Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/05/2019September 512019 TRANSCRIPT OF TFIE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 5,2019 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: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner David Weeks, Growth Management Plan Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attomey Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page I of37 September 5,2019 PROCEEDINGS MR. SCHMIDT: Your mics are live. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, September 5th 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: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: MT. Fry? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt. (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Schmitt has an excused absence. He's dealing with over-reactive hurricane issues. So addenda to the agenda. I believe, Mr. Yovanovich, if -- you are requesting a continuance for the Hammock Park Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, and I need to know a date certain, if you have one, or how you'd like to handle that, and we'll vote on it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, yes, Mr. Strain. I think based upon your schedule, the most realistic date to continue this to would be probably October 3rd. I believe the River Grass petition's on September 19th. You may get done with it either on the 19th or the second half of the 3rd, so we would ask for a date certain to October 3rd. And if we get further continued on the 3rd, it would probably be October l7th,I would think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, River Grass is a new type of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- application for everybody on this board,I think, but me. I don't know if you've had -- were you here when we did Ave Maria? MR. YOVANOVICH: This will be your first village. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Yeah, first village, too. So what I would suggest is you would go probably first on the 3rd. Normally we do continued items first, so you'll be the most long continued, so we'd put you up first on the 3rd then because River Grass -- I'm not sure if we'll even get to it on the 19th of September with the way things are stacking up for that date. So it will -- might start on the 3rd actually. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we would -- we understand that -- we don't want to interfere with the River Grass schedule, so we don't want to bump River Grass past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other thing I'm suggesting is if we hear River Grass first, you may not get to yours on the 3rd. Page 2 of 37 September 512019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't know how time sensitive you are on the one you're talking about. MR. YOVANOVICH: We anticipate we would be heard on the 3rd at the earliest and potentially the 17th of October. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're very optimistic, okay. That's good. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am optimistic. I'm always optimistic. (Commissioner Fry is now present in the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just know in talking with staff that things are stacking up from the summer and, unfortunately, they weren't spread out. We're going to get them all at once, and the next two or three months are going to be rather hectic for this panel. With that, then, we'll make a motion -- we'll consider a motion to continue Item 9A1, which is PL20180002804, the Hammock Park Mixed Use Planned Unit Development to the October 3rd agenda; is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I do want to make sure that I was clear that it would be if -- we don't want to interfere with River Grass, so we don't want to jump in front of River Grass. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I understand. So when the schedule comes through, I'll schedule it that way. And I just want to caution you we may not even get to it that day. MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Is there a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan had a -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's no chance River Grass will ever be continued, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I'm just saying it might. That's the problem. We don't know -- River Grass is going to come in on the 19th, but we've got a whole slough of items before it. Some of them are in depth. I'm not sure we'll even get to it by our normal cutoff time on the 19th. Then it goes to the 3rd. And it's probably going to take two hearings on River Grass to get through it because it's a brand-new format; something we haven't done before, and it's going to take a lot of study. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just going to ask, because I'm already starting to get Ietters of objection to River Grass, and I haven't even seen it yet, I don't think. Have I seen it yet? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever we're getting -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know what they're talking about. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure you're sending those to staff so that they include everything in the staff report, because the staff report's not been fully -- completely assembled yet, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And as the representative of River Grass, I'd appreciate any copies of what you're getting as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're coming through staff, so I'm assuming everybody's getting everything. MR. YOVANOVICH: I haven't got anything. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Nothing? MR. YOVANOVICH: (Witness shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: The Conservancy sent -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The Conservancy. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, you said "letters." They've sent one letter, but it was sent to staff, so it would be in the packet. So I didn't know they sent it out to you separately. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. Page 3 of37 September 5,,2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm aware of that letter. I'm not aware of anything else. I was under the impression that was more than one not -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But, anyway, so, Ned, you're -- did you make a motion to the effect to continue it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Was there a second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded, Patrick. All in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And Mr. Fry made it here. He was having fun driving in our traffic. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us with the -- past the addenda to the agenda. So the next item is Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is September 19th. Just to let you all know, that's going to be a full-day meeting. And normally we break at four. If that's what we intend to do, that will be the end of it but -- for that day, and everything will be continued over to the 3rd of October. So does anybody know if they're not going to make it here for that date? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, as I told you before, there's a work seminar in Orlando I may have to attend. I'm still waiting to see if I can get out of it. If I can't, then I won't be here, but I'll let you know before that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll have to make arrangements to stay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, noontime. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- but I will. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It sounds like I should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We would still have a quorum, so we're good. And I know Mr. Schmitt's planning to be here for that meeting, too, so that will take care of that. Approval of the minutes: The August 1st minutes were sent to us electronically. Does anybody have any changes, and if not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FRY: I do have changes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's hear what they are. COMMISSIONER FRY: All right. In our Packet Page 14, in the minutes it's Page 10 of 63. I'm curious Della Rosa PUD -- these are all just very small things. But Della Rosa PUD in the previous packet for the meeting it was D-e-l-l-a Rosa, and in the minutes it's D-e second word L-a Rosa. And I wanted to just -- if it's important, I'd like to make sure we have it accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just anything that's an error just -- and I shouldn't say in error. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I believe it's -- in the former packet it was D-e-l-l-a first word, Rosa second word. So that's a global change throughout. And the next is Page 5 of 63 of the minutes. A statement I made was attributed to Ms. Cardoza where I said, "May I ask her one more question," so it just need to be broken out under me. And on Page 4 of37 September 5,2019 Page 59 of 63, referencing -- I was speaking at some point, and the acronym EPS units is in the statement, and I don't remember -- I don't know what that means. I don't remember saying that, so I'm not sure what I intended by that, but it was not -- ESP doesn't mean anything to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. She has it for the record. Then is there any other correction? Is there a motion to approve those minutes subject to the corrections stated? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick. All in favor, signifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI : Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. With that we'll move into the -- well, BCC report and recaps. They haven't been meeting, so that's not needed. Chairman's report, I have nothing to get into today. Consent agenda: We have no items on consent agend4 and that takes us to the only remaining public hearing. It's 9A2. It's PL20180002668. All those wishing to testifu on behalf of this item -- that's Ventana Pointe residential overlay. All those wishing to testiff 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: Okay. It's legislative, so there's no need for disclosures, and we'llgo right to public presentation. Bob, it's all yours. MR. MULHERE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here representing the applicant. I apologize in advance; I can't seem to get rid of this summer cold. So if I have to step away to cough or something, I apologize. With me this morning, Ryan Zuckerman, who is my client and is the contract purchaser of the properfy; Brent Addison is with Banks Engineering. He's the civil engineer on the project. You all know Norm Trebilcock, who's the transportation consultant; and last, but of course not least, Rich Yovanovich, who is our land-use attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need to spell his name for the record? MR. MULHERE: I have maybe a, you know, 3O-minute presentation. I want to take the time to go over this properly, especially given the staffrecommendation. So if you'll bear with me, my hope is that I can adequately inform you as to all the salient issues so that you can make an appropriate decision here. Subject properly is on the south side of Immokalee Road. It is less than one mile east of the urban boundary, and it's highlighted on the exhibit shown on your visualizer. It's presently zoned A, and it falls within the RFMUD receiving overlay. This is just the zoning map to show you where it's located. I'll get to the surrounding property in just a second. This is an excerpt from the Future Land Use Element. The teal color is -- designates receiving lands. You can see the subject property highlighted in the purple box and with the subject site located. You'll see that the urban boundary -- and I'll go over this again several times, I imagine -- is right here, Page 5 of37 September 5,2019 and one mile from the urban boundary is right there. And I'll just discuss this box and this hatching and some other things in just a minute. This is, obviously, an activity center. This box is a transitional designation over what is actually the Heritage Bay DRI and PUD. I just wanted to show you in an aerial exhibit the urban boundary, the location of the subject property, the designation of one mile from the urban boundary, and I'd also ask that you note the suburban development that, for the most part, surrounds this property over here is the Heritage Bay DRI. These are multifamily units right here. And you can see that there's single-family and attached villas and so on and so forth pretty much surrounding the property. La Morada, and this is the Calusa Pines Golf Course. So I just wanted to spend a minute going -- there's a lot of information on this. I'11 summarize it for you. Going over the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District history -- I was intimately involved with it because I was with Collier County as the planning director during the initial stages and later on was engaged as a consultant for Collier County when I left the county in I think it was in April of 2001. So as you probably know, the governor and cabinet -- the county was found in noncompliance for a number of reasons. The county challenged that noncompliance. It went to an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge found the county in noncompliance on all the issues that DCA, which no longer exists -- Department of Community Affairs, also found the county in noncompliance on. Ultimately, it reached the governor and cabinet. And in June of 1999, the governor and cabinet issued a final order requiring modifications to the county's Growth Management Plan. The primary objectives of the final order -- there were many aspects to the final order, but as it relates to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the Rural Lands Stewardship Program, these three major requirements: One, to identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. We found out later that, by definition, Collier County doesn't have prime lands. They're basically delta agricultural lands, but they do have unique agricultural lands, and both of those programs had elements contained in them to protect agricultural activities. Also, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect water qualify and quantity, and listed animal species and their habitats. And the third major element was to assess groMh potential of the area, assessing the potential conversion to other uses in appropriate locations while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible uses away from critical habitat, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land-use planning techniques including, but not limited to, clustering and open-space provisions. So the county bifurcated that study into two studies. One was the Rural Fringe and one was the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and you'll recall that in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area there were more sophisticated, in terms of resources, landowners, fewer landowners, with a larger -- 195,000 acres of land, and maybe l5 or 16 landowners that came to the county, requested a separate study, funded that public study, and the result of that was the Rural Lands Stewardship Program. We're not talking about that. That's fuither to the east and surrounding Immokalee. The second study was the Rural Fringe -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. Your bullet point says 7,700 acres. You mean 77,000, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. It's missing azero. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: You'll probably find a few other typos in there but, yes, thank you. So the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, you know, at present -- it was larger when we first did the study, but the county proceeded with the analysis of that land which had thousands of owners. Many of smaller parcels, fwo-and-a-half or five-acre parcels. Some large landowners, but -- larger holdings, but a lot of small landowners. So it was really a different process than the process that took place further to the east. Page 6 of37 September 5,2019 And right now, based on the information I pulled off of the staffs restudy library, there are approximately 77 ,000 acres of -- or excuse me -- 77 ,000 total acres in the RFMUD, of which about 23,000 are receiving, about 41,000 are sending, and about 13,000 are neutral. The sending lands generate transferable rights in a very traditional TDR program. The receiving lands can accept those transferable development rights. The neutral land are neither sending nor receiving. They retain a density of one unit per five acres. Some folks did not want to have their land use changed, and so those were designated as neutral. One example is the Corkscrew community. They really didn't want to be changed to sending or receiving. They were huppy the way they were. So the sending lands at present can generate a maximum of four TDRs per five acres. The receiving lands in a non-village -- and that's what we'll be talking about here -- they can have a density increase of up to one unit per acre from a base of 0.2, or one unit per five. That's the base density in the ag district and in the receiving lands under the ag. They can increase that to one by acquiring TDRs. Just so you can appreciate it, the receiving lands were deemed to be the least significant environmental quality -- and this was a landscape analysis that was done by the county staff using all of the best available data that was available at the time. The sending lands have the highest natural resource value, receiving lands the lowest, and neutral were somewhat impacted, and they became neither sending nor receiving. Let's see. In the ensuing years since 1999 or since 2002 when the county first adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments and subsequently Land Development Code amendments, it became apparent that the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District needed to be restudied. It's been said, and I've heard, the program works fine. Of course, the BCC didn't agree with that, because they did direct staff to conduct a restudy. The program has worked well in a few locations, primarily along the urban corridor in the Urban Residential Fringe where there's access to an arterial roadway, there's access to sewer and water, and the density in that corridor could be increased from I .5 to 2.5 by acquiring TDRs. So what folks did, for example, Hacienda Lakes, is they acquired a significant amount of overall land, including sending land, and then they used the transfer of development rights from their sending lands to entitle those Urban Residential Fringe lands that they also owned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I ask that you clarifu something. And perhaps -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- you said it and I just missed it. With respect to the time frame when the 40 contiguous acres became significant, what year was that? MR. MULHERE: Well, it was -- that was, I believe, adopted in the original2002 Comp Plan and subsequently in the LDC. So it goes back that far. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 2002? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So what happened was now retired Bruce Anderson -- you'll remember Bruce -- and I were engaged by a coalition of landowners to look at the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, prepare a report with recommendations on their nickel, and present that report to the BCC. And we did that. That's now probably three-and-a-half years ago. We had 24 recommendations. It was a different board. Different members of the Board now, so that was three-and-a-half years ago. But at that time the Board directed staff to conduct a restudy and to consider all 24 of the coalition recommendations, not necessarily that they supported all of them, but to consider them. Staff, after they considered the task of conducting this restudy, came back to the Board and suggested that there were three other restudies that should be grouped together -- not grouped together. Separate restudies, but put together as part of a comprehensive review; those included a restudy of the PageT of37 September 512019 Rural Lands Stewardship Area, the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. As far as I know, the Immokalee Area Master Plan changes have been -- I don't know if they've gone to the BCC yet, but they're close to being adopted. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan is working through that hearing process as we speak. The RLSA is still under review, and the good ol' Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that kicked off this restudy process is now over four-and-a-half years into the study with no end in sight; potentially another year or more before that would be completed. I want to tell you that staff, which was Kris Van Lengen, who's subsequently retired, and Anita Jenkins, those were the two staffs that supervised or managed these restudies, staff members, they recommended increasing density to two units per acre in non-village parcels. I'll put on the visualizer -- hello? There we go -- a memo which you can see was from January 3rd,20117. It was a workshop. And they made a number of recommendations in receiving lands as it relates to the -- I'm sorry. I need to use this microphone. In the -- oh, am I on? Yeah. In the receiving lands, as it relates to this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, there are two significant recommendations I want to call to your attention. One is remove the 40-acre minimum, increase -- and the increased density to two units per acre; higher for affordable or workforce-only projects. So that was the staff recommendation at that time. There's been no action on this issue. No. It's been four-and-a-halfyears. That restudy has not sort ofbeen reengaged as ofyet, but according to staff it will be soon. We'll see. In the meanwhile, my client entered into a contract. The seller is unwilling to wait until some future date, potentially a year or more from now, till that restudy is completed and amendments are adopted. That's why we initiated our own Comprehensive Plan amendment. I'll go back to this. Okay. Staff has consistently recommended that the minimum project size at 40 continuous acres be eliminated. They saw no benefit in that. That was also a recommendation of the coalition. However, this particular property, I just want to point out, was actually 40.56 acres prior to the county acquiring right-of-way for the widening of Immokalee Road. And, typically, the county has treated properties that are impacted by a taking as if they are conforming. There is language in the LDC that addresses that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. What was the date of the taking in question? MR. MULHERE: May 13th,2002. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right about the same time as the 4O-acre -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which happened first? MR. YOVANOVICH: The taking. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the taking. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The taking did? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So I just wanted to call your attention to the definition of acquisition, which means any method of acquiring private propefi for public use including dedication, condemnation, or purchase, which I've highlighted and underlined. There's a section on lot area. The first paragraph doesn't really deal with this situation. The second one does to some extent. Now, you know, this 40-acre requirement is not technically lot area, but it is a requirement for a site development. So the closest term that you would use would be "required area" or "required minimum size," similar to lot area. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That section would -- that section would not apply to the density. MR. MULHERE: Right. I got it. I was just talking about the area, yes. Uh-huh. And so I guess the point of this is just to -- and I don't think, you know, staff has any issue with it. They've kind of concurred in their staff report that even though they recommended denial for what we Page 8 of37 September 5,2019 asked for, that if you were inclined to approve it, they didn't have a problem -- or apparently didn't have a problem with the size being slightly under 40 acres, so I'll move on. I'll move on. This is a map I took off of the county's website. It's slightly different colors, but it shows you the subject properly is right about here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the purpose of this map? What do all the red and black lines mean? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I was going to go over, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't see them in the legend. MR. MULHERE: No. So the red line is the urban boundary. I just wanted to show you how it moves, as such. This is Estates right here. This is -- this would be an area that is one mile from the urban boundary right in here, and the subject property is right there. So I showed you this map before. I just wanted to show you one more time this -- that there is already two precedents for what I would call a transitional allowance for properties that are within one mile of the urban boundary. One is -- if I can get this to work -- is this area right here which, again, is the Heritage Bay DRI, and that has a definition as a transitional area in the Comprehensive Plan. And the other one is further south, and it's the Urban Residential Fringe, which I mentioned, runs from 951 up to, oh, I'd say about I-75, and it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From I-75 south to 4l and south of 4l in some locations. MR. MULHERE: Correct. And so that is an area that -- it's urban, just to be clear, but it's transitional as well, and it's one mile east of Collier Boulevard, basically. So you do have some precedent there. Oops, let me erase that squiggly line. I'm getting better at this. I put this up here. This is the county's GIS zoning map. And I'll have a little bit more detail for you in just a moment. But this area here, again -- this is -- this would be one mile. Here's the urban boundary. Here's the subject property, right here, one mile here. And you can see that there are relatively few parcels that are not entitled that are still ag zoned that fall within that one-mile designation in this location. There's this piece right here. There's a smaller piece here and here, and I think on the next slide I have more detail on that. So those parcels that are highlighted, the subject parcel is37.62 acres. The other parcels to the west and a little bit to the south total 74.51 acres. So we're talking about I 1 I acres in total, plus or minus. I point that out only because I want to demonstrate to you that this is not significantly precedential; that we already allow higher density in transitional zones; that one unit per acre really drives sprawl in this area with access to an arterial roadway, county sewer and water. It made no sense. Plus, it doesn't work economically, and I'll go over that in more detail in just a minute. The point I'm making here is I'm not suggesting that you increase -- and we're not suggesting that you increase density on any other parcel than the one that's the subject of this Comprehensive Plan amendment, but even if these properties came in, it still makes sense within one mile of that urban boundary. So this is the -- our recommendation, as opposed to the staffs recommendation, of the Comprehensive PIan amendment for Ventana Pointe residential overlay. And this is a little bit different in that after discussions post the neighborhood information meeting -- I'll go over that in a little more detail -- we reduced the density from 95 units, which is 2.5 unit per acre, to 77, which is about two units per acre. I think it's 2.04. We also changed the access -- I'm going to go over that in a minute -- because there were concerns at the neighborhood information meeting that we were using Richards Road as our primary point of ingress and egress. Now, we have a 30-foot -- we have half of a 60-foot easement on our properfy for Richards Road, but that was probably the biggest concern that folks raised. They raised density, they raised buffers, and they raised access. Page 9 of37 September 5,2019 We lowered the density to 77 units. We -- and you'll see in a minute we increased all of the perimeter buffers, and I'll show you those in just a minute. And we changed the access to Immokalee Road. After meeting with county transportation staff, we agreed to provide for an interconnection to the properly to the west. In the event that ever develops, they can use our access point to access their propefty. So it says, as you can see, under Paragraph lB1, primary access shall be via Immokalee Road, the maximum density shall be 77 dwelling units, and the acreage is identified in Paragraph lA at 37 .62. The density we are proposing will be achieved through the base density of 0.2. There is a density bonus in the code. This is very similar to that density bonus, but we have a maximum, so we may or may not be able to use that. Sevent5z-seven units is our maximum. We would acquire TDRs, and for each TDR that we acquire, we would receive one additional dwelling unit. Economically speaking, TDRs are selling for about 12- to $15,000 apiece. I'm going to go over that in more detail in just a minute, but I can tell you that it does not work economically if you have to acquire both TDRs. We will actually end up acquiring more TDRs than we would have to require (sic) at one unit per acre. So we will be driving the TDR acquisition program, which was one of the primary purposes of that program which was to compensate sending landowners for the loss of value. You may recall that in sending lands density was lowered to one unit per 40, and the county promised those sending landowners that they could generate TDRs and they could sell those TDRs. Again, the large landholdings have either acquired the land or acquired the TDRs. What we're Ieft with primarily now as you -- as the staff has demonstrated in the studies that they've conducted, it's smaller landowners. Not their size, but their holdings, and, you know, five acres, seven-and-a-half acres, l0 acres. And the acquisition or the ability to acquire those TDRs is very, very difficult. You have to -- my client's already approached six or seven of these smaller landowners who, you know, are unwilling at this point to sell their TDRs because they don't see value in that. There are some other holders of TDRs that have more, and those would be who we would probably have to approach to acquire. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Bob, before you remove that from the visualizer, under Item E there is -- half of that has not been reviewed, at least by me. MR. MULHERE: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: SO that's new language. I don't know whether staff has reviewed it. But anything on Line 3 after "or if developed as single-family" -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: - I have not reviewed. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry, Heidi. You're absolutely right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So when you vote, you're going to have to be clear on whether you're going with the resolution version or their version. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, well, honestly, Bob, putting that kind of detail in a GMP is something we try to avoid. MR. MULHERE: I know. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: You are coming in with a PUD. Why don't we settle something like that in the PUD? MR. MULHERE: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would solve everybody's problem. MR. MULHERE: I just was -- in talking with my client, it's most likely that he would develop this -- although we've asked for several different types of residential development, at this point at 77 units, the economics really work with single-family. And it seemed to me that if we're not going to do multifamily -- so the county now requires some sort of a reservation of a strip next to preserves that has to Page 10 of37 September 5,,2019 be at least five or six foot wide, that in the event you eliminate exotics and you are multifamily adjacent to single-family, you require a Type B buffer, which has to be opaque. If after you remove the exotics you no longer have that opacity, they make you plant a hedge to meet that opacity. So I wanted to differentiate between the two. It can be done in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. In the PUD you can approach that through deviations and other operations. This is -- MR. MULHERE: No problem. And I agree with that, and I apologize for adding that. I just didn't want to forget to bring it up as a discussion item. So the nature of our proposed amendment, as I said, the property is designated RFMUD receiving. We are requesting 2.04 or 77 units. We're l 9 miles east of Collier Boulevard, within one mile of the urban boundary. The receiving area has mostly been developed in the form of a master plan, single-family and villa development and some multifamily development all around us. This overlay does not establish a precedent for increased density throughout the village receiving lands, as there are few other lands, as I've already demonstrated, within one mile of the urban boundary with direct frontage on an arterial roadway, in this case Immokalee, served by Collier County Utilities and with other public facilities and services available to serve the development. It makes no sense. That density is about half of what's allowed in the urban area, which is four at a base. You already have two different transitional zones that serve the same function as what we're requesting. That is the transition from the lower density, non-village receiving further to the east and Estates lands also further to the east. You have the Urban Residential Fringe, and I see some more typos in there. This is a reasonable incentive to develop while still providing that transitional density. As I said, only 74.51 acres zoned ag and RMFUD (sic) receiving lands are located west of this property within one mile. This overlay is not adjacent to any lands designated or zoned Estates either, which would change that request. There's also a Urban Rural Fringe transition zones, which is the four sections of Heritage Bay DRI which includes one section of urban and three sections of rural. So this is not a new concept. So I did a little -- under the current GMP, I'm not sure why I say base density is seven dwelling units -- oh, that's the total, 0.2 or 7 dwelling units, yes. That's the base density under the current GMP. You could increase it one unit per acre. You'd have to acquire 30 TDRs. You'd have a total of 37 dwelling units. It's been determined by the staff that you cannot round up under the current GMP. So even though we have 37.62 acres, that fiactional number which is allowed to be round up to another whole unit in the urban area is not allowed to be rounded up in the rural area. So the maximum density under the current plan would be 37 units. Under what I'm proposing, A, we get to round up. So you have base density of eight, and in order to get to 77,yot'd have to buy 35 TDRs. Your bonus would be 34. Add those up, that's 77 units. That's the max. So 35 TDRs have to be acquired under what I'm proposing; 30 TDRs have to be acquired under the existing plan. We reduce the density to 77 units. I wanted to share some of the economics so you can appreciate why it will not work at one unit per acre. By removing - by changing the location of access to this site to accommodate the neighbors, we have to construct a turn lane and provide shared access to the properry to the west. That turn lane is $250,000. Now, that's fine. We agree to do it, but we're doing that to address our neighbors' concerns. We do have the right to use Richards Road. But the neighbors had concerns. We agreed. We met with staff. They agreed we can do it with a turn lane and with the shared access. The TDRs are anywhere from -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You would still -- you would retain some access to Richards? MR. MULHERE: Only emergency. It would be just for emergency. If there's a need for some emergency to get in and you can't get in off Immokalee Road. So it's secondary emergency only. Page 11 of37 September 5,2019 And I'm going to go over the site plan in just one second. I apologize for the length of this presentation, but it's important to my client. The TDRs will cost somewhere between 420- and 525,000. That's based on 12- to 15,000, in that range. I didn't -- I listed the mitigation impacts, $850,000 to the agencies for impacts, even though we are preserving a significant portion of the wetlands on site, and that's the cost of doing business. So I didn't sort of include that in the first, but I wanted you to just understand the economics. When you start spending this kind of money before -- and you're competing with people in the urban area or close by that don't have to spend this kind of money because they don't have to buy TDRs, you're already at an economic disadvantage. We want the program to work. Staffs already recommended this several times; not this staff, but the restudy staff. Obviously the restudy's still going on. We had a NIM, I mentioned it; it was on June 12th. There were about 15 members in attendance. I talked about the major concerns using Richards Road; the buffers, primarily adjacent to Richards and Sundance, which are the two private roadways. I'll show you those in just a second; and the density. We made a commitment to look at those issues, and we did. I have -- I want to put on the visualizer a letter -- a letter that we just recently received. It starts at the bottom of this page, from our closest neighbor who was also probably the most vocal at the meeting, Syed Madni and his wife. It starts right here. Hello, Ryan. Thank you for the update. We updated him on our reduction in density, our revised access, and our enhanced perimeter buffers. Robin and I are very appreciative of your time and effort on your redesigned proposed project on Ventana Pointe. We believe the proposal will greatly benefit our current way of life as well as many endangered species. We are huppy to welcome you to the neighborhood. If there's anything we can do to assist, please don't hesitate to reach out. So I wanted you to see that because I think they were appreciative of the efforts we made to change the site plan in a way that would address their concerns. So this was the original site plan -- excuse me -- with the access off of Richards Road, which is right here. And, again, there's 30 feet on the neighbors'property, 30 feet on our side, and this is Sundance right here. We had 10-foot perimeter buffers in this plan except on Immokalee Road where we were required, obviously, a larger right-of-way, a2}-foot landscape buffer. Our preserve was right here, 9.41 acres. Access again right here. This was 95 units. Oh, I've got to erase that. I know this is a little hard to see. This is -- and, obviously, the PUD we haven't really gone through the review of our revised plan yet, but I know that even at a transmittal you want to see what we're proposing. So this is our revised plan,77 units. This is the access off of Immokalee. We'll have to build a turn lane here and in our PIID provide shared access, future shared access. The red represents our original perimeter buffers. The green shows the enhanced. So all of these buffers are now a minimum of 25 feet in width. We also put in a -- what will be a platted green space and landscaping tract which primarily will be between the platted lots and the preserve as a buffer to the preserve. The calculations you see there is that our actual preserves increased from 9.41 to9.63, and the amount of acreage that we added to our buffers is 2.55 acres. When you add those two together, that meets the native preservation requirement of 20 -- the requirement is 40 percent of the native vegetation on site not to exceed 25 percent of the site. For us it's the 25 percent of the site. That's 9.41 acres. Not only do we exceed that, but with these enhanced buffers, we actually, in combination, equal what would have been required -- we exceed what would have been required if we based it on the entire 40 acres when you combine those two. I guess I just went over that, just a little bit about open space. So the total preserve plus the additional landscape areas is 1 1.93 acres. The required open space in the receiving lands non-village is Page 12 of 37 September 512019 70 percent, which is pretty high. That's usable open space. Subtracting out the right-of-way for -- 30-foot right-of-way for Richards and for Sunset -- or Sundance, excuse me, you base that open space on 24.J3 acres. We have 9.63 in preserve. We have 2.55 in the green space and the landscape tract between the preserve and the lots. We have a 3.61-acre lake, and all of the yards may be counted towards open space. Minimum -- probably exceed this, but at minimum we'll have 9 acres. So we have 24.79 acres of open space. We're required24.73. It's probably higher. I did a very conservative calculation of the required yards. So in conclusion -- I'm sure you're ready for the conclusion -- this overlay makes sense. It's needed to generate reasonable -- reasonable market interest in the parcel given the cost to purchase and the additional cost to acquire TDRs. Acquiring these TDRs will compensate those sending-land owners, which was the primary purpose of the TDR program. It has not worked well outside of the Urban Residential Fringe, so that is why the restudy is going on, and staff recommended increasing density at two units outside of -- across the entire spectrum of non-village sending, whereas we're limiting it to within one mile for this property. The property was 40 acres prior to the taking. We've reduced the density to two units an acre, 2.04 to be precise. We have access to Collier County sewer and water and other public services; it has direct access to Immokalee Road. It won't use the small private, local road; located within one mile; reasonable transitional density as already there is precedent for. By the way, in the Urban Residential Fringe, I'll repeat, your base density is 1.57 units per acre. It's urban. You're at 1.5, not 4 that you get in the rest of urban area, but as a transition, it was reduced to 1.5. But you can increase that to 2.5 for the acquisition of TDRs. We're not asking for 2.5 . We're askin g for 2.0 . MR. YOVANOVICH: 2.04. MR. MULHERE: 2.04. Sorr),. Thank you, Richard. So -- and also we're providing those enhanced buffers for compatibility that the neighbors requested. We'll deal with that in the PUD as to the plantings. Thank you. That, I believe -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob, before you wrap it up -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- could you go back I guess now three slides. That's the one. North is not up, but if -- let's see. So that would mean that the area I'm concerned about is -- right, thank you -- going to be in the southeast quadrant of that lot. Is that -- what is that? Is that a lake? MR. MULHERE: Right here? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's the lake, stormwater lake. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that wrap up your presentation, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the length. I just felt like I had to -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's fine. You might have answered some questions hopefully. So with that, then, we'll move into questions of the applicant. Does anybody have any questions? Karl, youjust nodded your head yes; does that mean you do? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, I do. Bob, first, thank you. Personally, I appreciated the presentation. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I find it very informative. You mention the -- we're within one mile of the urban boundary. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that an official significant -- is that one-mile distance, is that a significant official distance, or is that simply you were saying it's close to the urban boundary, and there Page 13 of37 September 5,2019 is -- so that's important? MR. MULHERE: I apologize. It is important. It's not official in this location, but there is precedent. You know, I think staffwould agree there is precedent for transitional densities. You'll have -- again, the Heritage Bay four sections, the staff created an urban rural transitional rezone for that DRI which creates -- I mean, I forget the total number of dwelling units. It's 3,000 and change dwelling units in that DRl, and they have the commercial activity center. One section is urban and commercial. So they already created one transitional zone there. They're not exactly the same. I'm not suggesting it's the same in terms of the language. It's closer to the Urban Residential Fringe, which is, I think, a precedent. It is urban, I agree. And we could have come in and requested a Comprehensive Plan. I don't think it would have been met with much support, but to change the designation to urban, that made no sense. So we came in aligning with the staff recommendations to create in this particular small 3J.62-acre subdistrict to create the same benefit of transition. Why? Let's think about economies of scale. One unit per acre is clearly a sprawling density when you have access to public facilities, when you have access to sewer and water, when you have access to a six-lane urban roadway, when you have access to police protection and everything else. It's within a mile. Two miles, you know, the activity center. Why not generate more interest in acquiring TDRs when right now there is none? My client spent a considerable amount of money to get this far because the timing just was unclear. We just don't know when the county's going to finish its study. I'm told it's going to be reengaged. I don't know how that's going to work out. We don't know how it's going to work out. He's got contractual obligations and deadlines, so we made the decision to go through this process. We think it makes sense not only here, but even in those other few parcels that are west of us, which it's 100 acres, 111 acres. Why not generate more interest in a little higher density so close to the urban area where you have public facilities? And I don't know why we didn't get a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, for the short answer, in the GMP there's an Urban Residential Fringe subdistrict that extends one mile past the urban boundary. But it used to -- that runs along 951 south of I-75 down to 41. He's almost saying this is kind of mimicking that. And the density in there goes from 1.5 to 2.5, which would be less than what he's asking for in his 2.047, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: I get it. Thank you. Bob, the RFMUD was sent back for restudy. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: What were the reasons for that decision? Why was that requested in the first place? What about the program was -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for lack of a better word, broken that required a restudy? MR. MULIIERE: So once -- the obvious utilization of TDRs, as I mentioned before, which is folks that acquired sending land but also had receiving lands primarily in the Urban Residential Fringe, once -- and Hacienda Lakes is the best example I can give you. It was a DRI. It was a large project; 2,700 acres,I think, or something very close to that. They only had about 700 acres in the urban area, all of it in the Urban Residential Fringe. So all of it east of Collier Boulevard. They -- but the rest of the properry was sending lands. So they were able to generate sufficient TDRs, and actually an excess of TDRs, to transfer those TDRs into the urban portion of their project. It worked well in that scenario. It has not worked for these non -- there's been no village approved. There's three -- a maximum of three allowed. Urban villages allow three units per acre -- or rural villages allow three units per acre. There is one that's under review right now, which I've submitted, but it's been 20 -- not 20. Whatever, 19 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't Bonita Bay or whatever that -- Page 14 of37 September 512019 MR. MULHERE: They did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was something south. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wasn't that a village when they first came in with it? MR. MULHERE: It was. I worked on that project for Bonita Bay. They withdrew it because it was too expensive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they did come in? MR. MULHERE: So GL Homes is doing a residential development there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: So we do have one, finally. And the idea was for those Rural Villages to allow higher density and mixed use to serve not only the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District but the surrounding Estates lands -- because all of those receiving areas, or most of them, are surrounded by Estates lands. There are basically four areas of receiving. It gets a little complicated, but just bear with me for a minute. One is already pretly much developed. That's this receiving area here. It's been developed sort of piecemeal with suburban kind of development, so you don't have -- you won't get a rural village there. There are four sections of land on Immokalee Road. I've submitted that rural village. A former Jones Mine. It's right on Immokalee Road. There is a large receiving area down south, Littman Farms and several other landowners. It's thousands of acres. There's transportation issues there. So until those are resolved, I don't see that happening. And there's another -- thank you, David. Hold on. Visualizer. There's another one that is in the North Belle Meade right there. Sorry. Let me get a pen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic, Bob. MR. MULIIERE: So these -- hello? Hello? Hello? These are the four receiving areas. This is a large one that probably will get developed sometime in the future. You can see how large that is. This is the North Belle Meade. It's got a special overlay. Transportation -- significant transportation, so I don't see that coming forward. This is the one that I've submitted right here on Immokalee Road, and this is the one that's largely been piecemeal developed. Here's that transitional overlay that I spoke of for Heritage Bay. So you won't see a village there. So the remaining TDR program outside of a village only worked well in that Urban Residential Fringe. There are a lot of small landowners who don't see the value of selling their TDRs. So you have two sides of the equation: Demand and supply. That was the primary recommendation of the coalition of landowners that went to the Board three-and-a-half, four years ago, hired Bruce and I, was to look at the number of TDRs that you can generate. Remember, I said the maximum you can generate on five acres of sending is four, but it's not even accurate. By the way, there's still an early-entry bonus which is getting ready to expire, I think, 19 years later. There's one that is a bonus for dedicating your sending land to a public conservation entity. That one is about impossible to get. There are maybe some situations where you can get it, but most people have found it's very, very difficult. So, in reality, you can only get three. So if you're a sending landowner and you've got five acres, and maybe you could generate three units, but that takes away all your development rights, you can never put a house on that parcel, the most you're going to see for that is $45,000. Those sending landowners don't see a value in that. They've got five acres. They can build a house. Why are you going to give me $45,000? COMMISSIONER FRY: I get it. So the economics of the program didn't -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- did not work on the small scale. MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. And Rich pointed out, on the third credit is an environmental restoration credit. So those small landowners actually have to remove the exotics, spend Page 15 of37 September 5,2019 more than they would get for the TDR to do that. So the economics are not working. So you've got -- there's demand, but the cost is high and the supply is very limited now where we are in the TDR program. So that was the basis -- the primary basis. There were a lot of other little issues. Like the 40 acres, nobody thought that that made sense. Why not require or allow smaller parcels to cluster and develop and generate interest in TDRs? COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. What is the density of Heritage Bay? MR. MULHERE: Do you know, David? It's over 3,000 units. MR. WEEKS: 1.35 DU per acre. COMMISSIONER FRY: 1.35. MR. MULHERE: Gross. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is -- just -- I get the concept. Your stance is that it's a reasonable density considering how close we are to the urban border. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's economically viable for your applicant. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: It is not -- I think one of the concerns is establishing a precedent for other properties that come in and deviate from the GMP, and you're saying even if that were to occur on these few remaining properties, it's still a reasonable density for those as well? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the justification for the 34 bonus units that you're asking? Is it simply that it's reasonable? MR. MULHERE: It's the economics. COMMISSIONER FRY: Economics. MR. MULHERE: If we had to buy those TDRs -- even though we're going to have to buy more than we would -- it doesn't work. And I think the flip side of that is that you do want to create some incentive for somebody to go and acquire those TDRs and let it work economically. I mean, honestly, if it doesn't work, we'll have to walk away, and, you know, that's just the way it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: I get it. That's all I have. I guess I'm interested to hear other planning commissioners who have a lot more experience with the TDR program and the RFMUD and what your thoughts are on this. Thank you, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just add one point to that? What it allows Ryan to do is when they're purchasing TDRs, they can pay more for the one TDR. Instead of 15-, they can essentially pay as if they're buying two because they're getting the benefit of the two. So it stimulates interest in the receiver to buy and the seller of the sending land to sell because we can -- we're getting more bang for the buck, if you will, to buy, which will enhance the program, which has always been to try to get the sending lands to become conservation lands instead of potentially development lands. COMMISSIONER FRY: But my calculation, if they buy 35 TDRs and it's approximately one per -- four per five-acre parcel, that about 45 acres would be preserved? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which are not being preserved right now. What I'm saying, the program -- the sending-land landowners aren't selling and putting them into conservation. It's better for them to keep it and maybe put a house on it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? I'm sure Ned -- MR. MULHERE: You know, I did want to mention -- Rich made me think of something. I'm sorry. Mark, real quick. I said one unit per 40 in sending the density was reduced except if you own a parcel that was less Page 16 of37 September 5,2019 than 40 acres -- this might help explain. If you were in sending and you had a parcel that was less than 40 acres when this was adopted, you still are allowed to have one dwelling unit. So that's where the 5- and 10-, l2-acre still -- yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had several concerns, and I talked them through with Mr. Yovanovich yesterday, and also your presentation was helpful in resolving at least one of them and possibly more, and that had to do with the question of the taking. And due to the timing of it, you can't really say that the then sending landowner knew or should have known that it's giving up something that was of special value because it would take it down beneath 40 acres. So I get that and I appreciate that explanation. What follows in that, of course, is that you can't say that that landowner was compensated for the loss of that small fraction of the 40 acres based upon what subsequently happened because he didn't know what was going to happen. So I'm with you on that. The first area that I still have concern about has to do with the compatibility -- density compatibility with the surrounding properties. Now, let me see if I've got this right. The -- on all four sides of the property, the density is either around one dwelling unit per acre or one dwelling unit per five acres at this point; is that correct? MR. MULIIERE: Well, it is, yes and no. I'll show you, looking at this aerial. Yes, this parcel is undeveloped. So that's one per five. It's in receiving. It has the same designation that we have, which is RFMUD receiving. So this parcel could come in and, without doing a Comp Plan amendment, develop at one unit per acre through the acquisition of TDRs. Same thing east of us. So further to the east you can see there is some sort of residential development. It's development around Calusa Pines Golf Course. I think it's called La Morada. And across the street there is multifamily development right here adjacent to these large lakes that are part of the Heritage Bay DRL So we really have suburban development all around us except east. That's why we created or tried to create a precedent -- a non-precedence with the one mile within the urban boundary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. But having said that, though, nonetheless, the fact remains that you're asking for 2.05 dwelling units per acre -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and you're surrounded by either roughly one dwelling unit per acre or one per five acres. MR. MULIIERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, the -- perhaps this question is going to go to either our chairman or to staff or the city -- or County Aftorney. What is the history on the fact that that crosshatched area that is the transition part of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use area was limited and not extended southward? It's -- MR. MULI{ERE: Or northward. Either way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, okay, either way. But the boundary that they selected, even though there's the Estates -- the rural estates are on -- you know, they're on the east side going up and down. How come the transition area was limited to that square? MR. MULHERE: That's really for you, David. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that what it is, DRI? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the Heritage Bay DRI. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, that was a private sector GMP amendment -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- and that was based on the ownership of the property. That plus-or-minus four square miles was under a single ownership, the former Quarry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you very much. But what remains is is that, for PagelT of37 September 5,2019 whatever the purpose was, the area of transition within the RFMUD was limited to this square that's crosshatched with forward diagonals, and outside of that you're not in the -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- FLUE where it had been anticipated there would be greater density, but you're still west of the Rural Estates. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Correct. If I could just point out to you that -- I just wanted to show you, this is the Urban Residential Fringe that we discussed. So this is, you know, the best example that I can show you. You can see it's diagonally hatched. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me interrupt you if I may, though, because I don't really think that's really comparable because that separates a urban area from a residential area, and this separates a residential area from a rural estates. So I really don't see them as comparable. MR. MULHERE: And I may not be able to convince you that it is, but in my opinion it's a reduction in density as a transition between urban and rural, and it's the same exact thing that we're asking here is that transitional density here between urban higher density and lower density rural further to the east. So if you look at this, I just wanted to point out, you can see that part of the reason this wasn't extended northward is that it's interrupted by Golden Gate Estates, if you can see right here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MTILHERE: And then it could have been extended further northward, but it wasn't. So they're different; I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Then I guess the main issue I have at this point is the subject of a broader change to the Growth Management PIan for this area on the grounds that maybe the TDR system isn't working or maybe the economics don't work in a manner sufficient to generate development. That's under study right now, and it may not be moving at a speed that we're all -- that everybody's huppy with, but it is moving along, and isn't that a better way of addressing this than piecemeal project by project? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can, for the record. There have been a couple of private-sector Comp Plan amendments that have been processed to increase density while this restudy has been going on. I've worked on two of them. One of them had to do with Hacienda Lakes itself, and that's in the Urban Residential Fringe, which is the diagonal -- I don't know how to use your little thingy, Bob, to where I mark on it. Oh, I do. Right here. Hacienda Lakes, we went above 2.5 units per acre because they wanted to stimulate the use of sending lands and more TDRs. In that same are4 for San Marino we did a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow for increased density above the 2.5 so we could stimulate the use of TDRs during this process. So it's not been unprecedented to do private-sector amendments while the county was trying to figure out what, if any, changes they wanted to make on a global scale recognizing that it provided a benefit to sending landowners who really have borne the brunt of this new program called the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, because prior to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District program, they were zoned ag at one unit per -- one unit per five acres with a whole lot of other conditional use and other development rights that they have on their land. And if you look at the amount of orange area that's on this map, that used to all be ag lands with development rights that were taken away and given these TDRs. So the Board has, on an interim basis, allowed for amendment -- private-sector amendments to come through that make sense, recognizing that if we wait for this global solution, we may never get to the end. So our -- we would love to know that there's light at the end of the tunnel, but there's not. So we Page 18 of37 September 5,2019 don't think -- we think this proposal is good for the public because it's stimulating the acquisition of TDRs from people who have sending lands imposed on them, and we would -- we don't think it's a good idea to make us wait for a program that we've already been waiting four-and-a-half years for this global change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I take that point, and it's a plausible argument. Several things I would say, though, in response: First of all, in a sense, by doubling the value of the TDRs, we're maybe tinkering somewhat with the free marketplace, and I'm not sure that that's necessarily a good idea; and, second, staffs opinion that the amendment will not increase the countywide population, not that necessarily that is a goal that I would, in all respects, seek to achieve, but rather reallocate a small portion of the population. And the justifications that have been offered for the two-for-one have to do, from my perspective, at least 80 or 90 percent with the economics from the standpoint of the contract purchaser. And I get that, and I'm all for -- all for free market. But I'm still hung up over -- even though there may be precedent for a piecemeal amendment of the Growth Management Plan on a project-by-project basis, I'm not sure that's the way to do it. And where I come down on this -- and this tracks a comment I made to Mr. Yovanovich yesterday -- the two-for-one thing is hard for me to see as being justified without some other significant benefits to the county. Now, at the single-family residence level, you're not going to have affordable housing. You're not going to have workforce or that type of thing. I get that. And I'm not as imaginative as you guys are to come up with other ways that there could be a demonstrable and significant benefit to the county, except I will say at this point I am not convinced that I see such a benefit flowing to the county from going all the way up to 77 dwelling units for the site. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can, the reality is that the TDR acquisitions on these smaller parcels are not happening, so you're going to have to tinker with the system to make it work because the free-market system isn't making it work. The free-market system is telling you it doesn't work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the free-market system is telling us that it's not working as fast as the developers would like it to work. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It's telling you that it's not going to work, because at the price that someone believes their five-acre parcel is worth versus what they can get under the current system -- and let's talk about that five-acre parcel. There's really only two TDRs you can count on in this program: The base and the early entry. The third one you've got to pay for by cleaning up your land, so that's really not a benefit that cost -- that's a breakeven, and the fourth one, nobody's taking the TDRs from these small parcels; they're not taking the land. So you've got two TDRs. And let's just use 15,000 because I can do that in my head. You can go to a five-acre parcel owner and say, I'11 pay you $30,000 for your five-acre parcel, and they're not willing to sell their land for $30,000. They're saying, I might as welljust hold it and someday build a house on it for $30,000. Now, if you go our way, maybe you pay them 60-, because now -- now you're tinkering with the market, and you can afford to maybe do that. I don't know, but you've got to do something to stimulate sellers and buyers to get together, because the current program's not working. We're still going to take the risk and have to go find those units, and we're willing to do that, but it has to be an economically viable project. Now, I don't know what -- I don't like the word "affordable housing" because people want to spin that in a negative way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Neither do I, by the way. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd rather use terms like "reasonably priced housing." And it's hard to find houses in Collier County, single-family homes, in, you know, upper 3s, 5400,000 price point this close to town. That's probably the price point we're going to hit. I think that that provides a benefit. That's a reasonably priced house close to the urban area, Page 19 of37 September 5,2019 which is going to reduce trips on the roads for people who are building out east. I think that's a benefit to the community by doing these infill parcels and finding ways to fill in these infill parcels closer to town and attempt to stimulate the sending -- the TDR program. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't disagree with you. I'm just not sure that it's a significant enough benefit. And the other thing I get back to is whether -- regardless of the precedent that you've mentioned about piecemeal changes -- and I'm son1r, you're exactly right in how you've reported it in the past, but I'm not convinced that that's the best way of doing it going forward, and a better way would be to wait and let the Board of County Commissioners in their wisdom what they think should be the better overall plan for the whole area rather thanjust project by project. Also, if you keep going project by project, it's going to become an inescapable conclusion that you're going to have to, you know, go to a higher density just because of all the precedent you've created. MR. MULHERE: So I'm not sure that I can change your mind, but I just want to add a couple of things here. I'd like to try to change your mind, but I'm not sure I can. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, my mind's not made up yet, so keep going. MR. MULHERE: So I think the Board has already made a decision that the economics, the numbers, do need to be visited on both sides of the equation. There have been many presentations during the last three-and-a-half years to the Board. The issues were what was the data supporting the staff-recommended density changes? At one point there was a recommendation to allow up to seven units per acre or more in a rural village. That was not supported by the Board, a majority. To my knowledge, there was never a question about increasing density. I didn't hear -- personally, I didn't hear any negativity about increasing the number from one to two in non-village receiving. Yes, we are suggesting at this point a bonus. You buy one, you get one. And that is both -- there's a double benefit. Obviously, the economics work, but the double benefit is to the public, as you ask, is that we have a program that hasn't worked, or hasn't worked well in non-village receiving because the sending -- smaller sending landowner parcels are unwilling, and I don't blame them, to sell their land. So they either need more TDRs from five acres, which would create more money, or a buyer who's willing to pay them more, or a combination of the two. What I've tried to show you is although this is a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, there is no precedent here other than the possibility of someone making an argument on a site-specific basis for these parcels right here which -- sorry, you can't see what I'm doing -- which are the other parcels that are west of one mile. Now, I would suggest you're the state-mandated local planning agency, and perhaps if you think this is reasonable, and in some ways I -- as a body, what we're asking for, then the message that is sent to the next level, which is ultimately the Board of County Commissioners, is that this is reasonable, that this is something they should look at. And as the restudy moves forward, ayear, ayear and a half, two years, we don't know, that can be part of their consideration. Does it make good planning sense? In my view it does. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand your arguments. I'd like to change subjects now, if I may, to traffic. Did you want to make a presentation first, or do you want to address my -- MR. MULHERE: No. I think we probably would go right into addressing. We haven't recalculated, but obviously they're lower than 95 atJJ, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. The -- this gets back to Segment 43.2,which I have raised in a number of previous proposals. This site is not directly abutting that segment, but it's very, very close, and that segment is going to become deficient in2021. It's about 94 percent fully saturated now. And, obviously, we're going zero trips right now for that undeveloped lot to some more trips. And I can't help but expressing a concern and asking for a possibility of some ingenuity or some clever solutions that Page 20 of 37 September 5,2019 would mitigate the obvious negative impact that this development, no matter how many additional trips it's going to put on the road, will have, because we know that 43.2 is going to be deficient in 2021. MR. MULHERE: So I'm going to let Norm actually handle the technical response. Two things you made me think of that I forgot to mention, and that is the overall population. You raised that issue. I submitted a rural village on about 2,200 acres of land, about 2,000 acres of receiving land on Immokalee Road north of Oil Well. The reason I raise that is, by right, they can request three units per acre. So by right they could come in and ask for -- that landowner could come in and ask for 6,000 dwelling units. We've only requested 4,200. So right off the bat, in the population projection calculations we've already reduced by 1,800 the number of dwelling units that could be developed within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District if that's approved. Right now we have not asked for the 6,000 dwelling units that we could have asked for by right. Now, I'm not saying that would have gotten approved, but I'm saying that's the base density that's allowed in a village. We come in at just over two units per acre. Can't fit it on the property. There's reasons, but it doesn't increase density. Now, I wanted to point one -- I said this before, but before Norm comes up, I just wanted to point out that staff in -- they weren't crazy about access directly from Immokalee Road, but the one condition they had was that we build a turn lane and that we provide access to the properly to the west. So there is a benefit by having only that one location for both parcels. As that other parcel develops at some point in the future, both parcels will use the same access point. There is a traffic benefit to that, but I defer to, obviously, the county staff on that. And, Norm, do you want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: As Norm is coming up and by the Chairman's leave, I'd like to ask those who have come into the chambers after we started if you would just raise your hand if you plan on speaking in opposition to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, we don't -- if they want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That will determine whether I reserve my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we don't do it by popularity of -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather not get into that with the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Very well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, do you want to answer Ned's questions? MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. For the record, Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer, certified planner, and we prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project. In preparing the Traffic Impact Statement, we look at the links that we directly impact, and so the adjacent link, we're at 1.5 percent. So based on the analysis criteria that the analysis ends at that point in terms of looking at that, because we're under a threshold of going to other links to and analyze. Did Rich have something? Sorry. So we're a really small impact, I mean -- and then to the east it was .2 percent, so it was a real small impact either way. I think the link that you're talking about is a couple away from this location, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: One or two. MR. TREBILCOCK: Two, I believe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So what is your calculation of how many additional peak p.m. trips will be generated by the ll-unit project in comparison to present conditions, not in comparison to what you could have done? MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. Well, so what we looked at -- I have the initial analysis we did -- was 49 eastbound trips. If you look at the reduction of about 18 percent, it would be around 40 eastbound trips. But we haven't recalculated all the numbers, but that at least gives you a concept of where we're at. Page 2l of 37 September 5,2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's around 25 percent of the remaining capacity? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it wouldn't be -- on that link that you're talking about is -- again, as you get to an intersection, you distribute your traffic. And, again, I'm talking about the link directly in front of our project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so -- but then you don't have an opinion with respect to 43.2 and how that would be affected? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. The last thing I have has to do with the staff recommendation. And in my experience -- and, of course, I don't know what projects don't come before us because of staffs very early objections. But it's unusual, in my rather brief experience up here, for the developer to come forward in spite of a formal recommendation on the part of staff not to approve. And it seems to me that that is as an -- that is an impressive fact in the sense that it doesn't often happen. I think it should be given serious credit and paid serious attention to by this planning board. And so, again, if I heard something -- if I had heard something -- and I've not made up my mind yet, but if I had heard something that would distinguish this property -- this project as something that would provide a demonstrable and significant benefit to the county, then I would have an ability in my own mind to differentiate or at least to separate myself from staff s recommendation, but I'm really struggling over whether I've heard that and, therefore, I am inclined to give credit to the staff s recommendation of non-approval. That's all I have. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I respond to that briefly? CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you think about it on break. I'm so cold that I'm almost getting numb. I was wondering if they could just turn the cold -- the air-conditioning off a little bit in this room while we take our break for 15 minutes, and we'll come back at l0:40. But in the meantime, at the same time, can someone on staff check the CTS site? Heritage Bay apparently has almost 2,500 units left to build, has 70 ALF units to build, and 16,000 square feet of commercial left to build. If that's the case, that would have been calculated into the traffic and, if so, there's a lot of elements there that may not be hitting the roadway that 40 simple trips may offset. Maybe that answer could be established or at least looked at while we're on break. So let's take a break till l0:40, and maybe they'll warm the room up for us. (A brief recess was had.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everyone will please take their seats, we'll resume the meeting. And before we go to the next set of questions, I misunderstood Mr. Fryer's intent of asking those in the audience if they were for or against this. It was to help him determine whether one of the questions he has needs to go forward. So, Ned, please go ahead. I'm sorry to have interrupted you earlier. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I think I've asked all the questions even if there's no comments. So I think I'm covered, but thank you very much. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have questions for staff, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I still haven't asked my questions yet. And we left off with Norm, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You left off where I was about to say "Can I say something?" and you said you were cold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm freezing. Go ahead. It was overriding my ability to understand things. Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wanted to address a couple of comments. And during the break I was trying to think of other instances where we might have tinkered, if you will, with the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Program on a case-by-case basis. And on the visualizer there's a project off of U.S. 41 which is the Page 22 of 37 September 5,2019 Naples Reserve project, which is in this area right here, which was a combination of urban -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Where were you pointing again, sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: Down here. And, Mr. Strain, help me if I'm wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's right at that little point there, yes. I had to look that one up, too. We expanded the ability to use density there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I wanted to -- there used to be a limitation -- if you were in the Urban Residential Fringe, you had a -- you could only -- in order to get that one unit bonus from 1.5 to 2.5,yo:u could only acquire your TDRs within a one-mile area of the urban -- of that Urban Residential Fringe. For the Naples Reserve project, we eliminated the limitation on getting your TDRs from within one mile. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Proximity. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So that's another example where we looked on this as a case-by-case basis to make revisions to the TDR program to stimulate the ability to buy sending lands. So that was another one I could think of off the top of my head. The other I think I wanted to point out on the traffic analysis, there's been a new roadway that's come into play since I think the spring of last year, and that's the Woodcrest/Massey corridor that's directly to the west of this property and prior to getting to the Collier Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection. And it was put on paper many, many years ago to be basically a loop around that intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard and, basically, as you're going west, you'lltake a left onto Woodcrest. You can take it all the way down to Vanderbilt Beach Road if you want to, or you can take it to Tree Farm Road and connect to Collier Boulevard. So that's a new road that's going to factor into, I believe, the equation of trips and how many trips are going through that intersection and how many trips that will ultimately make it to the segment you're concerned about. That will all come out in a more detailed transportation analysis. But we didn't factor any of that in when we were doing our trip allocation. And then, historically, your comment about getting staffrecommendation on Growth Management Plan amendments. And I recognize that you're relatively new to the Planning Commission, but in my experience -- and I'm sure in Bob's experience and I know in many of the Planning Commissioners'experience -- we typically, on Comp Plan amendments, got recommendations of denial for Growth Management Plan amendments because staff didn't agree with our data and analysis to support the change. Now, most -- at least the Growth Management Plan amendments that I've been involved in recently have been -- have dealt with apartment complexes. And staffs been recommending approval of those because they agree we have provided the data and analysis to show that there is a shortfall of apartment complexes, both the market studies we're providing but also the countSr's own data that there's a shortfall. So I think it's just coincidental that we've been getting recommendations of approval lately because of the subject matter of those Growth Management Plan amendments. But if you went back and looked historically, I would think you would see quite frequently we would go forward with a recommendation of denial. Now, that doesn't even count the many requests of people who come to me, and I'm sure to Bob, and say, what do you think, and I say, you have no chance. So there's -- you only see the ones that we think we can make a real legitimate case for our request to change and, historically, I would say it would tilt towards mostly recommendation of denials from staff instead of recommendations of approval from staff. So I think it's matter of timing in the subject matter of what the Growth Management Plan amendments are at this time, from my perspective, in the ones I've been involved in. And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) Page23 of37 September 5,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do of -- I guess it has to do with the -- if Norm is familiar with the Heritage Bay project. You can just shake your head yes or no. I mean, did you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do the traffic count? MR. TREBILCOCK: No,I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll wait until I get staff up here. A couple of issues. Could you put your master plan back on the overhead. Bob, when we talked initially on this -- or I don't even know if you were in the room. I know your applicant had come in and talked to me. And the selling point of this was they didn't have 40 acres; they had 37. They wanted to do -- at the time I think it was 75 units, and that they'd be willing to make up the difference between the 37 and the 40 in additional preserve to what was required by the 37. It doesn't look like that's what you're doing. I think we can get there. MR. MULFIERE: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think what's really happening is the green area, you don't want to call it preserve. MR. MULTIERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that requires another 25-foot setback from it, but if it's -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's not a dedicated preserve but it's some other kind of platted sanctuary of some -- whatever you want to call it, it still becomes effectively preserve -- MR. MULI{ERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but your setbacks on the rear lots for the upland areas become what? MR. MULHERE: Well, let me just show you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you looking for for rear setbacks? Are you going to be right on top of that25? MR. MULHERE: For principal structures? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. Well, no. I know what principal -- MR. MULHERE: Five feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- normally 25. MR. MULI{ERE: Five feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five feet. So you're five feet instead of 10 feet back. MR. MULFDRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Five feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'll be back from that 25-foot strip instead of from a preserve? MR. MULHERE: Right. And also we put this in as an added protection between the preserve and the adjacent lots. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. You put that in, I think, too, to count it as something -- to make up what you had told me you were going to do. MR. MULHERE: Yes, but it was already in there. I mean, we already had done that as a -- to meet the jurisdictional and county-required setbacks. We could have extended the lot by that amount, deeper lot, but we -- you know, we wanted to have a real separation between the preserve and the lot so that we don't have any interference with that. So yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be important that if this goes forward to adoption and PUD, that something happens in those final documents that call it out in the nature that it's going to be -- it's going to function as more of a preserve even though it wouldn't be dedicated as part of a preserve to save that setback issue. MR. MULI#RE: Yes, I got it. And I think part of that would be to retain, as much as possible, native vegetation and only supplement with the landscaping. So we're not going to deal with the specifics Page 24 of 37 September 5,2019 of the landscaping, but when we come back, we'll have at least policy language to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And since we're talking about that, the six-foot additional strip buffer to make it a B compatible area -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- first of all, you've got a pretty good sizable preserve. It would be hard to think that the opacity for that couple hundred feet isn't going to be met, but at the same time I believe as an alternate to the six-foot you could supplement the preserve with native vegetation to get to that standard. Or you might want to take a look at that as a possibility. MR. MULHERE: Yes, you can. And it doesn't even apply if you go to single-family. It's only multifamily next to it. Only where a Type B buffer is required. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, take a look at how you're going to do this thing, and maybe that can resolve itself if we get to the next time. MR. MULHERE: I did want to point out, you know, that on this slide right here, that preserve plus the additional open space and landscape areas does equal 1 1.93 acres. So we are -- we are exceeding -- although you're correct, not all of it, because it would have required l0 acres of preservation, and we're providing 9.63. So we've made up that extra half acre through additional native vegetation in the buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let me run through some of the scenarios with some things you've said. You're within one mile of the urban -- or less than one mile within the urban boundary. And, Karl, there might be a clarification to whether you like a glass half filled or half empty. Some people might consider the Urban Residential Fringe south of Davis Boulevard down to 41, the urban buffer being one mile beyond 951, but that last mile has the restriction on it, instead of the urban buffer being 951 and then one mile additional is an extension, but it's restricted. But either way, maybe there's two explanations to that, and I'm sure Corby or David might want to -- will pick one of them. And I'm just covering my bases to cover each one. The utilities available, water and sewer are available there from what I -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And you're on a six-lane arterial. You originally were 40 acres, and you're making up for the lost acres with additional open space that will be somewhat classified as similar to preserve as far as the green areas on this map go. The -- you were going to remove the buffer language from the GMP. And the other question I had was, how do we establish base density? You're in disagreement, or staffs in disagreement with you or you're with them or -- that's going to be -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we had a meeting with staff as far as the rounding goes. You know, I believe -- and David can confirm this or not. My recollection was we had a meeting, and that as long as we were going through this Comprehensive Plan amendment we need to spell out that we could round up, and I've done that. And, actually, that was the direction I got from staff. Actually, I got language from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So by rounding up, you really have how many units? MR. MULHERE: Eight instead of seven -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- as the base. You know, it's 37.62. So if you divide that by 5, you come up with 7.56. You round that to 8. That's how you would do it in the urban area. It's not allowed in the rural area. We put that it was allowed in our Comp Plan language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the clarifications I need. The only other ones will be from staff, so thank you. And hearing no other questions, we'll move to staff report. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, again, for the record, David Weeks from the Comprehensive Planning staff. Page 25 of 37 September 5,2019 Before I go into some comments regarding the staff report, I wanted to respond to a few comments that have -- were made earlier, just some of the discussion that's occurred and some of the history that I think is relevant here. As far as transitions go, transitional densities go, two transition areas have been discussed today. One is this urban rural fringe transition zone, which is the side of the Heritage Bay PUD and DRI, and that was approved around 2002 or so by a private-sector amendment, and what it does, primarily, is allows the density from the urban section -- there's three sections within the receiving lands. Rural fringe receiving lands in blue, and then the yellow section is urban area, including a quadrant of an activity center. It allows the density that is generated from the urban area to be shifted into or blended into the rural fringe receiving lands. Ordinarily, they would be segregated. If density was generated from the receiving lands, they would have to stay there. Urban-generated density would have to stay there. That overlay allows that transition to occur. Similarly down here, we've talked a lot today about the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, that crosshatched area primarily located on the east side of 951 between 41 and Davis Boulevard. That also has a density-blending provision. And Hacienda Lakes project was mentioned earlier, also Naples Reserve. Both of those take advantage of that position which similarly allows density from the urban area to be shifted into the rural area. In the case of Hacienda Lakes, some of that density is shifted into sending lands, and in the case of Naples Reserve PUD, density being shifted into receiving lands; somewhat similar to the concept of the Heritage Bay properly we talked about a moment ago. The Urban Residential Fringe subdistrict on the east side of 951 was created in 1989 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. It was not created as part of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District amendments that occurred in 2002. The urban area used to run down U.S. 4l all the way, I believe, to County Road 92, San Marco Road, prior to 1989, and when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989, that urban boundary was rolled back to where you see it today, approximately two miles east of 95 l. And at the same time the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict was created to serve as a transition from the higher densities allowed on the west of 95 1 to the densities of, at that time, one unit per five acres of the agricultural rural lands to the east. This is a one-mile corridor transition. And one of the areas of disagreement that staff has with this amendment is that where we have a one-mile transition of density before you get to sending lands, in the proposed overlay it's an island. It's being discussed as a transition, but it's an island. West of it for about nine-tenths of a mile is receiving lands limited to one unit per acre maximum, and that's through the use of TDR credits, otherwise limited to one unit per five acres or .2 units per acre. And then, likewise, to the east properties are limited to one unit per five acres, or TDRs are used up to one unit per acre. So there's not a corridor transitioning from the urban area to the rural area as you have along 95 1. Here we have an isolated 37 .6-acre parcel that's being discussed as a transition. In staffs view it's simply not. It's an island of higher density. I cannot -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you talking about where the backslashed diagonals are? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: South of the East Trail. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are forward slashing to the north. MR. WEEKS: Okay, forward slash then. North of 4l here all the way up to Davis Boulevard. That's the one-mile corridor that serves as a transition. East side of 95 1 . COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the island you're talking about is north of the East Trail? Page 26 of 37 September 5,2019 MR. WEEKS: The island I'm talking about is the subject property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Okay. MR. WEEKS: The subject property up here off of Immokalee Road is just a single 37.6-acre parcel, and it's been discussed as a transition, and staff disagrees with that characterization. Down here it's a one-mile corridor of lower density to transition from the urban area on the west side of 95 I that would allow density of four units per acre or probably higher to the sending and receiving lands that allow much lower density. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me for intemrpting. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But this would help clarifu before you go any further. I don't want to miss out on what you're about to say. The northern transition area is called an overlay, and the southern transition area is called a subdistrict. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why? The nomenclature is different. Why was that the case? MR. WEEKS: The reason for the overlay is because it exists over two different or three different land-use designations, so it sits on top of the underlying subdistricts. So -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. MR. WEEKS: -- the underlying subdistricts still allow -- the same uses are still allowed, but the overlay allows those uses and densities to be shifted from one subdistrict to another. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's got subdistricts beneath it; whereas, the subdistrict does not have any districts or subdistricts? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry to intemrpt. MR. WEEKS: That's quite all right. I was starting to say, as far as the compensation for the right-of-way loss, taking the subject site down below 40 acres, I have no personal knowledge of whether or not the property owner at that time was aware of the proposed amendments, the rural fringe amendments that change the rules and that establish this minimum 4O-acre requirement. I can tell you that there was significant public outreach and public notice provided during that three-year process of the -- of the study that I led to the creation of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. There was a large sign on Immokalee Road and also one on U.S. 41 East advising the public you're now entering the rural fringe area of the county. There's a study underway. The county maintained a website. The county sent notices out to, I believe, sending land -- proposed sending-lands owners, and the county conducted over 50 public meetings to discuss the rural fringe amendments -- not just the amendments but the data and analysis -- over a period of time and receiving public input that ultimately led to the creation and discussion of the proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use amendments. My point in all of that is simply that the potential was there for the landowner to have been aware of what was being proposed. Again, I can't say that owner knew or did not know, but the potential was certainly there, and there was tremendous amount of public outreach notice provided. As to whether or not this will stimulate the TDR program, I mean, it's a fact. As they've stated, it would be a purchase of 35 TDR credits. How much of a stimulation is that? It's isolated. This stands on its own, and if it's approved, 35 TDR credits may get purchased. There you go. And the staff approach is we would like to see, rather than a piecemeal approach, see the rural fringe restudy based amendments get adopted, whatever they are, and presumably it's going to have a much broader impact. And at certainly the staff level it's our desire that that be the case. As a general rule, the cost of buying a piece of properfy is not a land-use planning consideration. Page27 of37 September 5,2019 I think it's obvious that if it was, then people would simply go out, buy property, and come in and say, here's my amendment. Approve it. I spent a lot of money for it to be -- for me to recoup my costs. You need to approve my amendment. The areas -- from the aerial that the petitioner had shown the subject property and properties to the west, you could see -- and the same thing is identified in the staff report in some detail of this whole three-mile corridor of the receiving lands beginning one mile east of Immokalee Road and then running all the way over to -- for three miles to the east until you get to Golden Gate Estates. The development pattern is either some agricultural uses, residential uses at a density of one unit per five acres, or a maximum of one unit per acre through the use of TDR credits, as well as some institutional uses such as churches and I think -- oh, an approved that would allow daycare and private school. Those same uses, those nonresidential uses, are also allowed both west of the subject properly all the way over to the urban area as well as east of the properly for the two miles that it takes to get to Golden Gate Estates. What's my point? My point is, I don't see a magic in drawing the line here and saying, we're transitioning from the urban area that's almost a mile to the west to what could be to the east, because what could be to the east is the same thing that is allowed to the west of the subject properfy. Again, it's an isolated parcel and, to me, it just is not logical to call that a transition. Because it's an island, it's not abutting the area that it's transitioning from and to. Again, similar to what we have along 951. Heritage Bay itself we talked about some already. Its gross density is 1 .3 5 units per acre, but if you look at the aerial -- and, actually, you can see it on the aerial that's on the visualizer now, much of the development is farther north of Immokalee Road or west from Immokalee Road. So intervening the subject site, there's Immokalee Road itself, a six-lane divided roadway, then the Immokalee Road canal or maybe it's called Cocohatchee Canal, and then a buffer, a huge buffer in Heritage Bay, and then you get to a road inside Heritage Bay, local road, and then you get to those one-story dwelling units that you can see on the aerial. Point being, there's a significant distance and separation between the subject property and that density and intensity within Heritage Bay and, secondly, the fact that Heritage Bay itself proximate to this property is not that intense. You have one row of residential units and then you have the huge lake, the old quarry that you can see, again, on the aerial. Staff does not take the position that what is being proposed is not compatible. We believe that the high-level view that we take through Comprehensive Plan amendments, that this petition could be found compatible with the adjacent properties. Our issue is the isolated nature of the site, that it does not serve as a transition and that it's out of character with the density within that rural fringe corridor in which it is located. We prefer not to see the piecemeal approach to amending the plan, and we are hopeful that the rural fringe amendments are going to get started up soon. The Immokalee Master Plan, based on the restudy, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, based on the restudy, have both already been transmitted. They've been received back from the State. You've already reviewed for adoption the Golden Gate Master Plan. It next goes to the Board. The Immokalee Master Plan will soon be coming to you and then the Board. Point being, those two restudies are almost done. So, logically, the staff focus is going to go back to the rural fringe and the RLSA amendments within the next couple of months or so. In earnest, we're already beginning to take a look at the rural fringe drafting of those amendments now. Finally, it leads to the staff recommendation, which is for denial. But if and only if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the amendment, we recommend that it -- that the overlay be modified to restore the rights to the landowner that they had prior to Immokalee Road -- the widening that took some of their land and placed it below the 40-acre threshold; that is, allow the property to be developed as Page 28 of 37 September 5,2019 if it were 40 acres, be able to participate in the TDR program, and be able to develop, I think the total is, 37 dwelling units on the property. That's my conclusion. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: David, the applicant has cited a couple of previous staff recommendations the MMUD, the previous -- as far as the restudy got. One being eliminate that 40-acre requirement and the other being, I believe, allowing a density of two units per acre. Does staffhave a current position? Are those still current recommendations that are on the table for the future, or where does that -- where do you stand with respect to those? MR. WEEKS: From the brief discussions I've had with the remaining community planning staff, the 40-acre -- elimination of the 40-acre minimum requirement is still a staff recommendation. I'm not certain about the two-unit-per-acre increase. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: And I mean, that's -- I'm simply not certain. Maybe, maybe not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. Just to stress the point that the rural fringe amendments have not actually been drafted. There's been the white paper. There's -- staffhas been in front of the Board more than once to discuss the rural fringe restudy, but there have not been any amendments actually drafted yet. And I want to stress the point that whenever they are, it would be a recommendation from staff. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what ultimately gets adopted. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of their arguments is that the TDR program, as currently defined, isn't working, at least for smaller-scale landowners and projects. What is your observation in terms of that -- do you agree with that assertion? Do you dispute that assertion? What does the data suggest? MR. WEEKS: Staff agrees. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff agrees. MR. WEEKS: I think the agent may -- Bob or Rich may have stated earlier that most of the TDR credits that have been severed and redeemed, that is actually used, have been in, number one, large projects and, number two, a significant amount of those credits have been generated from and transferred to a single entity. You know, an entity owned sending lands and owned receiving lands, and so they severed credits and then give them to themselves. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it works great for the larger projects where they own both ends of the deal but not so much for the smaller one-at-a-time projects. The final question I have is, how does -- how do you define sprawl? I mean, it seems to be an issue that's brought up in the staffreport and overall. Is sprawl putting too much density here closer into the city, or is sprawl developing lands that are currently undeveloped out farther -- further east that we might have protected through the TDR program? I'm just curious where -- how you define sprawl. MR. WEEKS: Well, there's actually a statutory definition, and it speaks to a single-use residential at a low density, which is a vague term. You know, for us, one unit per five acres, or is it one unit per acre, or is it five units per acre? I mean, it would depend on the locale as to what you consider low density. But a single use, low density of a large area. I wouldn't submit to you Golden Gate Estates is an example of urban sprawl. That's a massive area of low density, single - almost single use. There's very limited commercial opportunities within the Estates. It's a very inefficient land-use pattern. COMMISSIONER FRY: At four units per -- or at one acre -- one unit per 2.25 -- MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- acres. MR. WEEKS: And I would argue the same thing for one unit per five acres over a large area is urban sprawl, and I would argue that one and two units per acre is as well. Page29 of37 September 5,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- I'm sorry. Anybody else have any questions of staffl Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, just to comment on the previous question. It seems to me that -- I wrestled with trying to get an understanding of the concept of urban sprawl as well. And the thing that's misleading about that is the word "urban." I think what's really intended here by the concept of sprawl is that you have single-use residential that is -- that is on a large area without, in some people's estimation, sufficient commercial uses to support it, requiring people to have access to the roads. Isn't that a better -- is that an accurate description of sprawl? MR. WEEKS: That sounds reasonable. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. I just want to be sure I understood. Now, getting to a few questions -- comments I had about staff -- and I maybe could have asked this of the applicant. It comes up on Page 298 of 410. It's Page I of 5 of Exhibit 48 1 , and it's just a numbering inconsistency, I think, is all it is. But under -- you have capital C, Ventana Pointe residential overlay. Then Arabic No. I, then lowercase -- Iowercase Arabic a, lowercase Arabic b, and then on the next page it goes to capital C and capital D. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Fryer, I noticed that as well, and we'll fix it before it goes to the Board. Thank you for pointing it out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much. Let's see. My next question -- and it's something that undoubtedly would be addressed better at the PUD, but just so I can know what the intention is -- and perhaps we can make a record of the intention at the present time. What height -- what building heights are you going for in this area if it were residential? MR. MULHERE: Well -- for the record, Bob Mulhere. We were just discussing that we could commit to, in response to one of the comments that David made as it relates to Heritage Bay and the -- you know, this development here is -- I think these are four-unit townhomes. They're multifamily. We could commit to detached single-family. If we commit to detached single-family, we can limit that two-story product, a zoned height of 42 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fryer, what we have in the PUD is zoned height for allthe types of housing was 35 feet and actual was 42. So that's what's going through with the PUD right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So zoned 35, acf.tal42. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is a typical single-family zoning district height. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two-story. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And, actually, I think it says, two stories not to exceed 35 feet is in our Development Standards Table for the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Zoned height. MR. YOVANOVICH: Zonedheight, and 42 feet actual. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, am I correct that that's more properly brought up at the PUD time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why we usually let you know what you're ultimately going to get through the process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, that's something that I will certainly remember, and that is important. MR. MULHERE: And I just wanted to say, we could commit to the detached single-family, which would change the PUD. We'd eliminate the other types of residential uses which I think would address at least partially one comment of sort of, you know, what's around us. Page 30 of37 September 512019 I have some more comments, but I'11 defer to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then, let's see. I'm not sure, David, that I understood whether you were responding to the applicant's two agents' statements with respect to the timing of the taking and the reclassification of the 40 acres as a minimum-size rule. If I heard correctly, the taking occurred prior to the reclassification. Is that your understanding as well? MR. WEEKS: That is. Number one, it was in response to the applicant's statements and, secondly, though the actual date of the taking preceded the rural fringe amendments being adopted, it was a three-year restudy. There was -- my point was there was a significant amount of public notice and outreach -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That people were talking about it. MR. WEEKS: Correct. Now, I don't mean to suggest -- it would be misleading for me to suggest that when the study started at the beginning of that three years, that everybody knew what was going to happen. It was certainly within that last year of the three years that actual amendments were being proposed, including a 4O-acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But, of course, no one really knew until it was actually enacted, and there were probably a lot of things going on back then that didn't come to pass. MR. WEEKS: That's fair. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to be sure I understood. I think that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got anything of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just have a question of Mike Sawyer. And it's a traffic-related question just for clarification. Because this project's only looking at, what, 40 trips more than what would be expected or something like that. Heritage Bay, from what CTS's current numbers -- and I don't know how current they are. Laurie does a good job of keeping it up, but I'm not sure how relevant -- it was about 3,500 approved units, and they've got 24-something left, it looks like, in the CTS, and it was 200,000 square feet of commercial, and they've got 16,000 left, and it was 200 ALF left, and they've got 70 left. Now, let's say they're off by 90 percent. There's still 40 trips or more left in Heritage Bay that, most practically, with Heritage Bay being substantially built out, I can't see them using those, or if they did use them 10, 20,30,40, 50 years from now, I'm sure we'll have Vanderbilt Beach Road open and other road segments that will have improved Immokalee better than what it is today by the time any of that would ever transpire if it ever had the ability to transpire. Mike, is that a fair statement? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. I believe that is certainly a valid and correct look at what is actually happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Being a vested DRI, the numbers that you would consider for traffic impacts on Immokalee Road from Heritage Bay would be the numbers that the DRI is vested for? MR. SAWYER: Honestly, Chairman, I would have to double-check to make sure that that is vested -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: -- quite honestly. I do know that we would certainly look at any'thing that does come in. We would certainly look at a new TIS and assess it for any of those particular impacts based on -- but, you know, as far as what the current, you know, situation is and the trips that we still have available, ofcourse. But overall, they're still within -- well within -- as you've pointed out, well within their rights to provide additional commercial, residential, or even the ALF. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of what helps offset the limitation that this smaller project is impacting it by, and that's what I was trying to point out, so... Page 3I of37 September 5,2019 MR. SAWYER: So I agree. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I have a comment related to that if it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have a little historical knowledge about the DRI you're talking about. I know for a fact that the two residential developers are trying to close that PUD out, which means they're basically done. They can't close it out until the pricing of the traffic signals that you've heard about in other applications up on Immokalee Road and the intersection of -- I forget what road it is. I think it's Tree Farm -- I'm sorrlz, Woodcrest, Woodcrest. We're waiting for final figures on that so we know what our fair share of that signal is so we can at least conclude the residential developers' commitments and basically get the sign-off from the county that we're done. So I think that you're preffy certain as to how far you're going to be on those units at this point in time. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looks like with other projects there's probably going to be a reduction in buildout numbers. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you'll see -- CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Even the smallest amount of buildout reduction there is going to have a positive impact. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure it's probably more than 40 units. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: That's why I was trying to get to that point. I don't have any questions of staff. And what I'd like to do is move to public speakers. MR. MULHERE: May I, or do I come back up? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: You come back up for rebuttal. We've heard you for a long time this morning, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any public speakers registered, David? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then is there any member of the public here who would like to speak on these matters? Sir, come on up, please identiff yourself for the record, and you'll have to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. FOGG: I'm Stan Fogg. I own Fogg's Nursery, which is west of the properry. I know that the properly owner's been trying to get this done for a long time and, you know, he's had his fair share of not getting things done. I would like to see the overlay extended. I mean the rural fringe line, which is Woodcrest, extended. And, of course, I abut La Morada, which is right at the edge. And, you know, whatever happens with the precedent on this is going to have an effect on my property also one way or the other. I don't know. I would prefer for them to move the urban boundary line. That makes the most sense. But I also am -- you know, a man has a property; he should be able to develop it. You know, so I just wanted to make that clear. And the stoplight's going in. I did have a question on, are you coming out of Richards Street, or are you going to come out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to direct the questions here, and we'll ask -- when he has rebuttal, we'll get that answered for you. Just let us know what your questions are, and we'll get your answers. MR. FOGG: How is he going to be exiting from the property? Richard Street? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's going to be exiting on directly -- he's going to come in on Immokalee Road and out of Immokalee Road. I think it's left -- right-in, right-out, and then they'll make Page 32 of 37 September 5, 2019 their turns wherever they have to. Richards will be for emergency access only. MR. FOGG: Okay. So are they going to be using that median cut on Richards Road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I mean, that's -- we can -- we'll wait till -- MR. FOGG: I was just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you finish, we'll ask -- and everybody's -- all the speakers are done, we'll ask the applicant to address that. MR. FOGG: Well, other than that, that's all I had to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak on this item? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, you've got a very short rebuttal. MR. MULHERE: I'll be real short; I'll be real quick. I just wanted to talk -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you please address his question, too? MR. MULI{ERE: Yes. We -- our primary access -- our only access on Richards will be on -- let me go to the podium computer -- will be on Immokalee Road with an interconnection -- a future interconnection to the east - to the west, excuse me. I do not -- I mean, we won't be using the Richards Roads -- no project traffic will be using Richards Road for ingress and egress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He asked about the -- there, apparently, is a full median opening on Richards Road. Are you going to be using that? MR. MULHERE: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, your people have to come out -- MR. MULFIERE: Somebody's got to make a U-turn. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: I think that was the question. You won't be using it from Richards Road. You'll be using it from -- exiting on your properry. MR. MULHERE: Wherever they can safely make a U-turn if they head east and want to turn west. I mean, that's the nature of roadways in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I did want to just - as I indicated, we, you know, put on the record that we could agree to the product being detached single-family only. First of all,I have a lot of respect and I've worked with the staff for 30 years. I was staff for 12 years of that. But I disagree, obviously, with respect to the question of transition, and I disagree with respect to the opportunity that you have, and I mentioned this earlier, as the Planning Commission, to maybe send a message for what is appropriate in this location. Could this be a transitional one-mile area? Okay. We're coming in as an independent Comprehensive Plan because we couldn't wait any longer in terms of negotiations with the property owner. So we're coming in, spending our client's money to request something that makes sense. I don't think he should be penalized because at four-and-a-half years after a study was supposed to commence it's still going on. He's chosen to come forward. And if you look at -- if you look at what I've outlined for you here, yeah, some of this has a gross density of one unit per acre. For example, La Morada was generated from residential density that, in part, came off of this golf course. So it's lower density. Net being higher, of course. But whether these parcels here, here, here -- by the way, these other parcels here are owned by the associations when I looked online for along La Morada or by Pulte Homes. So -- and those are unlikely to get developed. Could something come -- could somebody come in and change that? Sure, they could. They'd have to go through this process or some similar process to do that. But in terms of sprawl, the State of Florida found that the amendments adopted under the RLSA and under the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District did not constitute sprawl. Now, that's a legal finding. But Page 33 of37 September 5,2019 nonetheless, doesn't it make sense to drive TDR purchases and to have an economy of scale that makes economic sense at two units per acre when you have urban services that can serve this? And is that not a transition from four or higher to .2 or even one further to the east? Clearly, it's a transition. And, yes, this may set a precedent for these other parcels to the west, but it doesn't mean that you have to allow higher density further to the east. The characteristics of this properly are that it's within one mile, it has central sewer and water, it has direct access to an arterial. When you look at somebody else's application and they're within one mile of the urban boundary and they have the same characteristics, maybe you'd be inclined to provide them two units per acre. If they don't have the same characteristics, maybe you won't. So is it transitional in our opinion? Yes. Sure, it's -- I mean, I get it. All things being equal, I get it. It would have been better to have had this restudy completed and the recommendations made. My client wouldn't have gone forward if that was done or might have gone forward if it was favorable. But at this point we just simply couldn't wait. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of anyone before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing and either have discussion or a motion. If the inclination is to go to a motion, before you do, I have a discussion. Does anybody else want to have a discussion? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want to say something. I think Bob made a really long, unfortunately, but sensible presentation. Good presentation. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm an engineer by training, experience, education, and I found that I think differently than most people. I just do. The population of Collier County is growing. The population of Florida is growing. The population of the United States is growing. The population of the world grows by about 100 million people every year. That's about -- that's about a New York City every month and a half that we're going to have to build somewhere. This is going to go on for a long time. Within a decade there's going to be another billion people in the world. So I don't think that the population of Collier County is ever going to shrink or stay the same. Unfortunately, as the sea level rises, there's going to be less land in Collier County, which means that density is going to rise no matter what. So I don't see any problem with what he's asking for at all. That's just -- you know, that's a little esoteric, but I have no problem with this project at all. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody else have any discussion? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've struggled with this, and I appreciate being further informed during the presentation. I'm also struggling with the fact that staff is recommending against it. In the final analysis, though, I'm going to vote in favor. And the main thing that influenced me on this was the information that was provided with respect to your plans, when the PTIDA comes along, that it's going to be two-story detached single-family, 35-foot zoned, 42-foot actual. I think that that -- that resolves compatibility issues that I had. Having said that, I want to continue to encourage staff to be very, very critical of projects that deserve critical analysis and do not hesitate to reject applications that you think should be rejectedjust because it may not go the same way up here. I commend you for the work you've done on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a question I would pose to my fellow, more-experienced commissioners. When the RFMUD was done in2002,I assume this was a lot more rural of an areathan it is now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Page 34 of 37 September 512019 COMMISSIONER FRY: And my question is, you know, is this still a rural area? I mean,2.2 units per acre is not excessive in an area that, as Bob says, has got direct access to main road services. In my opinion, this is still really part of Naples -- we're only within a mile of 951 here. So I guess I'm looking for some perspective in terms of whether you believe this -- the RFMUD is in need of update. And if it is a little bit outdated -- perhaps an outdated standard, that staff admittedly, and I think justifiably, relied on what the current GMPA is -- or GMP is. But is it still relevant to where we are today? CI{AIRMAN STRAN: I don't know who you're talking to, so Karen -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Anyone who would care to answer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I don't know. I just -- I think it's just always going to be a work in progress just working out the kinks. It's just -- there's always something that's -- it just needs change along the way, that's all, to work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My inclination is to avoid piecemeal private changes to the GMP. But when you balance all the equities here and look at the fact -- how long this restudy has gone, and there has been precedent that although is not exactly on point, certainly is -- influences my decision-making. So having said that I would have preferred to wait. Under these particular circumstances I'm not uncomfortable going forward. I don't know if that answers your question. But just my personal view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: For my part of the discussion, part of it addresses some of the issues you're asking about. This is -- staffs suggesting one unit per acre, yet you're going to be seeing in the next any.where two to six months, who knows how long, a new village called Hyde Park. It's about 2.7 units per acre, and it's much farther west, and it's right up alongside -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: East. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: East,I'm sorry. And it's right up alongside Golden Gate Estates which, as you know, is one per 2.5; quite a bit different than this project. Well, Ave Maria is about 3.0 per acre. Some people think it's less than that, but Ave Maria has two SRAs; one for the town and one for the university. If you take just the town's, you're at 3.0. There are three villages being proposed. Each one about athousand square feet. Each one at 2,500 units. That's 2.5 units per acre. Now, this is all east of what we're talking about, supposedly the more rural area, but yet the densities are higher. And to kind of put staff s denial in perspective -- and it's what I have a real problem with -- in January we had Allura come in here. Four hundred twenty development units approved by staff, Comprehensive Planning. That was over 250 units above what they -- what the Comp Plan allowed for, but that was a yes. We had Hammock Park scheduled before this today. That was regularly -- that was 19 acres for 265 units, about 215 units above what it should have been in the Comp Plan, but that was a yes by Comprehensive Planning. And by the way, Allura was 37 .57 acres for the initial 420 that was requested. Now, compare that to this project: 37.62 acres asking for 77 units. I wish people were doing that day and night forever, because this county would grow out a lot better. So I have no problem with it. Certainly, it's puzzling when you get down to the real nuts and bolts and practicality of applying things how the diflerences in densities can be acknowledged as being all inconsistent initially with the GMP, but the higher ones get approved and the lower ones do not. And I'm just not there, and I'm not going to be supporting staffs position, but I certainly will be supporting applicant's position with the corrections and changes and stuff that we've put on record, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: I see one other benefit here, which is that it's been admitted by staff that the TDR program has not been working, and this seems to me to be an opportunity to actually have it Page 35 of37 September 5,2019 work, potentially, if you're successful in acquiring TDRs. I know we've preserved 45-plus acres of land that isn't currently preserved from development, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of that, though, is not -- I mean, it's not working as it may have started out, but we artificially put a price on the base unit to start out with, in those TDRs. I think it was $25,000 a unit. That just caused the whole program to be stagnant, now looking at what they're really selling for. So we're trying to influence the market by doubling the price, and it just didn't work. I think it held everything up, and it's now come loose. So I'm waiting for a motion from someone on this particular one, if anybody's inclined, now that we've had our discussion. Anybody have a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. What conditions or changes or amendments do we have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to take the buffer specs out of the GMP, the preservation discussion that we had, they're going to clariff at the PUD stage, and, basically, we're going to accept the applicant's language for the density and the sizing of the parcel for the GMP change that we've gotten. The only issue I see is dropping out the -- the reference to buffers. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That will be my motion. MR. MULHERE: Yes. And we did put on the record, though it wouldn't be part of the GMP, that we would commit to detached single-family, but that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not part of the GMP. We'll do it -- we'll remember that in the short distance. There's been a motion made and seconded? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's 37 -- it can't change. The acreage is what it was at. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But before the taking, shouldn't it be the total taking amount? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're actually asking to change 37.62 acres. They're just using the taking amount as a defense for that change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's going to be treated like a 4O-acre parcel. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's what I meant. It is going to be like a4D-acre parcel? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that need to be stipulated in our motion? CHAIRMAN STRAN: It's in the language. MR. MULHERE: It's in the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifl, by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Page 36 of37 September 5,2019 Thank you, all. And, Bob, that was a -- that was the most I've heard you say in a long time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're charging it against your next one. MR. MULHERE: Got it, got it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Five minutes next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the new business; there's none listed. Old business; again, none listed. Is there any public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick. Seconded by Ned. All in favor, signifo by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AyE. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ***,**** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair atll:37 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION These minutes approved by the Board o, l0 - ) - I , as presente d l/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page37 of37