 12-month 2000,the only decline in the sector averages through December 2015 and December 2016. occurred from 2008 through 2009. Source:U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic Conditions Continued 4 Figure 1.Trends in Labor Force, Resident Employment,and Unemploy- ment Rate in the Naples HMA,*2000 Through 2015 170,000— —14.0 m 160,000--- —12.0 E•150,000— —10.0 4 a E o 140,000— 8.0 0 a 130,000--- — 6.0 E� m 120,000— — 4.0 110,000 L/1 00 O^ 0(1' bn3 0b03 06 01 06 0°j ..O .ms's .`(L ,r5 2.0 } 0 0 ,10 ,10 '0 '00 '0 '0 0ryo �O ryo ryo ,10 ryo J Labor force Resident employment Unemployment rate Z *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. Source:U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics w ce Figure 2.Current Nonfarm Payroll Jobs in the Naples HMA,*by Sector Government 9.5% Mining,logging,&construction 10.5% l7 Other services 6.4% Manufacturing 2.6% hi 0 Wholesale&retail trade 17.7% w Leisure&hospitality 19.1% N Transportation&utilities 1.3% Z Information 1.1% w Financial activities 5.6% W Education&health services 14.8% Professional&business services 11.3% CL *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. O Note:Based on 12-month averages through December 2016. Source:U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Since 2011,the pace of job growth malls and shops that cater to residents • in the sector has accelerated to an and tourists.During 2016,the whole- average of 1,000 jobs,or 4.2 percent, sale and retail trade sector increased czs annually. Growth in the sector is by 700 jobs,or 2.9 percent,to 25,200 expected to continue steadily during jobs.Most of this growth was in the the next 3 years with the completion retail trade subsector,which increased of several hotel renovations and by 500 jobs,or 2.4 percent,to 21,300 expansions throughout the HMA, jobs.During spring 2016,job growth two of which are in the city of Marco in the subsector was partly the result Island.The$40 million and$320 mil- of the opening of the Tamiami Cross- lion renovations and expansions of ing Shopping Center,which consists the Hilton Marco Island Beach Resort of six large stores with nearly 120,000 and Spa and the JW Marriott Marco square feet of retail space in the main v Island Beach Resort,respectively,are building and four additional stand- currently under way with completion alone buildings with no vacancies. Z expected in 2017.The total jobs Job growth is expected to continue added have yet to be announced. during the 3-year forecast period when the 12,600-square-foot Commons on The wholesale and retail trade sector, Collier shopping center opens in early the second largest payroll sector in the 2017.Job numbers have not been HMA,is dominated by the retail trade announced. subsector because of the numerous Economic Conditions Continued 5 • With the tropical climate,low state by 66,000 square feet,adding 325 business taxes,and no individual permanent jobs during the forecast income tax,the HMA is an attractive period.Figure 3 shows the percentage destination for company headquarters. change in the employment sectors As a result,the professional and busi- since 2000. ness services sector has been the fastest During the forecast period,nonfarm growing employment sector since 2000, payroll growth is expected to average increasing by an average 4.5 percent, or 500 jobs,annually.With 16,100 jobs, 3,500 jobs,or 2.4 percent,annually. — Growth in the economy is expected J the sector is currently the fourth larg- o to be higher in the first year of the z est employment sector in the HMA. a forecast period and moderate through During 2016,this sector expanded by ,1 800 jobs,or 5.2 percent,compared with the third year.Job growth is likely to cc an 800-job,or 5.9-percent,increase remain strongest in the leisure and a hospitality,the mining,logging,and during 2015.Arthrex,based in the c HMA since 1991,is currently expand construction,and the professional z— ing their local corporate headquarters and business services sectors. o Figure 3.Sector Growth in the Naples HMA,*Percentage Change, 2000 to Current Lu > ■ Total nonfarm payroll jobs tAz AR . Goods-producing sectors w ■ Mining,logging,&construction 2 111w Manufacturing cc a ■ Service-providing sectors O ■ Wholesale&retail trade Lt . • Transportation&utilities Information 4, . Financial activities -c3 IN Professional&business services Z ■ Education&health services . Leisure&hospitality r*, p r ` 411 Other services v ;.. ■ Government —20 —10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 v *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. Note:Current is based on 12-month averages through December 2016. Source:U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 0 E _N Population and Households J c3 z As of January 1,2017,the municipalities(Florida Office of population of the Naples Economic and Demographic Research, HMA is estimated at 368,300.Only 2016),and approximately 89 percent 11 percent combined reside in the reside in the unincorporated area of Everglades,Marco Island,and Naples Collier County.The coastal location . Population and Households Continued 6 of the HMA makes it an attractive This period of population growth was retirement destination for Midwestern- the fastest,because rising home prices ers,accounting for approximately 18 throughout the nation enabled people percent of domestic net in-migration to sell their homes on retirement and (Internal Revenue Service tax return relocate to the HMA.Population data). Of the HMA population,30 growth slowed to an average 5,175 percent is age 65 or older,up from 27 people,or 1.7 percent,annually from percent in 2010(American Community 2005 to 2006,with net in-migration "' Survey[ACS] 1-year estimates).In accounting for 69 percent of the the nation, 15 percent of the population population growth and averaging 3,575 az is age 65 or older,up from 13 percent people a year.With the economic a in 2010.The HMA had a median age downturn and national housing crisis W of 49.8 years in 2015,significantly beginning in 2007,people delayed oc higher than the national median age retirement.These factors affected gof 37.8 years.As a result,the average population growth in the HMA,which t, net natural change(resident births slowed further to an average of 1,950 z minus resident deaths)has declined people,or 0.6 percent,annually from m every year since 2008,and nearly all 2006 to 2009.Net in-migration averaged 0 = population growth is the result of net 580 people a year and accounted for > in-migration. 30 percent of population growth.Even N though local and national economic z During the early 2000s,the HMA w conditions were deteriorating from w benefited from rapid population growth 2009 through 2010,population from oc resulting from high levels of net 2009 to 2012 averaged 4,675 people in-migration,which slowed dramatically o annually,or 1.4 percent.Net in- L, during the national recession.From migration increased to 4,200 people a • 2000 to 2005,the population increased a year and accounted for 90 percent of by an average of 10,700,or 3.9 percent, w the population growth.With an annually,with net in-migration averag- -a improving national economy,popula- 17.1 9,500 people a year and account tion growth since 2012 has averaged - ing for more than 88 percent of all _� 7,950 people,or 2.3 percent,annually, population growth(Census Bureau o with 99 percent of the growth a result population estimates as of July 1). of net in-migration.The proportion 2 Figure 4. Population and Household Growth in the Naples HMA," of people ages 65 and older that moved y 2000 to Forecast from different states has generally c.. 8,000 increased and accounted for 36 percent Co .x 7,000— of all people moving from different o a 5,000— states in 2015 compared with 19 F o 5,000— percent in 2008(ACS 1-year estimates). 8,800— _� 8,000— As job growth moderates during the Ci. < 2,000— next 3 years,the population of the Co z 1,000— Naples HMA is expected to increase o by an average of 6,800,or 1.8 percent, 2000 to 2010 2010 to current Current to forecast annually to 388,700,nearly all from ■ Population ■Households net in-migration(Figure 4).Approxi- *Naples Immokalee Marco Island HMA. mately 36 percent of the population Notes:The current date is January 1,2017. The forecast date is January 1,2020. Sources:2000 and 2010-2000 Census and 2010 Census;current and forecast— growth is expected to continue to estimates by analyst Population and Households Continued 7 Figure 5. Components of Population Change in the Naples HMA,* constitute retirees moving to the HMA. 2000 to Forecast Figure 5 shows the components of 7,000 population change in the HMA from 6,000- 2000 to the forecast date. = 5,000 4,000- Household growth in the HMA gener- 3,000— ally has mirrored population growth, 2,000- with higher rates in the early and 1,000- mid-2000s that slowed in the late 2000s. 0 From 2000 through 2010,the number 7,.. 2000 to 2010 2010 to current Current to forecast Q ■ Net natural change ■ Net migration of households increased from 102,973 Z to 133,179,an average annual increase .Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. F- Notes:The current date is January 1,2017. The forecast date is January 1,2020. of 3,025,or 2.6 percent.The number Y Sources:2000 and 2010-2000 Census and 2010 Census;current and forecast- of households in the HMA is currently estimates by analyst estimated at 153,300,an average annual increase of 2,975,or 2.1 percent,since Z Figure 6. Number of Households by Tenure in the Naples HMA,` April 2010.The homeownership rate 2000 to Current is currently estimated at 69.7 percent, 120,000- o down from 72.2 percent during April 100,000- w 60,000- 2010(Table DP-1 at the end of this > report).The homeownership rate is 60,000- z 40,000- likely to continue to decline,although = 20,000- at a slower rate because of signifi- a- ° 2000 2010 Current cantly reduced levels of foreclosures al Renter Owner and improving economic conditions. 0 During the 3-year forecast period,the *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. Note:The current date is January 1,2017. number of households is expected to Sources:2000 and 2010-2000 Census and 2010 Census;current-estimates by increase by an average of 2,800,or analyst 1.8 percent,annually.Figure 6 depicts the number of households by tenure from 2000 through the current date. 0 U i-. Cu ti Housing Market Trends Sales Market The sales housing market in the purchase homes.A lower level of Naples HMA is currently balanced, home construction since the late 2000s with an estimated 2.2-percent vacancy also contributed to the absorption of z rate,down from the 5.4-percent vacancy some of the excess inventory.During rate in April 2010.The decline in the 2016,an average 3-month supply of vacancy rate resulted from improved homes was available for sale,up from economic conditions that enabled 2.6 months a year earlier but less than a larger number of households to one-half of the peak of 7.0 months Housing Market Trends O Sales Market Continued reached during December 2007,when 2010,but the number has since declined. local economic conditions began As of December 2016, 1.8 percent of deteriorating(Naples Area Board of all home loans were seriously delin- Realtorsr'). quent or had transitioned into REO status,down from 2.7 percent a year The existing single-family home, earlier and significantly less than the townhome,and condominium(here- after,existing homes)sales market peak of 17.3 percent reached during January 2010(CoreLogic,Inc.).The ,,, in the HMA was severely impacted current rate in the HMA is below v' during the national housing crisis. the current average of 3.7 percent a Existing home sales totaled 17,950 z for Florida and 2.6 percent for the a during 2005 before declining by an average of 6,000 homes,or more than nation.Seriously delinquent and W REO loans in Florida and the nation 33 percent,annually to 5,925 homes peaked during early 2010,at 18.8 and a sold in 2007(Metrostudy,A Hanley 8.6 percent,respectively.During 2016, Wood Company,with adjustments approximately 830 REO homes sold z by the analyst).From 2008 through — in the HMA,comprising 7 percent of '' 2013,existing home sales grew by anP g n all existing home sales,down from an o average 1,350,or nearly 23 percent, = average of 36 percent of all existing ,, annually to 14,000 homes sold because home sales in 2009,when REO home N of increased net in-migration from sales peaked,at 2,975(Metrostudy, z 2009 to 2012,even when economic w A Hanley Wood Company,with = conditions were deteriorating.Since cc 2014,existing home sales have adjustments by the analyst).During a 2016,the average REO sales price o fluctuated but generally have declined. was$313,700,up$48,250,or 18 L.) During 2016,existing home sales • averaged 11,900 homes sold,down an percent,from 2015.Since 2005,REO home prices have been approximately average of 700 homes,or 5 percent, w 50 percent less than the average sales annually since 2014.Although home -0 price of a regular resale home and = sales peaked in 2005,the average sales price for an existing home did not significantly have affected the overall peak until 2007 at$632,200.Follow- average sales price of existing homes. 0 ing this peak,the average sales price With an improving local economy and declined an average of$95,550,or 15 increased in-migration to the HMA, percent,annually to$345,600 in 2010 the market for new single-family because of increased real estate owned homes,townhomes,and condomini- czs (REO)home sales.The average price ums(hereafter,new homes)began to x o for existing homes began to increase improve in 2010,but sales are below E again in 2011,and by 2016,was up an the mid-2000 levels.New home sales average of$22,600,or nearly 7 percent, totaled 2,825 during 2016,an increase annually to$481,200,which was 31 of 300 homes,or nearly 12 percent, rl, percent below the high in 2007. from the 2,525 homes sold during rs Z 2015.By comparison,new homes The national economic downturn had sales totaled 5,100 during 2005 before a significant effect on the HMA sales declining every year by an average market,causing a sharp increase in the number of seriously delinquent 1,050 homes,or nearly 21 percent,to 860 homes sold during 2009.The sale (90 or more days delinquent or in of new homes began to increase again foreclosure)and REO properties by Housing Market Trends 9 Sales Market Continued in 2010 when improving economic average of only 780 homes permitted conditions nationally helped contrib- annually from 2007 through 2009. ute to an increased number of people From 2010 through 2015,homebuild- retiring and relocating to the HMA. ing increased every year to reach By 2014, 1,975 new homes sold,an 3,075 homes permitted during 2015. average increase of 220 homes,or Preliminary estimates of single-family approximately 26 percent,annually homes permitted during 2016,which since 2010.The average sales price do not include all the permitting "' of all new homes during 2016 was jurisdictions in the HMA,indicate a } $556,600,a decrease of$7,000,or decrease in construction with 2,650 -J c approximately 12 percent,from the single-family homes permitted, z a previous year.Prior to this decline, down from 2,800 during 2015 for the new home sale prices increased every same limited number of permitting oc year from 2011 through 2015 to reach jurisdictions. $563,600,representing an average increase of$30,700,or approximately The condominium market locally was z— 7 percent,annually.Prior to the reces- severely affected during the national sion,new home sales prices averaged housing crisis,and the production of a $499,700 in 2006. new condominium units remains lim- W ited in the HMA even with improving After declining substantially following conditions. Condominium sales in the z the housing crisis,single-family home HMA peaked in 2005(earliest data = construction activity,as measured by available)with 10,700 units sold,of = the number of single-family homes which 2,250 units,or approximately gpermitted,increased in the Naples 21 percent,were newly constructed o HMA every year from 2010 through units.Following this peak,the local 2015 but is below levels during the market was hard hit and condominium -, early to mid-2000s(Figure 7).From sales declined to 3,525 units in 2008, w 2000 through 2005,single-family reflecting an average annual decline homebuilding activity averaged 3,950 of 1,825 units sold,or approximately Co homes annually.Permitting then 17 percent.Since 2009,condominium declined to an average of 2,825 in sales have fluctuated but generally O 2006 before declining further to an have increased and,by 2016,totaled U C. 6,150 units sold,indicating an average Figure 7. Single-Family Homes Permitted in the Naples HMA,* increase of 375,or nearly 11 percent, 2000 to Current annually.New condominium sales 4,500 fluctuated but generally declined from 4,000— O 2006 through 2012 to 190 units sold, 3,500— i~ 3,000— and for the 7-year period accounted 2s00— for 3 percent of all condominium sales. y 2,000— In 2016,sales of new condominium o, 1,500— units accounted for 8 percent of all Co 1,000— condominium sales in the HMA.The 500— 1111i1 • 1111iiii average sales price of a condominium ° unit peaked in 2007,at$536,200,and <o 0ti ° °h oe6 ° <a ^o � ^ti ^o \a4h �6 o "0ti0 '0 19 oti tiotiotioOOooOOO declined by an average of$43,250, *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. or approximately 8 percent,annually Notes:Includes townhomes. Current includes data through December 2016. Data for 2016 ore preliminary. during the next 5 years,reaching Sources:U.S. Census Bureau,Building Permits Survey;estimates by analyst Housing Market Trends 10 Sales Market Continued an average sales price of$319,900 around the Ave Maria Oratory and in 2012.The sharp decline in the aver- University in 2007,is an ongoing age sales price was partly a result of a development consisting of eight large number of condominium units subdivisions.Approximately 1,300 of sold as REO sales and partly that new the 11,000 homes planned at buildout condominium construction declined have been completed.Del Webb Naples, rapidly,causing downward pressure an age-restricted subdivision in the Ave on the average sales price.With Maria community,will have 2,000 improving market conditions and a homes at buildout and includes a golf reduction in the number of REO sales course.Home prices start at$204,990 in the HMA,the average sales price for a two-bathroom home and$318,990 a of a condominium has increased for a three-bedroom home.The unin- W since 2013 by an average of$16,950, corporated community also includes cc or more than 5 percent,annually to Coquina at Maple Ridge,a devel- $387,700 during 2016. opment that will have 277 homes at buildout and prices that start at z_ New sales housing developments `^ in the HMA include the Ave Maria $196,990 for a two-bathroom home. O master-planned community,35 miles During the next 3 years,demand is northeast of the city of Naples.The expected for an estimated 8,075 new unincorporated community,established homes in the HMA as it is expected to continue to attract retirees.Demand = Table 4. Estimated Demand for New Market-Rate Sales Housing is expected to be lower during the in the Naples HMA* During the Forecast Period second and third years of the 3-year ` a rix_ Ittet forecast period as economic growth � ': - a 1,4Aaatjt4P ,taa. "=a ,- ** moderates(Table 1).The 1,025 homes • 178,990 189,999 800 10.0 currently under construction and a 190,000 249,999 1,200 15.0 250,000 449,999 2,000 25.0 portion of the 49,600 other vacant 450,000 649,999 2,000 25.0 units in the HMA that may reenter 650,000 999,999 1,200 15.0 the market will satisfy some of the 1,000,000 and higher 800 10.0 demand.Demand is expected to be "Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. Notes:The 1,025 homes currently under construction and a portion of the estimated greatest in the$250,000-to-$649,999 0 49,600 other vacant units in the HMA will likely satisfy some of the forecast de- price range.Table 4 shows the esti- mond. Demand for 50 mobile homes during the forecast period is excluded from this table. The forecast period is January 1,2017, to January 1,2020. mated demand for market-rate sales Source:Estimates by analyst housing by price range. Rental Market Rental housing market conditions standards increased demand for rental are currently balanced in the Naples units,leading to decreased vacancy HMA.The estimated vacancy rate levels and increased average rents. for all rental units(including single- Single-family homes represented 32 z family homes,manufactured homes, percent of all occupied rental units in and apartment units)is estimated at the HMA in 2015(ACS 1-year data), 9.5 percent,down from 16.9 percent up from 30 percent in 2010,because in April 2010(Figure 8).Rental of an increase in the conversion of market conditions have improved sales units to rental use. since 2010,because strict lending • Housing Market Trends 1 l Rental Market Continued Figure 8. Rental Vacancy Rates in the Naples HMA,*2000 to Current 18.0- 16.9 16.0- 14.0- 12.0- 9.8 9.5 10.0- 8.0- 6.0- 4.0- _ 2.0- } 0.0 2000 2010 Current *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. Note:The current dote is January 1,2017. Sources:2000 and 2010-2000 Census and 2010 Census;current—estimates by analyst The apartment market accounted for rent for an apartment in the nation z 47 percent of all occupied rental units during the fourth quarter of 2016 was in 2015(ACS 1-year data).Apartment lower than the HMA at$1,291 and market conditions in the HMA are reflects a 5-percent average annual w currently tight because of demand growth since 2010. > outpacing new supply.During the fourth quarter of 2016,the apartment Multifamily construction activity,as measured by the number of multifam- = vacancy rate was 4.6 percent,up from u.) ily units permitted,has accelerated 2.7 percent during the fourth quarter of a since 2013 in response to increased 2015(Axiometrics,Inc.).By compar rental demand but is well below the ison,the apartment vacancy rate peaked prerecession level.Prior to the reces- in 2007 at 19.2 percent,because high a levels of newly constructed units from sion,the most recent peak in multi family permitting totaled 5,300 units 2000 through 2007 were left unabsorbed in 2000 before slowing to an average when the economic downturn signifi- 2,875 units permitted a year from candy curtailed in-migration to the 2001 through 2007.The number of HMA.Apartment market conditions began improving in 2008,because of multifamily units permitted declined dramatically,to the lowest level since stringent mortgage lending standards that impeded potential homebuyers 1980(earliest data available),from 2008 through 2012 to an average 380 y from purchasing homes.By 2010,the units permitted annually because apartment vacancy rate in the HMA .14 previous high levels of construction, O was 11.3 percent and declined every 8 year through 2014,partly a result coupled with reduced population of improving economic conditions, growth and high vacancy rates,limited increased net in-migration,and lower the need for new construction.From levels of multifamily construction.The 2013 through 2015,multifamily permitting rose to average 1,075 units average monthly rent for an apart- ment during the fourth quarter of wally.Preliminary estimates of multifamily permitting during 2016, 2016 was$1,353,an increase of$66, which include only some of the permit- or 5 percent,from the fourth quarter of 2015 and$72,or 7 percent,from ting jurisdictions in the Naples HMA, $919 in 2010.The average monthly indicate an increase in construction Housing Market Trends 1 2 Rental Market Continued with 920 multifamily units permitted, Naples with one-,two-,and three- up from 890 during 2015.Of the 25,475 bedroom rents starting at$1,523, multifamily units permitted in the $1,801,and$1,901,respectively. HMA from 2000 through 2007,an es- The growing retiree population has timated 12,800 units,or more than 50 also affected the rental market,and percent,were built as owner-occupied projects currently under construction units for either retirees migrating include high-end developments to the HMA or for seasonal second intended for retirees.Approximately "' homes.Since 2008,approximately 25 four properties with 460 apartments J percent of all multifamily units in the and assisted-living units for seniors a HMA have been built for owner oc- are currently under construction in a cupancy.Figure 9 shows the number the HMA.The All Seasons of Naples, w of multifamily units permitted in the currently under construction in the oc HMA from 2000 through 2016. city of Naples,will feature 100 indepen- a Recent apartment development in dent living and 62 assisted living 0 one-and two-bedroom units.The z the HMA is concentrated in high-end — project is scheduled for completion in apartments to satisfy the increased D the summer of 2017;proposed asking o rental demand after the housing = rents have not yet been released. w crisis.The 282-unit Orchid Run was completed in June 2016 in the city of During the next 3 years,demand is W Figure 9. Multifamily Units Permitted in the Naples HMA,*2000 to estimated for 2,450 new market rate w Current rental units in the HMA(Table 1), cc 6,000--- with demand peaking in the first year 5,000-.- and tapering off in the second and o 4,000— third years as economic growth and • 3,000— net in-migration moderate.The 1,025 IIIII2,000— units currently under construction i,000 , . . will meet a portion of the forecast o rental housingdemand.Table 5 shows ro tiocP do°^ tice boob tio°a tie tio°6 tio6 do06 ve yoNS tio4` tioNq' tio'`'' tio`a tio`‘' yo4. the forecast demand for new market- . *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. rate rental housing in the HMA by o Notes:Excludes townhomes. Current includes data through December 2016. Data for 2016 are preliminary. rent level and number of bedrooms. Sources:U.S. Census Bureau,Building Permits Survey;estimates by analyst Table 5. Estimated Demand for New Market-Rate Rental Housing in the Naples °' HMA* During the Forecast Period - One Bedroom Two Bedrooms Three or More Bedrooms 0 F Monthly Gross Units of Monthly Gross Units of Monthly Gross Units of P Rent($) Demand Rent($) Demand Rent($) Demand 1,250 to 1,449 300 1,400 to 1,599 440 1,690 to 1,889 120 1,450 to 1,649 380 1,600 to 1,799 490 1,890 to 2,089 200 p 1,650 or more 170 1,800 or more 160 2,090 or more 170 �s Total 850 Total 1,100 Total 490 2 *Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. Notes:Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.Monthly rent does not include utilities or concessions. The 1,025 units currently under construction will likely satisfy some of the estimated demand. The forecast period is January 1,2017, to January 1,2020. Source:Estimates by analyst Data Profile Table DP-1. Naples HMA* Data Profile, 2000 to Current Average Annual Change(%) 2000 2010 Current 2000 to 2010 2010 to Current Total resident employment 111,735 128,427 155,800 1.4 3.3 Unemployment rate 3.7% 11.6% 4.8% Nonfarm payroll jobs 97,300 111,200 142,300 1.3 4.2 Total population 251,377 321,520 368,300 2.5 2.0 Total households 102,973 133,179 153,400 2.6 2.1 Owner households 77,825 96,159 106,900 2.1 1.6 Percent owner 75.6% 72.2% 69.7% Ln Renter households 25,148 37,020 46,500 3.9 3.4 J Q Percent renter 24.4% 27.8% 30.3% Total housing units 144,536 197,298 210,200 3.2 0.9 Owner vacancy rate 2.6% 5.4% 2.2% w Rental vacancy rate 9.8% 16.9% 9.5% cc Median Family Income $59,100 $70,800 $66,500 1.8 -1.0 'Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island HMA. Notes:Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding. Employment data represent annual averages for 2000, 2010, z and the 12 months through December 2016. Median Family Incomes are for 1999,2009,and 2015. The current date is January 1, 2017. Sources:U.S. Census Bureau;U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development;estimates by analyst O Ln z LA-1 w a. O U cc s-, 2 ti a U) cc z 14 Data Definitions and Sources some units classified as commercial structures are not reflected in the residential building permits.As a result, the analyst,through diligent fieldwork,makes an estimate 2000:4/1/2000—U.S.Decennial Census of this additional construction activity.Some of these 2010:4/1/2010—U.S.Decennial Census estimates are included in the discussions of single-family Current date: 1/1/2017—Analyst's estimates and multifamily building permits. Forecast period: 1/1/2017-1/1/2020—Analyst's estimates For additional data pertaining to the housing market ,„ for this HMA,go to huduser.gov/publications/pdf/ The metropolitan statistical area definition in this CMARtables_Naples_Immokalee_MarcoIslandFL_17. >- report is based on the delineations established by pdf. Z the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)in the OMB Bulletin dated February 28,2013. F- w Demand:The demand estimates in the analysis are not a forecast of building activity.They are the estimates of the total housing production needed to achieve a balanced market at the end Contact Information of the 3-year forecast period given conditions on 0 the as-of date of the analysis,growth,losses,and Diana Villavicencio,Economist excess vacancies.The estimates do not account Chicago HUD Regional Office for units currently under construction or units in 312-913-8286 z the development pipeline.Demand estimates in diana.villavicencio@hud.gov w = this report are for year-round housing production w This analysis has been prepared for the assistance and needed to achieve a balanced market at the end of a guidance of HUD in its operations.The factual informa- the forecast period and do not contain estimates p tion,findings,and conclusions may also be useful to for seasonal or vacation housing units. builders,mortgagees,and others concerned with local Other Vacant Units:In this analysis conducted housing market conditions and trends.The analysis by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban does not purport to make determinations regarding the -o Development(HUD),other vacant units include acceptability of any mortgage insurance proposals that all vacant units that are not available for sale or may be under consideration by the Department. for rent.The term therefore includes units rented or sold but not occupied;held for seasonal, The factual framework for this analysis follows the guidelines and methods developed by the Economic and recreational,or occasional use;used by migrant Market Analysis Division within HUD.The analysis and workers;and the category specified as"other" fmdings are as thorough and current as possible based on vacant by the Census Bureau. information available on the as-of date from local and Building Permits:Building permits do not neces- national sources.As such,findings or conclusions may be o sally reflect all residential building activity that modified by subsequent developments.HUD expresses its E occurs in an HMA.Some units are constructed appreciation to those industry sources and state and local or created without a building permit or are issued government officials who provided data and information a different type of building permit.For example, on local economic and housing market conditions. z For additional reports on other market areas, please go to huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/chma_archive.html. Bill Arndt 239-250-5045 cell 45 GrecoSherry From: Patricia Zewalk <pzewalk@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 8:52 AM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; burt.sounders@colliercountyfl.gov; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Development PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE vote NO. Traffic in our area is already a nightmare during season. The addition of this large Allura development would most certainly cause gridlock. All of you, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE vote NO. Thank-You, Patricia Zewalk 2057 Imperial Circle 46 GrecoSherry From: GrecoSherry Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 3:53 PM To: 'Dianna Quintanilla' Subject: RE: Meeting Request: Allura The 25th at 9:30 AM, please confirm. sherry greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 f ( u 239-252-8604 I Fax 239-252-6393 /'� Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov ((( l ;' ' al Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:00 PM To: GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Meeting Request: Allura Good afternoon, Rich, along with Keith Gelder and Brian Stock, would like to meet with the Commissioner re: the upcoming March 26th agenda item Allura. Availability: Thursday March 21st: 9:30—4:00 Friday March 22": 9:00, 10:00, 2:00—4:00 Monday March 25th: 9:00—3:00 Thank you. Dianna Quintanilla Legal Assistant CYK The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 dquint nila@cy Fawflr 435.1218 COLEMAN I YOVANOVICH KOESTER dquintanilla(�cyklawfirm.com Visit cyklawfirm.com to learn more about us. 1 60 } Trusted &Verified ♦ y4 �rPxrd � Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. 2 GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:00 PM To: GrecoSherry Subject: Meeting Request: Allura Good afternoon, Rich, along with Keith Gelder and Brian Stock, would like to meet with the Commissioner re: the upcoming March 26th agenda item Allura. Availability: Thursday March 21St: 9:30—4:00 Friday March 22"d: 9:00, 10:00, 2:00—4:00 Monday March 25th: 9:00—3:00 Thank you. Dianna Quintanilla CYK . 1 Legal Assistant The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 P: 239.435.35351 F: 239.435.1218 COIEIVSAN YOVANOVICH KOESTER dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com Visit cyklawfirm.com to learn more about us. .a • ;Trusted & Verified ! � f Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. 3 GrecoSherry From: Capt Rob Walczak <tarpon569@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:07 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Fwd:Allura Project Sent from my iPhone From: Capt Rob Walczak<tarpon569@aol.com> Subject:Allura Project Dear Board-member, I am writing this email is opposition to the new Allura project proposal. I am a resident of Barrington Cove and my backyard will face the buildings. I will be directly on the property line. I was the 1st home to build on our street and I would have reconsidered buying if I would have known this project was being proposed. I have a lot invested in the home. I also work for the fire service. I have seen what these buildings can be like long term with residents and safety. I have 2 small boys that attend North Naples Middle school. We have been asking for crossing guards as traffic is horrible for the kids crossing Livingston Rd. Our kids don't ride bikes or walk to schoolas we worry for their safety.The schools are at capacity and now with a new high school being built traffic will be worse than ever(it's horrible now!). We already have to much traffic in the area. As a resident and parent I highly disagree with this project. Sincerely, Robert Walczak 16285 Aberdeen Way Naples Fl 34110 Sent from my iPhone 1 GrecoSherry From: Colette Diegel <cad2020@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 10:37 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Stock Development Allura incompatible fiasco I want to voice my opinion that I am totally against the ill advised Allura Stock Development project on Livingston Road. It would be ridiculously out of place and incompatible with the single family homes we live in. The traffic analysis was not valid because they did not include the rush hour time frames and used information from old studies in Bonita Springs. I will stop short of saying it was a joke but It was very close. I sincerely hope you do not vote to approve this project Ms.Taylor. Colette Diegel Barrington Cove 7 GrecoSherry From: Arnisas <arnisas@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:43 PM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Allura Apartment Proposal for North Naples Hello: I am a resident in The Strand and opposed to the amendment of zoning that would allow Stock Development to construct Altura, four-story buildings with 304 apartments at the intersection of Livingston Rd and Veteran's Memorial Blvd. I attended the Feb. 7 meeting of the Planning Commission who after hearing from many objectors still voted in favor of moving forward with only two commissioners dissenting. Those who spoke at the hearing reiterated the more obvious objections such as congested traffic patterns, schools at capacity, wetland, green space, and bear habitat protection. The following objections got little or no attention: • The proposed apartment complex zone changes would be an example of 'spot zoning', which is a bad development concept. Almost every property within two miles of the proposed apartments is a single-family home or low-rise condominium. • The proposed apartment complex will have no standards or controls such as the developments near the site have that control the operation, maintenance, and behavior of the owners through the association mechanism with a board of directors. • The developer, Stock, will have no control of over what this proposed apartment complex will look like in 10 years and beyond. They will most likely sell the project to an investor who could then do anything they desired. During a downturn in the real estate rental market, the owner could forgo maintenance work, hence reducing the `luxury' apartment to something much less than "luxurious." • The incompatibility of the apartment architecture, given that of the neighboring developments, is of a density that requires 3 to 4 levels. This will do doubt negatively affect property values of adjoining real estate. • Buyers looking to purchase a home in the area may be negatively influenced by an apartment complex in the middle of this area. This could negatively affect home values in a very significant way. • Zone changes or variances are generally granted due to a hardship on the part of the property owner. However, this does not seem to be the case in this instance. The land in question has been zoned for a long period of time. All the surrounding property has been developed in compliance with the current zoning. The folks who purchased in the surrounding developments did so relying on the fact that neighboring projects would be of a like kind. Changing the adjoining land to allow an apartment project is unfair to those taxpayers. I realize growth and development are inevitable in Collier County, but it should be "smart" growth and development that maintains and is compatible the appearance and quality of life for those who live in the surrounding area. 8 Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Arnold Saslaysky 9 GrecoSherry From: JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 7:03 AM To: TaylorPenny Subject: ALLURA Proposed Development Penny: I have owned property in The Strand for over 16 years and spend at least 6 months in our beautiful community. We spend the other time in Delaware, a state which requires any new Developer provide a TRAFFIC STUDY to approve the anticipated vehicle movement on the appropriate intersections. If the intersection is declared a "failed intersection", the developer must provide another option to make the grade. Either reduce the density of the project or spend millions of their money to improve the roads. Please let me know if a study has been completed where I can review the results. Thanks. Jim Welding 10 GrecoSherry From: Julie Chilstrom <juliecdts@embarqmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:53 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura I was unable to attend the hearing about the proposed Allura project. I writing to STRONGLY express my concern about the traffic that development would add on Livingtston. I live in the community of Milano, and during rush hour, it is almost impossible to get unto Livingston, to say nothing about traveling north to Bonita Beach Road. I'm urging you not to give approval to the Allura project. Sincerely, Julie Chilstrom 15934 Marcello Circle Naples, FL 34110 GrecoSherry From: Dorothee Pollin <pollinswfl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 1:11 PM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Fwd: Allura Project Development Good afternoon, My name is Dorothee Pollin, I'm living in the gated community'Barrington Cove' (in the corner of Livingston and Veterans Bvd) with my husband and my 2 kids. I'm contacting you regarding the Allura Project Department which is supposed to be built in my and neighbors' backyard... I really beg your help ! When I bought my house 2 years ago, I fell in love with the neighborhood, surrounded by trees and preserve. Choosing a small community was one of my concerns as well, as the neighborhood would remain calm and safe for my kids. Building such a huge development would for sure, disturb a lot the quietness of our place: -TRAFFIC: It already takes me 1/2h to reach Bonita Beach Rd at around 5.30pm when I have to drive my son to his soccer practice.This is already a concern during the season every morning and evening. What would be the consequence if we take in consideration such a development with more than 600 vehicles in addition to that ? By TRAFFIC, and being a mom, I think about SAFETY as well... My daughter is going to Veteran Memorial Elementary School and my son to Pine Ridge Middle School. There is already so much traffic in the morning I don't want them to run their bikes,traffic is crazy down here and is much too dangerous for the kids. Would it be even worse ? -SCHOOL: I'm afraid schools would be struggling with so many new kids.Today my kids benefit from a great teaching in small classes which is a wonderful advantage to interact. I don't want them to pay the price of this. - INCOMPATIBILITY with surrounding developments: For now, we are living in a residential area, with homes, condos ... the implementation of such a massive building would look really bad and won't be in cohesion with the surroundings... Really, it would look very bad. As a consequence, what would be the effect on our home values in the area ? it would have an effect, for sure, and not int he good way. Please,vote against this Allura Project Development. I understand the needs of our city in matter of rental apartments, but please, not at the expense of a great, safe and quiet neighborhood... Thanks for your time and help... Dorothee, Cedric, Arthur(12),Josephine (9), Best regards, Dorothee Pollin 1 GrecoSherry From: Sunny McCown <sunnymccown@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:59 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Please consider voting "No" for this apartment complex. The traffic is already a nightmare as it is without the potential of hundreds of additional cars being added. Just check the current congestion in the mornings at Immokalee and Livingston. Sincerely, Dr.Allan and Claire McCown 1976 Countess Ct. Naples, FL 34110 Sent from my iPad 2 GrecoSherry From: Robert Aufdenkampe <bobaufde@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 9:56 AM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Allura Apartment Development Commissioners of Collier County As a resident of Barrington Cove, I am submitting this email to protest the proposed Allura Development as presented to the Planning Commission by the Stock Development Corporation. Although there are many reasons to resist this type of development, I believe that Traffic and the resulting destruction of the surrounding communities environment are paramount. In addressing the traffic nightmare that this proposed development creates, you only have to travel Livingston either north or south during the rush hours timeframe. As it stands now, it sometimes takes 1 /2 hour to get from Veterans Memorial to either Immokalee Road South or Bonita Beach Road North. Adding another 500-600 vehicles to this already congested environment makes absolutely no sense. The bus traffic and parents turning into the elementary school during drop off and pick up times can cause traffic be tied up as far as the entrance to Barrington Cove.. This increased traffic can only lead to more congestion. As it stands now, most parents from the surrounding communities will not allow their children to walk to the schools because of the traffic. Asking an elementary student to cross 6 lanes of traffic of people hurrying to get to work is just not feasible. As a side note to the commissioners, I was in Los Angles last weekend and had the unfortunate opportunity to drive the famous California 405. As many are aware, this is considered to be one of the countries most congested highways. The only difference between the LA 405 and the Collier County Livingston Road is 10 lanes on the 405 and 6 lanes on Livingston in Collier. Both are congested. The developer states that with the opening of a new High School in 2023 and the widening of Veterans memorial from Livingston to Old 41 , will help. That is simply not the case. If anything the congestion will increase and become almost unmanageable with all the increased traffic coming and going to the new High School, will create gridlock. No one in their right mind will exit Livingston to travel to Old 41 , which is a 2 lane road to travel either north or south. The Stock traffic studies quoted from the ITE report 10th generation are not, I believe representative of this area. As a preamble to their reports ITE suggests that these are only guidelines and communities should do their own investigative reporting on the proposed developments. The second reason for opposition against this development is the aesthetic nature of the proposed configuration. They want to build (1 ) three story and (5) four story buildings with unattached garages and parking for 700 cars, on 20 acres. This is like putting a 2 small city in the middle of a residential communities composed one and two story buildings. Driving up and down Livingston, one cannot see any developments of this magnitude and height. It is just too much on too little space. They are requesting an increase density to 9.78 units per acre. This is based on the Della Rosa PUD approximate 15 acres approved for 7 units per acre and the remaining 20 acres that are now zoned for 4 units per acre. Mr. Richard Yovanovich was the attorney of record on the original proposed Della Rosa, now he wants another bite at the apple to increase the density to a total of 304 units from 107 units. I emplore you to decide against this development. As you are all aware, there have been some articles in the news media lately about Naples becoming the next Miami. It is with this type of development that we may be well on our way to accomplish this. Respectfully, Robert Aufdenkampe 16360 Aberdeen Way Naples, FL 34110 3 GrecoSherry From: N <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:41 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura apartment complex VOTE NO. THANK YOU. Livingston and Veterans Hello Commissioner Taylor, I would like to voice my concern over the proposed apartment complex to be built at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. I live in the Camden lakes community, off Livingston at Learning Lane. I am confident that you have heard these concerns before, but please allow me a few minutes of your time to add my name to the list of people who are concerned over the additional traffic, the over crowding of the schools and the drain on public utilities. I stayed during Hurricane Irma and remember the sewage in the streets. The addition of an extra, minimum of 300, cars will place a strain on the neighboring streets, and services. The area is already busy with cars, walkers, both children and adults. We occasionally have black bears and deers at the same intersection. Livingston is already extremely busy with cars, motorcycles and trucks. When the Bonita Springs exit on 175 closes or traffic slows down, motorists exit the highway at Bonita and take Livingston back to Immokalee to join back on 175.. There are times that Livingston is at a crawl. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not allow this large unit apartment complex to built. Thank you and please vote NO. Nanette Prins Sent from my iPad 4 GrecoSherry From: Nicole Hartwick <nicole@drcederquist.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:53 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Against Allura Development Dear Penny Taylor, My name is Nicole Hartwick and my family and I reside in the Barrington Cove development. I am emailing to express our complete opposition to the Allura development. Our families main concern is the horrible traffic and incompatability of this development in our neighborhood. We are a family of four and both my husband and I work full-time. We both work about 15-20 minutes away, but have to leave 45 minutes to an hour early just to try to beat traffic in the morning to arrive to work on time. In the past year I have also cut back on my hours at work to leave an hour earlier just to account for the horrific traffic I encounter on my way to pick up my kids from daycare (which is just around the corner from where we live) and get home during rush hour. The Allura development will create far worse traffic issues. It is bad already- how is adding this development going to help? Please I beg of you, please do not allow this development to be built as this will exacerbate traffic problems in this area and I can't even imagine the nightmare it would create! Our other concern is the schools. Our children will be starting at Veterans Memorial school soon and we are highly concerned about the schools capacity. How will this impact the schools as they are already at capacity!? We are strongly opposed to Allura and pray this development will not happen. Thank you for your time and consideration. We greatly appreciate it! I am trying to teach my children that your voice MATTERS! The Hartwick Family in Barrington Cove 5 GrecoSherry From: Elizabeth Guerra <Elizabethguerral @outlook.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 8:03 PM To: SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill Subject: Proposed Allura Project Hello, I am a Barrington Cove resident and myself and my family members strongly oppose the proposed community. Interesting fact: During rush-hour traffic on Livingston Rd., if there are bumper to bumper cars present at the light on Veterans Memorial Pkwy, it will take approximately 26 minutes to reach the traffic light at Bonita Beach Rd. 26 minutes! My personal opposition has less to do with the congestion but rather the safety of a high density apartment complex with little to no barrier to our neighborhood. When we purchased our home in 2018, I was aware the land for sale was for "mixed use." The builder described this as potentially a low profile office building or two. To say we feel duped is an understatement, however, we are not opposed to developing the land, yet we feel this project is incredibly out of place for the area. Thank you for receiving our message. Sincerely, Elizabeth Guerra • 6 GrecoSherry From: Anne-Marie Cadwallader <annemariecadw@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 3:19 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartments Rezoning Hearing Dear Ms. Taylor I urge you to vote NO and disapprove the Stock Development "Allura" apartment proposal. My husband and I live in Barrington Cove, the community that will be most affected, as these 304 unit, four to three story apartment buildings are planned LITERALLY in our backyards. Even as it directly affects us in Barrington Cove, it will also affect the established (at least four years old) communities along Livingston Road, from Immokalee Rd. to Bonita Beach Rd.That is a population of about more than 4,000 residents—homeowners and taxpayers. • These high rise, high density apartments are INCOMPATIBLE with the mostly low density, single family, owner owned communities that are adjacent and neighboring this corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Blvd. Talis Park is building a three story over garage community addition, on the eastern most part of their property, close to 75. But these are CONDOMINIUMS, THE LEAST EXPENSIVE SELLING AT$1 MILLION. Take a drive down Livingston, from Immokalee to Bonita Beach, and you will see only single family communities, the tallest structure being a retirement home at the corner of Immokalee that is three stories. There are no APARTMENTS—the closest is Windsong at Immokalee and Livingston. • The TRAFFIC on Livingston from Immokalee to Bonita Beach is often bumper to bumper at peak hours, already. 304 apartment units will add at least 608 cars, to a corner that is very inadequate as it is. Veterans Blvd. is a two lane road (it is the back exit for the Barrington Cove, The Strand, and Talis Park ) that intersects with six lane Livingston. Turning onto Livingston or from Livingston to Veterans is a hazardous feat in the best of circumstances. The Allura apartments plan to have an EXIT AND ENTRANCE on Veterans. It is very hard to imagine anything but gridlock, and likely accidents, happening at the Veterans/Livingston intersection, with the added volume of 600 plus cars! • We bought our home in Barrington Cove for the peace and quiet of a family oriented neighborhood, that included the other communities neighboring us. Our homes HAVE VALUE because of the nature and character of this area of North Naples. QUALITY OF LIFE adds to the appeal and value of a home and a community. A FOUR STORY, 304 UNIT APRTMENT COMPLEX PLOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR COMMUNITIES DOES NOT ADD VALUE. It will DECREASE our homes' value, according to some estimates, by 10 to 15 percent. What prospective homebuyer ever said, "Oh, I would love to live right next to apartments, where I can see four story, three story buildings right next to my lanai!", especially if buyers have so many other homes to choose from that do NOT have apartments in their backyards. Stock Development has an opportunity to build something here in character and compatible with the neighborhood; they are excellent builders who build excellent HOMES, not apartments, not multi story towers, not projects that they will manage for a few years then sell to another(less reputable?) management company. Stock is contemplating a PERMANENT CHANGE to our neighborhood. You are our elected representative, and we appeal to you to turn this project down.The corner of Veterans and Livingston will be passed, sometimes several times a day, by most who live in these communities. Please make the sight of this corner a reminder that our Commissioners heard our concerns and fears, and responded by rejecting a bad plan and protecting our families and our quality of life. Respectfully, Anne-Marie Cadwallader Arndt 8 GrecoSherry From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 3:12 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Project Dear Ms.Taylor, The Planning Commission held two public meetings regarding the Allura development; one on January 17th and another on February 7th. At both meetings the Stock representatives admitted that they did not do a Traffic Analysis! They may have done one but it probably was too negative to include. I tried to obtain transcripts for you but they were not available. Maybe your office request would be honored. I can not imagine that about 3 commissioners voted FOR the development with no accurate traffic analysis supplied as required.These commissioners seemed to have their mind made up even before public comments were made. They were at these meetings to learn from the public comments.These commissioners had another agenda -to defend the development.The 2 or 3 commissioners actually argued with some speakers trying to diffuse their arguments. It was out of line. The incompatibility is the main reason that Mark Strain voted against it. He mentioned something about a Supreme Court decision.Thanks. Please look into the absence of an adequate Traffic Analysis. Thanks, Tim Diegel Barrington Cove. 9 GrecoSherry From: Francis Smith <pgfolks@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 2:26 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Allura Apartment Project Proposal My name is Francis Smith and my family and I are home owners in the Milano Townhouse complex about 1/2 mile south of the Allura Apartment Project. I think you should reject the Allura Apartment Project that was approved by a 6-2 vote at the planning commission meeting last week. I have two pieces of information to share with you: 1 . Across from our entrance/exit on Livingston Rd is the entrance to Royal Palm Academy, a small Catholic parochial school of K thru 8th grade. Parents have to deliver and pickup their children and the cars usually spill out onto Livingston road. Adding traffic either direction to Livingston road will add significant congestion and risk for those parents trying to deliver or pick up their children at the school. Even if only 25% of the additional residents end up on the road, I fear for a disaster that can be avoided by rejecting this unnecessary building project. 2. When the tax-paying citizens of our community chose to live in these adjoining neighborhoods, most of them knew the open property could be built out in the future. When they checked on the zoning in effect, most saw single-family homes with minimum density population. Shame on them for being so naïve as to think that zoning wouldn't change if a company with big money and connections came in with a proposal. These owners are entitled to develop their property with as much profit as they can. However, a company was able to develop all of the properties in the vicinity with single-family homes and they made money in the process so it was not unreasonable for them to believe that open property would be similarly developed. These good people need you to have their backs to keep money and power in search of greed from muscling through zoning changes to take away the quiet, single-family neighborhood that they sought out. None of the residents in the adjoining neighborhoods consider this project to be an improvement for their sleepy little bedroom community. We have over a thousand signatures from residences all up and down Livingston Rd. If this much public will is being ignored, when would it be appropriate to reject a building project — even one that may have legal footing and fills all the boxes necessary to obtain approval. Why isn't it more important to protect the quiet, single-family neighborhood than to relinquish a small portion right in the middle of it to allow a big-time developer the chance to make money at our expense. Stock will build out this property, then sell it to someone else and they will move on leaving the carnage for us to live with. If a parent or a child is seriously injured by the io unnecessary traffic congestion, that won't be on their conscience, but it should be on yours. They won't be concerned about those of us who will be forced to sit in Los Angeles type traffic for the undeterminable future, but you should be. Many of us worked our entire life with an hour to and from work full of traffic. We moved to Naples and chose to live in a quiet little community to be in peace for our retirement — not fight traffic every day of our retirement too. Naples is a well planned community and those early planners set aside sections of their community for people like us. No we didn't anticipate this change. We don't want this change. Can you blame us. Just say no to this proposal and let another developer fulfill the plan set out by the early planners at a comfortable profit and we will all be better off. 11 GrecoSherry From: GrecoSherry Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 3:53 PM To: 'Dianna Quintanilla' Subject: RE: Meeting Request: Allura The 25th at 9:30 AM, please confirm. Slier 3i Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 Fax 239-252-6393 Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov Click here to sign up for our District 4 newsletter From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:00 PM To: GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Meeting Request: Allura Good afternoon, Rich, along with Keith Gelder and Brian Stock, would like to meet with the Commissioner re: the upcoming March 26th agenda item Allura. Availability: Thursday March 215t: 9:30—4:00 Friday March 22nd: 9:00, 10:00, 2:00—4:00 Monday March 25th: 9:00—3:00 Thank you. Dianna Quintanilla Legal Assistant CYK The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 P: 239.435.35351 F: 239.435.1218 dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com COLEMAN I Y O V A N O V I C H I K O E S T E R Visit cyklawfirm.com to learn more about us. 1 • Stift '1*" ~Trusted & Verified 4 01. Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.corn or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. • • 2 { GrecoSherry From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:00 PM To: GrecoSherry Subject: Meeting Request: Allura Good afternoon, Rich, along with Keith Gelder and Brian Stock, would like to meet with the Commissioner re: the upcoming March 26th agenda item Allura. Availability: Thursday March 21st: 9:30—4:00 Friday March 22"d: 9:00, 10:00, 2:00—4:00 Monday March 25th: 9:00—3:00 Thank you. Dianna Quintanilla CYK Legal Assistant The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 dquint nilla@3y1 Fawfir 435.1218 COtEMAIN ( YOVANOVtCH I KOESTER dquintanilla(�cyklawfirm.com Visit cyklawfirm.com to learn more about us. SOW Trusted & Verified a. Both Dianna Quintanilla and Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. if you have received this communication in error,please notify Dianna Quintanilla immediately at dquintanilla@cyklawfirm.com or call(239)435-3535,and permanently dispose of the original message. 3 GrecoSherry From: ScottTrinity Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:55 AM To: GrecoSherry Subject: Automatic reply:Allura I am currently out of the office and will return on February 12, 2019. I will have limited access to emails. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact one of the individuals below: Development Review Mike Sawyer at Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov Planned Unit Development(PUD) Monitoring Laurie Beard at Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov For planning studies or any other information Lorraine Lantz at Lorraine.Lantz@colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 4 44, GrecoSherry From: ScottTrinity Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:46 AM To: shakenns@comcast.net Cc: TaylorPenny; GrecoSherry; CasalanguidaNick; CohenThaddeus; PattersonAmy Subject: Allura Attachments: Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures.doc; PL20170004419 Livingston_Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict aka Allura GMPA TIS.pdf;Allura Planned Unit Development TIS.pdf Mr. Welding, Collier County has developed guidelines and procedures for traffic impact studies for development requests. These procedures are applied as developments proceed forward in their various stages. With the County's transportation review, a traffic impact study (TIS) is required for each development phase. In the case of Allura, the applicant prepares the study for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development and ultimately if those two are approved a site development plan. Attached you will find the Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures. The applicants for the Allura development have submitted a TIS for the Growth Management Plan Amendment, which I have attached. The TIS analysis was developed based on 420 multi-family residential units, which the applicant subsequently requested to be reduced to 350 at the beginning of the Collier County Planning Commission. As part of the submittal for the Planned Unit Development petition, the applicant submitted a separate TIS which analyzed 350 multi-family residential units. This email contains a few large attachments, and I want to make sure that you receive the information. If you could please confirm receipt of this email, I would greatly appreciate it. Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Co eir County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott(acolliercountyfl.gov 5 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. • • • • • • • 6 GrecoSherry From: CasalanguidaNick • Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 7:44 AM To: TaylorPenny; ScottTrinity Cc: GrecoSherry; CohenThaddeus; PattersonAmy Subject: RE: ALLURA Proposed Development Good Morning Commissioner, The gentleman may have over simplified the question/statement, but yes we do have controls in the GMP, LDC, and Traffic Impact handbook. Our controls consider capacity on the adjacent roadway links, intersection analysis, and access driveway analysis. Collier County's site impact analysis including intersection reviews have only become more stringent over time. The growth management changes that took place at the State level in 2011 softened the concurrency restrictions but have not changed site impact reviews here in Collier. The controls are applied differently at zoning as compared to a development order where construction plans are submitted. I took a quick look at Delaware's traffic study criteria (http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/february2016/proposed/Chap2.pdf) and they are essentially the same. Trinity, Please send Mr.Jim Welding ( shakenns@comcast.net ) a copy of the TIS for the Allura project and a link to our TIS guidelines and procedures. Please copy the group on this email. Thank you, Nick Casalanguida Collier County, Deputy Manager NickCasalanguida@CollierGov.net 239-252-8383 Co77er County From:TaylorPenny Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:33 PM To: CasalanguidaNick<Nick.Casalanguida@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: GrecoSherry<Sherry.Greco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Fwd: ALLURA Proposed Development Nick, Can you please send this gentleman the traffic study for Allura. Also, I am not sure, after 20122,that FLorida has the same rules as Delaware regarding 'failed intersections' reference in his letter. Please confirm. Thank you. Penny Penny Taylor Collier County Board of County Commissioners District 4, Commissioner 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL. 34112 Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyfl.gov 239-252-8604 Begin forwarded message: From:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Date: February 9, 2019 at 7:03:22 AM EST To: Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyFL.Gov Subject:ALLURA Proposed Development Reply-To:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Penny: I have owned property in The Strand for over 16 years and spend at least 6 months in our beautiful community. We spend the other time in Delaware, a state which requires any new Developer provide a TRAFFIC STUDY to approve the anticipated vehicle movement on the appropriate intersections. If the intersection is declared a "failed intersection", the developer must provide another option to make the grade. Either reduce the density of the project or spend millions of their money to improve the roads. Please let me know if a study has been completed where I can review the results. Thanks. Jim Welding Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 8 GrecoSherry From: TaylorPenny Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:33 PM To: CasalanguidaNick Cc: GrecoSherry Subject: Fwd: ALLURA Proposed Development Nick, Can you please send this gentleman the traffic study for Allura. Also, I am not sure, after 20122, that FLorida has the same rules as Delaware regarding 'failed intersections' reference in his letter. Please confirm. Thank you. Penny Penny Taylor Collier County Board of County Commissioners District 4, Commissioner 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL. 34112 Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyfl.gov 239-252-8604 Begin forwarded message: From:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Date: February 9, 2019 at 7:03:22 AM EST To: Penny.Taylor@CollierCountyFL.Gov Subject:ALLURA Proposed Development Reply-To:JAMES WELDING <shakenns@comcast.net> Penny: I have owned property in The Strand for over 16 years and spend at least 6 months in our beautiful community. We spend the other time in Delaware, a state which requires any new Developer provide a TRAFFIC STUDY to approve the anticipated vehicle movement on the appropriate intersections. If the intersection is declared a "failed intersection", the developer must provide another option to make the grade. Either reduce the density of the project or spend millions of their money to improve the roads. Please let me know if a study has been completed where I can review the results. Thanks. Jim Welding 9 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 10 _ TO (....w.frictrici DA2r/ p FROM PHONE( ) H CELL( ) 0 OF -1.5-",..... Fg I1 N 0...._ E i S , E A 1 1— ,..„, e 0 I r 1 ‘a0I E-MAIL ADDRESS -4 NED I PHONED 7 I CALL r-, RETURNED ) / T -, t W AT L WAS lin' R NT El EIBlueline REDIF3Ril 2u', TO _ -- 1 DA -9 :36 el i p FROM d. 5-v -oo 4.s-Z,P NE( , H Lk,N •VAMP • .., __4 _ , E , m SI 0(\ q q ____ _____, , E A ___ ____ I m G „,,, 1 4...” E-MAIL ADDRESSSIGNED L PHONED 1 1-- sac 0 RETURNED Il irtITISSOE 1_ LOALL Lir--' WAS IN Li UP GENT[1-11 L 0 7 TO Ck- 1/ e DATE_ f ,......., TVE, I 7 (......) p FROM ---2 I OF I 1 VC__S- ; n 1 CEL 1 N 8_____ -i--rit ____1 E m 1 E ' M S wiln. a((ar ---- -- 1 = s ! _ , ,,, A i 1 - ______ __ el,..5. i E.m,,LADDREss .____ __ SIGNED CAL I ,---,1 RP--177- ,R,'1 ,^1 ,/,;-'-.-.7.7-.-...-7--T ...-. - _ --,--- ---, r TO anne filcuie. c--CA.a DATtkh o-t-tkoi .cell epT//m,, , 0,,. al J . PM, p FROMEl iC,NE I H ami mar , , 1 1 I .....-6 I N E m E I p S re , a ( lctrk 01810 IDA c ... r I E A _ 1 M 1 2 ..--i i = 1 01 r._..i E-MAIL ADDRESS .... 501 ' lonmoll_.:,, CALL[7 RETURNED El VVANTS TO El WILL CA r-i 1.S IN 0 URGENT 0 1 I PHONEDEl L______i_ BACK-I CALL I-I SEE YOU L--J AGAIN L_I 02012 W.° OEmE mzO= - W v OEmE mz0x-o I - = mo> ntnmE o m -4 mC)DcncnmE o m & 0 T 0as 103 ---1 m ° o ❑ D El r [ DD O I^ OrD- 771 I) 6 A r- M ."1� 0 FA I i.A rl 0. kb ITzI A, 1 m Ei NS f mD MZ ! ; " 1 Ow V ' D A....--.7 .1.4)RN DmS71Dr- 20 � -°2r-SNrc,n .I, .� o Z tDn z U 'til Z m -i l ' 0 V m mz -Qy El I leq. .,, 0 c :,,,':',..-: II 0 E m C mzO=-o I mODtntnm3 0 71 - �•i I Z T X 0 1 m m 3 44 ❑ to � D r D 0t I ,r Zrm ❑ CA I-m V r Z ,_ _\(), z E a ' \ mD m • Iooq0 1 /Ii 11` ❑ M 1 n �� m 2 D a Zp m\ Ilk * (X D O • , v. Imo ' ' m z G 1 ❑ 0 OCmC mZOXD El ta OEmC mz0=M mL�DU)0mE o T o -'I _ 4 _ m o = m�nv)cnmc o O 1 ° m 0 m 0 I _ S coo 0 cDi� rn O DD Or 30 3 ❑ (rill o (L\YQ•n xr m Dm Vit_ am Q PC \ v r f -4 1.4 2 1 ry M ft m •1 ; n 0 �` l ❑ ^, 0> il <-I , rnZ c °� o� U Q 0 � ► ,_ __I_: . ,o0 111 , Zn lb X Ds.. (.J x r p (, D Z v r Imo=m Elrrr r 1 \ I El co Z .li ` 2 m i. 0 '1, Rel C rn ` ` �> I o 1 i n z W OCmE mzOiTS0' 5 c OEME mzO=-o = moDu)cnmE 6 0 -n O m -+ - X,U)m� t/)mE z o ° o ° I I m o 0 3 11 K 6 m m0 ° > ° w0 0; ° Or- 33 <,-..., � DD❑ � �� - Xrm 0. U` \FEIF (, � I r i � D 4. m z 0 o ? � D-1 2< \ On .0❑ � DP iD V 1 D \''''' r • m OF.- O R 20 Kp D z + r rD 1ra d,r V� ❑ _, - v I° z v (� K1 z G v a CIC ` m z ° m m zzm 8-f Z N 0 -I F. 3 El g '3cJ 3 x 1 ° OEmE mz0='3 ° OEME mzO=o = I rni 5Dn -II nmc oI M Io) = m�Dtncn mC o ro o o o D i I 1Om M O n ❑ o '- IOr 3 ori , , (.4)Ixrmll V XI- m (13 tc �- , ' I31 I ■ oS l m rm o o \ I❑ ❑ � , „1/4 IFri D A. b Iniz mD 111 ffas 2-a 00, 00, Ill- 1 ..TIA .,, ------ >p x p 0- , m B. Dr ZF.‘m Dr- r A rs Izrm zr m` a 5l D E v m z - (12 z 0 :I_ vcD1 z m 3 z ' ❑ o i m ❑ o W I ` � I Q Z Z. '1 ' D D = '^t. 111 o ❑ 3 3 ❑ D W OcmE mzOXD O�m� mzO='o Imc)Dtntnmc of DI o M = moDcncnmE 0 �I o • Z m I 0 m m l I 0 1 Mo DD D � � dV) i;)•- 0 � 0 i< A DD o Or 33 Or 33 x mm❑ m g � mm d 0., mD r-4 r-4 rc rc 33 Z Z 0 o ❑ ❑ Z 4\� mz mZ <-, <-a °. a. V /v o ❑ 1 ❑ 1 Er 0- zD ©� m N z� ^� m m0_ � �e"........ -, *t.,,..... u‘ ±5 0 - yz z Em •.K z o •••••••-.....,—, m ❑ � ❑ MI ��, X P m m Z a .tli 04. OEmE mz0=w OEmE mzOs °0 Z mmc)›cncnmE o 0 0 z mL)Dtncnm� o 1 o 1 ° n 5 m m 0 El ❑ v 7._L' or- 333 r El g? xr m O l� 03) • Om ( VV rc ` 77 DM Z I-C ~�•i mp CO* I ' MZ ;, I-- z CO*Z �� 00, C-1 © V i ❑ o El , D_ T v ..fz)C5: ,.....,litu y D›* tw Zoi yr mrZ Zr: ❑r z 5 _ oD El [1] `m cG> Fl3 cQ z 1 2 o ❑ • DT..* D • ❑ zr'N.k, � to o OCME mzO=w � OEmE mz0=� - = o „ ; = mC)ncnunmE 0 m 3 A 0 m o 0 �. z m o ( 3 ❑ D ri r D I < 0 ,......'"\ . op I ci, 3 or- 73 I co ❑ c �' d IIIII ill di 1 t * R .m �n1 G MZ i o� r� V7 O� c1 V 0 c-r • • • * X 3p ) 1, • DZDr03 D z 6 \II ,411 �' gm P D , 1 co r"....... I \Ai a1 ill 8Zp "a :MG! --.40 o ❑ t` ,--- . ,.,(iii 0)i. 111111111111111111.110.1111.111111, , E ♦ E' a a Ell c11L 0cc W vl M ¢_ VC J JC� W Z J oz -`w_ -i— V _. J .AI c4. i --0 -Q Z v oz .....8 4 4 •:c, . D L ❑ ` i I-o Fes! O i O ' ' \ <<LIJ� cn V� V U ZO. Q) Qw ❑ O /�! Z D \\--,4 1 1 j ¢ , W Z ~J1 ¢ ¢vI L ¢U J ,6 Ell ( W Y d JJ ttaDi '2 661 cc o as a p 003a d, wzQ ❑ Q wO LL 0 2 r W 0 2WNNQCDW = O WZ • O F � O 2WNNQ7Wa zOZW 2WmO m I ° O.IOZW 2W2O fa r L� n 2 ❑ ry a Z =• Alla Z \ Z W W U 0 ¢ ¢ D 1 L11..%. I 4C) ❑ ❑lR.+ Z Z I^ cl 81; i I'o 1.A.H z --11-1------1---- �_Z .< :,,: fJ-"LE / a O _.,7,. J. ,..,4 CPS: "..:....„" '1- e y, .. �,� ( q F.,. aW , ,..,,, ., il I \, v 0 1 \_ o W, 1 {A I W 4... cz,.. Z V v _ Z co ..._, I (4)... ....)...., c„. , i, co .. ---- 4► cn LIJ ', li C6 C:;) (I) VI g)) 0 N 2 `jc J o Q (...)co' ! ` O Um Q JI'—i.1 [1]Q L-. 1... O 2 W W 2 — W W O ¢ Z O 5 t I- U. O 2WNNQCDW a, II- LL O aWNNQC'3W a T ai0ZW 2W20 © C_-_� i0zW 2W2O o OCMC mzO=w W_ OCMC rnzOIM W mG)Dcncnms o� m -4 - 3 Ti mL)DcnCDMC o 0 0 & I Z I — T o ri m z m �^ v ❑Ti _ a ❑ D D r D 'DD v 1 DDv v °� � Cir W M ' �° aG 10. r-mi irC `, to v Fri \ o El " [1:)) .-------- ' 2 .::; Cji rn> r-r<1-1 1 .. CH00 T. Q ❑ a ❑ t- ,z g\-T,_ ag m m a ;,.:; c�- rrn ZD r C ZD �/ N^ ? ^ Y r ri u LJLVJJ Z Z mCA0 3 ❑m 33 o m mr . . 5 z o ❑ 6,,, 0 , I_ . by _ ° 0EmE mzOIm o1 O�m� mz0='o 5 = mox.cntnmc 0 o o moDU�cnmC o o Z 0 m 3 U v y 3 ❑ D D ❑ r _ D O iF I ' t, WDA 8O (� k RIC IT, fi t.) \4 011 ›rn FEIc— FIc° --....C\ m V _` o0 EIA---(1' tn mz O m-<F, '--- .---1-(-")..) __ m _4 :„ 0 ' <!-- U\) 0 .1> p.r.„4 -----..... .—/ , ❑ G 4 I It).* D) /› 13 r ma Di ' r .0 " � r ❑ � F a A. A <` o D z m i z �r 3 ❑ o ,..IV -I ❑ "%..... 'Srts m m z "1 W D W• OEmE mzO='o ea OEME mzOIm I i mo›cncnmg 0 ml - 5. i monummc 01 m xi o - 0 o o0 1, 00 4 ❑ D ❑ D P r mcg ° mcg ° ^ xr m or- in g... . . )(%)< VC cn \ Ill Ilk 116 Dm ill `/Cv� Dtn C� ,V` d - QT...ro aa rs O �' �� o ` ..) \ g-) rN 0 ...,,, my mD 1 % mZ I mZ 14 r" oy f o„ c� I c � 11 ❑ it �* �1V (1 ❑ D- C -c( °S� 2.* M Z� I to, ill 7 Z 1Zr0- Z: 11[i %*—. g".".'s r- ,77J , N Z Mil 1 ° Z mo LJ mit m 1 �r M 1 ED Eil 4h ° I OCmC mzOi-o OCmC mzox o ( I = m �Dcntrn� 0 mI . mDcn � TI ' m �voI,, Iz I D0 (:)1 "'Nm II •1 4 r 1T �� log? I � w V i i ,1 �; I � F D 'X--- (111 1 V) Clil n 1-) 1, ki) t) , . ___Ino.„ 0 .6 ,_4. OW c., — 8 0%e ........3 . _. a, kt A EN% Dr X r zo (� r_.-„R Nm Z› �^ r m �m r'1 1 _ i I�7 )C.1 ❑ ' �.. ❑ .Y * u) - V\I * It . 2 _ Z ° ��5 .u, z C m m ` c ^\ U` Z 0 3rZj Le. -0(;) ., 0 51 1 i 1 OEmE mzOim ,. ,0ErnC mzoim , _. SiMODCOOME 0 M 8 „. -- -n 33 7., MIg ' 0>Cn Cn M E 0 m I 41 -n 33 0 0 1 'Az 8 cY 0 P I > • TS; 8 A) ....., N Or- 23 1 X rs M Of- II g3 ' '.e......... Z..\-) g ......., .u, , , 0. DM r-s c f-C 33 \ fil$ Z M 0 U El VA*DO aA_ CO c , ,.. .., C-4 003 i Q) El C-4 0 C6 )'§ 9-3 il Pl Afi ›, › ...) - mz ...• ---- r z r- ZO r- D > 5 2 om El c 'i,4 c o xi m I o z 13 CI). I ': El 13 I EH 0 M E M Z 0 I-13 1 0 rn E M Z 0 I Ii . i 1 MCMCOOMC 01 M H MO>0)(n M 0 71 E .1 g 0 E -• 2 en -n 33 0 I 0 W m M I° k K i ° K 4 0 P- i 1 ' WO - WOO (.... ,L..) -. » 4. . 1 1(211 Pi ---, X r- R1 r—i cn 4 a. D g), 033 IIII (-1 . 033 DM r.-1 4 DM I-C '"''•.\ e a , ,4 , z . ,„, , m Z M 1 k.A 0 C \ 1 El 0 k-• f.r1. Irrv. 0 z mz OCR 1 _ IC-1 1 0 ,..)C-1 El 0 f rj: ' Lroi .. . .:2 il . . ›* 0_ .11. 0 >r,r. CA 4"-i i-r-rc V.Nc7 Eo > _ F ,-. > r- z o o 0 0 tiv . m 0 z m _ _, . r I., ,,: