Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/19/2019September 19, 2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 19, 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 Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager James Sabo, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 94 September 19, 2019 7x1 exei9ziUIz[e16� CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, September 19th 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: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Dearborn has an excused absence. He had a commitment today to attend to. So with that, the next item up is addenda to the agenda and after that is Planning Commission absences and couple more down is Chairman's report. We're going to combine all three of those in a discussion that this board needs to have this morning before we start to try to understand where we're going to go in the future. And I'm going to be passing out a list of items that are on our agenda starting with October 3rd after today, October 17th, November 7th, November 21 st, and November 5th. Here's what's so important. Today's meeting has three -- four cases, two for one development and one for another, and then we've got the new SRA village as the last item up today. I've met with a lot of people, both sides, to talk about the process, and the Rivergrass SRA is new for this board. I was the -- I am the only one here who has heard an SRA before, and that was in 2005 for Ave Maria. And Joe Schmitt was the administrator then, so he has familiarity with it, obviously, and I'm glad that he's here and hope that he is here next month to help us with SRAs. Stan, I believe, was county engineer at that time, so he's involved. For the rest of you the program is new. The idea of a village is new. We need to handle it carefully going forward because whatever we do for this village I can tell you there are three others behind it. It's right all in the same grouping, and then there's one to the north of Immokalee Road that came in for a pre -app and hasn't submitted anything yet. So we've got to make sure that we understand the interpretations and items in the code being asked about and we handle it thoroughly. With that in mind, I don't expect us to get too far on that one today. We have two projects before the SRA. Both of those projects are amendments, so they're going to take some time to delve into their issues and talk about them. I met with the applicant for the SRA, and they and I produced an order of review for the SRA village. I'm going to pass that out to you right now. By the way, if there's extras, if you could pass one on to -- Ray, if you want to get extras to put on the overhead. Was there any extras down there, Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, and I gave them to the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. You guys have only one copy or two? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We have two. Page 2 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind giving up one copy for Ray, if you could share one; that way -- I printed these at 5:30 this morning from my home, so I didn't use my printer up. It was a slow printer. MR. BELLOWS: Same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's two different ones Ray. The first one I'd like you to put on is the one that starts with October 3rd. That's it. That s so the public can see as well. These are the cases that are scheduled for October 3rd. And in my discussions with the folks from the SRA yesterday, it was obvious that we're not going to get a -- we're not going to have enough time to do Rivergrass SRA today. We will be stopping at 4:00 as we regularly do. Today in particular because there's a budget hearing this evening anyway. So to handle Rivergrass -- and, Ray, could you put the next one on. And then we'll go back to this one later. There we go. This is the order in which we will be talking about Rivergrass unless some of you have an objection to it. The applicant's going to make a presentation, and they indicated about 90 minutes, maybe a little bit more. The -- and if we have enough time to finish that presentation, we can start some discussions on the SRA document. But the rest of the items will go off till October 3rd. The economic report, we shouldn't even get that started today without fmishing it, and I don't think it would be wise to move into that until we digest what the applicant's presentation is going to provide to us and what some understanding of the SRA document does. We've got a traffic report and experts from both sides that will be talking, which is going to be October 3rd. We have an environmental report that I know a lot of people are interested in, so that will take some time. Then we would get to our normal staff report. There is going to be a need for possibly a discussion on how the LDC and GMP relationships coincide with the SRA language. During that whole time, the CCPC will be asking questions, and I thought it would be wise that this board focus its questions on each segment to the best we can. I know things overlap, and that happens, so thaYs fine. But that way we don't have a dominant -- one person asking all their questions from 860 pages, which is the size of that document, and the next person doing the same thing. And by the time we get done, we've even stretched it out further. So I'd like us to each focus on each section of this report of the overall package as outlined here. We'll still wrap it up with public speakers, public comments, and then our questions of anything that comes out of the public comments, and then the applicant will have an opportunity for rebuttal, and then we would go into our discussion and vote. So, first of all, if you -all don't have an objection to this, then this is how I'd like to see us move forward. The most I expect to get through on the SRA today is Nos. I and 2. And the rest, after we have more time to digest this. When Mr. Bosi was here, I'd asked him to give us two weeks with this report, the staff report. We didn't have that. It was pushed through for some reason earlier than anticipated. Fine. We'll deal with it, but at least we'll have a little more time to digest the other elements of the report. And if we could go back to the other one, Ray. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think this is a good order of sequence. A question, though, about public comments. What about people who have come today; must they come again in two -- how are you going to handle that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we'll have enough time to get public speakers today. We've got to leave here at 4:00 today, and I want to get the presentation done. We shouldn't -- I mean, the public can speak after the presentation or SRA if they're not going to speak again, but I'd rather not get into public testimony on the SRA today. If someone has an absolute need to be here today, but they -- if they're going to show up at another meeting, there's no reason to get into the issues today without hearing the full package. And the public should give the benefit to the applicant to at least hear all the explanations before they want to Page 3 of 94 September 19, 2019 come in with their comments on this particular item, so I'd refrain from that if we can. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll -- Ray, on October 3rd -- we will be moving the rest of the Rivergrass to October 3rd on the first item up, because that's what we do with continued items. Now, the Hammock Park, the last numbers, three and four, I doubt if we'll get to. They'll more than likely go to October 17th. And if you notice on the bottom, they're the first two items up on October 17th. I don't think we're going to get to anything on October 17th, to be honest with you. If you look at October 3rd, No. 2 is the AUIR. That's time sensitive. Our budget is based on that. We have to have it done for the Board to review. So we're going to have to cut some time out of the Rivergrass process on October 3rd to deal with the AUIR, and most likely we might start the AUIR after lunch on October 3rd and see if we have time left over to finish up Rivergrass. I doubt we'll finish Rivergrass, which means -- Ray, if you could roll down to October 17th -- which means Rivergrass will be here again on October 17th. The two items that were continued from October 3rd would be next, and then you see there's nine items there. I do think that we'll probably hear -- Rivergrass will have a lot of discussions that we won't finish even, but we might finish on the 17th. I don't think we'll finish them on the 3rd. So as far as people trying to get to this board and then get to the BCC, especially with the holidays coming up, most of those items you see are going to be put off till the next meeting, which -- if you could roll to the next page, Ray. This is -- up on top is November 7th. You' 11 see the reason there's only three new items listed is because we're going to roll possibly eight of those previous nine items to this date. November 21st will have to be a cleanup date. Those three items from the previous one will be moved to November 21st as well as anything else we don't get. Plus, we have the LDC amendments that are due on November -- well, they weren't due November 21 st. I'm telling staff that will be the day you'll need to schedule them for. And then after that we move to December 5th. These are all tentative, but we have -- we're booked up -- we're starting to get booked up again on December 5th. So this board has -- I can assure you, for those of you that need to schedule, we will be here from 9:00 to 4:00 every single meeting from now until the end of the year. So just keep that in mind. I71 be asking you ahead of time each meeting if you're going to be absent, if you know if you're going to be absent or not for the next meeting, so we make sure we have quorums, especially over the holidays. And so with that, our next meeting, as you've seen on here, is October 3rd. Does anybody know if they can't make it on October 3rd? And that will be a full-day meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will miss October 3rd. I have overseas travel planned, and I depart that day for a week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll still have a quorum then. And that will be the day we'll get into a lot of issues, on October 3rd. Now, Joe, if we move and continue the SRA to October 17th -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know you're good, but could you watch the video so that you don't come having to ask questions on items we already went through, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do have a lot of questions on Rivergrass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're not here, I don't want to have us to go backtrack on if it's possible. And with that, if that's okay with the rest of you, that's what we're up against. So everybody on October 3rd can be here except for Joe? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. Which takes us to approval of the minutes. Ray, we have two items that were sent to us electronically. October -- I shouldn't say Ray, the panel, actually August 7th. Does anybody have any changes to the August 7th minutes? (No response.) Page 4 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONERFRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. August 15th, same request. Anybody have any changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMIISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. That takes us to BCC report and recaps. Ray, they had a short meeting their first one back, so I don't think there's any land -use items, are there? MIR. BELLOWS: Correct. That was the September 10th Board of County Commissioners, and there were no land -use petitions that went previously before the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. And that then takes us to our first public hearing, which is 9AL It's P1,20180003155, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development amendment. It's on Oil Well Road just on the northern part of Orangetree. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before you start that, though, I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I swear everybody in first? COMIIVIISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, go ahead. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can your question wait till after disclosure, or is it something -- COMMIISSIONER SCHMITT: It was on the -- I was waiting for you to ask if we had any questions and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought I did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sorry. Page 5 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get disclosures, then we'll get -- Tom, disclosures? MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONERFRY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just materials from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And me, I have spoke with the applicant's team. I can't even remember if I spoke to staff. Staff and I didn't have a formal meeting on this, although we may have bad a conversation or two, and I don't remember any other other than the documents that were sent to us. Karen? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe, what's the issue on what we just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The question, we go into Rivergrass, but then the AUIR. Typically in the past the AUIR's taken most of the day. Will it be -- you expect it will be much shorter this time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but we're going to have to deal with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, l -- the -- we've only got so many hours in the day -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you know. And we may finish it up on the 3rd. In the last one or two, actually, they were real -- they were rather short. They didn't take that long. So with that, we'll move right into the applicant's presentation. And, Jeff, it's all yours. MIL. WRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin law firm. I'm here on behalf of the applicant today. And with me today is our team: Jennifer Sapen, our planner from Barraco and Associates; Ted Treesh, our transportation consultant; and Carl Barraco, our engineer. The applicant is seeking to get an approval of an amendment to the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from the current maximum of 1,600 to allow 1,950 as the new maximum. And the purpose is to increase the flexibility of housing options within the PUD. As you can see here, the property's located -- it's about a mile and a half from the intersection of Oil Well Road and Immokalee, a mile and a half east, and it is a 616 -acre PUD. As I mentioned, 1,600 units are currently approved. That equates to 2.8 dwelling units per acre, and what we're seeking is 1,950, which would increase the dwelling units per acre by .6 to 3.4. We've reviewed the staff report, and we agree with their recommendation of approval and their analysis, we agree with their proposed conditions, and we are not requesting any deviations from the Land Development Code. As I mentioned, I have Jen Sapen with me here today, and she'll come up to the podium first to give the bulk of the testimony on planning considerations. And I don't intend to call Ted Treesh or Carl as witnesses. But if there are traffic or engineering questions, they are here to answer them. We're going to make our presentation today via PowerPoint. We've given copies to the County Attorney, staff, and the stenographer. We have extra copies if any commissioner would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, could you please send that to myself and copy the planner for -- electronically. I don't accept things written anymore. I need them electronic, if you don't mind. MR. WRIGHT: I'll do that right away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to present today, and I appreciate your patience. Page 6 of 94 September 19, 2019 At this time I'm ready to turn it over to Jen to make her presentation. Thank you. MS. SAPEN: Good morning. My name is Jennifer Sapen. I'm an AIC -- AICP certified land planner, and I work with Barraco and Associates. I'm going to start with going through some Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan elements, and then we'll kind of go back to that after I discuss the density increase a little bit further. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan has no density cap, and the uses in this area -- the allowable uses are residential, commercial, and community facility. In the rural settlement area, they propose a mix of uses to meet the needs of the surrounding area and to provide an increase in workforce housing. The rural settlement area is shown here, and it's comprised of two PUDs. The yellow is the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, which that's the subject property, and the remaining green is the Orangetree PUD. This area is appropriate for residential, and in this area adding of dwelling units is not prohibited or discouraged. This shows the updated master concept plan. There are very few changes to this. Unchanges are the uses. The types of residential uses and commercial uses are unchanged. The buffers are unchanged. Setbacks are unchanged. The access points are unchanged. The only change is to increase density. The site plan, therefore, is compatible with surrounding land uses as it's unchanged, and it is compliant with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did change one other thing on that page. MS. SAPEN: Oh, yes, thank you. And attached to the PowerPoint presentations -- and I've provided staff with a small change. Between -- yeah, right there. There wasn't a division line between the CO and the RG. And in the back of your PowerPoint presentation I've added an 11 -by -17 plan, and I've highlighted in green where we've made that change. It was a clarification just to keep the master concept plan consistent with what has already been approved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, this is the first time that I'm hearing this or seeing this, and we've taken the position that when you're changing commercial to residential, that's a rezoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just the -- that's what they're not doing by doing that line. I discovered the line wasn't there. And previously what would have happened, the CO could have theoretically been argued it continued all the way to the north along the south side of that -- along the west side of that road. And I pointed that out to the applicant the other day when they were in the office that that needed to be clarified because they were supposed to be consistent with the master plan, and that's what that line is doing is making it consistent with the original master plan. So it doesn't produce a change like you're concerned over. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I haven't checked that, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. See, this here, the RG was above the dark line, so that meant the CO would theoretically have gone all the way to the left, and that's not what the master plan currently shows. _ So I asked them to limit it to where the master plan did by extending the line down for the CO and showing that it's RG to the north, not CO, as the master plan indicated, so... But 1 just wanted to give you a heads -up. That's what this is for. It's not to change something. It's to make sure it isn't changed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SAPEN: This slide you've seen a little bit earlier zoomed in a little closer. These are the current conditions. Phases 1 and 2 are complete. They've been platted. You can see here in pink the platted lines, and you can see that they're on the south side and north side of Oil Well Road. You can also see the vacant undeveloped land where the future density will occur. Phase 1 was developed in 2007, and as you know the market was very different then. Phase 1 Page 7 of 94 September 19, 2019 equated to 2.8 units per acre on -- 381 units with 137 acres. These lots varied in sizes. They were all single-family. They varied between 50 -foot to 75 -foot. Move to Phase 2, which occurred in 2018, and the density has gone up quite a bit. The market conditions changed, and there was a need for more affordable housing. The density increased to 5.0 units per acre in this yellow area, which is 78 acres, and there's 393 platted lots on there. The density was increased by providing townhouse and single-family attached units and single-family lots of 50- to 60 -foot. It's a more affordable product, and variable different types of products to choose from. Phase 1, however, only had the single-family detached, so the density was much lower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- can you back that up again. This is the original plan. The CO on this plan is shown correctly, but look at the road. The road is up against the property line up against Waterways or one of the other projects there. Can you go back to the plan we talked about previously where we had made that correction to try to make it consistent that Heidi was -- it looks there like you've now moved the road further inland and put up against the property line residential units. Is that true? MS. SAPEN: No. The road goes up against the canal that's on the east side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Show back to that master plan, because something's not right. And this is kind of what Heidi was probably alluding to. That's the location of the road? If that's the location of the road, can you go back to the plan we started talking about where the County Attorney's Office jumped in? That's not the road there. That's not consistent. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the problem here is that I wasn't told about this, and the draft ordinance does not amend the master plan. Only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. That's what I was trying to avoid as well, Heidi. I think that's a good point. And it isn't until the subsequent documents on this area -- this was shown road alignment actually changed. So now you've got residences up against the canal where before you had a road. Now, some people living to the west may feel that having a road there is a better buffer than having someone's backyard in that location even though there's a canal. I don't think -- I don't think that's consistent with what we're supposed to be looking at today. MS. SAPEN: I would say that this master concept plan that you see here is kind of a graphic representation, and this master concept plan was created before a more detailed design was done on that road. So the rendering I showed is probably more accurate after more engineering has been done, but I would also note that the density increase request does not alter this road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. You don't alter a master plan without notifying everybody. Can you pull the master plan up for your current 70 -- 04-74? Because you'll find that the road is up against the boundary line. That's not it. The one that's in -- that's on record with Collier County. That's not it. That's not the old one. That's the one that's currently approved with Ordinance 04-74, and that road is up against the property -- the boundary line. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, could we take a quick break so we can go off-line on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll take a break for six minutes, and we'll come back at 9:30. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we resolved the issue. If you look at this master plan, there's a note towards the bottom of the master plan, and basically it said, this is not intended to change the area designation C/O in the prior master plan approved in 2004 in Ordinance 04-74. It doesn't say the 2016 ordinance. It says 04-74. 04-74 is what started my review of the C/O and that's not -- wasn't limited to that added line on this that we now see this page. That's how we got here. And 04-74 doesn't have the road set in from the property line -- from the boundary line either. So we're not changing the master plan. The master plan that's in the staff report is not one that's going to be attached to any amendment that may come out of this discussion today, because it's still stuck with the 04-74 master plan. Page 8 of 94 September 19, 2019 Are we all in agreement on that? MS. SAPEN: No, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SAPEN: You're bringing up a good point, then. This note should not have said 2004. It should have said the 2016 plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that -- MS. SAPEN: And that plan is unchanged. It's the most current master concept plan, and there's no change proposed to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the 2016 plan is different than the -- okay. Well, we've got to pull that one up then. That's now how this was reviewed, because I looked at this note, and it said 04-74. When you put something on a plan and that's what you intend to use, that's what I expect to be the use. Now, the '16 plan does show the road moved to the -- away from it as this one does. It doesn't show the C/O limited as it is now in this one. So now I'm at a loss. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I could just clarify. The amendment today is only to add units. That's the only amendment. What you're looking at is a backup master plan which I think they probably pulled from the 2016 ordinance, but that is just backup supplemental material. We are not touching the master plan with this amendment. We can revisit it to see in there's a scrivener's error in the prior amendments, but I don't think the issue's before you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I have of a concern is according to the way our PUDs are structured, anything presented at the hearing is considered part of the ordinance, and this is attached to the back of -- it follows the whole discussion of the changes going onto this plan. We'll make a stipulation; the plan isn't changing from what was approved in 2016, although 2016 is changed from the 04-74 plan. MS. SAPEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we understood that to be the case in 2016. I don't think you came in -- you were looking for an excavation issue in 2016. MS. SAPEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure now we have a plan in 2016 that was properly introduced and reviewed in relationship to the original plan of 07-74. Something -- we'll have to go back and look at the record to figure that out, because if you change that plan but came here looking for a change in excavation provisions without identifying the master plan has the change, I'm not sure what we've got it in 2016 to deal with. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the issue in 2016 was they were changing boundary lines that were affecting people that weren't part of the PUD. So it was a sort of a safe -- safe -capture provision so that it wouldn't affect anybody who's already developed. But we can revisit that issue and see if there's a problem with the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like to check, because if we didn't advertise for a master plan change in 2016 that obviously changed the C/O area and the RG area and that road movement, then we need to find that out, and it wasn't noticeable until this one's back in, so... Okay. With that we will -- let's move on then. MS. SAPEN: Okay. So as a reminder, we're here today to talk about a density increase of 350 units. Phases 1 and 2 are complete and platted. Phase 1 was developed with larger lots before the economic crash. Phase 2 came in with a much higher density because it provided variable type of units. We have townhouses, single-family attached, and smaller single-family detached providing a more affordable product out here. When you look at the future phases, the density of the future phases, if you project out -- shown here it's just a conceptual plan of how it may develop out. But this is what the plan would look like if you developed the additional 350 units. And you'll notice the density in the future phases is 5.1 units per acre. Phase 2, what's being developed right now is Page 9 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 5.0 units an acre. So what we are asking for is a continuation of the development program that we've had in Phase 2. It's been successful. When you look at Phase 1 on the south side of Oil Well Road in gray here, there's some 75 -foot lots and 70 -foot lots. Those are still having a hard time being absorbed. There's still lots for sale. But the smaller lots are doing very well. So when you look at that, the future density all in orange is comparable to the Phase 2, and the approval allows for the continuation of the development pattern. I would also bring you back to some of the Comprehensive Plan, our Growth Management elements that we spoke of earlier. In the rural settlement area there's no density cap, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Goal 4 asks for a mix of residential units and to meet the needs of the surrounding area. Policy 4.0.1 asks for an increase in workforce housing. It is my opinion that continuing the development pattern in Phase 2 into the future phases and an increased density will be compliant with these goals. A quick look at the park plan, just so you can see it. We do have an internal access road to the park; that commercial road shown here. It is going through the permitting process right now with the county. So, in conclusion, the proposed density increase creates additional workforce housing in more diverse housing types. Staff does recommend approval, and we agree with their findings. The increased density is compatible with the surrounding density, and there are no adverse impacts from the approval of this request. That is the completion of my portion of the program. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start -- Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Every drawing you showed, except this one where we -- that the RG in discussion, you show no units on the west side of that road. So, yeah, see there, there's no units on the west side of the road in every other one you show. So I don't know if the road is still an issue. Apparently not, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's an issue, because we have two contradicting master plans. I just reviewed the legal notice for the prior 2016, and it didn't talk about expanding the CO area -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or the modification of this road. So at some point we're going to have to go back now and look at that 2016 documentation to see how -- where it's supposed to be, because there's an error somewhere. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, this seems to comply with the'04 ordinance, the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one does, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As you're showing right now. MS. SAPEN: Since 2016, we've gone into more engineering design. What you see here in white, that is a platted road now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. SAPEN: So that is where the road will be. 'There won't any units between the road and the canal. You know, further north there will be some units along the canal. But this is platted. This is current conditions of that road right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in looking at the plat, staff didn't question the parameters in regards to the compliance with the master plan. MS. SAPEN: I have it on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's interesting too. COMMISSIONER SCHMlTT: I'm sorry to beat this horse to death. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're saying that now they're going to have to correct that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't correct the master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 2016. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They can't correct the master plan now, and they've already got this approved by plat, so it looks like that's what they're going forward with. Page 10 of 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is consistent, then, with 04-74. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, that is correct. Those are reviewed at time of platting and, you know, maybe the determination was a conceptual master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to clarify, the road goes along the canal. MS. SAPEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, just so the staff knows, when you -- when the words "conceptual master plan" go on a master plan for a PUD approval, we're expecting, especially the elements that affect people adjacent or abutting to the property, to have at least the protection shown on that master plan. And, you know, I would have suspected the change from residential to road or road to residential on the perimeter boundary should have been something not considered conceptual, because it would have been more viable than that. MR. BELLOWS: I understand what you're saying, but some of the internal roads are never showed on a PUD master plan, so we would have to look at that in more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Who else has questions? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My first question has to do with the -- what's called the working master plan. And I see hash marks on that indicate that there's going to be a golf course on both sides of Oil Well. The golf course will continue from one side to the other; is that correct? MS. SAPEN: The hatching on that was where the -- we went through a process through the Hearing Examiner's Office to remove excess spoil material, and that was where that material was to be removed. So that hatched pattern occurred during the 2016 amendment. No golf course. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No golf course at all? MS. SAPEN: No golf course. All residential. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. There are several references in this material to the settlement area, the concept that there was a settlement and a dispute of some kind leading to a settlement agreement. And the references include such things as to indicate that there was no density specified at that time. And maybe this is a question more for staff. But shouldn't that -- the settlement agreement have been included in this material? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll raise that again when we get to staff. Then -- let's see. The traffic -- and I have a few questions. Do you want to have your traffic person sworn in? MS. SAPEN: Not me. Ted Treesh, please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe he already was sworn in. Were you? MR. TREESH: Yes, I was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So there's a trip cap here that has been calculated to, what, 2,149 -- or 2,419, excuse me. MR. TREESH: 2,149 is the number. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Really? 2,149 or 2,419? MR. WRIGHT: There is, I think, a typographical error on Page 6 of the staff report. That might be where you're finding the 2,419. That's the only place that that appears. All the calculations are based on 2,149. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was going to be my first question. MR. TREESH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 2,149. MR. TREESH: That is correct. COMMIS SIONER FRYER: Now, the trip cap, can you -- there are 313 dwelling units now on the property. Can you tell me how much traffic is produced by the dwelling units that are currently there? Page 11 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. TREESH: We did not do any existing counts at the driveways. We just simply projected the trips from the new intensity that's being requested. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you describe briefly the process of that projection. MR. TREESH: We utilize methods that are acceptable to the county required by your staff in terms of the ITE trip generation equations for -- in this case it would be single-family homes, and then we utilize that -- those methodologies to generate the trips. We generate them during the a.m., p.m., and daily periods, and then we assign those trips to the roadway network and then evaluate it based on the AUIR report as well as the projected buildout. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So you base it on the ITE, 10th edition, I guess? MR. TREESH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You didn't do any actual counting, though. MR. TREESH: No.. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. There's also -- I think I'm finished with the traffic. MR. TREESH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much. The studies that were done, apparently -- well, as a result of the analysis that was done to create a need for the greater density, you mentioned that this is market-based pricing, correct? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Yet there are several references to affordability as well. Would you -- could you describe, since those -- since there are references to affordability and workforce housing, could you describe what relationship your anticipated prices -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is -- this is market -rate housing. This developer, as every other developer I've ever seen, when they refer to -- for some reason when they refer to market -rate housing, they refer to it as affordable housing. Why, I don't know. All right. They could sell this to anybody. They don't have to sell it to workforce. They can sell it to retired people. Whatever they put in and whatever they sell it at is whatever they're going to put -- they're going to sell it. There's going to be no stipulation in the ordinance as to price or anything else, and I really do think the developer's giving us a red herring when they're talking about affordable housing or workforce housing or this or that when the reality is they're going to build it to the market, whatever that market might be at the time that they build. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's a fair statement of how you're going about this, correct? MS. SAPEN: It is a fair statement that there is no additional provisions on -- it is market rate. However, what I was wanting to point out is the earlier design that was put in in 2007 with 75 -foot -wide lots, the new design with increased density gives the opportunity to provide different types of housing that are more affordable. A 20 -foot -wide townhouse is going to be much more affordable than a 75 -foot detached single-family lot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But you'll price it to the market, whatever the market is. MS. SAPEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then the number of dwelling units per acre in the surrounding areas ranges from a half of a dwelling unit per acre, .5, to 2.25 dwelling units per acre, and you're asking for 3.4 1, and you're also indicating in some parts of this, the geographical area, that the canal alone would serve as a buffer, that there would be no other buffering. MS. SAPEN: The buffers are unchanged by this request. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you consider additional buffering if it was requested? MS. SAPEN: I would question where -- which portions of the project would you be looking for a buffer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, there are references to canal -only buffering, and I don't have that page in front of me now, but I'll probably come to it as we go forward, and why don't I bring it up when I do. Then on Page 130 of the material it says that -- as requested in the pre -application notes, SIC Page 12 of 94 September 19, 2019 codes were 1521 and 1522 and, actually, 1521 is the SIC code for structures that house general contractors that build single-family houses rather than single-family houses themselves, and the same thing is true in the case of 1522. That SIC code refers to general contractor's habitations rather than single-family that are occupied by individuals as opposed to general contractors. So somehow we've got to get the correct SIC codes in. MS. SAPEN: My apologies for that. There is no change to -- for that area. It's intended to be the same type of residential that is already approved for the dwelling -- or for this project, so there's no change to that. But we can look into that. My apologies. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And with apologies to the traffic engineer, I see that I do have at least one more question, if you don't mind. There's -- one of the calculations that's made when you have a development of this sort is potential for internal capture, which you reference in your materials. My question to you is, is that -- did you factor in the presence of Oil Well Road in the middle of this development and to what degree, if any, it would affect the internal capture numbers that you're relying on? MR. TREESH: Yes, we did. But if you look at the site plan, the units that are on the south side can access the commercial by directly crossing straight across Oil Well. There may be a few that might come out here at this western access that might then have to come down here to turn left into the project. So it would only be on that short -- very short segment. But it would be a very minimal amount of trips since there's very -- there's fewer units on that southern parcel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. And the -- I'm pretty sure this is the last question for the traffic engineer. You make assumptions or estimates as to the allocation of traffic as it approaches intersections, whether it goes straight, turns, et cetera, and assign certain percentages of the overall number of trips to, let's say, going straight at an intersection versus turning. MR. TREESH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How do you arrive at those conclusions? MR. TREESH: It's very -- its not a very technical analysis, but it's more looking at the data that we've collected over the years, looking at traffic data that the county collects over the years in terms of the traffic patterns in the area. You know, eastbound traffic, westbound traffic, in the morning, in the evening. Where -- this is a residential where primarily the residential trips are going to be destined for work destinations during those peak hours, so where -- our large centers of employment. The two schools that are immediately to our west play into trip distribution, you know, other facilities, the new Publix shopping center that's down at Randall. We look at all those uses in the area in help formulating our distribution of traffic, and then we also submit that to the staff as part of our methodology for them to take a look at as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So, again, when you make these allocations, you do raise some questions and potential conflicts with the AUIR, and we're in the last month of the 2018, I guess, or at least -- I don't know what the 2019 numbers are, but lets just take, for example, the -- you've got your 2,149 peak p.m. trips, and you've allocated 35 percent of that traffic going south on Collier from Immokalee. And that's around 750 new peak p.m. trips, and the AUIR for that segment of Collier Boulevard shows a capacity of 77 -- remaining capacity of 773. So if your numbers are correct, you're going to almost completely exhaust that. And based upon, you know, what's happened in previous years is AUIl2s have come out, these numbers always change to show more traffic and sooner deficiency. MR. TREESH: Can you follow up that number again? You calculate -- I see the 30 percent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thirty-five percent of the traffic. MR. TREESH: Thirty-five percent on Collier. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. TREESH: And then you said what number? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, 35 percent of 2,149. MR. TREESH: No. That's the daily trips. We use the peak -hour trips. So it's not -- it would -- and it's the peak hour/peak direction trips. So if you look in the table, you would multiple that Page 13 of 94 September 19, 2019 35 percent by 191 trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. TREESH: So it's peak hour. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My mistake. MR. TREESH: So it's much, much less. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much. My mistake. And that's all I have -- MR. TREESH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: --for anyone. MR. TREESH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. I'm not sure who should consider this. Maybe Jeff or Jennifer, but you do bring up workforce affordability. You bring up that Phase 2 has been more successful with more diverse array of option for buyers. So can you give us a summary of what is the breakdown of the types of units in Phase 2 and the price ranges of those? MR. WRIGHT: I'll turn it over to Jen for that one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. SAPEN: And I don't know the price ranges on them. This slide here kind of shows you a little bit the locations. You can see near the community facility in the northwest corner, those are the townhomes. And then just north of the commercial there's a little bit smaller -looking lots. Those are the single-family attached, fee simple, 35 feet wide, and the remainder of the lots are 50 -foot and 60 -foot lots. You can see comparison on south side of Oil Well Road where there's several vacant lots on the east side. You know, that those have been vacant now for 12 years. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. What is the status of the commercial? It looks vacant. As of now, what's -- where does that stand and what is planned there? Is there any vision for that commercial -- what will be going in there? MS. SAPEN: There's a list of commercial uses, and those are unchanged. It's really just waiting for the market to catch up. And, you know, I would say that these rooftops will move that project along the commercial portion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the staff report we talk about the surrounding densities: Orangetree is at 1.36 development units per acre. The Orange Blossom Ranch was -- as it currently is today, is 2.8. That's almost double what Orangetree is as an adjoining property. What you're asking to go to is two -and -a -half times because you're going to bump up to 3.4. So the fact that you're -- I don't know if you used the word "consistent" or however you phrased it -- with the density in the area doesn't seem to be comparable when we talk about the lower densities that Orangetree's built out at or it's built at, approved at. MS. SAPEN: This slide shows the Phase 2 that's been platted. So this is existing right now. If it is -- it is compatible in that it is ongoing and existing. It's a thriving development. If you look to the north, there's no density up there now. There's no existing. The people most affected by this density increase are the people within Orange Blossom, and they've been experiencing this for years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you didn't address my point. You had previously said the density being requested is consistent with the rest of the area. That's not true. Orangetree is 1.36, and the Estates is .44. You're asking to go from 2.8 to 3.4. It's two to two -and -a -half times more than the density in any other -- the rest of the area. That's all I was trying to point out. MS. SAPEN: I understand the question now. The consistency would be the vacant areas here will be developed consistent with the current ongoing what's under construction and what's platted now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have built, I think I heard someone say, 313 units. That leaves you 1,300 more units to go, and you can't fit those in your development as previously designed because Page 14 of 94 September 19, 2019 you started a program that required more density and you knowingly went forward with that without the density in place, and now you're asking for it. Is that kind of what's happening? MS. SAPEN: Phase 2 was a learning process where we learned what the market was looking for. Now that we have learned that, yes, we're coming in to continue that pattern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The balance that is to be built is about 1,300, I think, if I heard correctly. How do you know you're going to need exactly 350 more to finish out the project? MS. SAPEN: We've done some preliminary site planning. You saw a couple of -- or you saw the one site plan there. That one shown got to 900 -- 1,950 units, so that's what we requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your absorption rate? MS. SAPEN: Right now around 200 units a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 1,300, you've got six more years just in what -- the density you currently have. MS. SAPEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if we don't hit a recession or anything or we have a boom market, which we don't expect, but if we do and we keep going like we are, your -- best you're going to expect is six more years with the current density. So that could change a lot as the future unfolds. You might be premature in knowing -- thinking you need the density is my only comment on that, especially with the -- with our road systems not really up to par out in that neck of the woods, the unknowns with the vested communities that are going into the east to the extent they're vested, the possibility -- not a possibility. The application currently in for a duplication of Orangetree immediately to the north where we're going to have -- where the mine is, they're looking at thousands of units there. And I'm not sure why there's a benefit to then awarding this density early on. I understand your planning needs, but you changed your planning needs years ago based on the way this plan's unfolded. I'm concerned about that. I don't know if your transportation people -- in fact, from what I can tell, I don't think they did -- took in the fact there's a vested zoning area to the west -- to the east of you called Rural Lands Stewardship Area. They're vested for zoning, and they're coming in actively pursuing villages right now. There's three, four of them right in your neck of the woods, and then you've got the new one in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District north of Orangetree in process right now. So we're talking about adding a lot of density to the road system. Those are going to be adding density to the road system before the road system probably is up to snuff as we would like to see it. You're putting 80 percent of your traffic going west on Immokalee Road to an intersection that we just had troubles with in discussion the last PUD that came through. I don't know -- right now it's hard to understand why this density is necessary to be discussed even at this time. And I also noticed in the staff report on the top of Page 8 -- and I don't know if it's -- I don't think you put this here. It must have been the staff. Under developer commitments, the PUD monitoring, thafs usually something that's done -- James, is that -- that's usually in the PUD, so I don't know why it ended up there. But did they not have that in their prior PUD? MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo. The transportation section for the staff report put that in as part of their recommendation and stipulation, and it's part of my recommendation at the end of the staff report document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it needs to be there. I just thought it was odd coming in the transportation part, so... And in the other utilities review, it says, cursory engineering analysis must be confirmed at the time of development permit, SDP, or PPL. That's in our administrative code under the requirements for the master plan and the processing of the PUD. The completed statement of utility provisions is required. A plan for the revisions of all needed utilities to serve the PUD including, as appropriate, water supply, sanitary sewer collection, treatment system, stormwater collection, and management system pursuant to -- and to related county regulations Page 15 of 94 September 19, 2019 and ordinances, and developer commitments for all infrastructure and related matters. How does a cursory review fit that requirement? MS. SAPEN: I will let -- I'll bring up Carl Barraco, our professional engineer. MR. BARRACO: Good morning. For the record, Carl Barraco. I'm a professional engineer. We could -- I could title my report in any way that it needs. That is the way I wanted to describe the report only because it's not based upon final construction plans so that when we hit final construction plans, I would take the exact report and, if I needed to, make some tweaks, but at that point it would be a final report. Until that time I chose the word "cursory." I could have chosen any other words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem I have is if it's cursory, and it's not definitive enough, we've findings that were presented on the basis of having the utilities in place on a cursory engineering analysis. I've never come across that before. MR. BARRACO: Again, I could have used one of many words. That's the word I chose. But I will tell you that the report and the information in the report is of a quality such that it would be -- it could be turned into a final report with construction plans with very little change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll have to ask staff when we get to them how they perceive that then. Thank you. MR. BARRACO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking through the rest of my questions for the applicant. And I'll be there and hopefully be able to scroll through these in just a minute, Jeff. The -- well, that's a staff question. I'll wait till I get to staff. Anybody else on the Planning Commission have anything else while I'm looking at mine? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I do actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: At the NIM there was a reference to one point of ingress and egress, and a concern was expressed by the neighbors that in the event of an emergency evacuation there would be a bottleneck that could threaten lives. And it's right now with the 313 units. And if you've got 950 dwelling -- 1,950 coming in, it's going to be really a serious challenge, if not worse. How are you addressing the issues of ingress and egress? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I would have to defer to Ted on the transportation question. I don't believe that these are designed for the worst-case storm event, and I think that they are subject to a different standard than that. But I'll defer to Ted for the technical aspects of it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that's fine. If the -- we hear the technical aspects, that will be informative, but the practical aspects remain, at least of concern to me. MR. TREESH: The only comment I would offer is that at buildout there will be additional access through the commercial to Oil Well Road, as well as the future connection to the west to the community facilities. So at buildout there will be more than one access to Oil Well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had just a couple other questions. In the 04-74 PUD document, under project description it talks about 1,600 units which I know you're trying to change to 1,950, but it says recreational facilities may be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Now, that was at 1,600. What are you planning to do for recreational facilities with this new density? Are there any now? Are they functioning? Can they handle another 350 units? MS. SAPEN: There is an amenity facility on the north side right here. When Phase 2 was built, we expanded, added on a second pool, added on a second parking lot. There is a new amenity facility that will be going on the south side of Oil Well Road here, and also keep in mind that there is a community facility that's part of this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you have -- you are -- you are installing the recreational facilities. That's what I wanted to make sure of. MS. SAPEN: Yes. Page 16 of 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: What is meant by "community facility"? I believe you described that area as being townhomes. MS. SAPEN: No. This is -- yeah, this large park that the county's putting in Phase 2, which we'll have direct vehicular and pedestrian access to, that connects on up into the Phase 1 park and then further up into the fairgrounds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When's that due to be completed; do we know? MS. SAPEN: Phase 2, no. Phase 1, I know I went to a charette and saw that that's pretty far along, but Phase 21 think is still in design stages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your question, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the comments in the existing PUD indicate that the MPUD will be served by Collier County Water/Sewer District in 2012. Did that happen? MR. BARRACO: If I understand the question correctly, I think what -- you're talking about the old Orangetree utilities system. That has been purchased and is owned and operated by Collier County Utilities so, yes, that would happen. That has happened. And I would also mention that Collier County Utilities has issued a letter of availability for water and sewer for all 1,950 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just checking the date. That's what I was trying to understand. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. And with that, unless anybody else -- Tom? MR. EASTMAN: With respect to the drawing that's on the overhead now, is it possible that people could access this residential development from Immokalee Road by making their way through the fairgrounds, through the park, and eventually to the community? MR. VAUGHT: Is this (indicating) the route that you're referring to, Mr. Eastman? Immokalee, I think it's 38. MR. EASTMAN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: I think it would be, but I don't know that that's the main route. But in looking at the aerial and the plans, it looks as if that would all be interconnected. So the answer to your question would be yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Having no other questions from the panel, is there a staff report? MR. SABO: Yes. For the record, James Sabo, certified planner with the county. The recommendation from staff is approval of the petition, 3155 Orange Blossom Ranch, with the stipulations listed -- I add one here -- that transportation stipulation for PUD monitoring, the transportation stipulation for maximum daily trip count, the stipulation that the master plan presented is not included as part of this proposal based on those earlier discussions. Also, that the change from 2.8 dwelling units to 3.4 dwelling units is within the standard of four dwelling units per acre for the county, we would recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there questions of staff from any -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, the settlement agreement that's referenced -- maybe this is more for the County Attorney. But was this in relation to a Bert Harris type of lawsuit? MR. WEEKS: I can handle that. I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. It was not. It well precedes the Bert Harris Act. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But was it a Bert Harris claim; in other words, vested rights? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: If I can give a real quick history. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please do, yeah. MR. WEEKS: This area -- this whole rural settlement area, roughly four square miles, was originally platted as North Golden Gate. More or less taking Golden Gate City and locating it here. And in 1982, the county severely down -zoned the property, and the owner filed suit, and that was settled in '85P86 time frame. And as is stated, I think, in the staff report and in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Page 17 of 94 September 19, 2019 the property was determined to be vested for 2,100 dwelling units, 35 acres of commercial, hotel use, and some other uses. The staff view of the settlement agreement is that it is a historical document. The settlement occurred, the lawsuit is done, and then now the property can have its zoning or future land use designation changed over time and, in fact, that has occurred. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The reason I -- the reason I inquired about it is because there are multiple references to it in the materials, including a reference that states there is an absence of density specifications in there, and it would have been nice to just have been able to vet that and look at it. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the only other comment I have is in the nature of a compliment for James, because as facilitator of the NIM, he appropriately asked and reminded people that they needed to state their names, and that was good work. Thank you. I think that's -- MR. SABO: Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is an obligation not only of the county representative who's there, the facilitator, but also the developer and their agents. And so I appreciate that you did that. MR. SABO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just one for David. I hate to make you exercise, but -- sure, I waited till he sat down. North Golden Gate was originally supposed to look just like Golden Gate City, right? MR. WEEKS: More or less. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I remember the old drawings had, you know, similar setup; was supposed to have the same density, which is quarter -acre lots throughout. Do you know about how many lots there are in Golden Gate City? MR. WEEKS: I do not. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Four square miles, 640 acres to the square mile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-four thousand. About 12,000 built out and about 12,000 to go, a total of 30,000 people currently and possibly 60,000 total. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not Golden Gate Estates. Golden Gate City. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Golden Gate Estates, yeah. Golden Gate City's about 24,000 right now. Bodies. I don't know how many lots. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The city? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: I would mention specifically Golden Gate City, in addition to a large number of single-family lots, you have quite a bit multifamily zoning as well. So as far as density goes, it would be more than just looking at the single-family. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This area, Orange Blossom, compared to what it would have been had it been Golden Gate City, is it more zoning or less zoning? MR. WEEKS: I would think that Orange Blossom Ranch and Orangetree PVDs, that together comprise the four square miles, even with this amendment, would be quite a bit less than the original plat. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the road system in the urban area of Golden Gate City be more apt to handle density than the road system that we're -- that's not developed out east based on the vested zoning that's in the area? MR. WEEKS: I'll defer that to transportation staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I see your point. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a difference between an urban community of Golden Gate City, and even though this is an urbanized area, it's still in the rural area, so... Anybody else have any questions of staff? Page 18 of 94 September 19, 2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. On the fust findings under the PUD, you talk about that there's adequate treatment capacity available to future development as proposed by this position -- by this petition. I'd like to suggest that if they call anything cursory in the future we do more to make sure it's more definitive than a cursory review. It's kind of like "concept." Every time you hear those words, it's not really real. It could have changes to it. And I'd rather we tighten it up. So that was my only comment on that particular finding. And that is a theme that there's several of the findings that relate to infrastructure. And if it's -- if the infrastructure analysis is not definitive, I would suggest staff be careful how they write the findings when it comes to that. There's also, under No. 7 of the rezone findings whether the proposed change will have excessive or created excessive traffic congestion, and it does talk about that they believe the capacity is there at this time, basically. But, again, I don't know if traffic -- yeah, Transportation Planning took into consideration that the RLSA is a vested zoning district and that we have a series of villages under review right now along with the village north of this one and along with -- well, the Hyde Park is one of the villages that's part of the RLSA. All those capacities together are going to put a strain on the system out there, and I'm not sure if -- from what I can tell, traffic didn't review it that way. And there may have been good reason not to. Mike, do you have a comment on that, if you don't mind? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. When we -- when we look at projects such as this where they're coming in with additional units, we look at those impacts and we compare them to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Those impacts" meaning the impacts of just those units? MR. SAWYER: No. We honestly are looking at --you're correct. We're looking at the additional units being proposed. They've already gotten approved for what they currently have. Those are already anticipated to a degree. Their -- you know, their current development is already putting traffic on there, which we are accounting for in our traffic counts. As far as growth rates, the AUIR does look at a five-year window, and each year we grow that traffic 2 percent. We look at either the 2 percent natural growth that we normally see within the county, or we look at any particular links that have additional above 2 percent ratings, and then those are the numbers that we use projected out in the AUIR. That's what we compare as far as looking at the remaining capacities that we have on any particular link. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, does checkbook concurrency occur in Collier County? Do we still have that philosophy or not? MR. SAWYER: Chairman, I would certainly -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. MR. SAWYER: -- give -- I would need to tarn that over to my boss, Trinity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was my understanding when you get into checkbook concurrency, when something's got its entitlement, it gets -- in the checkbook. It's in the bank account, and you kind of keep monitoring it against the total amount in the bank account. The entire RLSA is a vested zoning district. We finished that argument in the arbitration hearing. If that's the case, how are we looking at that when we look at the adjacent properties who are asking for increases above what they currently have after the RLSA, obviously, was in place in regards to all this amount? How is that being handled? And maybe, Trinity, you can explain it. MS. SCOTT: For the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You probably can't. MS. SCOTT: -- for the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. Page 19 of 94 September 19, 2019 The RLSA villages and/or towns are not included within our concurrency management system. They -- projects do not get into that system until they come in for a plat or a Site Development Plan, and it is analyzed at that time. So those trips are not banked, if you will. There are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has it always been that way for checkbook concurrency? Because -- MS. SCOTT: There are some projects that had vested rights determinations done when we did -- when we actually implemented checkbook concurrency where those are on the books. Those are the very large DRIB, Fiddler's Creek, Lely -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's only for those with a VRD that you put into checkbook concurrency, and that -- MR. KLATZKOW: Checkbook concurrency is an historical method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't exist anymore. Once upon a time when Collier County had its main roads, which were two lanes like Collier Boulevard and Immokalee and everything else, we knew we were going to six -lane them. And so what a checkbook concurrency did for us is we said, okay, you can't grow here because -- well, we've got to six -lane this road first before we can handle your particular density. And that's when it worked because we had these projects coming online within two years, three years. We can hold people back. We could just put limitations on COs that were issued, and it was fine. We've six-laned everything so that the entire purpose underlying checkbook concurrency, which was a wonderful program, and it worked real well for us, is gone. And with the underlying base of it gone, the whole system falls apart. It's just gone now. You can't tell a developer you can't develop. Why? Because our roads can't handle it. Okay. Well, what are you going to do about it? We don't know yet. You've got to have some plan to get it out. The checkbook concurrency allowed us to get us out. All right. Developers would pay impact fees up front that helped six -lane all the roads, and for 10 years we were able to develop this way with basically the impact fees paying a large percentage of the transportation costs, but those days are gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they went because during the recession we wanted to make Collier County more business friendly by allowing the impact fees to be paid after the projects were underway instead of before. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it was gone by then because we had six-laned everything. It's -- what the recession did was it opened up the -- we got to increase density now business because, you know, my God, everybody's out of work. What are we going to do? So we went from a, you know, let's draw a line on density to, like, whatever development comes in, thank God because we've got people out of work. That's what the recession did to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my concern is that we know -- there's an elephant in the room called the RLSA and the RFMUD that are becoming active. Well, you know, Trinity, we've got, what, five or six new villages besides Ave Maria processing in some manner or form. I'm real concerned that we're kind of closing our eyes to all of that and saying these increases in density near by are okay. MR. KLATZKOW: No. We're not -- Trinity's working real hard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying she isn't. MR. KLATZKOW: Everybody's working real hard to try to put together some sort of grid system. What I'm telling you is you can't tell these people who have vested development rights you can't develop now because, well, we don't know where to put the traffic. That's on us. We knew the RLSA was coming a very long time ago, and we had a long time to put this transportation network in, and we did not do so. So we cannot now turn around and tell developers, sorry, you can't develop because we can't handle traffic here. That's on us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you in -- telling me, then, by the use of the word "vested" that these 350 units are vested for this property? MR. KLATZKOW: This unit? No, they're not vested here. This is very different. This is a Page 20 of 94 September 19, 2019 developer who comes in who -- initially they come in and say, okay, we want density of X per units. Say, fine. Then they come in and say, well, we want X plus Y density. Fine. Then they come in and say, you know what, we need X plus Y plus Z density. And so you get to yourself -- wait a second, if you had originally asked for X plus Y plus Z, you never would have gotten approval in the first place. That's what's going on here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Trinity. Jeff did a good job of helping you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been retired a long time, and my memory's a little fuzzy, but I thought checkbook concurrency was tied to certificates of public facility adequacy which covered all utilities -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- roads, water, sewer. MR. KLATZKOW: What we would tell you -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do we still do that? MR. KLATZKOW: No, because what we would tell you is that, okay, we've got a road that -- we've got a six -lane road project coming down. It's already bid out, okay. You pay us for your impact fees up front. We'll give you this little certificate that says you can develop ahead of time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why are you laughing? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you know, it was -- at the end of the day, the county was using impact fees as heroin. I mean, we were addicted to them. That's how we expanded our utilities, both road and the water utilities and the sewer utilities. Because as we six-laned everything, we threw the pipes in at the same time, and we used checkbook concurrency to pay for it. Growth paid for growth at that point in time, but they prepaid their impact fees. Now impact fees are pretty much due on CO. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But back then we needed the money up front. So that's what we did, and it worked well for both the development community and Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it a fair statement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom was next. He indicated he wanted to speak. Go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Excuse me. Trinity, can you confirm that, in fact, this transportation link out to Immokalee Road is something that the county's planning as they make their way through the park and past the fairgrounds that, you know, we won't have a dead-end sort of situation there where you'll have the through traffic? MS. SCOTT: It's my understanding that it may be gated for the park property. That was the latest information I have. I can check with parks to get final information with regard to that, but that was my understanding, that it may be gated due to the park, dawn to dusk, you know, or dusk to dawn, sorry. But I will double-check that. MR. EASTMAN: But for sure the pavement will allow the connection? MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. The pavement will allow for that connection. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The concept of checkbook concurrency covers all parts of infrastructure, not just roadways, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but the big constraint has always been the roads. That's always been the constraint. You could fix -- you could fix everything else, but once you get development in, it's just hard to put roads in. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it a fair statement that the trip bank is still alive and functioning? MS. SCOTT: Yes, and we utilize that for short-range planning. We look at what has come in for site development plan, what has been approved for site development plans and plats, because those are the trips that would be theoretically coming online sooner, so we utilize that along with growth rates that you Page 21 of 94 September 19, 2019 see in the Annual Update and Inventory Report when we're projecting out when we think that a roadway may reach capacity, and that allows us, from a planning perspective, to try to get planning studies done in advance, do design, right-of-way acquisition to be able to have roadway improvements or parallel facilities in place. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to the staff report on the rezone findings, No. 11. The last, and -- by the way, I offer my apologies to staff. We normally have a pre-CCPC meeting, and this kind of stuff is talked about at that time so I don't need to waste public meeting time on it, but we didn't have time this week. It's been too busy. So we'll have to walk through some of these. Number 11, the last sentence says, the addition of dwelling units in the Orange Blossom Ranch site is not likely to deter development activity of surrounding properties. That really isn't a factual statement. Do we need to have statements like that -- those kind of statements in there that -- it really isn't substantiated? MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo. I mean, that's my professional opinion that its not likely to deter the development. So I can leave my professional opinion out if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather see just factual -based responses. The first sentence would have been fine. MR. SABO: Sure, I can do that. CHAIItMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the -- that happens a couple other times. And that -- let me get to the next one. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SABO: Some of these rezone findings -- I understand they're findings, I get it, but they are based on subjective sort of criteria. So, I mean, that's why I put my professional opinion in there. They're subjective standards, so I use that in my professional opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SABO: Take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather not have to disagree with your professional opinion, and then we get into that kind of contest. So if we could just stick to more factual items, I'll skip and go past all that, and the next time we have a chance to meet, we'll go over it more definitively. I'm going -- I don't think there's -- let's see. I don't think I've got anything else of staff at this point, so that's fine. We'll move on to public -- any public comments. Ray, do we have any public -- registered speakers? MR. SABO: Yes. Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be first. And if you're not registered and you'd still like to speak, we'll offer after the registered speakers finish. Go ahead. MR. SABO: The first two, Chris Bowman and Joy Bowers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please come up to one of the microphones and identify yourself for the record. You get to talk one at a time, though. MS. BOWERS: Hi. I'm Joy Bowers, and I live in Orange Blossom Ranch. I am part of the Fairmont Association and the master association. I am also in charge of our Safety and Community Watch Committee meetings. I am very concerned with the addition of houses. A couple years ago. we had a major fire come through that area. It was like, do we have to evacuate? Don't we have to evacuate? Thank heavens it never came to us. If that would happen today, I can guarantee you we're not getting out of there. Just in the circle area, the fust development I live in, there's four to five cars per home. You're talking middle-class working people with teenage children. We don't even have a place today to park our cars. We had to go to the master and ask permission to park up at the pool area for overflow because you're not supposed to park on the streets. Page 22 of 94 September 19, 2019 We can't get ambulances through. We can't get fire trucks. There's no -- the streets aren't wide enough. We have a lot of growth problems already with what we have today. The developer has issues with sprinklers networking. There's not enough pumps for us to actually sprinkle our yards. Well, by law, you're not supposed to use the county water to sprinkle your own yard. It's supposed to come out of our lakes. So we have that growth problem right now with Section 2 added to. Section I keeps burning out. So we have a lot of growth going on right there. The multifamily homes, you're adding a lot more vehicles, a lot more people in there. There's parking all over in the streets. Now the association's talking about towing people at night. There's no overflow parking anywhere within the community. The more homes they add on and the closer they're coming together, where do we go? What do we do when you're selling a three-, four -family home -- house and you've got teenage drivers besides, and they all own cars? Garbage cans. Garbage day comes. You can't even get down the, street with the garbage cans. So I understand the developer wanting to build all these more homes and closer together, but where do we put everybody? The closer you go, the closer we all are. But my biggest concern is we can't get out of the neighborhood. Right down we've got one way in and one way out, and it scares the crap out of me if we have an emergency. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BOWMAN: I'll defer to Michelle, my wife. She has her points she wants to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. She's going to speak after the registered speakers, but we understand your comment. Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next speaker, Jim MacArthur, and after that, Michael Bowman. MS. BOWMAN: Jim stepped out to the bathroom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the microphone, miss. I'm sorry. MS. BOWMAN: I'm Michelle Bowman, but Jim stepped out to the restroom, but can I go before him? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn? MS. BOWERS: I was sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. MS. BOWMAN: My name is Michelle Bowman, and I live in the Fairmont Association. I have children in the neighborhood who like to use the sidewalk. One of my children is disabled, and I'm here on behalf of several families in different parts of the neighborhood. I have friends who live in the, I believe they're called, villas. They're two homes. They're having issues where they don't have enough room. They have two -car garages and two -car driveway. The driveways are not wide enough for two minivans, let alone a minivan and a pickup. You can't -- there's constant blocking of the sidewalk, and so the children that -- a couple of families that I know, their children are in wheelchairs. There are kids that are riding their bicycle. They cannot safely go -- they go into the road. There is already too much congestion. If they add more of the townhomes that are -- I'm not correct, it's either six, eight, or 10 units. That's a minimum of two. A lot of the people currently living in the townhomes are four people because they have two children. The townhomes have one garage, barely enough for one car in the driveway, and then they have a sidewalk. Their trash cans have nowhere to go. If they had a dumpster to take everybody's trash to a dumpster, you wouldn't have the trash cans on the sidewalk. They're referring -- you can't safely get out of the neighborhood in case of a fire because there are already too many homes. My neighbors have three grown children, and they have five cars on each side of us. There are several family houses that have five cars. You can't park safely. As far as the amenities are concerned, that park that they're planning on using for the extra Page 23 of 94 September 19, 2019 amenities, it was proposed in 2006. My daughter's now 12, and we're no closer to building that park now than when she was born. So to say that that's an extra amenity to accommodate, she'll probably be graduated before they break ground on this park. They're also saying that they're extending the south amenities in the grove section. Most of the homes are being built in the ranch section. The ranch section is already overcapacity for the gym, the parking, and the playground and the pools. If you go on the weekend, it's like going to a public swimming pool. There are so many people, you can't move around. Nine out of 10 weekends, the pool's broken in some form or fashion. Our sprinklers do not go on on a regular basis. They can't maintain the -- are we less than 400 homes right now? The builder cannot maintain the sprinklers and the pool system for 400 people. I don't know how they're going to do it for 1,650 let alone upping them up to 1,950. So they're not adding any more amenities for the extra 350 homes. It's going to people on the south, and that's maybe, I want to say, 125 houses, if that, that are going to be able to have those extra amenities. So from a safety standpoint and the amenities standpoint, there are a lot of families that are currently living there. They're not maintaining the minimal that they have now. CHAIIiMAN STRAIN: Thank you, miss. Next speaker. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask her a question? MS. BOWMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm looking on Google Earth, and I don't see a whole lot of cars parked around the area you're talking, but I do see enough room from the garage to the sidewalk and two -car -wide -- it looks like you could put four cars on each lot easily without blocking the sidewalk. MS. BOWMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's going on? MS. BOWMAN: We are supposed to keep -- there are a handful -- maybe a dozen houses in the entire Fairmont Association that are grandfathered in that we can have a hedge or a piece of plastic, I think it's called lattice, to block our trash cans on the outside. According to our HOA regulations, we are supposed to keep our trash cans in the garage. If you put your trash cans in the garage, there's no way that you can put two cars in your garage. The size of the actual -- between the sidewalk and the home, you can barely fit -- we have a smaller pickup truck, and we have a minivan. I can pull two vehicles in, but unless you pull one in and back the other one in, two drivers are not getting out of their vehicles. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the association would rather you have garbage cans in your garage than the car? MS. BOWMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MS. BOWMAN: But putting aside the garbage can situation, you are parking on the grass with two vehicles and you're walking on the grass and you're killing the grass, which is against HOA violation (sic). You're constantly having to fix your grass because you've broken it walking constantly over the grass. They're not two cars wide, and you can't fit two cars deep at all. It's one car deep. And in the -- they're proposing to build a bunch of townhomes, and the townhomes are one -car, one -car. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: By one car deep, though, you mean the driveway is long enough to fit two cars side by side but only one car deep, so you could put technically two cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway from what I'm seeing. MS. BOWMAN: You can physically fit two matchbox cars in the driveway, two matchbox cars, but you can't get out of those vehicles once you've parked them. MR. KLATZKOW: The reality is everybody's buying SUVs, and these -- I lived in a neighborhood just like this. Everybody buys, and their kids go to high school, and you buy cars for your kids. So the next thing you know, you've got this relatively small lot, your two kids have cars, wife got Page 24 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 the SUV, you've got your car. They don't fit. They just don't. And I don't blame the developer on this. It's just people's choices. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. MS. BOWMAN: My friend has a small car, I think it's a Honda Civic, and she has a small SUV, which is smaller than my minivan, and she cannot fit both vehicles with nothing in her garage and be able to open the doors to be able to get out. It's a tight fit. If they had added 36 inches to the right, you could have room to get in and get people out, because doors swing open. MR. KLATZKOW: These aren't northern garages. MR. EASTMAN: Do you also have the prohibition in your neighborhood that you're not allowed to block the sidewalk with parked cars? MS. BOWMAN: It has nothing to do with the neighborhood. While it is a neighborhood violation, it is an American Disabilities Act violation. Sidewalks are not allowed legally in the state of Florida -- I'm not sure if it's State of Florida or nationwide. Sidewalks are not allowed to legally be blocked. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a county violation -- it's a violation of Code Enforcement as well. MR. EASTMAN: Which further shrinks the amount of space that you can park in. MS. BOWMAN: And you are not allowed to park on the -- I believe it's called an apron. You're not allowed to turn a car sideways and park there. That violates because it's blocking the street and the sidewalk turning it sideways that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are a little bit past due for the break for our court reporter, who has had her patience with me already this morning, I can tell. I'm going to hear it in a few minutes, but let's take a 10 -minute break and come back at 10:46, and we'll resume till somewhere about 11:45 to 12:00 for our break for lunch. Thank you. (A recess was had from 10:36 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please take your seats, we're going to resume the meeting where we left off, and we left off with registered public speakers, and there was a gentleman in the green/blue shirt who was going to speak next. He just looked to make sure his shirt was green/blue. Thank you, sir. If you'd please identify yourself for the record. MR. MacARTHUR: Jim MacArthur. I live in Orange Blossom as well as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in when we got here today? MR. MacARTHUR: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. MR. MacARTHUR: A few concerns. The previous speakers had addressed most of them, but again, we have a major problem with this many new homes coming in in terms of access. Right now there's only one access road in or out. Is there going to be a second one? I understand that there is. Will that be built before this construction is done, or will it be built after? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll find out for you. MR. MacARTHUR: Because there really isn't enough access there. There going to be -- there's too much traffic now. They had mentioned between the -- in Orangetree, the roads there are much wider than they are in Orange Blossom, so they have better access in and out of there. We don't have as good access in ours. I had a home in Phase 1. 1 built a home in Phase 2. We're there now and have been going through all the construction. If you're going to add more homes, the gates are going to be open for how many more years now? Those gates are open from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. now and have been for the last couple years. Are we looking at another six years of having the gates in our gated community open all day long? We sort of bought into that community expecting there to be 1,600 new homes, and now there's going to be 1,950. Where is the overflow parking going to be? Has that been addressed? Where are all these people going to park the excess cars? So just like they were saying, there really isn't enough room in the driveways, in the garages, for all the extra cars. Page 25 of 94 September 19, 2019 It's just --right now it's a problem, and if you're going to add 1,600 to 1,950 homes, its just going to be extremely crowded without enough access to parking and facilities and entrance/exits. You know, these are major concerns that those of us who live there are experiencing now, let alone adding a number -- a great deal more homes to it. So major concerns here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MacARTHUR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. SABO: I have no other registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody here who has not spoken that would like to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll turn to Planning Commission questions of the applicant before we go into applicant's rebuttal. Does anybody have any questions they'd like to ask as a result of the public testimony? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got three. I'd like the applicant to address the time frame of the second access road. In fact, how long the gates will be continually being open for the amount of time they're open now. Apparently they're open quite a bit. And then where is the -- what have you got plans for additional parking for the residences? The parking issue's been brought up by several, and it doesn't seem like it's a very positive situation in regards to the number of cars that are being used in the village or the PUD. MR. WRIGHT: Deferring to our planning team for the first question about the time frame for the second access road. If I could have just a second. Carl's going to come up to the podium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BARRACO: Again, for the record, Carl Barraco. The additional ingress/egress, I think you're talking about, is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman just brought it up. I think he referred to it as an access road, whatever -- MR. BARRACO: I think that's tied to the county's improvements for the roadway to the park that you see on the master plan. So we don't have any -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not even planned. That's not scheduled yet from what I -- well, we'll have to ask somebody. MR. BARRACO: Yes. That may be better answered by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're not going to have an access road out of that facility other than the one on Oil Well Road until such time that the county builds it to access their park; is that what you're saying? MR. BARRACO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll try to get an answer to that then. The other question he brought up was about the gates. MR. BARRACO: Yes. We did note that at the neighborhood meeting and brought that back to the developer and HOA and the CDD, and they've been trying to make some changes. I think what the concern is construction traffic uses that, and I could -- all I can tell you is that that has been shared with the developer and the builders, and they're hying to come up with the best option to, again, allow the construction traffic to access it while still maintaining that security. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they knew about the situation before today, but they offered no solution to this board for that issue today. MR. BARRACO: That's correct, because I didn't see it as a planning issue. That's an issue that the developer and the builder are working towards, but I personally didn't see that as an issue for the planning. Page 26 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I certainly do see it as an issue. If you want to add 350 more units, it's only going to exacerbate the situation. It apparently has some concerns by at least some people. Where is the additional parking that is obviously needed within the -- do you have any, like, visitor parking, stuff like that? MR. BARRACO: There is no additional parking required. I can tell you again that the builder and the developer are considering more parking, and I think they've located some areas for additional parking. I can't commit to you that it would be built, but they do, as far as I know today, intend on adding parking above what is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you -- does your HOA documents address the quantity of cars per household or the number -- because you've -- apparently you've got three, four people per household who have a car now, and you've only got two parking spaces. Have you taken that into consideration in your planning? MR. BARRACO: I cannot speak to the HOA documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I don't have anything else. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, there's time for applicant rebuttal, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Excuse me. So adding 350 additional units, would you not see the need for additional amenities to be added to support those additional residents? MS. SAPEN: The -- oh, and it's good the pointed arrow is still here. That red arrow on the south side, that's a rec facility that has not been built out yet. There will be additional facilities built there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nothing to the north side, though? Just the one that is in the center? MS. SAPEN: No. The north side, that was expanded when Phase 2 was developed. There was a second pool added, a second parking lot added. So, no, there will be no more. That area is built out now. COMMISSIONER FRY: The folks that spoke that were from the Fairmont neighborhood, where is that on the plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, we can't have comments from the audience. Please, thank you. MR. COLEMAN: The Fairmont -- for the record, Steve Coleman with Barraco and Associates. The Fairmont Association is the four circles kind of centered where the red arrow is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before we go to applicant's rebuttal? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. Just real quickly, I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. There is no density cap in this area. What we're proposing is an incremental increase in the density of 0.6. There's no change in use. No change -- no other subjective changes other than the density change. I also wanted to point out I talked to Trinity during the break, Trinity Scott, the Transportation Department and confirmed that the county is aware of the long-term congestion issues here and is taking affirmative steps to study this area in conjunction with FDOT. So hopefully that long-term -- those concrete efforts that staff has been taking will pay off and alleviate some of the concerns over congestion in the longer term. We have met the requirements for approval, and we have staffs recommendation of approval. We agree with that. No conditions that we disagree with and no deviations that we're requesting. And with that, we would request your approval recommendation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion at this point. We'll close the public hearing, and we'll go into discussion and then finally a motion. Go ahead, Joe. Page 27 of 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I have several issues. One, we spent a lot of time discussing the housing product. I agree with the comment made by Mr. Klatzkow, the use of the term "workforce housing" is -- means nothing. It's -- but the only time we worry about the product is if there's an affordable housing agreement, which there is not. So this is just, typically, market -rate housing. And I think the clear -- make sure the record's clear that that's exactly what it is. It's not -- it's not -- you can call it whatever you want, but its market -rate housing. Regards to the comments made during the public speaking, all truly valid and, in fact, if I lived there, I'd be concerned by every one of them. But, frankly, I don't believe any of them -- and I'll look to staff -- I don't believe any of the comments have anything to do with zoning. They are issues with the HOA. There's issues with the products that were sold and the number of cars. Those are HOA positions and -- or issues, and those are -- frankly, if you're blocking the sidewalk, it's a county code enforcement issue. So I'm concerned about the comments made. Certainly, they're going to be exacerbated by the fact of adding additional units, but its kind of really an issue having to deal with the HOA and not a zoning issue; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the Collier County zoning. That is correct. These are more along the lines of building codes and HOA issues versus what's in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the only thing that impacts zoning would be the impact on traffic, and from what I've seen and from what I read in the report, we're still rated C. And Mike Sawyer left, but Trinity came in. So we're still -- we're still -- appears to be adequate capability to support the increase. So I'll defer until we make a motion, but that's just kind of my discussion so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? Go ahead, Karl, or did you -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll share my concerns, I guess, and I'll bring them up so that you can tell me whether they are relevant or irrelevant to the criteria we need to evaluate this based on. I believe if you're adding 350 units to a development, while the residents' concerns over some of the issues may not be germane to the zoning, it would seem to me that you should have a plan in place to encompass all aspects of the impacts of that expansion. So if you're adding 350 units, would you not -- would it not be reasonable to have some plan for additional amenities to support those additional people when your current amenities are -- the ones that are on the north side where a lot of additional development will go are already overcrowded from what we're told, at least -- definitely not sufficient to add 350 more homes with no additional amenities to the north. The ones to the south will support a small percentage of the people in the development. Would it not be reasonable to support ingress and egress concerns when you add 350 units, 350 more people that may or may not be able to get out even on a day-to-day basis in an efficient manner? And, finally, I guess, I don't know, I guess it's really just a product question of whether additional units added should perhaps allot for larger vehicles. I'm sure that's not germane to this conversation, just a concern that I would have is -- moving forward is have -- plan for the cars that -- and the number of cars that people do have and have enough room for them to park and put their trash cans. I don't think this is germane to this at all, but those are my concerns. That's what I'm struggling with. I see the benefit of units that are -- while they're not affordable housing, townhomes, attached villas, to support, you know, lesser, you know, lesser -size homes and smaller price points, that allow a greater cross-section of people to afford them. So 1 see the benefit there. So that's what I'm struggling with. I just feel like there's an incomplete attention to some of the impacts of adding all of those homes to this -- to this development. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I share Commissioner Fry's concerns. To summarize them in my words, first of all, I believe that the parking is inadequate. I'm concerned about ingress and egress limitations and the bottleneck effect. I'm concerned about density as expressed in dwelling units per acre Page 28 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 in relation to -- well, in measurement of compatibility or incompatibility against surrounding developments, and I'm concerned about the Oil Well Road problem with safety and internal capture traffic calculations. It seems to me that there's -- you know, there are a lot of shortcomings here that I don't believe have been dealt with sufficiently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just a little comment about the "parking is inadequate" comment. I don't think you can say parking is inadequate when you're dealing with single-family homes. You've got a two -car garage, and you've got a driveway that fits two cars. It's just adequate. I'm -- you know -- well, if you're dealing with commercial or something like that, yeah, you can say parking is inadequate, but I don't think it pertains here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I believe it does, because we're talking about an increase in density which is going to be -- bring about an increase in cars. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Won't that be --is that the increase in the area that is already built out? And there's no -- there's no impact, or what is the impact, and I'll turn to the applicant. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, we closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Okay. I mean, that the -- I realize the high-density development in this that -- the lower portion of the north development there, the -- on the southeast portion, but that already exists. And that seems to be where the problems are, but it has nothing to do with the other single-family homes that are going in. I believe Stan is correct, the two -car garage and enough space for two other cars in the driveway. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. There's no way we could -- or maybe we should put something in there saying that every single-family home should have five parking spaces or six. How do you do that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One way you do it is you limit density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, but you're talking spaces per unit, that doesn't, when you're talking with single-family homes, that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: 1,950 dwelling units in this area. That's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There are a lot communities that add an extra parking area for overflow, and this is something that we can do here now, right, or can't we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can make any suggestions that this board feels deemed as a recommendation to the Board. Yes, you can do it -- you can make any suggestions you want. Any other points of discussion? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Go ahead. I'm waiting for you guys to get done, then I have my points. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, you made a comment that this was approved earlier in the 2000s and then they came back. What were the initial number of units approved, and then was that -- that was increased? I may have missed that. MR. SABO: 1,600. COMMISSIONER FRY: 1,600 was the initial approval? So this is the first time they've actually come back for additional density. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? NIR. EASTMAN: I tend to believe the people who gave their personal testimony about the parking in the community. I also believe Mr. Klatzkow and his personal experience. I think it's a real problem. From the school district's perspective, we're really only concerned with the traffic on Oil Well Road and have to leave that for the county Transportation Department determination. And I hope that Page 29 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 if -- the increased density, if it were to go through, doesn't adversely impact the school district. That's part of the analysis the county transportation people do, and so we rely upon their expertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have several comments. First of all, like another project that came here a couple months ago, when we give out density like candy to developments that are not -- were not asking to be incentivized like affordable housing -- because right now affordable housing's the only incentive in Collier County is more density. So if we give more density out for no justifiable reason, just because somebody wants it, and it's not affordable, then we basically undermine the only incentive we have for affordable housing in Collier County, and that just doesn't make any sense. And we've had enough people -- Arthrex, the Chamber of Commerce, the hospitals telling us we need more affordable housing, then I certainly don't see how we support giving intensity -- increase in density away unless it's tied to that. So on that basis alone this is a problem for me. They certainly provided no demonstrated need. The developer wants a change of style. He started out with one style, likes another, they're selling good, so he wants to do it. That's not a good enough reason as far as I'm concerned. And I think it's premature to add more density in a project that still has six years to go. We still have vested rights all around this project for projects that are currently coming in asking for literally thousands of units. Now, it's 2.52 persons per unit. That's a lot of people. And if you're looking at two and three and four cars per unit, what's that going to mean to our road system? The density that's there now is -- well, the density that they're asking for is two -and -a -half times the density in the surrounding Orangetree area. It's seven times the density in the adjacent Golden Gate Estates area. I mean, we're not talking twice as much. We're talking two, two -and -a -half times, three, four, seven times. There's no justifiable need for it. The developer had an opportunity to offer solutions to some concerns that they heard prior to this meeting. We heard testimony. They don't have any. They didn't come back on anything. And this is not like other projects where they have a vested traffic count and they're adding -- or they're swapping out a use for another use so that the traffic count stays the same. Now ifs a matter of is this other use still compatible even though they don't -- aren't increasing the traffic. That's a different animal. This is, just give me more density because I'm asking for it, and I can't go there anymore, and I'm not going to go there anymore. So from my perspective, this isn't worthy of seeing a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. And that's all I've got to say on the matter. Does anybody else have anything they want to add? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'll call for a vote. Is there a vote to recommend -- first of all, if there's a vote to recommend approval, there are some stipulations that were talked about, and I can read those. If the vote's to recommend denial, so be it. We'll just go forward. COMMISSIONER FRY: Motion for denial. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. MR. KLATZKOW: Just in case the Board of County Commissioners wants to approve this project, I think it would be best if you approve it with the stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approved it with stipulations? MR. KLATZKOW: If -- if you're going to recommend denial, that's fine, but I would also like some record as what the stipulations would be should it be approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read the -- I had five of them on -- number one, there will be no master plan changes provided; number two, the acceptance of staff recommendations; number three -- well, three, four, and five were based on the responses from the applicant involving the road -- they provided none. Page 30 of 94 September 19, 2019 So those are the only two: Staff recommendations and no master plan change. I think that's a given. I didn't hear anything else. There was no other specifics, because they were simply asking for a change in density. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: James added two to the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said staff recommendations, yeah. MR. BELLOWS: I also just would like to reiterate that when you make the motion be clear on the reasons for the motion -- for denial so we can replicate those comments into the executive summary to the Board more -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we all have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I articulated mine. Karl did, his concerns. COMMISSIONER FRY: You mean within the motion itself, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Setting policy, whether it's rezone findings or PUD findings. COMMISSIONER FRY: We don't do that -- MR. BELLOWS: It would help us -- we can replicate the comments -- MR. KLATZKOW: Ray, there's enough on the record. I'm okay with that. Are you okay with -- because you're going to have to, in your executive summary, say what the planning stipulation's would have been. Do you have enough? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's been a motion to recommend denial. It's been seconded. We did read some stipulations in the record for the record, but they're not part of the motion. Is there any further discussion before the motion's called on this by this board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye (raises hand). COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye (raises hand). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye (raises hand). COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye (raises hand). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One two -- so it's four. All those against the motion for denial, raise your -- same sign. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay 4-2. The motion for denial will go forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you all for your time, and we will now move into the next item on our agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd just make a comment. I'd like to see them comeback with something with less density to utilize the area that's still undeveloped. I mean, that option is still available. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They still have 1,300 units to build, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they don't need more density. That's the point. MS. SAPEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. Item 9A2 is PL20180003659, Courthouse Shadows Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, MPUD, within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. It's located on the south side of U.S. 41 opposite Airport -Pulling Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom. Do you ever getting tired of being the one to start this, Tom? Page 31 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 MR. EASTMAN: No, that's fine. No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff emails, letters of --just letters distributed by staff, and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure as Commissioner Fry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had talked to the applicant representatives two or three different times, the group of them a couple -- this recent week, but a couple of the other -- Doug Kirby in particular prior to this. I also think I may have had a conversation about the change with a couple of the commissioners. Nothing specific to the PUD, just the fact that it was a request for additional uses. Other than that, normal staff that Karl just talked about. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same; I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and, of course, I received all the letters or any documentation that had been forwarded by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so everybody's understanding how we're going to proceed. It's 11:11 right now. We normally break for lunch. If there's a convenient time to break between activities this morning on this item, we'll break sometime between 11:45 and 12:00 and then come back at 1:00 after lunch and then resume wherever we left off. So that -- Wayne, its all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission, I'm Wayne Arnold, a certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates here representing the application today for Courthouse Shadows. It's a companion small-scale plan amendment as well as a PUD amendment, and I'm assuming I can talk about both of those applications together and then you all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to vote on them separately. MR. ARNOLD: -- will make a separate motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, you know, Wayne, that's a good point. Before you go too far, let me make sure I read the second as one we'll be actively pursuing this morning. Item 9.3 is P1,20180003658. That is the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development, and that is a companion item to the previous one I read. Does anybody have any different disclosures on any of that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, we better just ask it separately, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does cover both of them, so we'll listen to them -- we'll talk -- discuss them concurrently. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. With me today is Doug Kirby, who many of you met previously. He's with Kite Realty, the current owners of the bulk of the property except for some of the outparcels, but they own the defunct shopping center. Rob Sucher is with Johnson Development Associates, and they are a contract purchaser for what would become the mixed-use residential component of this project. Kristina Johnson with JE (sic) Evans Engineering is here representing Johnson Development. We have Jim Banks, our traffic engineer, and Tim Hall from Turrell Hall has done some environmental work on this project. Rich Yovanovich is our land -use counsel, of course, for both of those items. So the last time the Planning Commission saw this application was a few years ago in which we modified the project to add square footage for commercial uses for what was going to become a Sam's Club. And subsequent to our approval for that modification, Walmart put on hold every one of their Page 32 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 Sam's Club applications in the world. It's my understanding, if it wasn't under construction, they stopped. So that left Kite with a still vacant -- largely vacant shopping center and the need to go ahead and deal with this as part of their portfolio. So it's been marketed, and Johnson Development is a large residential community builder, and Rob Sucher's with their multifamily division. Johnson Development is under construction with another project in town, and they like the Naples market very much and believe this is a great fit for them to build 300 apartments on this location. So we have submitted a small-scale plan amendment application, because even though this is in Activity Center No. 16 and you would think that might allow a high density, it's incumbered by a density restriction because it's also partially in the coastal high hazard area. So we're also in the Bayshore CRA, which allows us to use bonus units, but to get to a number that's a feasible number of units and a marketable number of units for an apartment developer, the difference is in the 128 units we need within the 10 acres we're designating as our small-scale amendment area. And that's a mouthful, I know, but the activity center, as we know it today -- that (indicating). This is Activity Center No. 16. It encompasses the government complex across the street from us and most of the neighborhood to the south and west as well as property over to Bayshore Drive. And our amendment proposes to modify the activity center map to designate a 10 -acre portion within it, which is shown as a hatched area on this plan, and that's the 10 -acre area that can achieve the increased density over the base density and the bonus -pool units that are eligible for the site today. So we have offered up a new modification to the Bayshore area to create new language that allows this 10 -acre portion to obtain up to 128 or 12.8 units per acre in addition to the base units. So that math gets us to the 300 units, and it looks something like this. Just so that its clear, you know, how we have achieved that density of four units per acre in the activity center, the bonus -pool units, and then the balance equal the 300 units that we are proposing. So we obviously are modifying the master plan that was previously approved, which looks like this, and it shows, essentially, a large format retail center behind the outparcels that exist, and Kite Reality owns one of the outparcels that's currently undeveloped. They own the Starbucks building, and they own the primary area that housed Buffalo Wild Wings and the shopping center that's now vacant. So Johnson Development will be purchasing the Starbucks site as well as those areas owned by Kite, which is a little over 18 acres, and our new master plan will re -designate portions of the site as commercial designated with a C or C/R, which would be commercial and residential. And the reason we're labeling it that, we initially started out with an optional master plan for the site, one that would be as existing in case this deal with Johnson Development didn't go through and then a second master plan that was a residential and commercial option that showed the outparcels remaining as commercial opportunities and then the balance of the site going residential. And as we've progressed through the development review process, I think it was staffs encouragement that we have one master plan, which is, obviously, easier for everybody, and we came up with the designation of C/R. So everywhere you see a C/R would be an area that could support either commercial or residential. And let me just point out, Mr. Strain had raised in our brief conversation that the one C/R parcel that would be either retained by Kite or owned by Johnson Development, depending on the scenario that ultimately gets developed here, Mr. Strain would like us to make sure to designate that the parcel on U.S. 41 could not necessarily have residential units. It might be able to have shared parking that's part of the residential but not a residential structure, and we would certainly be fine with trying to determine that. So as part of our neighborhood information meeting process and our separate meeting with the CRA advisory board, Johnson presented what we're calling their conceptual site plan for the site, and it looks like this. And, obviously, the dark gray -tone buildings become the residential structures that would be proposed to be constructed here. And it would be a gated apartment building complex, four-story units, and there are some shared parking opportunities that will be retained for the existing commercial that is within the PUD. But these Page 33 of 94 September 19, 2019 buildings, they're proposing five buildings, and an integrated clubhouse building that would be part of it, and you can see that this is all surface parking. They're not proposing structured parking. We do have garages that are proposed, and those are single -story garages that would be an option for you to have as part of your rental package. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. Pardon me for interrupting. But unless I'm mistaken, this is the first time I've seen this image. MR. ARNOLD: It very well may be. This was displayed first to the CRA advisory board. This is not the PUD master plan. The PUD master plan will still be the more flexible one. This is Johnson Development trying to depict how they're going to arrange this site and how the site will function post development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there some way, with a marker, that you could identify where the 10 acres are? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or it's all -- MR. ARNOLD: I've got an exhibit, Commissioner Fryer, that shows that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I hadn't quite gotten there, but I'll just talk about that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So all 300 units are on the 10 acres? MR. ARNOLD: All 300 unit buildings are. Some of the accessory parking and some of those things are not. But all the density can fit within the 10 acres. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: And just to show you that on an aerial, just for some context, it shows you in relationship to the existing commercial as well as the neighbors to our south and to the west. One of the features on the plan that we're proposing would be to have a kayak or standup paddleboard launch on Haldeman Creek. We think that activating the water in that location makes a lot of sense. As I mentioned, they're proposing an integrated clubhouse building as part of these buildings which means it's not going to be a stand-alone recreational building. It will be part of one or more of these residential buildings. And the only thing that would probably be like the outdoor component is swimming pool and, you know, minor things like barbecue grills, a dog walk, perhaps, and, obviously, the boat dock that may be in Haldeman Creek. But principally, we have access points that are existing to the project on U.S. 41 that would be retained. We have access to the signalized intersection that's shared with the Collier County Government Center on U.S. 41. One of the questions that Mr. Strain had on our master plan -- I'll go back to that -- was access to Peters. And, question: Why -- as part of our discussion we talked about eliminating access to Peters, yet we're still depicting them, and the explanation for that is simply because if Johnson Development doesn't purchase that and Kite is left with a retail center, they still need the existing access points for functionality for retail shopping center for ingress and egress. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I ask another graphical question -- MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Of course. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- just so I'm sure I understand before you go further. First of all, all the C/Rs in the front are now C only, correct? MR. ARNOLD: No. They're still -- today they are Cs, yes. They're all commercial designated today. Our proposed master plan would redesignate two of those as CB because those are owned by Kite and could support either commercial or maybe shared parking as part of the residential. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And the C/R to the south at the bottom? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that -- that's the correct designation? MR. ARNOLD: It is. It's going to be largely some of the parking field and water management for residential, but we wanted to make sure it was clear that the C/R didn't just apply to the shaded area on Page 34 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 our master plan -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And then the south C/R is not part of the 10 acres, or is it? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It is not part of the 10 acres. Only the shaded area on this plan, Mr. Fryer, that you're looking at is part of the 10 acres that's also subject to the Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: And I know that's confusing. I'm sorry I didn't explain that in more detail. COMMISSIONER SCIVVHTT: And, Wayne, could you show -- you were talking about ingress/egress. Just point on the visualizer there. Commercial -- you said you're going to retain the two that are shown -- MR. ARNOLD: So the access shown on the master plan on Peters Avenue -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: -- are one, two, three. COMMISSIONER SCHMITf: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: And what will be retained as part of what Johnson Development would do for residential would only be the access to the Starbucks, because it's going to be retained as part of their ownership. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where is Starbucks? MR. ARNOLD: This access point. It's right on the corner, and that one would be retained. In a scenario for redevelopment as residential and commercial, the other two could be eliminated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the principal point of entry will be that darkened arrow off Peters or no -- to the housing area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If we could let him finish his presentation. We normally do questions after the presentation because sometimes it tends to answer a lot of them, and then we can focus on individual members who want to ask questions specific to the things they heard. MR. ARNOLD: So let me go to this exhibit which overlays the proposed site plan on the aerial photograph to give you some context. This is a Starbucks on the corner, and you can see -- it's hard to see, but there's a retained access point there, if I'm not mistaken; is that right? Yeah, I just want to make sure I point correctly. And then the other access point that's here and here can be eliminated on Peters Avenue. The primary access to the shopping center today and what's proposed to be the access points on U.S. 41 will remain the same. The signalized access at some point is here that's shared with Collier County Government Center and Walmart, and then we have a condition here and then another condition closer to U.S. -- or, I'm sorry, on the south end of the project over here that serves some of the other retail and will function here. It's hard to see, but there are gated access points in two locations to the multifamily. So there are some shared parking opportunities that -- in a shared parking agreement that is in place with the retailers. This area shown here is a new parking lot that will be developed, it's owned by Kite today, and can provide additional parking to support the uses that are there. I think most of us who visited the center realize that the one stand-alone restaurant that's there that has sit-down capability doesn't very easy access parking. This will provide some additional parking for them and some additional parking for the residents of the project. So Johnson has also been working through -- and we showed these renderings to the CRA advisory board when we met with them. So you can see that they're proposing a four-story building. And sort of that coastal look seems to be the norm we're headed toward. That's another image from another view. You can see the context, you know, balconies, four-story, and they intend to have, like I said, integrated recreational amenities in one or more of those buildings. And I don't know if any of you have visited some of the more modern complexes, but one of my sons happens to live in one where you walk into their leasing area lobby that's also proximate to a recreational component, so they have higher level atrium -type ceilings, and the recreational amenity health club component, you know, has a higher ceiling than just a typical, you know, Page 35 of 94 September 19, 2019 office level or ceilings height on that first floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send us these -- this electronic information that you're providing, by the way. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: So part of the discussion I had with Mr. Strain was a question, you know, in our conversation -- I think it occurred at our CRA advisory board summary where we talked about the four-story building. In the formal neighborhood information meeting I explained that the building heights were proposed to be 65 feet zoned height, 70 feet actual height, and that would support a five -story building. But as Johnson has evolved in their planning for the project, I think they're pretty committed to a four-story building, which means we can reduce our building heights that were proposed, and we can bring those numbers down. That's part of a deviation, but... So in the middle of the page, under maximum height, that number in our existing packet you have says 65 feet zoned height, 70 feet actual. And standing here I would propose that we reduce that height to 55 feet zoned height and a 65 -foot actual height. That will give them an opportunity to create a large lobby level on the first floor and the integrated club facilitate, and then a three-story complex on top of that for the total of four stories, and then embellishments and things of that nature that can get them to the tippy top, as Rich says, of 65 feet. And that's the change to our development standard. I know, Mr. Strain, we talked about the four stories, and I think in this table we can easily add, you know, not to exceed four stories in any form that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we -- when I get to my turn to ask questions today, I will want you to show me from a construction aspect why you need 55 feet to fit four stories in an apartment complex. And I've built enough of these to know that's not necessary. So if you have a different plan, I'd like to see it. So thank you. MR. ARNOLD: So we, obviously, support staffs recommendation for both the plan amendment and the PUD. The two exceptions we did have with regard to the PUD recommendations were with regard to the discussion points on Deviations 14 and 15 in the staff report. And Deviation 14 was really to talk about the Bayshore redevelopment area and the Bayshore Mixed Use Development Standards Overlay. And I personally don't think we're in the overlay, and the way this deviation was structured was to allow us to apply some of the standards that are in the overlay to this site, and I'm pretty sure -- and the reason -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not in the overlay by the zoning maps. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And that's why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're in the overlay's boundary, but it says specifically on the zoning map excluded from the BMUD. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just like others are excluded from the GT area, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm not sure -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, the deviation -- and it's confusing. I understand. It's almost like a negative deviation, because we want to apply some of the standards from the overlay to this site, and we don't want to be governed by all of them, and we're excepted from them in two ways. One, as Mr. Strain just mentioned but, two, because this PUD was approved before the overlay, and that's one of the other exceptions. It looks like Mr. Strain has an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of the zoning maps. There are others that portray it in a similar manner or address it in a different manner. But if you notice the crosshatched area, if you zoom in on that parenthetical underneath Courthouse Shadows, it says, excluded from BMUD. Right there. MR. ARNOLD: But, in essence, our deviation was to allow us to invoke certain provisions, and Kristina Johnson is here, obviously, to talk about any of those in detail that you'd like to discuss. The other point was a Deviation 15, which was a parking reduction, and part of that allows us to Page 36 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 use the Bayshore overlay parking standards for apartments, and part of it was to reduce the parking necessary for our amenity centers because they're so integral to the site. And I know Mr. Sabo utilized an example for the Esplanade, which is a large golf course community of over a thousand units, and we have 300 units what I feel to be in walking distance of the internal amenity, and we are providing pedestrian connections internal and external to the site to encourage people to use those pedestrian connections. So I don't know if I would necessarily get in automobile to drive 300 feet across the apartment complex. I mean, maybe there's a scenario that I would to make another trip after I utilized that facility or I'm going to the leasing office. But, generally speaking, we think that people would use the amenity by foot. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would like to comment at this point for clarification, because this is a little bit confusing. The property is in the Bayshore/Gateway overlay in the Growth Management Plan but it is not in the overlay in the zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just want to make sure you were clear on that distinction. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, that's a summary of our request, and I'm happy to answer questions or any of our team members can answer any questions that you may have or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: -- we'll defer to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get started, and we'll go as long as we can till our lunch break. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have questions of the applicant at this time? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The parking that would be provided for -- I guess, so we don't have an Option A or an Option B anymore? It's all -- it's all the Option B, right? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It's a plan that depicts both uses on it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, okay. So in that case, how was parking calculated into your estimates? Because it looks to me like the parking would not be sufficient based upon the number of dwelling units, but I could be wrong. So could you say a word about that. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. I think I'll actually let Kristina Johnson come and tell you a little bit about the parking. She's been specifically trying to lay this out and design it. So, Kristina, why don't you take over. MS. J014NSON: Good morning. Kristina Johnson with JR Evans Engineering, for the record. Thank you, Wayne, and thank you for letting me present. So your question is specifically in regards to the parking calculation for the multifamily units? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let's confine ourselves to the 10 acres. And not just the parking that's on the 10 acres, but the parking that would be made available for the density on the 10 acres. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. So -- sorry. Not used to using this paper -- paper projector. Sorry about that. So what we're trying to do here is just get an image up that shows you the conceptual layout as it currently is today. Just want to reiterate that we're early in the design stage, and that it is subject to change. But currently what we're looking at is the grayed buildings here are the residential structures. You do have on-site parking. Based on our calculations, utilizing the parking ratio in the request from Deviation 15, we are able to provide the required parking on site, which is what, obviously, we're trying to achieve. There are some opportunities for overflow parking, which is provided on the south side of that reverse frontage road, as well as some parking opportunities in the area between the restaurant and the gas station. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All in, how many parking spaces are you anticipating providing? MS. JOHNSON: If memory serves me correctly, we're right around 620, and our requirement is, with Deviation 15 being approved, I believe our requirement is just shy --just underneath that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. In -- let's see. There's reference, of course, in the materials Page 37 of 94 September 19, 2019 to the coastal high hazard area. And a comment was made that -- and I think, Wayne, it might have been you -- that mitigation is to be provided by other companion PUD petition. Could you tell me exactly how you are mitigating the potential impact of being in a coastal high hazard area? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. In the PUD document, in Section 3. 10, we added two emergency management provisions. These are consistent with other projects we've dealt with in the coastal high hazard area where Mr. Dan Summers from Emergency Management has generally requested assistance with things like cots or things of that nature. So we've actually added two conditions. And I'll just describe both of them. Prior to the first residential certificate of occupancy, we would provide 150 general-purpose cots with a cost not to exceed $8,400, and then prior to the 100th residential CO, the developer would provide to EMS or, I'm sorry, emergency management with no cost to the county up to 24 special -needs cots at an estimated total of $2,900. So that's our form of mitigation, which is not inconsistent with how others have handled it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Is there precedent for these kinds of mitigations in similarly located projects? MS. JOHNSON: I think generally the answer is yes. I've dealt with some of this for Hammock Bay on the way to Marco Island. There were some mitigation options there that were provided in the form of additional cots. And Rich and I -- another one on Rattlesnake Hammock, I believe, we dealt with that technically was in coastal high hazard and a very similar situation with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And also, Mr. Fryer -- for the record, Rich Yovanovich -- we did it for Vincentian PUD. We had increased density there. So there have been a few examples where we've mitigated for the increase in density in the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you've voluntarily done this. It hasn't been something that was exacted from you? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we had a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to save Jeff. COMMISSIONER SCHNIITT: For the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was not exacted from us. It was mitigation related to the increase in density. It was requested of us by Dan Summers and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's the rational nexus established for these? So we have a uniform way of applying it if that s what's going to happen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've been through this before with Mr. Summers. MR. KLATZKOW: Let's -- it's nonsense. Can people shelter on site here? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The basic theory is is based upon the current construction techniques, people will not evacuate. But there will be some, and Dan Summers has asked us to address that through special -needs cots as well as regular cots. And we thought it was an appropriate request, and we had no objections to providing those cots. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Coastal high hazard area, since we're talking about that -- and David's coming up. Very convenient. Can you -- where is the line for the coastal high hazard area here? I can't remember. MR. ARNOLD: It varies, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to pull up the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is in a CHHA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Where is the -- MR. ARNOLD: I may have an exhibit in the file, and I have to look. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ARNOLD: All of the site is not within the coastal high hazard area. The portion that's developed as shopping center, for instance, and some of the outparcels are not because of the elevations Page 38 of 94 September 19, 2019 that they have achieved. So when they run their SLOSH model for the hurricane model, areas that haven't been filled and developed like the depressional areas that our water management show that they are in the coastal high hazard. But, you know, it's based on a statutory language of how you define what that is, and that's SLOSH Area 1 or less. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sorry. I thought this was close right to the boundary. That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, the new boundary for the red is right here. This one's in here. So it's actually -- their new boundary moved out from the old one. When you were here it was real close. They just moved them out slightly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't realize that new boundary was a -- I thought 41 was the boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was right on the line there, and now it's moved out to here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My next question has to do with the transportation engineering submittal. The note -- the note says that review comments from Transportation Planning staff were not received with regard to the TIS generally nor to the specific issues of how project traffic engineers are addressing pedestrian traffic issues. Has staff reviewed this now? Has it been reviewed? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I certainly think they have. And there was discussion -- and I think that comment may have been in the context of a DOT -- FDOT pedestrian study that they're going to do in the future and were we in any way in conflict with it. And I know Jim Banks, our traffic engineer's, been in contact with them, and I think Kristina Johnson may have been as well. Anything that they plan to do in the future can be accommodated in their right-of-way, there's no additional need from us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So as far as any requests or comments that have been made by staff, they've been fully addressed? MR. ARNOLD: As far as I know, they have, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see. Then, Wayne, in the NIM you said, I know the county is concerned about the discharge to Haldeman Creek. And my question is is, how is that to be addressed? MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Let me have Kristina come up and tell you about that. There are existing control structures in place on the site, and that is our current discharge, but we're in a basin, it's my understanding, that has a very low discharge rate. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Kristina come and address how we're handling water management generally on the site, and I think you'll feel comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. MS. JOHNSON: Kristina Johnson again, and this time I have a piece of paper. I'm going to put it on that slider, and it's going to work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You think so, huh? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Highly trained now. There it is. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. So Courthouse Shadows is an existing commercial property. It's built. It has a water management system currently on site that does serve the commercial outparcels and the commercial shopping center. So when we do come in to redevelop the property, we will be required to submit to the correct municipalities; that would be the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County, and at that time we will have to address all of their requirements, such as water quality and the discharge rate. But just to give you an idea of what our preliminary thoughts are, is we would have dry retention areas on site, and we are looking to utilize the same discharge location that the property is currently using, which is identified on the exhibit shown. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? Page 39 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know that the parking lot of Courthouse Shadows is a succession of trench drains underneath the parking lot, right? MS. JOHNSON: I'm aware of one trench drain. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think they run under the center of every parking aisle to keep them away from the islands. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you'll probably want to pay attention to that. MS. JOHNSON: We have all of the record drawings and survey associated with the project, so we will be utilizing that. The thought is there's very little that we're going to be able to reuse as part of the redevelopment. So if there are trench drains there, they would likely be removed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, that was going to be my point, because you can't keep them under the buildings. MS. JOHNSON: No. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRY: Kristina, is it safe to say that you'll have a drainage infrastructure on the property that would all drain over to that outfall more or less to drain into -- in addition to the dry retention areas? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It has to drain to the outfall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Has to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, they don't get water off site unless -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The dry retention areas are self-contained, correct, or do they have overflows that flow to the outfalls as well? MS. JOHNSON: So I think what you're asking is -- COMMISSIONER FRY: How does all the water get to the outfall? MS. JOHNSON: There you go. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a much better way to put it. Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: The underground pipes. So the areas -- the areas that we eventually use as our water management, I've identified some preliminary locations on the site plan shown, but those are all interconnected with pipes underground. Surface water runoff would enter that system, be piped into one of those areas, and there would only be one control structure for the property unless for some reason, as we go through the permitting process, that changes. But right now that's what the thought is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where do we -- go ahead. Yeah, Ned was the one that was asking questions. Unless somebody wants to jump in on something he started, let's go back to Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine'with that if somebody wants to jump in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tangent to one of his questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You were talking about parking, but are you through with the parking? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. Go back to it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only question on the parking in Deviation 15, Wayne, the 50 percent reduction in parking will be around what amenities; the pool? Is that where the requirement was? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. It's meant to apply to the recreation amenity itself. You have a separate standard in the Land Development Code that talks about you calculate it for a pool, you calculate it for a tennis court, you calculate a separate parking for indoor fitness, et cetera. There's some other reductions that are available to us, but I think there's been some back and forth with staff over the years how that really gets applied. But we don't think we need all the parking per code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Other than maybe a requirement -- you're going to have to -- still have to provide for handicapped space. MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely. Page 40 of 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But other than that, I have -- absolutely agree with you that these buildings are close enough that certainly one would -- I would think would, even in the farthest building to the east, would walk to that swimming pool area. That can't be, what, more than 300 yards? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. It's a few hundred feet. It certainly isn't the design as we've depicted it on the more detailed site plan. I think you see that everything's fairly central, and, you know, they may have more than one amenity recreation area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just out of curiosity, the mailboxes -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- will they be in each building, or will they be at the amenity center? Because that tends to be what draws most people to want to drive, park, get their mail, which may complicate the problem, so... MR. ARNOLD: I'm sure that Krisfina will tell me if I'm wrong, but, Mr. Schmitt, the entrance into the amenity and leasing offices in this area, and there's parking provided near by. Mail kiosks are going to be near that location. They could be inside, but I think the kiosks are largely going to be outside. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that's not impacted by the 50 percent reduction? MR. ARNOLD: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, there's space for somebody to pull into the kiosk, get their mail, and leave? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My next point, and its procedural in nature, but I'm going to continue bringing it up until it gets largely resolved, and it has to do with not insisting that speakers identify themselves at NIMs. And, Wayne, with all due respect, I have to call you out on this. And I know you get caught up in the moment with these things. I see it as a joint responsibility; staff, as facilitator, but also the developer. And I'm accustomed to many voices, although I get thrown when the developers themselves speak. I'm more interested in hearing about that, but others up here are more interested in having the neighbors and the residents identify themselves. So it's important to us. MR. ARNOLD: I understand. It is a challenge, depending on the size of the crowd, the venue that we're in. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know. MR. ARNOLD: It is a challenge -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I think you're up to it. I really do. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I will endeavor to do better. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My next point has to do with no commercial uses in the residential buildings either on the first floor or otherwise. I mean, I get the economics of this, and I recognize that when you look at mixed use, you need to look at the aggregate area, not just your particular project for interconnect -- with interconnectivity and the like to provide a true mixed use. But it would have been nice to see some commercial. And maybe now that you've redesigned this, are you thinking at all about putting any commercial activities in the ground floor of the residentials? MR. ARNOLD: I think the answer is, no, we're not. I think when you look at the arrangement of having the outparcels that are going to remain, you really don't have a great opportunity to have any visibility for some retailer to be in there. And I'll go back to the DiVosta model. When they fust came into town and they had their amenity center and they were going to have a gas station and a dry cleaners and all these little amenities, and people just didn't use those kinds of things that were there and on site. But I think in this context you have a better opportunity to play off of -- and I think the retail uses and the restaurants that are going to remain are actually going to be activated by the residential component itself. I just don't see an easy way to integrate these. I mean, having the Starbucks on site is going to be a huge amenity for a lot of people who are the Starbucks fans. I'm not one of them. But if Page 41 of 94 September 19, 2019 you live there and had access to walk to your coffee shop, walk to a fast-food restaurant downtown, a sit-down diner, I think those kinds of uses that are going to be within the PUD are going to benefit greatly from it. COMMISSIONER FRY: There's a Dunkin Donuts at the other end. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Now you're talking. With respect to the access to the Collier Area Transit -- and I think that that is potentially a key positive to this development because, really, I mean, the hub -- lots of routes terminate or originate at the government area; however, I do worry about people crossing the East Trail at that point without special provisions being made to protect them. I'm not sure what those could be but, you know, that's not a particularly safe place to cross the street. MR. ARNOLD: And I don't know the specific answer for you, Mr. Fryer. I know that, obviously, it's an FDOT controlled road, so we probably don't have direct access to their signalization, but we have two signalized access points to get over to the government center. One right at Airport Road and one at the mid -block crossing that is more contiguous to the CAT bus system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Have you considered something, perhaps barriers or buffering or vegetation, that would encourage people to find their way to the intersections that are signalized? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think, if I'm not mistaken, there are crosswalks shown there. There are no mid -blocks crossing because there's a median there and Airport Road an -- not on Airport, I'm sorry. U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I can't visualize right now, but is there some buffering there that would discourage people from trying to cross at other areas? MR. ARNOLD: Go back to this one. I think, obviously, U.S. 41 is at the top, and you can see that there's median controls located within it. There's the signalized access point, and there's three median areas where you can't easily cross. I know -- I'm sure people have, walking from the government center over to one of the restaurants when they were operating across the street. But it's -- the pedestrian crossings are not meant to be mid block. They're meant to be at the signalized access point. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. But when we increase the density here, if this is approved, whatever level of a problem you have right now is going to be multiplied, people attempting to cross between the intersections, and I just -- I'm concerned about that. I get the point -- MR. ARNOLD: We were talking about -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: --that being close to CAT is attractive and useful, but I just --I worry about the safety. My next point is on Road Segment 92.0, which is the East Trail, Airport to Rattlesnake Hammock. It's going deficient in 2020, and that's per the 2018 AUIR. I wonder what the 2019 AUIR has to say about that. Is it already so? In any event MR. ARNOLD: Probably not my questions, so I will defer either to one of your transportation staff for that or possibly Jim Banks, who's our traffic engineer, if he knows the answer to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if he does, I'd like to hear from him. If not, we wait until staff has its turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jim, while you discuss it, could you tell us if the current traffic that is provided for on that segment that is being asked about is already calculated in based upon the maximum traffic count allowed by this project today? And then we'll know apples to apples, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's currently calculated for the existing zoning and the existing commercial. MR. BANKS: Okay. For the record, Jim Banks. Wayne put me to sleep, so I didn't hear the first question, so -- I heard something about the 2019 AUIR. Could you repeat that question, please, and then I'll answer Mr. Strain's question after that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. I'm concerned about Road Segment 92.0, which is the East Trail, Airport to Rattlesnake Hammock. And it is going deficient 2020, and that's what we thought back last year. I'll bet it's worse now. It might even be already deficient, which is something that I'd like to get Page 42 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 information on either from you or from staff before we conclude on this. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fryer, before he gives you the current AUIR, as you and I discussed, there was a shopping interest that's already been approved and paid impact, and that impact of 143,000 square feet has already been factored into this project. You refer to it as the trip bank. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I would refer to it as vested trips. So we're essentially swapping out the commercial for the residential trips. So I understand your question about the AUIR, but I don't think it would apply to this project because the trips have already been accounted for through the process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was going to be my next question, because right now there are only 67 peak p.m. trips in the remaining capacity, but there is a trip bank of 370 -- excuse me -- of 281. And so your client, Mr. Yovanovich, is vested in some of those? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're already in the traffic counts. So we're not a trip bank. We're already in -- we're already in the numbers. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- and I'm sure Trinity will confirm that, or Mike Sawyer will confirm that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So whatever the 2018 AUIR numbers are, as long as you're not in excess of what was factored into that, you're going to be within 2019? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Our impact has already been factored into the road system -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- because we're swapping out an office and retail use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to be breaking at no later than five more minutes, so let's try to remember that when we get into the questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. BANKS: I guess I'm done. You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might have some community relationship arguments that we need, Jim. Marketing. That's right. Community marketing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got this question answered to my satisfaction yesterday from Mr. Yovanovich, but I think it's worthy of mention, and it has to do with the bonus units that are coming over from, in this case, the Botanical Garden, that they are to be used within a period of seven years. It's my understanding that this is pretty standard. MR. ARNOLD: It is, yes. It's a standard condition that we're used to seeing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, is it? Okay. And that's all I have for now, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to break and come back at 1:00. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:56 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Chrzanowski and Commissioner Fry not present.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you're right on top of it. Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I learned it from Bosi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from our lunch, everyone. We are going resume the meeting where we left off, and it was in the -- with the petitioner's presentation and questions. So, Wayne, I think -- I don't know you -- how far along were you? You're finished, right? So we're working off questions that we've asked at this point. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, for your record. I think our staff presentation -- or our team presentation was complete. We were answering questions of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. MR. ARNOLD: --Ned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, if you want to resume. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think I'd finished. Page 43 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. ARNOLD: He did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the petitioner? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The other guys aren't here yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they knew what time we were going to start, so... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Haldeman Creek, the drainage -- it's a drain easement? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Haldeman Creek is a drainage easement. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are you putting them -- I see boat slips; a marina you have listed here. MR. ARNOLD: We have an ability to put a single little launch for a kayak or canoe or paddleboard, something like that. It's not meant to be a marina, per se. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It says "canal amenity." That's what I'm reading here -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. I mean, there may be a small dock and just outdoor sitting area to accompany that. No motorized vehicles. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm just saying this is a -- this is the small end of the funnel of a drain easement that goes through Lakewood and through Walmart, so I just want to know what's going there. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. It's going to be for nonmotorized watercraft. So somebody would have their personal kayak, and we don't think they need -- they certainly don't need a deep dock. I mean, those are usually -- Mr. Strain, you're an avid kayaker and, Stan, so are you. I don't think you need any kind of docking facility, per se, to launch your kayaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Flat bottoms are helpful. Okay. Anything else, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The height of these buildings, if they're really going to be four feet -- four floors, then do they have to be that high, or does 45 work? MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to defer that to our attorney, Mr. Yovanovich, who says he has the answer. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know that's a question of not only Ms. Homiak but Mr. Strain. And what we're -- I'm going to put something on the visualizer. I don't know if you'll be able to read it or not because its my handwriting. I just wanted to start with, since we're in the activity center, as you all know, the activity centers allow the full range of commercial uses, Cl through C5. Under the C4 zoning, if we were to change the zoning to C4, the height would be allowed at 75 feet zoned. The immediately adjacent overlay allows a height of 56 feet. What we're proposing -- and because we don't have the buildings finally designed yet and since there will be integrated amenities in some of the buildings, we don't have a final design. So what we're asking for is, as I've written on this exhibit, for the three buildings -- let me point. For this building, this building, and this building (indicating) where we anticipate having integrated amenities, we envision we'll have taller ceilings there. We would ask for a zoned height of 55 feet and an actual height of 65 feet. For these two other buildings where we do not anticipate having integrated amenities, 50 feet and 65 -- 50 feet -- I'm sorry -- 50 feet, 60 feet; 50 feet zoned, 60 actual. We think that, one, the market changes -- and there's a lot of competition for distinguishing yourselves among your competitors. And we would like the flexibility within the building as well as the exterior of the building to design something that is competitive, if not leading in the market, and we just, frankly, don't that have design done yet. Inspira, which is a project that's already been constructed, has four-story buildings, and it has an actual height -- I'm sorry -- a zoned height of roughly 49 feet and an actual height of 58 feet, and they don't have integrated amenities in those buildings. So we don't think we're asking for anything out of line with what's already in the market from a height standpoint. So we've committed to four stories not to exceed --what we would like, as Wayne pointed out, 55 feet zoned, 65 feet actual on these three buildings, and 50 feet zoned, 60 feet actual on the other two Page 44 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 buildings. We think that that gives us the flexibility to design what we think the market will want, be attractive to the community, is consistent with the overlay height of 56 feet, consistent with what the activity height would allow, certainly consistent with the building we're in right now and the complex we're in right now, and we think that -- we would request that we could make those modifications to the master plan and make those notations for the building heights. And with that, hopefully that answers questions regarding the height. I can't tell you how we're going to construct those buildings today. I don't know. The architect doesn't know. The architect is looking for flexibility on designing the buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. He didn't answer my question, but I didn't ask one, so you can ask yours. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you can't do it at 45? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't -- certainly not for the integrated where we're going to have the integrated amenities. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What's that; five stories? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it's still going to be four stories, but there was going to be taller ceilings, you know, for the amenity level, and then on top of that, you know, we're looking for flexibility to have nice tall ceilings in the apartments. They're going to be market rate. They're going to be well amenitized, and we think that that's what the market's asking for is taller ceilings. It's unlike the first apartment I lived in that I'm sure had 8 -foot ceilings. That's not the market anymore. And we think that we can use that -- we'd like that flexibility in designing the buildings, and we don't think it's out of scale with what's around us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm waiting for Karen to get done. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, so you mention Inspira, which I believe is 304 units; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah; yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wasn't it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Inspira was, yeah, 304. COMMISSIONER FRY: And Allura, which was proposed at 350, was reduced down it 304 -- CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: It was proposed at 420. It was reduced. COMMISSIONER FRY: It was proposed at 420; reduced to 304 -- on 35 acres -- 34, 35 acres, so it was a density of about eight and a half or so. This is 300 units on 10 acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It's 18 acres. COMMISSIONER FRY: Eighteen acres. Okay. My question is, what is the magic of the number 300? Now, it was explained to me previously that for the level of amenities at Allura with the giant swimming pools and the big weight rooms and all those kinds of -- with all that property, they had room for more amenities. You don't have the room for that many amenities on this property. But why the magic of 300? Why not --why is 300 units required? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, I can have --I can have Rob Sucher come up here. But the magic is you have to have a sufficient amount of units to make the investment in the level of amenities that are going to be provided. Now, they're to be internal and not a separate clubhouse, unlike Allura and Inspira, but you're going to have those level of amenities, and you've got to spread that cost over an appropriate number of units. You even heard from David Depew, who was an expert who testified in the Allura matter against it, acknowledged that 300 units is the market for apartment developers. So that's really what they're looking for on -- as far as having enough economies of scale for a well-amenitized high-end apartment complex, and that's where that number comes from, plus we're a redevelopment site. Page 45 of 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: To the parking, the shared parking that's on the -- I'll call it the top of that picture, the north side of it. All that shared parking outside the gate along the top of the apartment complex and in between the outparcels, thafs all to be provided by the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The answer is yes. Everything outside of the gate is going to be developed by the apartment developer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. We were talking about building heights, and, you know, I noticed in the NIM we talked about it a little bit. The neighbors -- I didn't see an objection from the neighbors in terms of being close to buildings of that height. That's been expressed in other applications that have come before us. Have there been any sightlines? You know, for Allura there were sightlines presented that addressed kind of what it would look like from the neighbors' standpoint. I was wondering if anything like that has been done for this project or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we didn't for a couple reasons. One, at the original NIM, we had told the residents we were going to do five -story buildings, and we didn't receive any pushback on the five -story buildings. By the time we went to the CRA advisory board to discuss the project, we were further along in the design of the site and had come down to four-story buildings. So, initially, when we were out talking to the public, these were five -story buildings without -- without pushback and not receiving any pushback at the four stories that we're proposing. And we mention, as Wayne told you -- I forget the exact number. Was it 70 feet and -- 65 feet zoned, 75 feet actual was the original public outreach. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. In the packet there's mention of a shared work space kind of like a "we work" concept. I was wondering if you could give us more details on that, if that is an official part of the plan and, if so, where would it go? MR. SUCHER: Rob Sucher with Johnson Development. Thank you guys for being here today and the consideration of the project. So "we work" is probably the more global brand that's associated with the co -work opportunity, but for us it's a real opportunity to have work space outside of your units. So we dedicate a number of square footage down in our amenity area to what would be desk space as well as conference rooms that are available to our residents. This, again, allows someone who is dual income household, they're coming home, for somebody who wants to watch TV with their roommate, and somebody needs to study, to go downstairs and have more of an oasis opportunity and some quiet time. It's been very successful in our previous developments, and it's something we're actually expanding right now in terms of intentional square footage within the development. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think it's fantastic, and I wonder, has it been done in other complexes that have come before the Planning Commission, shared work space or just office -type space within the amenities? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they have, I don't think we discussed it. I don't remember hearing it before. COMMISSIONER FRY: Final question. There's reference in the -- in the NIM meeting there was reference to funds for rear right-of-way as -- I think the amount was $50,000 for rear right-of-way, and I just wondered if you could tell me what that is. What is that referring to? MR. ARNOLD: Hi. Wayne Arnold. That's a prior commitment that was in our PUD, and that was for installation of a sidewalk along one side of Peters Avenue. And that was going to be done in conjunction with the City of Naples waterline replacement project, and I don't think that the sidewalk has been installed, and I think portions of the money were paid as part of Starbucks. I don't think the full $50,000 has been paid toward that contribution, but that was what it was for, for a sidewalk to be installed along Peters Avenue. COMMISSIONER FRY: That commitment is still in place? MR. ARNOLD: The commitment is still in the PUD, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That's all I have. Page 46 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, did you have more you wanted to -- you were -- I wasn't sure you were done before Karl started. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was -- did you take a look at the U.S. 41 corridor study that East Naples is working on and has been working on for some time? Johnson's Engineering did, for the county, did the last part of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I personally have not, and I don't think we as a team have looked at that study, which is -- no, you're not talking about the DOT study? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: No, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're talking about a planning study? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. The corridor -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We focused on this site and what would be appropriate development standards to redevelop this shopping center into something that I think the community would rather see than what's there today. COMMISSIONER HOM AK: Well, actually, the community would like to see a hotel. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: For all the same reasons that the rental would be good, a hotel would, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as we discussed, Johnson also has a hotel arm, and this was not a site that they identified as a hotel site. COMMISSIONER HOM AK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. Not right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mr. Yovanovich, the typical zoned height -- allowable height for that area, you said, was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the overlay, which is immediately adjacent to us, is 56 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifty-six feet, the overlay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then I asked during lunch but nobody -- you believe that the hotel that's being built up on 41, you think that's at the 56 level? I believe that's five stories, is it not? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What is that, a Staybridge or something, going in? Anybody know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two going --I mean, there's others. Staybridge is going in on 41 and 951. There's a Woodsprings going on where the old Naples Steel used to be. MR. YOVANOVICH: That one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one? That's Woodsprings. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One hundred twenty-five or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that I believe is five stories right now, is it not? I believe it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you're right, but I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the Gateway -- that's a different zoning. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, its in the overlay that could be 56 feet if its single use or 112 feet if it's multi, I believe is the heights, but I know 56 is height. I don't know if it's eligible for the multi -- the mixed-use height of 120 or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they have condominiums in it, they can go to 112, or residential. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And I know that's the -- across the street is the Triangle, which is different. Page 47 of 94 September 19, 2019 Okay. Well, I mean, when we get into discussion, I'll have a couple of comments. That's all the questions I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with the height. Explain to me why you think you need -- I don't care if it's 50, 55, or 60 -- why you need to fit -- four stories have to be as high as you're asking for. And I don't think you'll be the one to explain them, Rich, but you can start. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can tell you right now, Mr. Strain, we've talked to the architecture, and the architecture has said, in order to have the ability to design a building with the integrated amenities, he would like to have the 55 feet to design a nice, attractive building, and it's not inconsistent with the heights of Inspira that doesn't have an integrated amenity center. So none of us on this team can explain to you or anybody on this planning board how the building will ultimately be designed or constructed. We could just tell you the envelope in which we would like to build an attractive aesthetically, from the outside as well, as pleasing to potential tenants in the -- potential renters, and we believe 55 feet to do that is not inappropriate on this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think that you're an authority on construction techniques that can convince me that 55 feet is adequate for this. And if you're just relaying messages from your architecture, is he here today? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does he work for you guys? So if he's told to design the building to 55 feet, he'll design the building to 55 feet. I'm concerned when you tell the public you're going to build four stories, generally 10 foot plate to plate is what you're working with and some rooftop levels. We -- 45 feet is about where we look at four stories. You're above that, but you say you need it because you want to put a fitness center or amenity center in a building. What building do you want to put that amenity center in? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just showed you the three buildings that we anticipate putting amenities in there, and that's why we've -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So one of those three is what you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. All three. We're thinking that we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll spread them -- we're going to spread out amenities into the different buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a design on this building that we could see a cross-section of it or something? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I had a design, it would be here. I've told you it has not been designed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we met, I told you this was a big issue with me, and you -- you're -- the guy behind you said he'd come -- be prepared to talk about the construction methodology. So what is it we're going to have on this to know that the 55 is justified or 50 or whatever you're going for today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, the architect hasn't designed the building yet, so I can't -- what Rob did is he went back to his architect. He said, what do you have? And he says, I don't have it designed yet. He says, I would like 55 feet as the envelope from an actual height to design a quality four-story building with integrated amenities in. hispira, which I think we all agree is a very nice project that is four stories without integrated clubhouse, is at 49 feet zoned, 58 feet actual. So an additional six feet for integrated amenities doesn't seem unreasonable for the architect to have that envelope to design a building. I wish I had a building design, but we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Rich, when I met with you and I started talking about the technique and how to justify it, you guys were going to come today prepared to tell me. Instead you just told me the architect wants flexibility to 55 feet. That's -- I mean, everybody that comes in this room wants flexibility. We just had a project before you wanting flexibility. Everybody wants flexibility. Page 48 of 94 September 19, 2019 At some point Collier County's got to stop the flexibility and become practical on how we do things. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we think what we've asked for, just like many other projects that come before you, you don't design the buildings at zoning. You come in with a footprint. You ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then ask standards. Ask for standards we typically address. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and sometimes you have to change those standards to bring in different types of projects that will be market leading and developing products that you want in Collier County, and we think that we're within line based upon other four-story buildings without integrated common facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I like the idea of the project being used for residential. I was glad when Mr. Kirby told me about this the first time. I thought it was a good idea to help rejuvenate projects Re this that need that. I hate to see a stumbling block be hit on the height but, obviously, that's where we're headed. Can you -- there was another map on here before this one was here that showed some numbers to the property line for the buildings. I can read those on that map. They're not clear. Can you tell me what they are as far as your blue line to black line? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The corner of this building is 70 feet from the property line. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What about on the other side over -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The corner of this building is 76 feet from the property line. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's the two I was concerned about. MR. YOVANOVICH: So they're well set back from our neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2.6, the development standards, you said the residential buildings are eligible to be developed utilizing the architectural standards of the Bayshore/Gateway overlay standards. See Planning Commitment No. 1 in Section 3.11 of this PUD. If you believe that, then why are you adding it as an element to the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: 2.6, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. In 2.6 you lead off your table with that sentence, or part of that sentence. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because we go to Paragraph 3.11 of the PUD to say these are the standards we've asked to be included in our PUD because, as Wayne explained, we're not technically in the overlay, but there are some of the development standards in the overlay we would like to be subject to in our PUD, but not all of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you said you're eligible to develop by utilizing the architectural standards. You're really not because you're excluded from the overlay, so you're asking to become -- have certain elements apply. Is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're really not part of the -- you're not required to perform to those architectural standards. You're preferring to. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're requesting that because they're designed for redevelopment projects, and we think it makes sense. We could have just simply put our own Development Standards Table in with those very same provisions to obtain those things as well, and then we would have asked for deviations from the regular code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to the Development Standards Table. Your minimum setbacks for accessory is why I was concerned about the C/R uses along 41, and you have said that, I believe, all of the C/R uses fronting 41 will not be allowed to have a residential product; is that fair? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And we talked about putting a note on the master plan or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- where appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: hi your minimum setbacks, you said you have from PUD perimeter boundaries, parenthetical, outdoor recreational areas 25 feet. From PUD peremptory boundaries, parenthetical, active recreation areas, 50 feet. What's the difference? Page 49 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just wondering how we're going to figure it out. You can come in and say anything is active that is activity, and outdoors just means it's outside the building. So I'm just a little -- I'm assuming it's outside the building. And -- hi. MS. JOHNSON: Hi. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was wondering why we wouldn't keep it more consistent with the language in the LDC. But I wouldn't be asking the question then. MS. JOHNSON: Kristina Johnson, for the record. I'm up here just to discuss the options for outdoor recreation areas and active recreation areas. And if I could, I'm going to attempt to put something on the projector. So what we're looking at here is just basically what Mark was asking the question on. There are two requested setbacks. One is for active, and one is just for outdoor. And as you can see, that those setbacks are greater than the required setback for regular uses on site for accessory. And the reason that we identify those two as items to put a larger setback requirement on is active is pickleball, basketball. You've got activities happening that might be more of a sport related. The outdoor activities, we were thinking more passive, a yoga park, a dog park, maybe a barbecue grill, so those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do -- you do understand all the things you're saying are "like," "maybe." It's pretty ambiguous. So it wouldn't surprise me if someone came in with an argument that something you just didn't say does fit under one of the other to the advantage of whatever setback they're trying to utilize. And since this isn't a defined term, we need to fix it, in my opinion. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm -- we should know what you're intending, where you're intending it, and where the setback would apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: The pool is an example of an active. The other uses, pickleball, basketball, those are examples of what we intended by the active setback. A barbecue pit or a dog walking area, we anticipated those were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Outdoor? MR. YOVANOVICH: Would be the outdoor not active. So if we wanted to define those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now you just introduced a new one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I'm just saying -- look, if you have a suggestion how to better wordsmith this, we're fine with that. You've asked us what we intended. We've done -- if you want to call it passive instead of outdoor for those types of uses and we can say "including but not limited to" outdoor grill, dog walk area, things like that would be the passive, and the active would be swimming pool, tennis courts, basketball courts. I'm not saying we're going to do those things, but if we were, those would clearly be active. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would prefer is if you're going to introduce a new term, you need to introduce a definition for the term for your protection as well as the public's protection. So I think this board would need to know what you mean by each, and then we can decide if that is something that ought to be allowed on this site in regards to those setbacks being offered. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I just tried to explain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said "like." You didn't say this is what it's limited to. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- but, Mr. Strain, what if something comes along that we haven't thought about today that is very similar to walking a dog? Do I have to come back and amend the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am tired of everybody changing things because it's ambiguous, it's like, it's conceptual. No, we'll nail it down, and that's the way I'm to look at it. You don't have to agree to that, but that's -- from my perspective, that's what I'm looking for. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject real quick. A suggestion made to maybe just have one exclude the other. Is that a possibility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. But they've got to give us what the one would include so we know what the public can expect to have next door to them or near by. Page 50 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. SABO: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we look at recreation areas as always being even located on plans. Now, you know -- so I don't know where these outdoor ones are going to go. I don't know how much disruption of 50 -- or 25 -foot -- what is it, outdoor's 25 feet. So an outdoor area where you would probably have possibly the most noise, because the sports you just talked about were outdoor, some of them were, so you -- between active and outdoor, I can't decipher that, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, clearly we're comfortable saying that the active use will be a pool. Fine with that? That's the only active use we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everything else -- every other use, recreational use you have is an outdoor recreational use? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would rather use the word -- either "recreational," or I think "passive" is a better word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the amenities that are recreational in nature, like a condominium or like an -- like a PUD have for its rec center, rec center goes in, they have an outdoor pool. They could have tennis courts. They could have pickleball courts, whatever. Those are all going to be at 25 feet where just a minute ago you used those activities -- active things as 50 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we can -- what I had tried to describe -- and we do this all the time, Mr. Strain -- is when we talk about passive uses, I think if we were to say, a dog walk area, a barbecue pit area, a park bench, things like that, I think, adequately describe what similar type uses are. I can't tell you, and I don't think you can tell me, what two years from now might be a passive use that is totally appropriate in 25 feet but is similar to a dog walk area, a barbecue pit area, and a park bench. I can only give you -- we do these things all the time. I don't think it's inappropriate. We've told you that the only active use we're asking is the pool, and that will be at least 50 feet away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you just said it twice: "We do this all the time." I've been doing it for 19 years. You came in as assistant county attorney just before I started doing it, so I know you've been doing it for a long time, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You just tell me where we've done -- where we've used these two definitions before. Where, if we've done them all the time? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I've said to you, we probably should have used "active" and "passive." If the use of the outdoor rec area is a problem, let's change it to "passive." We've done that many, many times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've been asking. I need definitions that are in our code, not new definitions made up by a developer to use for whatever he wants to use it for. So if you want to use "passive," as long as "active" -- I can't remember if "active" is in the code or not. I know "passive" is. So, basically, here's your passive recreation area, and anything else would be passive recreation area. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we're going to have a few minutes. How about I get on my ipad and I pull up the MUNI code and I see what those two definitions say and see if we could put something together that would be defined enough for the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. When -- what, at break? Because we're going to have another break at 2:30. We probably won't be done with it by then. We'll -- before we end, we'll give you some time to do that. On that same table, as we get to the bottom, there's a footnote: Clubhouse located within a residential structure shall follow the development regulations for multifamily. MR. YOVANOVICH: You wanted to add the word "if in front of that when we discussed this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. And I got to thinking, listening to your description today, of how you're fitting this together. Are you definitely going to put clubhouse -- the clubhouse will be in a residential structure? You're not going to do a stand-alone? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We originally wanted the flexibility to have it outside of the building, but I think we've made the decision to integrate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are you committing that goes on the ground floor, not the top floor? Page 51 of 94 September 19, 2019 I mean, no rooftop pools or anything like that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not going to have a rooftop pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about a rooftop dining area or restaurant for your tenants? Because you'd have those in recreation centers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Honestly, we haven't -- we haven't ruled that out. We have not considered it definitely being in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your 3.2, your PUD master plan, it's written now that the maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels shall not exceed 165,000 square feet of commercial floor area and a maximum of 300 multifamily. I mentioned to you that the "and" was not acceptable. It had to be -- if you're going to build residential, then you've got to drop the commercial down. That doesn't work both ways. And I know you rely on a traffic cap to do that, but I'm relying on both things are what make this work, the traffic cap and the mix of uses. And I don't think 165,000 and 300 works right, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. What number would you like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your TIS says 65,000 and 300. So why wouldn't we stick with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. If we go with the residential option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. In 3.3, the top of the paragraph on that that's not crossed out, downstream wastewater system soon as capacity is available for the commercial -only project. Downstream wastewater system and capacity must be confirmed at the time of the development permit, SDP, or PPL. And I can't recall in the 321 pages, do you have a commitment from whoever is the wastewater? And it may be the city in this case. I'm not sure who is, the city or county. MR. YOVANOVICH: County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have they committed to accept the wastewater stream? Do they have the capacity? Because here it's not saying they do. MR. YOVANOVICH: They have the capacity in the plant. They want to have us analyze how to get it from here to the plant, and that's what that condition is for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're supposed to know it's available by the conditions of the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're supposed to know that you have treatment capacity, and you have treatment capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not for your site we don't. It says right here. Only -- commercial only. MR. YOVANOVICH: You have treatment -- well, Eric Fey -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down water (sic) wastewater system capacity must be confirmed. That means its not confirmed if it must be confirmed. MR. YOVANOVICH: They want to confirm that the pump stations and the pipes to get it there may need to be upgraded or not to get it to the sewer plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is anybody from Utilities here? MR. SABO: Yes. Mr. Fey is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is he? Good morning, Eric. MR. FEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Afternoon, I think. Yeah. Sorry about that. Did you hear the question? MR. FEY: I did not. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the 3.3 section of the PUD for Courthouse Shadows, the paragraph's been added that says, downstream wastewater system capacity is available for a commercial -only project. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time development permit, SDP, PPL, review of the mixed-use site plan. We have to know that the capacity's available for this facility as part of the PUD application. Have you been able to confirm whether or not it is for the residential component, which will be 300 units? Page 52 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 MR. FEY: The way the system exists today, there is not capacity from my judgment, but there's a PUD commitment in the document that they will perform the necessary upgrades to achieve that capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In order to protect your department from being forced to do things you're not capable of doing right now and having to foot out taxpayers' dollars to get that accomplished, what language could we add as a stipulation to protect the needs that you have to make sure this is done as you need it done? MR. FEY: I believe we already have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that paragraph? It needs to be in the PUD if -- or a stipulation of some kind, so... MR. FEY: Yeah, the -- it says any improvements to the Collier County water/sewer district's wastewater collections transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve a multi -use site plan will be the responsibility of the developer -- sorry. I'll let you catch up -- to design, permit, and construct and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water/Sewer District at no cost to the county at the time of preliminary and final acceptance, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no obligation for performance on your end that you feel you can't meet? MR. FEY: Correct. There's no obligation to us to provide system improvements to accommodate the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they go ahead and put the improvements in and they pay for them, you're assured that you have the capacity to handle whatever they put in that system comparable to what's being asked for in the PUD? MR. FEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Yes, sir, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eric, when you say "capacity," it's not the plant. It's probably a pump station? MR. FEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So they just --they have to increase the pump station or just change the pumps or what? Change the pipes? MR. FEY: That's yet to be determined. It looks like there will be some pump station upgrades, at least two pump stations. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: More than likely just change the type of pump, change the size, impellers or whatever? MR. FEY: Correct. That's right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. FEY: Pipe capacity seems to be okay, but that requires further analysis as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR. FEY: So the applicant has committed to doing whatever necessary to satisfy our standards at the time of development permit application. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That word "capacity," sometimes people think it's the sewage plant lacks the capacity or something, but it's just the system itself. MR. FEY: Yes, the conveyance. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's just for the public. MR. FEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Eric. That's all I need. Rich, on your 3.11 planning, you ask for four sections of the Bayshore Triangle overlay that you do want to apply to your project. Can someone explain to me why each one is necessary? MS. JOHNSON: Again, for the record, Kristina Johnson, to answer your questions on Section 3.11 and those four different sections of code. Start with the first one here, apartment buildings massing and scale. There is an allowance in the overlay code which takes the building massing from a Page 53 of 94 September 19, 2019 requirement of 10 feet down to five feet. So, basically, your projections and your recesses, instead of having a requirement of 10, it's allowed five feet, and that would have been a -- that will be a helpful allowance for the architect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that means, basically, that the reliefs on the building that give it character, instead of being 10 -foot sections, they can be 5 -foot sections; they'd be smaller? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a reduction in our county standard to the overlay standard? MS. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: The next one is a shared 10 -foot Type A buffer adjacent to nonresidential properties. Only applicable to the existing commercially zoned property located outside the PUD frontage on Peters Avenue. I have to pull up the master concept plan to show this one, but it's, basically, there is a -- there is a requirement that commercially zoned properties where they are adjacent -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that it? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. So this request -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: So this request is for the buffers around this property. It's not located in the PUD boundary, and the request is to allow a shared 10 -foot Type A buffer there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Shared" meaning? MS. JOHNSON: Five foot to either property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if the properties agreed to that? I mean, they'd have to do five feet on their property then; is that correct? MS. JOHNSON: Rather than 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but, I mean, you do 10 on yours, but now you want to go to five on yours, and they get to do five on theirs, whereas right now you both have, what, 10? MS. JOHNSON: It would be 10 each, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so the property owner on that particular one has been consulted with? Have you guys talked to him at all or her or -- MS. JOHNSON: I have not, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about No. 3? Water management can be located in buffers. Now, that means your buffers that are five feet or whatever are going to have water management in with the vegetation. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. That's a -- that is allowable in the overlay code to have your buffer overlap your water management area. That could be swales. That could be dry detention areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said "overlap." Could the water management area be within the buffer area and not overlap? MS. JOHNSON: I believe the answer is yes. If I read that code section, I think it is -- I'll have -- if Wayne can double-check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's because of the overlay basically, because you're asking for that exclusion -- that assistance by the overlay section? MS. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in that one, again, the standards in the county are more stringent than the standards you're asking for on the overlay? MS. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one, the parking table, the PUD has -- I mean, not the PUD. But the overlay has certain types of parking requirements, and I know we've heard a lot about parking today, some of those requirements, and the PUD does. Multifamily dwellings -- there's a whole paragraph in our -- I'm sorry; our LDC. There's a whole paragraph in our LDC about how parking is to apply to multifamily dwellings, and its simplified quite a bit in the overlay. How do those compare in quantities? Page 54 of 94 September 19, 2019 MS. JOHNSON: The specific quantities I can't give you a number on. The ratio for those, I believe it's one parking space for one unit, one -and -a -half parking spaces is required for a two-bedroom unit, and I'll have to check on the three-bedroom unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we also have visitor parking requirements in the LDC. I didn't see any in the BMUD overlay. All units shall have one per unit plus visitor parking computed at .5 per efficiency, .75 per one -bedroom unit, one per two-bedroom unit or larger unit, and you've got additional parking for office and administrative buildings or small-scale recreational facilities that are accessory to the single-family or multifamily project intended only for residents of that project. They may be computed at 50 percent of the normal requirements where a majority of the dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the recreational facility and at 25 percent of normal requirements where the majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreational facility. So I'm just wondering -- because you asked for a change in the parking for the recreational facility. It almost seems like it was already included because of the distances you've got clustered there for this. Do you really need the deviation? MS. JOHNSON: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to stay with the county's numbers is what I'm suggesting. MS. JOHNSON: So I believe the section you read is from the LDC, the straight code from the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: And there is an administrative -- not administrative code, but there's a document that has been distributed from Growth Management that doesn't allow multifamily clubhouses to achieve the same -- or to get the same 50 percent relief, specifically for multifamily. So although the code does state that there's some relief given, there was an -- administratively there's a staff clarification that does not allow multifamily amenities to have the same relief of that 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How could staff take something out of the code and say it doesn't apply anymore unless they go through the Board to do it; do you know? MS. JOHNSON: I do not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are you familiar with whatever's being -- MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, James Sabo, principal planner for the record. It is a staff clarification from 2005. It's 2005-02. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From 15 years ago? I mean, that was when we had 91-102, I think. MR. SABO: Yeah. That is what they're referencing, the staff clarification, 2005-02. It's from the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because in reading the code, I wasn't 100 percent sure because I don't know all the ins and out of the way you're doing your project, but it looked like you might actually not need the deviation and qualify under the county's numbers to take care of the parking for that facility you're concerned about. MS. JOHNSON: So based on the staff clarification, the past two apartments that I've permitted, the clubhouse is not able to take that 50 percent reduction based on the location of the clubhouse, you know, being within 300 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the table that's in the LD -- overlay would be more beneficial for you to operate with than the parking requirements of the LDC? MS. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Peters Avenue, you have two entrances. And you may have gotten into this. I just want to make sure. You have a dark black arrow going both ways. That is for a potential loading access if you have commercial; is that how that was set up for? And then you have a double arrow south of the not -included parcel that's in white. Because at the meeting with the folks in the NIM you told them you would limit the accesses to Peters Boulevard if you did the residential. Right. So on your residential plan, you're eliminating both of those; is that correct? MS. JOHNSON: If it's built as residential, we would not have an access to Peters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Page 55 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: At those locations. We would still have it by Starbucks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it's there. I use that one myself. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wanted to make sure the record was clear that we weren't eliminating all access to Peters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I needed some of your deviations explained. Your Deviation No. 2 changes, could you explain that -- show it on -- I mean, just basically reiterate it on the plan that you've got in front of us. MS. JOHNSON: Deviation 2, the changes, that deviation was previously approved with the Sam's Club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. JOHNSON: The request from staff was to revise the language such that it matched the exact terminology of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, you weren't at the meeting I had with the rest of the team this week, were you? Because that would have been nice if you were there to answer some of these questions. I wouldn't be asking them today. MS. JOHNSON: I was not at the meeting earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your Deviation No. 11 -- 11 through 15, why don't we walk through those on the map; point them out; show us how they fit. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Deviation No. 11, that is a request specifically for the commercial outparcels, and the reason for this request is code requires a buffer to be located on their properties adjacent to that reverse frontage road, and most of those commercial outparcels are built. They're built almost to their property line, and they do not have'the ability to provide a buffer on that property, whether it be they have concrete or they have parking or some other existing feature there today. Currently -- or the current code would require them -- if they were to come in to redevelop, it would require them to provide a buffer on the south side of their property. So this deviation is only necessary to protect those existing commercial outparcels that do not have the room to provide a landscape buffer on the south side of their property adjacent to the reverse frontage road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: Deviation 12, this is for the buffer requirement on the south side of the river's frontage road. In this deviation we are requesting to have a reduced buffer width. The requirement is 10 feet wide. We are asking for a reduction of five feet. This applies to both -- this applies to the area in green. If this area is developed in the future as commercial, it would allow the existing terminal landscape islands in the parking lot to be used towards that requirement of the landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're also doing -- this is a gated residential community, right? Secure? MS. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you securing -- what through the buffers? You're putting in a fence or a wall or just -- it doesn't show anything up on here. I was just curious. MS. JOHNSON: It does not. Right now the applicant is thinking about a fence or a wall, which is actually shown on my next presentation slide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: So the same deviation we're also asking for the residential option, and in this request, again, its a request going from 10 feet down to a five -foot -wide buffer. And as you can see in here, the applicant is proposing some sort of a fence, like a decorative fence just to continue that security around the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the NIM you had indicated that this would be a gated area. Wouldn't that seem to imply that it's going to have a perimeter -- something in the perimeter to secure it as well, or did you only intend to let the public believe it was just going to be a gate that lifts up and down and you weren't going to put a wall or anything else in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, there's a ton of gated communities in Collier County that do Page 56 of 94 September 19, 2019 not have fences around the entire perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not this small. MR. YOVANOVICH: They are still gated, and this is going to be gated. And we never implied or said to everybody we were building a wall or a fence. We can. We didn't say we were going to. We said it was going to be gated at those two points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why I'm asking the question today, to figure out what you intended. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can I ask a quick question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Deviation No. 12 applies to commercial development south of the access road. So you're also intending to apply that to residential? It requires a 10 -foot buffer for commercial development. Because you just showed an exhibit that applies it to multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Am I the only one that's cold in this place? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Joe's freezing. Tom is. Karl said something, but Karen's not. So I think you just got outvoted. Can facilities please take a look at providing some Florida weather inside this locker room? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Meat locker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, my God. MS. JOHNSON: So I think the question is for Deviation 12, it's -- the request is for commercially zoned properties to seek relief from the 10 -foot requirement, but it's also being requested for -- in the event that that area highlighted in green is developed residential. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That will need to be fixed, because I don't know that staff would apply the south as being commercial development if it's residentially developed unless it's in a mixed-use building. So that will need to be fixed. MS. JOHNSON: The exhibit that we're looking at on the screen right now was included in the deviation request embedded in the deviation. So it was something that staff would have seen as being part of the request. This is not a separate -- I just wanted to make sure it's clear this is not something that the staff has not seen. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't recall seeing it, but -- that's why the text applies only to commercial. So it would need to be fixed if it's to apply to residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And something that I -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's now what the standard is for -- residential might have a greater buffer. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so everybody knows, this panel was given on Thursday -- actually Friday morning 1,740 pages to read for today's hearing. So I'm asking for clarifications on things because just to get through reading 1,740 pages was enough of a task so that we need some -- we need to make sure all the information we read is explained to us. So Heidi, if she doesn't remember reading it, neither do I. So at least we need the explanation. And that's why we're going to have to go through things so tediously. When we get that kind of information with four days or five days to go before the meeting, it's not too helpful to make sure the public's protected by having to read that much in that short a period of time, so... MS. JOHNSON: Understood. And we can certainly clarify in the request for 12 such that Mark is satisfied if that's -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, if the Planning Commission is satisfied with this deviation applying to commercial development, mixed-use developments, and residential development, then we will clarify the language. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 14. MS. JOHNSON: Did we skip 13? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you did -- okay. I'm sorry. Back to 13 then. That's the one Page 57 of 94 September 19, 2019 with the fence, right? MS. JOHNSON: Thirteen is a request for the location of the buffer we were just discussing from Deviation 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: Code requires that the landscape buffer be placed directly adjacent to the access road. And what we're requesting is to place that buffer at least 25 feet away. That -- this -- or this request allows us to install some 90 -degree parking along with a five -foot -wide sidewalk along that reverse frontage road. So it allows some additional shared parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fourteen? MS. JOHNSON: I'm a little out of the order, so just give me one minute to organize the papers here. All right. So Deviation 14 is a request to establish dimensional standards for residential uses in the PUD. So first I'd like to just quickly display for you what is currently allowed in the PUD for the commercial zoning, and then you can also see what these setbacks look like on the aerial. So the -- on this aerial you'll see a green line around the perimeter, and that shows you where the -- that's the setback that is currently allowed in the PUD if it were developed as a commercial property. Is everyone good with that slide? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: So next up is our request for residential standards. And as you can see in this request, there's a minimum unit square footage, there's the building heights, which were previously, and also some additional dimensional setbacks below. And, again, these are illustrated on this aerial as the blue line that surrounds the perimeter. And some items that were previously mentioned, but I'll point them out again, there are a couple dimensions on here to the corners of the buildings. Dimension of 70 feet to Peters, a dimension of 76 feet over to Collee, and then a dimension of 120 feet again over to Collee. It's an oddly shaped property. It's a triangle, really. And so some of these -- the site layout has been very challenging, but we feel like we've achieved some good setbacks to those residential communities to the south. And then, again, a quick comparison of what is currently allowed in the PUD versus what we are requesting. Again, the building heights -- and as you can see with all of the new multifamily setbacks, there's an increase in all of them with the exception to the setback to Collee Court. And, lastly, just to show you that comparison, on this exhibit you have -- the green is the setbacks if it were developed as commercial, and the blue, again, is residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, basically, at 35 feet you are going to be to the green line, at 55 feet you're going to be at the blue line? MS. JOHNSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Zoned. And Deviation 14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1. That's the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle overlay. You don't -- you're excluded from that, so why are you asking for a deviation from it? MS. JOHNSON: When we started the permitting process back in February, it was set up such that we were -- thought we were in that overlay, and it has come to fruition over the course of permitting that the property is, in fact, not in the overlay. So perhaps the language of this request should have been changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's already -- if you're not subject to it already, why don't we just drop it? MR. ARNOLD: As long as the other sections apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as we're clear -- I think it's 3.11 -- as long as those sections clearly apply and we're all clear on the record that the rest of the overlay does not apply, to make sure I don't have to make sure I've asked for that deviation -- I'm all good with deleting that deviation. Page 58 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got Ray Bellows here who's the project manager or the zoning manager, and we've got Corby Schmidt here who, I guess, wrote this section or wrote up the GMP element of this. Between the two of them, if we get an affirmative on this -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to be clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and there's no argument, are you comfortable? MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as the record's clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the County Attorney's Office doesn't have a dog in the fight on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the last one is -- we'll get to that when we get to staff. So the last one is Deviation 15. Now, that's the one that talks about the clubhouse, so I understand that one. Just out of curiosity, if every one of these buildings, or multiple buildings, are going to be the clubhouse property, do all of them get the 50 percent? MR. YOVANOVICH: Wherever we have a -- whatever the total square footage of the clubhouse is that would have required parking would be a 50 percent number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have five buildings and the ground floor has a portion of the amenities in each one, each one of those gets a parking reduction for that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: However the county would calculate that parking. I'm assuming they would look at each one of those, add up the square footage and say you would need X to park it, and we're saying we'd like half of X. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your master plan, you have a summary little corner block that talks about the density and the dwelling units and the square footage. When we clean up the language on the reduction of the commercial for the use of the residential, that plan would need to reflect it to be consistent. Yes, sir. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to follow up on the -- if the -- I'll call it a small local fitness center is in each building, you know, a treadmill or whatever type of -- then the resident would just walk downstairs and use that facility there, so there certainly would be no parking needed. Is that -- I mean, I was trying to follow your question. In the aggregate you're saying that they will take the total aggregate of the amenities, and then that would be the total to reduce the parking? That was your question, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know -- no. My question was how are you going to apply it if you've got -- instead of one clubhouse, you've basically got five. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll ask staff. I mean, I'm assuming however staff would calculate it, it would be half that number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why I want to get it understood today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, whoever wants to answer that. MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo. We would interpret it as per building. So if it's -- if they need 20 spaces outside one building and they want 50 percent, then it would be 10, and so on for the next building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the calculation would be on the square footage of each recreational area that's within the building? MR. SABO: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That sounds okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's on record. During the CRA meeting they talked about some aspects of it, and the CRA -- I think she's the director, Deborah Forester, recapped some of the Board's comments for them to take under consideration. Number one, some concerns is the rear fencing. Some commitment that is -- that it is for decorative or opaque with landscaping on both sides. Page 59 of 94 September 19, 2019 What -- how did you react, or have you reacted to that? This was from the meeting that was discussed with the CRA board back on August 5th of 2019. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I don't recall if the CRA board, when they recommended approval of this project, incorporated any conditions. I believe that -- she may have recapped things to discuss, but I don't think that they requested any modifications to what we had presented to them as part of their -- I believe they took a motion to recommend approval of the project as proposed. I'm subject to being corrected on the record, but that's my memory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Steve Main made a motion to support the project as presented with the density and the addition of the residential component to the project. Karen Beatty seconded the motion. Al Schantzen wanted to state that he would support the project without the density. Passed 6-1. Prior to the vote, Ms. Forester recapped some of the board's comments for them to take under consideration. I'll just read them so this board can consider them, too. Some concern is the rear fencing; some commitment that it is decorative or opaque with landscaping on both sides. Number 2, front fence should be some sort of decorative fencing with no solid wall. Number 3, maintain the pedestrian connection to reactivate the commercial component. Number 4, developer's commitment on the current MPUD for a sidewalk on Peters Street. Was that payment in lieu outstanding, or was that to be forthcoming? And, No. 5, Haldeman Creek MSTU verification of the development's impact on the Haldeman Creek MSTU. So you researched none of those? Your answer to all of them is no? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are doing decorative fencing around the perimeter of the project with some of that fencing being in the actual buildings, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the pedestrian connection to the commercial component? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what about the developer's commitment on the sidewalk on Peters Ave? There was some pages written about that in here, and maybe you could -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's still in the PUD, Mr. Strain. The previous commitment is still in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it payment in lieu of outstanding, or was it to be forthcoming? It's not been made? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe portions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the question. MR. YOVANOVICH: A portion of it's been paid and some has not been paid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last one, have you -- the impact on Haldeman Creek MSTU, is that what Tim's been sitting here so patiently for since 9 o'clock this morning? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think -- what are we -- are we in that MSTU? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. The question was posed by the CRA. I want to make sure they get answers. That's all I'm looking for. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe -- if we're in it, we'll pay. If we're not in it, then that's the answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, they wanted to know the impacts on the Haldeman Creek MSTU. I don't know what they meant by that. I assumed you -all would have tried to answer it, and if you didn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the impacts, as we understand it, is we are still going to put water into Haldeman Creek at the discharge that's authorized by the county. I think that's our only impact, and then we did talk about we were going to have paddleboards or kayaks or canoes in the creek. So to the extent that that impacts the MSTU, that's what we explained to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there was no -- you guys didn't know if you're going to be paying Page 60 of 94 September 19, 2019 fees or not to be in the MSTU? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we're in the MSTU, we're going to pay the fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last document I want to walk through -- I want to look at real carefully to see if anybody on the GMPA -- oh, yes. The GMPA talks about that the site is within the transportation concurrency exception area, and it went into a couple different times bringing this up as strategies and things. Your traffic's already been accounted for. That shouldn't even apply to you; is that a fair statement? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They're not asking for any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just kept coming up in the report. It's kind of over and done with. You're not going to have any additional trips with the 300 additional multifamily. If you do that pursuant to your TIS and don't exceed 65,000 for commercial, you actually have a reduction in trips of about 209; is that fair to say? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll trust your numbers. I'll have to go back and look at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll remember that. I'll keep you to that in the future. MR. YOVANOVICH: Until I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just making sure I've got everything. And there's a some -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark, may I interject a question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: --related to what you just asked? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the NIM one person stood up and said, yes, you may be reducing the traffic, but the residential traffic will be highly of a morning and evening rush-hour nature. How does that differ in the impact on the roadway during the peak hours versus a commercial development? MR. BANKS: Again, for the record, Jim Banks. During the a.m. peak hour, the existing approved 165,000 retail would generate 167 trips. The 300 apartments plus the 65,000 square feet of retail will generate 264 trips. So there is a net increase of 97 trips in the a.m.; however, in the p.m., it would be 662 trips are generated by the existing retail uses, and 434 trips are going to be generated by the 300 residential and 65,000 square feet. So there would be a net reduction of 228 trips in the p.m. peak hour. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we gain 100 in the morning, and we lose a couple hundred in the afternoon. MR. BANKS: Yeah. And its a little bit skewed, because the retail actually generates pass -by trips, too, which aren't included in the number. So the impact at the intersection, its a side access, are greater from the retail that's even stated in that. Because if you're on your way to work, you pull into the gas station to get some gas. We don't count that as a new trip, but that is a -- so there is an additional impact at the site accesses with retail that's not accounted for in those numbers I just gave you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last question I have is the -- concerning the size of the units. Do you have any problem with a stipulation that the average unit will be 1,000 square feet or larger? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why'd you say that at the NIM? Mr. Sucher, who is he? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sucher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sucher. He said -- let's see. The size of the units, so we have not -- we're at an early stage right now, so we have not moved into full-scale design at this point. Typically, in the market you're going to see about an average of 1,000 square feet. It's a mix of one -bedroom to three-bedroom units, so it will be plus -or -minus 1,000 square feet, most likely, in the market. So you're -- that's an average of 1,000 square feet. Now you're not -- now that's not what you told the public? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the word was -- he was talking about what -- the market and that Page 61 of 94 September 19, 2019 we haven't fully designed it yet, but this is what he anticipates it would be. We do have a -- don't we -- the minimum -- typically the county had looked at the minimum being 700 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't you just say that to the public? If you're going to have stipul -- I if your document's going to say we're going to be -- we're going to -- our document says 700 minimum. Instead of -- why did you go into this discussion of 1,000 square feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because the community wanted to know what they could expect. And Rob got up there and said, this is what you can expect, plus or minus 1,000 square feet. That's typically what's in the market. We haven't fully designed it yet. He was totally truthful with the community. We showed them the level of amenities. We showed them the look of the project. We showed them how we were going to redevelop this site and into a much more attractive site. We've been nothing but -- nothing but honest with the community, and he gave the best he could give at that time. He didn't commit to a minimum -- or an average of 1,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just the manner in which it was responded to, it would seem to think that, wow, they're going to do about 1,000 square feet, that's good, because they're going to be market. But now you're saying the market isn't really what you're going to be. You're going to be less than the market, maybe down to 700 square feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we didn't say that, Mr. Strain. What we said was we're going to have minimum 700 -square -foot units, and we described what we anticipated the market to be today. It's going to be a well-amenitized market -rate apartment complex, and to imply that we somehow are going to do something less than that is not accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just reading what the minutes said. So if you weren't accurate at the minutes, I understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We were accurate. COMMISSIONER FRY: Can I piggyback? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, is there no market for units under 700 square feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure there is a market for units under 700 square feet, but that's not favorably looked upon by the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I've heard -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what, Mr. Fry, I could tell you there's a lot of people who would like to have studio apartments, but that has not been held favorable in this community. MR. KLATZKOW: It's called minimum housing standards. You need to have some minimum housing standard. Right now we're at about 700 square feet. If we decide to lower our minimum housing standards, it would be less. I will tell you that whatever they are, the developers will say we can sell lower. That is just the way it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: We talk about affordable housing. Wouldn't there be some young professionals that are single moving here for a job, no -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's minimum housing standards, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We had a petition come here, what, about a year ago on Thomasson Avenue was proposing 500 feet (sic), and it went nowhere. I mean, it was killed, so... MR. KLATZKOW: We just had a discussion on a hotel size being bigger than that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's about a hotel size. But it was exactly what it was, a studio apartment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you saying it's precluded -- it's in a written format precluded by minimum housing standards or just -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. I mean, our code has minimum standards to meet, and one of the minimum standards is 700 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is in the code. COMMISSIONER FRY: It is a code? MR. KLATZKOW: That's my understanding. We've always used it. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll go on record and say I disagree with the code. I think, if we want Page 62 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 affordable housing, there are a number of people that would -- the community would benefit if we had 500 -square -foot apartments that were studios and allow people to move in at a reasonable price range. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The drawback to that is the smaller units were perceived as being short-term rentals and would be more of a short-term rentals and people would go in them seasonal and it would create a whole different type of market, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: Then you'd get greater density as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was -- so there's a -- arguments both ways. COMMISSIONER FRY: You bring up a great point. The other apartments we've heard have all mentioned a minimum rental term, and I wondered if there is one for this apartment complex and what is it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm afraid to use the word "typical" for fear that that will come back and bite me, but seven months is the minimum rental, period. MR. KLATZKOW: But we're not going to put that in the ordinance. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would say hope not, but I don't know anymore. MR. KLATZKOW: There's nothing wrong with having month-to-month rentals. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, there isn't. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, honest to God. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that the month-to-month rental idea is something we've wanted to see. If we do it in hotels, that's great. This isn't a hotel. This is a rental apartment complex, so why would we want to -- if they're willing to go seven -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, short-term rentals for vacations are legal in Florida. In fact, you can't mandate against them. So, you know, I don't know really what we're talking about here as far as that goes. There's no reason why if somebody comes down -- they've moved from somewhere else to Collier County, all right. Maybe they have a home they're building. Maybe they're just trying to find the right place. You want to stick somebody with a one-year rental, whereas what they really want to do is just get their feet wet, in two, three months bring their family down and then go somewhere. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or spend three months and then be looking at the market and then having something built that will take eight or nine -- MR. KLATZKOW: There's nothing wrong with month to month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess it depends on the neighborhood it's in. MR. KLATZKOW: But these neighborhoods are renting out their homes, you know, as vacation homes, so, you know, its -- I don't know what to tell you. It's a changing world. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I just would like Mr. Sucher to step up for just a second. I believe I pronounced it right. MR. SUCHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just saw you nod. If studio apartments were acceptable, is that an economically feasible option for you in your apartment complexes, for instance, in this location? MR. SUCHER: Yes, sir, absolutely. This is the only community in which we do not develop studio apartments because we cannot per code. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? I'm finished with mine of the applicant at this point. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Will there be a percentage of these units available to anybody that works at the government complex for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm sure anybody who wants -- we'd love to have them. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: At a certain level of income? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have any income -restricted units in the project. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wouldn't you want to? Page 63 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Wouldn't I want to? COMNIISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. Keep the traffic off the roads so people can walk across the street. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we know the county pays, you know, fair wages, and I think it's a great location for people who work in this complex to live and walk across the street, and we know it's safe because we did it at lunch to test it out for Mr. Fryer. MR. KLATZKOW: I do it all the time, and it's called Frogger. I'm just --1 do it all the time, and I'm telling you its called Frogger. MR. YOVANOVICH: You've got to go to the corner where there's a traffic signal. MR. KLATZKOW: No. You've got to go right in the middle, actually, because otherwise they'll get you on the turn in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good point. You do have to wait there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- that's it. Thank you, Rich. I think we'll move on to staff report. We'll do the GMP staff report fust. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, I'll keep it very short. I'm just going to jump back to the back of the staff report where we have findings and conclusions and just point out a few of those. One, the property is designated as within an activity center and in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, both of which allow and promote mixed-use development as well as specifically in the overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dave, before you go too far, then why does it say excluded from the BMUD on the zoning maps; do you know? I showed the zoning map on the overhead a little while ago. MR. WEEKS: My recollection is that all the PUDs that were in existence when the overlay was created were excluded from the overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you just said -- MR. WEEKS: Zoning overlays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Zoning overlays. The future land use overlay, the property definitely is within. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the zoning overlay, which dictates the BMUD standards wouldn't necessarily apply because of the excluded language in the zoning map that's on there now. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And then there have been some PUDs rezoned subsequently on a piece of property that was not zoned PUD, was rezoned to PUD that falls within the zoning overlay, and that zoning overlay has remained. Serus Point being one example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: We know that the property is proximate to major employment opportunities, goods and services, and public transit. There was a demonstrated need for additional market -rate apartments, and at the macro level at which we review projects for compatibility, we find that it is compatible, and there are no public infrastructure impact concerns. We've recommended approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had some stipulations. Are those all still consistent with what you're suggesting? MR. WEEKS: Both of the stipulations -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's three actually, so... MR. SABO: I have those. MR. WEEKS: Those -- MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, l can cover those. I put those in the zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can cover Dave's stipulations? MR. SABO: Yeah, I think I put them in there. Page 64 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. WEEKS: I would point out that two of those are really internal. They're more of reminder type conditions. One of those is that the zoning, PUD zoning only goes into effect once the companion plan amendment goes into effect. Secondly -- MR. SABO: The effective date linked to the small-scale GMP and the 97 density pool bonus units. Does that sound accurate? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, David, the fact that the units from the density bonus pool can be used for this site even though it's excluded from the zoning portion of the development standards but because it was in the GMP portion, they're allowed to use those density, and there's actually a specific paragraph, I believe, in the GMP that provides for that; is that a fair statement? MR. WEEKS: That's accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I ought to keep you on -- you ought to keep saying that every time I say something. Why would, under the school district -- this is in the final staff report, or this may not be yours. You didn't do -- this will be something I'll ask somebody else. I'll ask when we get to -- I'm making sure I've got all your GMP stuff questioned, David, so I don't have to bother you again. I think we've got it all covered. Thank you. That should doit. Okay. And that will -- now we'll turn to James. MR. SABO: Yes. For the record, James Sabo, certified planner with the county. For the zoning we are recommending the CCPC forward Petition 3658, Courthouse Shadows to the BCC with approval with stipulations listed here. Deviation 14 and Deviation 15 not approved; however, we are willing to relent on those based on the discussion we had this afternoon. Also, the stipulations that were in the GMP I have in the zoning report as well. The FLUE is adopted -- assuming the FLUE is adopted and goes into effect, the amendment, and then the effective date linked to the GMP amendment for small scale and the ordinance needs to provide a maximum of 97 density pool units, so that's there. And, also, no residential uses in the C/R tract as we mentioned. And -- oh, the heights. The heights were changed during the discussion as well from 55 to 65 feet. That's our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of staff? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: A question I have relates to availability of documentation. It seems to me, Chairman, that you had access to a lot more stuff than we were able to get our hands on, which is great that someone had it. I'd like it too. What would be the best way for me to get access to the more detailed information? It's not on CityView. MR. SABO: Which -- Mr. Fryer, which information? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, all the details of the deviations, for instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those were -- MR. SABO: Those were in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're in the staff report. I had them -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: The images? MR. SABO: The images are in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had them explained to everybody because I assumed that with the amount of reading we had to do, not everybody might have digested it all. So that's the only reason I brought it in. MR. SABO: Yeah, it's in the -- it's one of the attachments. I included it as an attachment in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had 321 pages on just this one, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. I stand corrected, then, if you put it in there. Page 65 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. SABO: There was a lot of documents for this particular staff report. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm 100 pages in, and I don't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll see them -- yeah, they're -- that's the wrong one. You're looking -- yours is all lumped together, isn't it? So yours might have been Page 10,000. COMMISSIONER FRY: For the PUDA or for the GMPA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine are all lumped together in 321 pages. I just scroll down, and I hit it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There are two scanned documents that the rest of the Planning Commissioners got. Mark gets a combined one. But the GMPA is a lesser document load. But the images, everything dealing with those deviations was that presented today, are in the backup attachments. I'm looking at them now, so you should have had them in yours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should check just to make sure you got them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I went through, and Karl's gone through, and neither one of us can find them. Maybe we're overlooking. COMMISSIONER FRY: There's a lot of pages. I can't say I've gone through the whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my database -- my data that I get is different than yours in the sense the way it's organized, but I'm supposed to get the same thing. So if I had them, I assumed everybody did. MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else, Ned? -COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A discussion. Did you close the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we haven't -- we're not even close to that point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't think so, then. No, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we're not even done that -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- public speakers yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. James, on Page 11, top of the page, school district. Under the section called "staff analysis," a Collier County School District review is not applicable. Tom, you guys don't care about 300 more residential units? How does that work? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SABO: That -- I have it as Page 9 in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have three different staff reports, so let's not get into that. We all do, unfortunately. I read from the one I was able to read from, so... What's your current staff report say? MR. SABO: I did get a -- that's funny. I did get a response from Amy Lockhart that at this time there is planned capacity within the next five years for the proposed development at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. At the time of site plan it would be reviewed for concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that one's been taken care of. I can only read what my copy said, so... See, Ned, you're not the only one that had copies that were strange. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I may, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned a number 1,700 -and -something of the number of pages in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Karl and I have 1,625. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might have been. I mean, I just took -- I added up mine. See, I Page 66 of 94 September 19, 2019 get separate, and I just add them up in my head. So I thought it was over 1,700. Oh, mine included -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 1,636. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine included 56 pages of an LDC section and about 38 pages of a GMP section, which you guys probably didn't put into yours. I put that into mine myself. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What would I put it in from? How would I have access? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The GMP and the LDC. You've got MUNI code, and the GMI"s online. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, you're right, I did not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I did. I just go online, pull off the sections I need, put them in the document, and then I continue reading it. So that's why my numbers maybe a little -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not complaining about anything except maybe I'm not doing enough to get as much as you're getting, because we all should get as much as you're getting, maybe more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I -- this stuff just interests me sometimes, so I keep reading it. Everybody else it puts asleep. See, Rich is falling asleep right there right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to retract my statement on the numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which numbers? MR. YOVANOVICH: That I trust your numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. My numbers include a lot more usually because I add a lot of documents every time I find something, so... I'm not going to -- James, at some point we probably should talk about how you do rezone findings and PUD findings, because there are some things here that I know you probably use, such as identifying the existing land -use pattern and the comment follow (sic), underutilized commercial space is less than productive land use. I mean, that's not necessarily what everybody may feel. But, anyway, I would hope -- that's the same thing we talked about previously. I won't belabor -- MR. SABO: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but there's quite a few of those that I would prefer we didn't get into that. MR. SABO: I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's all I've got on the staff report. Okay. So with that, we're going to take a break for Terri for at least 10 minutes. We'll come back at 2:40, and we'll resume with public speakers. (A recess was had from 2:30 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you'll please take your seats. We're going to resume the meeting. And the resumption of the meeting will be we're finished with the questions of the staff and of the applicant. We're moving to citizens' comments. So with that, would you call those that have registered, and we'll start with those folks to come up to the microphones. James? MR. SABO: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. There's one registered speaker, Al Schantzen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your name for the record, sir. MR. SCHANTZEN: Schantzen, S -c -h -a -n -t -z -e -n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in earlier this morning? MR. SCHANTZEN: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHANTZEN: Thanks for your time today, Commissioners and Chairman. I'm a resident of Sabal Shore, and also I have people that -- elderly people that live on Peters Street, Captain John Morgan, the boat builder, and I also told him I'd be here on his -- his interest to try and make sure that his concerns are spoken for. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sir, where is Sabal Shore? MR. SCHANTZEN: Sabal Shores is across -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're up here. This gentleman right here asked. Page 67 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. SCHANTZEN: Excuse me. Sony. Hearing aids come from everywhere. Sabal Shores is across the Haldeman Creek from the development the proposal -- from Collee Court, in that area. COMMISSIONERFRY: Gotcha. MR. SCHANTZEN: And a couple of questions I have there in reference to the stormwater and stuff that flows out there: Underneath the original Morgan home there's a 3 -foot outflow culvert that's been there since day one back when the whole thing was developed by the Pulling family, and that ties in behind where the old Publix building was, and when we have the big stone, that outflow becomes active and dumps three feet diameter water directly into Haldeman Creek. I don't know, and I couldn't see from the watershed plans and stuff, if that was taken into consideration and the condition of that old pipe in order to facilitate the outflow into Haldeman Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll find out. MR. SCHANTZEN: Okay. And the other thing is lighting and how the development will be lit so that the lights stay confined to the property. I understand staff and everybody looks at those things, but I'm just saying that is one of the concerns. The other concern is -- and, by the way, I support -- you know, I think this will be a good idea as long as we have it controlled in the way it goes in and everything. The other thing is, with these people that are coming in, the 300 residents and stuff with their dogs and such, and having a limited amenity area such as dog walk and stuff, these people will be taking walks not down 41, they'll be walking through that residential neighborhood, and that residential neighborhood has no infrastructure for pedestrians, bicycles, or any other type of activity. All the dogs will be walking on the homeowners that live there's property. So if they can upgrade that right-of-way to include a walking path closer to their property in their screening methodology that they use between the drainage easements and the retention ponds, along with a physical barrier to keep the masses from just using that shortcut right onto Peters Street. If they can kind of -- it's not so much to keep them from getting in there but to keep them so they walk in an orderly manner back around through the facility. And I got the same concerns that I've been hearing here today all the way along is the concept -- doing the concept and putting density towards it. My biggest concern is the density, increasing the density, and gathering from the density pool. If we're going to give up density, we should get something in return. Like I says, the culvert on -- there's no culvert -- I mean, I got the culvert, but the bus stops and school bus stops. If you happen to be coming from the City of Naples towards the courthouse when the buses are running, you'll find you're stopping on 41 quite a bit. If there's something going to be done in consideration of the Collier CAT bus and the school buses to accommodate them stopping without stopping traffic on 41, such as over in the Starbucks parking lot -- because right now they park -- they stop at the trailer park just up by Pizza Hut, and they shut that down. Now they're going to come up here and stop up here and shut this down. So if we could find a way for the school system or something to be able to pull the buses off the side of the street, off of 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have the guy that's basically in charge of the entire school system here today who we're going to ask when we get done today. MR. SCHANTZEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm being a little facetious, but he does have knowledge about the school system. We'll get his comments on it. MR. SCHANTZEN: Thank you. And on the parking -- and one of the other concerns on parking -- and I was at the -- with the CRA meeting the gentleman gave us, and one of the concerns of the -- us NIMBYs had was the additional parking. And with the multi -function and the office space and conference rooms, that tells me it brings in more people than just the people and the residents, because if you're doing conference rooms, you're conducting business and you're having outside public coming in, look for parking in order to attend them Page 68 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 offices and conference rooms. Just something to consider there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say conference rooms? MR. SCHANTZEN: Yeah, because the gentleman over here mentioned conference room when they were talking office space, that -- what word did'he use? We work space had conference rooms available. That's the terminology he used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll look a little closer at that. Thank you for bringing it up. MR. SABO: It was the oasis that he was talking about, I think, right? The office oasis in -- work space inside the -- MR. SCHANTZEN: Yeah. Well, they call it "we work" -- he used the word "we work," and in the sentence he used what we work -- at the end he said "conference room." When I hear conference room, that tells me more than one car's showing up. MR. KLATZKOW: That's for residents, though, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have to get into that a little bit when we go back to the applicant. MR. SCHANTZEN: Yeah. The multi -use facilities that are downstairs was going to include these in the three buildings of the five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we'll have to find out. That's interesting. Thank you. MR. SCHANTZEN: And on the Haldeman Creek amenity, that is in the Haldeman Creek MSTU. Office Max -- the original Office Max/Office Depot property phone number, that phone number, that was in the Haldeman Creek MSTU taxing district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHANTZEN: So that parcel would still be in the MSTU taxing district, giving direct benefit to the Haldeman Creek dredging. But with that and the small -use footprint they're talking about on Haldeman Creek with the kayaks, canoes, that is -- and I was wondering if that was going to be a passive or active outside area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a touchy question today. MR. SCHANTZEN: But where do you store the trailers, the kayak, and the canoes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they would -- I know that Pelican Bay has a similar situation. It's not a trailer. There's no ramp. It's not generally trailers that are utilized. It's just an area where you can drop a kayak or canoe in the water, and they're usually on those racks where about a dozen of them sit in a rack straight up and down. That's how Pelican Bay does it, and it works fine. It's kind of quiet. It doesn't bother anybody. MR. SCHANTZEN: I got no qualms with it. It's just you're going to be having these things which are loose projectiles during storms if they're not secured. Now the height -- like I said, I live on -- across the street from it. On the height thing, now, I prefer you didn't build it so high that I can't see the courthouse no more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your -- I'm not sure what you like about the courthouse, but we'll -- MR. SCHANTZEN: I could see if you're working. MR. KLATZKOW: We spent a lot of money on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we did. MR. SCHANTZEN: And deviations from setbacks. Now, I'm not a developing (sic) so I don't understand all deviations you're asking for on the setbacks, but the only thing I can say is I would like to protect Peters Street and Collee Court as much as I can on the setbacks. hi other words, maximum setback, nature, walls, fences, some way to keep the two masses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They weren't asking for any deviations from those. They were internal deviations for the most part. There are some others, but the setback ones were internal, so... MR. SCHANTZEN: Okay. And then one item I was confused on is the setback on Collee Court is -- first I thought I heard that the gentleman said from the corner of the building to the property line was 50 feet, then I heard it was 60 feet with the one on Peters being 70 feet. And so I was trying to figure out if we're talking 50 feet from the comer of the building to the Collee Court property line or 60 feet. Page 69 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember off -- I remember -- I haven't got the chart in front of me, but I think it was a 50 -foot setback for one, and I thought the other one was greater because that's the way they laid it out. COMMISSIONER FRY: One was 76 feet. MR. SCHANTZEN: Yeah, because I heard two different things on Collee Court. I was clear on Peters, but I started hearing a couple of different numbers on setbacks on Collee Court, so if that could be clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHANTZEN: And that's -- if you've got any questions for me, that's all I've got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but you've created some for the applicant, so thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, James. MR. SABO: I have no other public speakers registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any members of the public here who would like to speak on this item who have not? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who from the applicant's team wants to address some questions from the Planning Commission? MIL. YOVANOVICH: I'll start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about lighting? MR. YOVANOVICH: What about it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what kind of lighting do you intend to do? What kind of pole lighting do you think you're going to put in your parking lot? What kind of side lighting are you possibly going to do on the buildings? What kind of high off the ground are the highest ones going to be -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Well, it was a redundant question. That's why I was wondering why I needed to answer it, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think we're going to meet your code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you explain to us how you intend to meet the code? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, when we get down to the final site design, I'm assuming your code addresses every one of those issues, and we are going to meet and design around your code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the code allows 25 -foot or so parking lot lights. So you're putting 25 -foot -high parking lot lights in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we have not finalized the design of the site. We have not asked for any deviations from the code. The code is the code, and the code is designed to properly address all of those issues, and we will meet your code requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll make sure that we help you. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Recommend to clarify that, just we stipulate that, you know, at site plan review, that the lighting is reviewed to make sure that there's no bleeding over of light into the neighboring properties. MR. YOVANOVICH: The code already requires that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The code requires it. I know it does. And they have to be properly shielded, shielded down, all the other requirements. And that's in the code already, but we'll just -- we could stipulate it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless things are going to change for this particular PUD, we typically meet code unless we ask for a deviation. MR. KLATZKOW: You just ask staff to do their jobs, that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We used to put something -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know. Page 70 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- in all the documents that said you have to conform to code, and then somebody would say, we have to conform to code anyway, and then we took it out. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER CIIRZANOWSKI: Then we put it back in, and then we took it out. I'd say to leave it out. They have to conform to code anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it. They do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we have, for compatibility purposes, considered additional lighting standards for specialty groups like this that are against residential, and I would suggest we might want to consider what we've considered for others. Parking lot lighting, for example, maximum 15 feet. No higher than that. Shielded from off property with no excess bleed -over lighting greater than .2 candle power. Same thing we did for Racetrac down on Palm. Why don't we put things in here that can protect the neighborhood further since it's now going to be residential product, and we've got a height involved that we didn't have before this product came along? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree, and I think we could also state "where applicable," and I can't point that out now, but it would be bollard type highlighting to light -- for lighting walkways and other type of things, so... But, Mark, I agree, I think we could make the same stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, if your group would like to come back with a suggestion for a lighting plan, we'd be open to hear it, but since you don't want to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe we will have to create the requirements for you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, you do what you think's appropriate in today's hearing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and then we'll address it. If we can -- if we can live with it, we'll live with it. If not, we'll deal with it at the Board. This is unusual. We've never done this before for an apartment complex where we're trying to do a redevelopment project. And if you want to add additional costs and expense and conditions in the project, that's certainly within your prerogative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at this point, Rich, you're asking for a height that's substantially greater than what was there, and I think we want to make sure it protects the neighborhood. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I don't know how lighting has anything to do with the height of the building, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings up -- we have the issue on almost every project. Ray, parking lot lighting for this project, do you -- what height would it be without a restriction; do you remember? I thought it was 25, but I'm not sure. MR. BELLOWS: I believe that is the maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that would put it well above any buffers and things that most likely would be there, and that was my concern. We just had the same thing happen with the -- you know the Vanderbilt Commons? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The building behind? We just went over this with that. We had a similar operation there. So it's not usual for us to take a look at lighting as a compatibility standard. I'm a little surprised that we don't have a response to it better than that, but we'll deal with it. MR. BELLOWS: Well, we do have language and regulations that we're shielding the lights from spilling over to the adjacent residential lands, but in some PUDs we have lowered the levels of the parking lot lights from 25 feet to something less. That has also been done in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Has your engineer -- do they know about it? Have they considered the outfall that was mentioned to us that -- just a little while ago by the public speaker? MS. JOHNSON: Outfall? Kristina Johnson, for the record. I did hear the gentleman's comment on the outfall. I was going to touch base with him after, because I'm not aware of a 3 -foot diameter pipe leaving the Haldeman -- or leaving Courthouse Shadows Page 71 of 94 September 19, 2019 today, so that's something that we'll have to look into a little bit further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you have it looked into by the time we get back here for consent, which is two weeks? MS. JOHNSON: Two weeks is good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The right-of-way which is -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the outfall, Ms. Johnson, you still have to go through the water management plan. You still have to submit for the -- through the district, and all that will be reviewed as part of the district. The outfall, all that will be -- the existing water management system is basically going to be torn up, and you're going to create a new water management system. So you're going to be applying for the ERP through the district, and that should be reviewed as part of it. Whatever -- whatever flow's going into Haldeman Creek should be part of the engineering analysis; is that correct? MS. JOHNSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other item that was brought up is the upgrade of the right-of-way on -- I think on Peters Ave. What is the standard -- are you guys doing anything back there? And if not, I'll need Trinity Scott if she's still here or Mike Sawyer if he's still here to tell us what is planned for the upgrades of Peters. Are you doing anything that you know of? MS. JOHNSON: We do not have anything planned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other than the sidewalk contribution, but there's no guarantee the sidewalk will even be built there because it goes into a pool used somewhere else possibly, or maybe it will be on this street. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. The intent of the payment in lieu, the Bayshore CRA and partnership, I believe, with the City of Naples was replacing some lines along the roadway, and we have been coordinating our design to ensure that have a flat space to be able to put a sidewalk in later on. That was one of the things that we worked through when this was coming through with the commercial. So that's still the intent, that once we receive that payment in lieu, that I'll cobble together the rest of the funding to get that sidewalk done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be a sidewalk on Peters Ave? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other plans for Peters Ave other than the sidewalk? MS. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that is on the plan? It's on one side of the street or both sides? MS. SCOTT: It would be on one side of the street, the opposite side of the specific development. So the west side of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means where the single-family homes are? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: And I should say that the Florida Department of Transportation, as part of a resurfacing project along 41, does have some plans to improve at the intersection. They're looking at taking the free-flow right turn out and bringing that intersection and have it a little less of a skew. They're trying, and that free-flow right they're going to turn into a pathway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other one is school bus stopping. Mr. Eastman, I hope you can answer that one. MR. EASTMAN: School buses are a more complicated issue than you might think. School bus stops change based upon demand and where kids live. Safety is the most important consideration when it comes to school bus stops. The use of a developer's property has happened, but that's usually a voluntary situation where the Page 72 of 94 September 19, 2019 developer wants the school bus to come inside their community. It's something that the school district has not abstracted from -- extracted from developers as a consistent rule. School buses with infrastructure are very uncommon, and school buses mixing with also CAT or the public bus system is also something that we don't promote as well. We'd like the school bus stop to have just children at it as opposed to members of the general public mixing with these children. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your buses wouldn't turn into this development and pick them up along the road that goes through the development. They were going to be stopping on 41 to pick up children, do you think? MR. EASTMAN: They would stop in the development if the developer were amenable to that and it were a safety concern, because that's obviously going to take more time. And safety's the guiding factor here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the developer was agreeable that they could come on site and utilize that through street that they've (sic) creating between the commercial and themselves, you guys might consider if the traffic -- if the roadway was adequate enough for your buses? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the last item is the -- someone needs to explain what "we work" space is, and the reason I'd like it explained it to make sure staff understands it, because you're giving them a 50 percent reduction in this space. If it's for -- and if it's going to attract outside people, it may not be a good thing to do. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, I can't. Home offices you're not allowed to have clients or customers come to your house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the house is not -- they're going to be -- so this we work space is their home? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is a place for them to go to the -- to the clubhouse and sit and do their work if they choose to; not in their apartment, but in the clubhouse. And if they want to have a conference call or be in a private room, they can do that. It is not open to the public, and its controlled access for residents only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the -- there is no conference room then? MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't say that. I said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then tell me if there's a -- there's a conference table. How many chairs? MR. YOVANOVICH: Seventeen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got 17 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I have no idea -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got 17 people coming for a meeting? MR. YOVANOVICH: I have no -- they could be 17 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it all restricted to residents? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's real practical, huh? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what it is, Mr. Strain, and we've never gotten into this before, but we're going to have a conference room -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get into a lot more things going forward, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I'm here. I've got nowhere to go. MR. KLATZKOW: Is this similar to what hotels do where they have, like, as an amenity in a hotel, a little office for the guests? Is that the concept? I mean, staff needs to know what they're going to be approving here. MR. SUCHER: Rob Sucher, for the record. This is not lease for someone from the outside community to be able to rent space. This is an amenity to the existing guests that live within the community. MR. KLATZKOW: And what can they do with the amenity? MR. SUCHER: So video conferencing -- I guess if you're hooked up on the word "conference Page 73 of 94 September 19, 2019 room," it's a room that you've got a table, you've got TVs that allow you to have meetings, prepare for presentations. There is the opportunity to have more than one people -- more than one person in the room itself, but, yeah, this is an opportunity for work space. I mean -- MR. EASTMAN: Used only by the residents? MR. SUCHER: Used only by the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we can always stipulate it's a rework -- "we work" space is for residents only, and that covers it. Then that would -- MR. KLATZKOW: You'll never be able -- MR. SUCHER: I'd encourage you to go visit -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: -- enforce it. MR. SUCHER: -- within the county and tour some of the facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, more and more people are doing work from home. MR. SUCHER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It may be three days in the office, two from home. This is a -- out of the home, but it's an office -type space that they can go have quiet time or whatever they've got to do, and they can do office work. They'll have a computer, a desk or whatever there. They can actually sit and do work, but it's for the residents. MR. SUCHER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Residents only. MR. SUCHER: Access controlled. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is a great amenity for your young professionals that live in the facility, especially the ones that will be renting your new studio apartments that you'll be rolling out. MR. SUCHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I would like to thank you for those. Just as a -- if there's a concern about the conference room where you could have somebody come from outside and meet you at a conference room -- I rent an office in an executive suite, and we have about 40 offices in this executive suite and two conference rooms. I've been there a year. I've never seen anybody in a conference room. So it is -- to me I would have no concern about an occasional person coming from outside for a meeting on site, if it did happen at all. MR. KLATZKOW: But I don't think the issue is having people coming on site. I think the issue is parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the calculation of parking. MR. KLATZKOW: The real issue is -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct, but the parking would not be affected by people that walkover from their apartments. It would only be affected by somebody coming from outside -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's right, which is the -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- to meet them there. MR. KLATZKOW: -- which is the whole reason why were asking are people from the outside going to be using this, because then you'll need to have more parking spaces, because the last thing you want is not to -- for this complex not to have sufficient parking, because they'll be parking along the single-family residences. That's what they'll be doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if we just designate it for residents only, then that will -- hard to enforce, but at least it's there. MR. KLATZKOW: Or just require more parking there. Then you don't have to worry about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't even know how much more, yeah. Well, let's work through the rest of it, and then we'll get to that when we get to it as a stipulation. That's all the items I had as a result of the gentleman's comments. They've been answered. Page 74 of 94 September 19, 2019 We've addressed a couple of them. Is there any other questions from the Planning Commission on any of the issues we've talked about? And there's no other members of the public to speak. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I just --I'm wondering what the residents on Peters and Collee and those streets, what would they actually look at when they look across Haldeman Creek or across Peters, the road, at this development? I'm not clear on what the landscaping would be like around the rear perimeter of the property. MR. SUCHER: Rob Sucher, Johnson Development. We are proposing a fence on the rear. So the access control is very important to us. Most of the communities within Collier County are gated, so it's a huge competitive disadvantage to not have the security at the gates. So we are very interested in our views looking out just as much as people are interested in the views looking into our community. So we are going to absolutely landscape and have that rear corridor fenced appropriately for the views from our residents just as well as the views from the people that live next to us looking into our community. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you have taller trees along that rear border -- MR. SUCHER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- to obscure the view? Is that part of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. Taller than what? I mean, you're asking a question. He gave you an answer saying yes -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to be tall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I mean. So taller than what? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm asking if there is a definition as to the buffer, the landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The code is very specific. So he said he's going to have taller trees. Now, the reply to that ought to be, well, how tall are you going to make them, and we'll stipulate; otherwise, it just gets code. COMMISSIONER FRY: So how tall is called for now in the code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, what is it, 14 feet, something like that? MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to look it up, but at minimum code, unless they're asking for an enhanced landscaping over our LDC minimum, it's going to be the LDC minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that doesn't address the question I think you were trying to get an answer for. MR. BELLOWS: Well, if they're committing to provide taller trees, how tall are you proposing over the minimum? MR. SUCHER: So we have -- we're proposing both Type D buffers along Collee and Peters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the question wasn't what buffer you're proposing. Are you going to provide taller trees, and you said yes. So how tall are they to be? MR. BELLOWS: I'll look it up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now the PUD calls for a LDC Type D buffer. We have not proposed at this point any requirement to do an enhanced buffer above and beyond what the LDC calls for, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we -- we will -- that's what the LDC says, and that's what our PUD calls for. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I apologize for not being able to keep all the types of buffers straight, but what is -- what does a Type D buffer do in terms of the height of the trees and how far they are spaced? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm pulling that up right now, I think. MR. BELLOWS: The Type D buffer is required along all street frontages. It's a design buffer Page 75 of 94 September 19, 2019 that -- the width increases within the right-of-way width increases, and there's a specific standard. And if Mark pulls it up faster than I can get it on my computer... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a challenge. We've got so much stuff in our code. Well, Ray, you might beat me to it. It's not in that one. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a double row hedge with trees 30 feet on center. We're trying to figure out what the height of the tree is right now, but we'll get that. MR. BELLOWS: It's 10 feet, and how much on center? MR. SABO: Thirty feet. MR. BELLOWS: Thirty feet on center. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ten feet high, 30 feet on center. MR. BELLOWS: That's the Type D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So that's how high the code requires. You asked if they were going to put in taller trees. I think they're saying they're going to do the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what the LD -- we're not limited to the code, but that's what the PUD currently says. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess we're talking about residents that are now looking, I presume, at some landscaping in the back of a 20 -foot -tall shopping center, 25 -foot -tall shopping center. So I guess I would -- personally I would be in favor of some enhancement to that buffer, taller trees closer together, whatever the next step up is at least. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two ways we increase the buffers' capability, and that is by put -- spacing them close together and/or putting them taller and/or restricting the type of tree. Sometimes we allow cluster of saw -- cabbage palmetto trees. They don't -- the cabbage palms, three of those supposedly equal one canopy, but as you know, they don't -- they don't block much out. Other times we look at more like canopy trees or palms or like areca palms and things like that to produce a solid mass. Those are all enhancements that they can volunteer to do, but that's not what the code requires, not specific. The code requires a minimum. MR. SUCHER: I know we're unfortunately, not benefited by Google Earth right now, but there's a dense tree buffer that exists currently today on Collee that we'll be retaining. The other thing is is the existing view into what they see today, we're going to drastically be improving that. If you've ever been on Peters looking into the back of the rear commercial, it's not an attractive view. But we are maintaining the existing buffer that exists that has very dense and mature trees along Collee. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Yeah, sometimes we have the benefit of seeing photos that have been taken, you know, looking -- or sightlines that are -- renderings of sightlines that are generated. So, you know, when residents are confronted with probably a doubling or tripling of the height of what's across the waterway or the road from them, I just think it's good to try to protect them as much as possible, and your residents also; give them privacy. MR. SUCHER: Yeah. I apologize. We didn't want to overwhehn you with more than 1,600 pages. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I remember being told that that computer has access to Google Earth, although whether anybody knows how to use it or not, that's a question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's got Internet access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So where's the -- what's the outstanding question right now? Any? Are you -- Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just questions about the buffering. And I would not know -- I would not personally be able to say this is the exact enhancement to that buffer that I think would make sense, but I would like to see some enhancement to that buffer. And I did not mean to take us off track -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for so long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an absolute legitimate question, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Broke it. Page 76 of 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: That's not good, that X. It can't be good. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here's Troy. MR. MILLER: I don't know if I can fix it either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was complicated, Troy. MR. MILLER: I took a shot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's why he gets paid the big bucks. Can you turn that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, my God. Don't ask that -- oh, phew. Okay. You scared me, Joe. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's so much better. MR. KLATZKOW: It has a substantially better than a Type D buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what's there today. COMMISSIONER FRY: That -- and those trees along the perimeter -- MIO. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- would they be retained? MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as they're not exotics, we can include those in the buffer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we need to stipulate that, Mark? MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to retain them, you'll need to stipulate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm writing it as we speak. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's -- while we still have an open public hearing, why don't we ask the applicant to walk through some suggested stipulations to the project and see where we stand. Number one, the C/R along U.S. will not be residential. MR. YOVANOVICH: To the extent -- but it can have parking for the residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Residential structures. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- you will define -- oh, you were going to define active and outdoor recreation areas. How do we decide that's going to come out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, I guess we should not use passive recreation as defined in the code because it would allow swimming, hiking, hunting, including, but not limited, to those things. So we would prefer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can hunt on the property if you want. You might not get anything, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying, it's probably louder than what we were intending to do in that area. I still would like to have a specific definition in this PUD to talk about. I'm going to use the word "passive" -- pick something else -- that describes including, but not limited to, the things I had previously said, which would be the ability to walk -- you know, dog walk area, you would be allowed to have the ability to do some barbecuing in that area. I think I had one other thing -- picnic tables, benches, things like that, including, but not limited to, those types of uses would be allowed, and the active would be the pool area that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put that together in language for the consent so we can check it out before that one, and if there's any -- that one issue we can focus on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if the Planning Commission thinks we need to come back for a consent hearing, then we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we can do it now. I think what I just described -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to have the language to show us now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we've done this before where we have described what it would be, and either you or Ms. Ashton or Ray Bellows has confirmed that we got it right. Page 77 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So what you want is a dog walking area. You want a picnic area. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: You want a barbecue area. You want a swimming pool. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Swimming pool would be the active. MR. KLATZKOW: Swimming pool -- these are your recreation. Do you want a volleyball court? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want -- sure. Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So volleyball court. COMMISSIONER FRY: You mentioned pickleball. MR. YOVANOVICH: Throw pickleball in there. Basketball court. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want a basketball court? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. MR. EASTMAN: Bocce ball? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I don't know if they have enough room for all that. But would it be something like a little park -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There were two different areas. There was the 50 -foot setback for the active uses, and the active uses -- MR. KLATZKOW: Anything that would normally be in a Collier County park should be fine. We could put a park there if we wanted to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want it defined so we know what -- the public will know what to expect. That's all I was asking. And if you -- I thought they knew what they wanted to do. They've done this before, supposedly, in other parts of the country. Just tell us what you do there, and we'll see if it fits. If it doesn't, we'll say something. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: -- or a playground? I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's usually active. MR. KLATZKOW: That means we'll come back for consent because it's going to be a hell of a list. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had talked about two different areas, the active area, which I envisioned was the more noisy area, and that's where we had described all those other uses: The pool, basketball, tennis, pickleball, thank you, and things like that, including, but not limited to, those court -type uses would be the 50 -foot required setback. We got tricked up with the word -- using "outdoor," and I used the word "passive" for things that could be within 25 feet -- have the 25 -foot setback, and those would be the picnic tables, dog park, the barbecue pits, things like that would be the, what I call, passive uses, and that would only have a 25 -foot setback. That's what I thought the discussion was about. I think we've clarified that by saying including, but not limited to, those uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, if the Planning Commission doesn't mind letting me review this, if I don't agree with anything that you've written as far as what the intent seemed to be as described here today, I'll then ask that we send it to the Planning Commission members for comment. How's that sound? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to be fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We got past that one. The vessels that will be utilized on Haldeman Creek will be nonmotorized. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The residential area will be gated, and we got into the discussion of a decorative fence around the perimeter of the project. You failed to really tell us you're going to do that or not. It's something I think is needed, but -- so did the CRA, obviously, by the comments, even though they didn't include that in a motion, which is surprising the CRA doesn't be more responsive to things like this, but -- Page 78 of 94 September 19, 2019 MR. ARNOLD: Can I -- just for the record, Wayne Arnold. Just having attended the CRA meeting, I think their interest was in making sure we didn't have a solid masonry wall more so than making sure we had a perimeter fence around the entirety of the project because they don't like the fence that was constructed for a new project on Bayshore Drive that had a solid masonry wall and felt that it was more in keeping to have -- if we had fencing, to make sure that it was either open or somehow screened and landscaping rather than a big, solid wall. Just for classification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, front fence shall be some sort of decorative wall but no solid wall. Some concern over the -- is the rear fencing some commitment that is decorative or opaque with landscaping on both sides. So they did consider more than just a front wall along the roadway. You were there. I weren't (sic). These are the notes that were sent to us. I mean, I'm willing to take your -- I'm just asking about it is all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let us clarify it on the record, please. MR. SUCHER: So I'm just going to point this out real quick. These up front -- when we were mentioning that we were going to have fencing surrounding the community, these two buildings up here close to -- this is the intentional activation and integration with the mixed use with the commercial. So we're having the opportunity for our residents, through a gate, to still walk and access the commercial development. These two buildings will act themselves as the walls. We'll have a connected fence that goes from here to here. We'll have a fence that connects over here through the gate. Obviously, this area is going to be open. This is where your leasing office is, and this turn -around presents that opportunity for the public to come in, prospective renters, and then to leave as well. So you've got a gate here that will be connected to this building, which is garage, then you'll have a fence that will extend the entire perimeter, connect with here, come over, connect, connect, connect over, and then come down Collee as well and connect back into the creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you add the location of those proposed fences and gates to a plan and produce it as part of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll put it on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. That will work. MR. SUCHER: Conceptual. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The clubhouse will not be a stand-alone facility, but it will be on this part of one or more of the buildings, and it will be on the ground floor only. I'll need a comment on that. I mean, I asked you about the rooftop. You really didn't give me an answer, so I need to know -- 65 -foot -high -- or 55 -foot -high clubhouse is kind of extreme. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't object to it being internal to the building. So if you don't want rooftop amenities, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will work. The amenities are the noise that I was worried about. Okay. And the size of the project will be -- if residential, the project will be a maximum of 65,000 commercial square footage and 300 -- and up to 300 residential units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to withdraw Deviation No. 4. Did you resolve your thoughts on that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Deviation -- which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen, I'm sorry. That's the one about Bayshore -- MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as you -- as long as the record is clear that the things that we asked to be subject to from the Bayshore overlay is all we have to do and we don't need a deviation to make sure we didn't somehow incorporate it all, we're fine with dropping that deviation. MR. SABO: That's 3.11 that you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 3.11 tells us what they want to use, but the deviation they're asking for is deviating from a section they did ask for but don't need to ask for if they're not part of it to Page 79 of 94 September 19, 2019 begin with. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. They don't need to ask for it because they're not in the zoning overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You can withdraw Deviation 14. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Collee Court setback, there was a question raised by the speaker about that. What is the Collee Court setback; do you recall? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think the code calls for 50 feet, or LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, yeah, it wouldn't be the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me pull up the LDC -- I mean, my Development Standards Table. Give me two seconds. All right. Collee Court is 50 feet. Peters is 70 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then Collee Court's already in the -- that's what it's called out. The gentleman asked. I wanted to make sure we had an answer for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I showed you exceeded that as our current plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it did. I realize that. Parking lot lighting will be at -- I'm suggesting what we've done to other -- 15 -foot maximum height and shielded from off property with no excess bleed -over lighting greater than .2 candle power. Do you have any objection to that? I knew Wayne was going to do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Go ahead, Wayne. Get up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard you. MR. ARNOLD: So everybody else does, I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm only suggesting that maybe how we do this, Mr. Strain, is provide a limitation or if lighting is within X number of feet, that we then have a different standard because we do have to provide standards for access points meeting certain arterial lighting standards. There are other lighting requirements where we're going to integrate with the commercial -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just talking within the residential component. You don't need arterial lighting in the residential component. That's on access -way on U.S. 41. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ARNOLD: -- tract on 41 that's going to have our sign, and I just don't want somebody to tell us I have to only put a 15 -foot -high sign, and then I can't meet an FDOT standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the residential parking areas? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not the lighting designer, but I think that providing those on buildings that have no face, you know, the parking lot lighting that's not even adjacent to any of the residential south of us, I don't know why we would want to limit that standard is my only suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's the site plan? It's upside down but -- there we go. So anything north of that -- or northeast of that -- the front first row -- the front of the buildings in the south side wouldn't have a problem. MR. ARNOLD: I was thinking, Mr. Strain, that where -- if you're concerned about people that are back here on Collee Court -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am. MR. ARNOLD: -- that maybe this tier of parking is the one where you have lighting restriction behind the buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. So can you put that on the master plan as well, put that location? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it was 15 feet fully shield; is that what you said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You're going to check into the 3 -foot outfall. Your engineer said they would -- MR. YOVANOVICH: She's going to check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- take a look at that. It's just a response question. I would like to see it Page 80 of 94 September 19, 2019 followed up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I mean, we'll look into that but, obviously, it's going to -- the outfall is going to be permitted however the Water Management District permits it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. But if you could look into it and let staff have an answer so that the gentleman could get an answer if he wants one, that will be helpful. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to allow school buses to use that internal road if they're willing to use it; is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not going to object to it. I don't control what anybody else says along that area. There's other commercial property owners there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. But, I mean, if the school buses come in and they say that road is usable, it's better than being on 41 and they want to use it, you have no problem with it? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't object to it. MR. EASTMAN: And, Mr. Chair, it is subject to the approval of the Transportation Department of the school district. They'll have to make that determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the -- we work -- the we work space will be for residents only. I think you've already said that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the perimeter trees, I think we resolved that, didn't we, Karl? Your issue on perimeter trees went away? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last question -- the last issue is -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it was to retain the existing trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The natives. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to not being -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: They're meeting the code requirements for buffer trees, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, we can't have a provision that retains exotics, so it's -- those that are -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Exotics would have to be removed. MR. BELLOWS: -- allowable trees. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: Got it. And then the last item we need to talk about a little bit is the height. Again, we're back to four stories. They're saying -- do you have that plan where you had your numbers on the heights on the buildings on the plan? So the two buildings will be at 50 and 60, and the others will be at 55 and 65. Now, these are four-story buildings, and generally that's higher than what we normally see in a four-story building, and their argument is is because it's going to be inside clubhouse. The clubhouse is pushing the ceiling heights higher. And that's -- I'm just bringing it up for discussion because if this goes forward on this project, you can just about be assured that every project coming in will ask for this new height for four stories, and I'm not sure we want to break that ground when this is not even something they know they need because their architect doesn't -- wants -- just purely wants flexibility. But our flexibility becomes a code item that we're stuck with for everybody. So I know the applicant's against doing it at 45 -foot height, but I'm -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that a question, or was that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking the Planning Commission what their thoughts are. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to drill down into this, you're saying the fust floor will be a Page 81 of 94 September 19, 2019 15 -foot floor instead of 10? Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're asking for? So you're asking for 15 -foot the first floor, and then the other floors will be 10 -foot; is that -- no, that would be 45. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be 45. You know, Mr. Schmitt, anything I tell you might not be right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what I'm suggesting to you is we don't know what that fust floor is going to be right now because it's going to have common areas in there, and our architect is saying he or she would like to have the benefit of doing something better and less -- and just better for the market than you would find in a typical building right now. We tried to give you an example of an existing nice apartment complex that did not have fust -floor -level amenities, and we were only asking for five more feet than what that -- than what that building had. And we thought that design flexibility to spend $65 million to redevelop this site is a fair request because you're going to get a fust -rate residential apartment complex on this site. And we didn't think we were asking for anything unreasonable in going to 55 feet when the immediately adjacent overlay would let us go to 56 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I could tell you that -- I'm not going to argue the point. I'm just going to bring up the fact that if you are going to put fitness equipment on the fust floor, it has to be higher than a typical first floor. If you're going to put a treadmill or other type of stair stepper or cycle or whatever else, it's typically got to be a little bit higher. MR- YOVANOVICH: And that's what -- we're asking for that flexibility. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because guys like me don't want to hit my head on the ceiling. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't have the problem of hitting my head on the ceiling. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Anyways, that's my thought. I am not -- I'm not -- from the standpoint of this project, I don't think that's a deal breaker for me, so -- it's not an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't want to set a precedent in this area for taller buildings. I mean, this is something that the community hasn't wanted in East Naples or, doing the study, the whole length of the area we're doing it. They didn't want the tall buildings like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they came in today with some kind of evidence that shows that they needed the 55 feet based on a design of some kind, but just to give it to a developer because they want flexibility, if we did that, we don't even need to be sitting here. All these PUDs want flexibility. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do want to point out that when we talked to the community at five stories at a greater height, there was absolutely no pushback from the community when we talked about that. It was our -- when we went to the CRA, it was our own reduction to four stories that was not even an issue. So if the community didn't mind when we were five stories, how is it an issue now when we're trying to go to four stories? So, I mean, we've come down 10 feet, which is the typical, you know, 10 -foot reduction you would find for one floor. Again, we're immediately adjacent to a 56 -foot overlay. We're not out of character. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think this gentleman said he wanted us to block the view of the courthouse. COMMISSIONER FRY: No. Would we be able to -- in this case, as a redevelopment of a failed shopping center, would we be able to, you know, make an exception for this without creating a precedent? MR. KLATZKOW: There's no precedent here. Every land -use item stands on its own. But I will tell you that the next time they come back for an apartment complex, it will be this height or higher, maybe by another six inches, and then it will be another six inches or a couple feet, because that's just the way it is. But that's up to you. I mean, you can always say no. So if you want to say yes here, say no to the next time, that's your prerogative. Page 82 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just out of curiosity, you said that the Bayshore overlay allows 56 feet. What do you consider yourself as an element of the Bayshore overlay? Is it BMUD-W; is that what you're looking at? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We have an exhibit that shows -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're BMUD NC? Just -- what one of these are you looking at? I'm just curious. MR. YOVANOVICH: Kristina, do you have an exhibit that identifies the heights based on zoning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at the overlay language you're not part of, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. I said I'm adjacent. I didn't say I was within it. I said I'm adjacent to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I know what you said. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I want to make sure the record's clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the record's clear, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: The GTMUD, if I'm reading that correctly, see it right -- I'm sorry. Right here, 56 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's C3. Get mixed use. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm an actability center and can come in and rezone a C4 at 75 feet, okay? I mean, that's consistent with the Comp Plan. Come in and straight zoning for C4 use. I would be 75 feet under today's Comp Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But under the BMUD NC district it's 42 feet for apartments and 56 feet for mixed use. You're not a mixed-use building. You're an apartment building. That's 42 feet. So how do you get to -- I'm trying to figure out how you get to 56 feet for an apartment building. Do you have a section of the code that says that, or have you just been saying that out of interpretation -- your interpretation of the code? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a commercial project, Mr. Strain. We could get to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are apartment units, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I'm not going to belabor the point. If I came in as a C4 use, I can get to 75 feet. We've done that up on Baumgarten. It was a C4 use. We went through this discussion about what could the heights have been if we'd have gone in with straight zoning. We've been through this before. We're asking for 55 feet zoned, 65 feet on these three buildings, 50 feet zoned, 60 feet actual on the other two buildings. It's a redevelopment project. You have a developer who's already here developing on the old Briarwood apartment complexes that we just got approved. They want to come and spend another $65 million to redevelop this failed shopping center. We think we've asked for a reasonable request to make the investment in this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've had enough discussion on it. Thank you. That's your input. Anybody else have anything? Joe, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a camment to follow up the discussion. It's a failed shopping center. I look at it as a blight on the community right now. That's exactly what it is. It's been failed for -- it's been empty for, what, almost two -and -a -half, three years? MR. YOVANOVICH: More than that. When did Publix leave? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it -- I guess, trying to be somewhat accommodating, I would -- I'm looking for anything to get this site redeveloped in some form or fashion. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not asking you for just anything. We're asking you to be able to do a quality -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a quality project. But based on that statement, Mark, did you cover Deviation 15? Because we still need to cover that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They all were discussed. But what's 15? Page 83 of 94 September 19, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff recommended disapproval. That was the 50 foot -- MR. SABO: I relented. We relented. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, you relented, okay. Because I thought we would have to cover that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what are the staff recommendations that are left? All of them except for No. 15? MR. SABO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got so many different staff reports, I'd just as soon you tell me what they are. MR. SABO: Relenting on -- for the record, James Sabo. Relenting on 14 and relenting on 15. The GMI'A stipulations that I included in my staff report, they're also in the GMPA, and that's it from the staff report. So it's No. 2, 3, and 4 of the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 2, 3, and 4, yes, because No. I was only Deviation 15. MIR. SABO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Then we'll certainly close the public hearing. And, Richard, do you have anything else you want to say? Before we close the public hearing; I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'll wait till after the vote if I can -- given a moment -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're done with comments before the -- what are you going to do, shout at us on the way out or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I would -- I just want to clarify on the record a comment that you made about the meeting we had earlier this week where you said it would have been nice to have Kristina there to explain the deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would have been great to have an opportunity to discuss the deviations, because when we met, you had said to both me, Wayne, and Rob that you had not yet read the materials so you weren't prepared to yet discuss that. So I just want that to be on the record, because Mr. Arnold would have been able to address every one of these comments, and I just want the record to be clear that we weren't asked any questions about those deviations, because I just thought that that was -- that was not an accurate reflection of the meeting we had, and I just want that on the record, and that's all I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is it accurate to say we talked about the height and you told me you'd come back with some construction methodology on why you needed to -- how to justify the height you're asking for, which you didn't do today except hearsay from an architect? MR. YOVANOVICH: What Rob said was he would go back and he would talk to his architect, and the answer was the architect hadn't yet designed the building. I'm just clarify the record regarding -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm clarifying my understanding of it, too, Richard. Joe, that's a good comment. Everything here doesn't look like you've got -- you've got four floors, and they sure don't look like they're 15 feet each. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that was the initial renderings before the decision was made to put the amenities inside. This is just a representative example of the quality of the architectural style of the building we committed to the community. That's all that's up there for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that must have been your rebuttal. So with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Where does the Planning Commission feel like going on this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'll make a motion. I would make a motion to approve this subject to the stipulations and notes that you recorded. And I don't want to go through all of them. You have the list. But I think we did an excellent job in vetting this project and clarifying many of the issues that were brought up for discussion. And I think we've nailed this thing down to at least a very -- what I would call a viable opportunity for us to redevelop that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would you also concur that this doesn't need to go to consent and Page 84 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 that I'll review the language that they send pursuant to the discussion we have? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would recommend it goes -- that you do review the language based on the notes that we brought up and that you've recorded here. So I don't see any need for it to go to consent. But we can certainly bring it back for consent if you think we should -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm fine with it. I just want to make sure we know the direction. So is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Now discussion. Karen? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Strain, I just want to make sure, are we voting on the GMP amendment first or the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take the -- yeah, we'll take the GMP -- that's a good point. Thank you, Ray. We did have two. I'll read them both off. We're going to go with the GMP amendment first, as we usually do, and then the stipulations relative to that are the ones Joe was referring to, and stipulations relative to the PUD will apply the same way. The GMP portion is PL -20180003659. MR. KLATZKOW: Are we all sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 58, I'm sorry. Yeah, 58's after 59 on the agenda for some reason. MR. KLATZKOW: Are we all sure that we understand what the stipulations are? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can read them again if you'd like. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only one I wasn't sure on was the height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the height's going to be what -- I assume what you're asking for. Joe and the rest of you seem to think -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I was asking to clarify. I understood -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to see a change, too. They're not agreeing to it. Joe, was your motion for the height to be 55 -- as the plan showed, which was now taken away from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. My motion would be based on the plan, the three building at the one height and the two buildings at the other height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it was four-story subject to the heights on the plan? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You won't change it to 45 and 50? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then if it's changed to 45 and 50, it's all buildings would comply with 45 and 50. 45 -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Forty-five zoned; 50 -foot actual. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifty foot actual. MR. BELLOWS: I think we'll put the graphic back on with the heights on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got two buildings at 50 and 60 and three buildings at 55 and 65. Is that what your motion is for, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the second also -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this item is going to be for PL -20180003675. The motion's been made with the stipulations that apply to this one, which is the GMP amendment, as we discussed on the record, including any reference to the height if it's in the GMP section of this document. MR. KLATZKOW: One last thing, because I thought I heard that you might be moving the buildings around or -- I mean, are these -- these are the buildings? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is our -- this is the site plan that we are going to start the formal Page 85 of 94 September 19, 2019 process with. I mean, its -- it's close. You know, it's the -- as you go through site review at county staff. MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but I'm counting five buildings up there. That's what you have, and they're more or less where they're going to be? MR. YOVANOVICH: More or less. MR. KLATZKOW: Because you're putting height restrictions on -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand; I understand, right. We'll create an exhibit that is based upon this exhibit right here. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. And your final Site Development Plan will be substantially similar to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Similar to, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will just reiterate that this appears that it will fail, and maybe a compromised would be to drop each of these five feet so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Why is it going to fail? COMMISSIONER SCHMIT T: If it looks like -- but I will -- we'll see where that goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why won't you go through the motion first? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make the motion as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion's been made multiple times now for the GMP side of it subject to those stipulations that we read into the record that do apply to the GMP part of this. Is there a -- any discussion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded, I know. But anybody have any discussion? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the last time you read the last four digits of this PL number you said something that ended in 76. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said 3658. I corrected that. Usually our agenda has the GMP first and the PUD second. In this -- it was reversed for some reason on this agenda, so I read it wrong. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then I'd like to make a substantive comment, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With the utmost respect for the Chairman and also for Vice Chair Homiak and out of genuine concern that we not be setting a precedent -- and I take the point which the County Attorney has made many times before that these are not precedential in nature -- and I see this as a unique situation. Ifs an eyesore across the street, and there are other unique aspects of it that -- before I would entertain a comparison in some subsequent project, I would want all of those unique aspects to match the ones that are before us today, and I doubt that that can happen, and so for that reason I'm going to vote in favor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: To Ned's point, regarding the heights, I would support it in this case because I do think it's unique. We are also across the street from the government complex which has heights well beyond that, as I understand. It is -- it is a blight. And it's on a major thoroughfare. It's already got significant traffic. So I would support it in this case. My -- the stipulation that I will not officially add but that I really believe we have an issue here in Collier County. I've been on this board about nine months. Before I was on the Board, I read for years about affordable housing, and I haven't seen anything of that nature come by us, come before us. I only know of Habitat for Humanity that does anything to do with affordable housing. We have what I think here is a perfect location where -- at a minimum, studio -size apartments, which are allowable in the code for RMF 12 and RMF 16 straight zoning districts. I see no downside to it, only upside. There are thousands of young professionals that might come here on their own. You're across from a government complex with hundreds if not thousands of jobs. There is no low -- if the concern is a quality of the renter, I don't know if it's the size of the unit, but if that has somehow equated to the quality of the renter, two people can rent a two-bedroom and not be of any higher caliber than somebody that Page 86 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 rents a studio because they want to live by themself. They probably pay more for a studio. So I believe the developer, who has stated that they do studio apartments in every other development other than this area where they're not allowed, I believe they might -- they should have the flexibility to introduce studio apartments into this development at that stated density of 300 if they were so inclined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you done? COMMISSIONER FRY: That's my soapbox, and I'm stepping down now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting used to it, Karl. Anybody else have any comments? I do note that the GMP isn't an issue for the height because they don't call out height in the GMP, and this is a GMP vote. Anybody else? MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Fry, do you want staff to note that on our executive summary that your opinion was that there should be 500 square foot or studios in this complex? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Ray will note that in the executive summary that goes to the Board, staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that isn't part of the motion that's being -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, but it will be noted -- that will be noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make a note that I don't agree with that, please. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: We will note that one -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Make a note that I do agree with that. MR. BELLOWS: -- particular commissioner has indicated this is an issue for maybe further Board direction for follow-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But if you're going to make a note on his position, then please make a note on mine. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't agree that the 500 is warranted. On all the years we've been here, we've never gone below 700. I have not seen any evidence that warrants that at this time, so... MR. BELLOWS: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I agree with the Chairman on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I'll call for the motion on the GMP amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is the GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The GMP does not address height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He stated that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me do again. All -- on the GMP, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. Page 87 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- what have we got, six here today -- 6-0. Now let's do the PUD. PUD No. 20180003659, and it's for the Courthouse Shadows -- same thing, Courthouse Shadows. It's the PUD section. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve as proposed subject to the stipulations that we addressed and that you recorded. Based on that, I'm comfortable with having you review the final version, so no need for it to come back on consent. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any thoughts? COMMISSIONER FRY: Should we talk about studio units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You canif you want. It wasn't part of the limitations, so... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Only if we can talk about the height. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I assume the 17 -room -- 17 -seat conference room is out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, we didn't get into that kind of detail. This is a non -detail board, so... And as far as I go on this one, this one does discuss the height. I don't have a problem with the height. I just enjoyed Mr. Yovanovich's dissertation on it. So with that, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-1. That takes us to the remainder of items on the agenda for -- we've got 12 minutes. We should be able to get through the Rivergrass in 12 minutes. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry. But, Commissioners, just for the record, because this is not going to be on summary now because you just voted against -- your reason for saying no is the height, I take it? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Any other reason? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I don't -- I don't agree there should be apartments there at all, but that's -- no rentals. It should be something else commercial. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I just need something for Ray to put down. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I appreciate the clarification: Height, and you're not supporting of the use either? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Not really, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't want to see the residential. MR. BELLOWS: I'll just reflect her comment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would have to be based on an LDC reason, which is the use. You're not supporting residential is what you're saying? MR. BELLOWS: Or multifamily. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or multifamily. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I don't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Page 88 of 94 September 19, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item is, obviously, not going to get done in 11 minutes, and I wanted to talk to the applicant's representatives on how they wanted to proceed with the remaining time. One thing I know is you've got a lengthy presentation which I would like -- I think is going to be beneficial to all of us to see. It would probably be better not to start that for 10 minutes and then resume the balance of it on October 3rd. But I think it would be beneficial if you would agree to distribute that to us ahead of time so we could look at it. Where your thoughts are, Mr. Yovanovich, because I understand you've got an electronic presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think, one, we agree having a 10 -minute conversation is -- I don't think a -- its just, frankly, a waste of time. But I doubt I'm going to provide our PowerPoint presentation ahead of time. I think that we will -- we prefer to just go through it as we go through it because, frankly, I'm sure I'm going to make some changes to it between now and October 3rd, and at that point, we'll -- I'd rather do that than put it of record right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's fine. I just thought it would give us an opportunity to review it so we better understand it and could react to it better rather than see it the same day then move right into the other stuff, which wouldn't give us time to digest what's ever going to be explained in the PowerPoint. MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything you're going to see is already a matter of record on how the RLSA program works. We'll probably go into a little bit greater detail about how -- the history of it, much like Bob did when we did the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District presentation, I think, at the last meeting, because that was the first one that many people had heard then, and then we'll get into the details of the actual SRA materials. You already have all that backup. It will just be in summary form in PowerPoint slides. I don't think that -- I don't think it's going to make much difference if you have it in advance or not. You already have the materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I had just thought I'd suggest it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You do have some folks that have been sitting here all day if you want to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- I agree. That's a great idea. One thing -- I'm sorry. Heidi reminded me of something. There was -- as we were working with county staff, there were modifications to the width of the Big Cypress right-of-way requested by staff versus what is in the master plan that you have, so it got a little bit wider. And in getting a little bit wider, we extended the boundary of the SRA north a little over eight acres. We're actually a little bit smaller than the 999 that you reviewed. We're 998 and change. There will be -- we'll give you an exhibit so you can see the little triangle difference. But you're right, Mr. Strain, I think that would be beneficial if we gave that to you in advance so you can see that difference in the acreage calculation as a result of the road right-of-way. If you want me to just put it up really quickly on the visualizer so you know what to expect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Well, we haven't officially opened up the hearing. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know. Just as a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Information only? MR. YOVANOVICH: -- information only. You see where Mr. Mulhere's finger is, that little triangle is being added because if you -- I'm sure you don't remember, but the width of the yellow is a little bit wider than what was in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do remember. It was one of my issues I was going to ask you about. I do remember. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that -- because that got wider, we added that little triangular area to the northern portion of the village. So that will be a modification that we'll provide to you so you know that Page 89 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 in advance. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way the agenda's working out, I expect we'll be here all morning on the 3rd on your SRA. The AUIR is required to be heard in time for the Board to see it. So after lunch on the 3rd we'll probably come back, work on the AUIR. As soon as we get done with that, we'll roll back into the SRA. I don't know how long the AUIR's going to take because we have new members this year, so -- but we have to do that. That's a time -sensitive one for the county's processes, so I have no choice but to fit that in. Whatever we don't finish on the 3rd, we'll, again, move to the 17th, and we'll have to finish up hopefully on the 17th. MR. YOVANOVICH: So my question is -- and it's a request, and I don't know if the Planning Commissioners can do that or even if the room's available. I know you typically stop at 4:00, but would there be the ability to go longer on the 3rd so we can try to not -- so we can try to get as much, if not -- as much of the village done so other petitions don't get -- continue to get pushed back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a request if the Planning Commission could stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather we stick to our 4:00 routine. This is -- with the amount of reading we have to do, this is pretty, let's say, focused work, and I'm not sure any of us want to go past 4:00. I'll turn to the rest of you. It doesn't matter to me. Yes? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, another thing we talked about the other day is our traffic consultant can't come back on the 17th, so my only request is that we complete the traffic questions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- on October 3rd even if we have to go out of sequence from what you had previously shown. It's just -- it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we commit to doing the traffic starting at 9:00 on the 3rd. That way your traffic guy can be here, and we can get through traffic and have all morning to get it done. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you don't want to hear our overview first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. How long -- that's right, too. We're not doing that today like I had expected. So that would mean we'd lose part of the morning on that. How long -- I mean, I don't know how long traffic's going to take. That's one of the bigger issues that there are a lot of people involved in that. I don't think we can get it done in the morning with your overview. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, again -- I mean, how long -- do you really -- is the AUIR going to take four hours? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it was up to me, it'd take four minutes, but I don't -- we've got new members, and Ned, in particular, is into the details like that. I've learned over 19 years that the details -- the time we spend on that isn't as useful as time we could be spending on other elements, so I've given up trying to put the time into that document. I'm not sure everybody else has, so I'm trying to be very cautious to make sure we don't cut people short. Maybe staff can tell me -- the AUK what's the deadline to the Board of County Commissioners on the AUIR? Does anybody know if there's a time -sensitive issue there? I know there is; I've been told. But I don't know when they've got to have it as a drop -dead date, and there's nobody here -- can someone call Mike Bosi? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have an answer to that either, so I have no idea if the Board's got to hear it by November, December, January. I was told it had to be fairly soon because of the budget process and the fact everybody's waiting for it, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it can't be the budget, because you're going to adopt the budget -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it has something -- the budget -- this follows the budget. So, Jamie? MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Richard. For the record, Jamie French. I'm your deputy department head for Growth Management. Commissioners, we've heard this at the end of the year before in December. So before the end of Page 90 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 the calendar year would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's very helpful. Appreciate it, Jamie. Then we will -- we'll just continue with Rivergrass on the 3rd and do the AUIR as soon as we can fit it in. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I would like to change the order, though, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we'll do transportation first after your presentation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have two requests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, that portion of the AUIR having to do with traffic that is called Attachment F, it's an Excel spreadsheet, is that ready yet? Could that be sent out early? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That should be done. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. Yes, it is complete, and I can send it to you, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please do. And last year at my request you very kindly sent it tome in the original Excel editable spreadsheet. May I have it that way again? MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And others may want it as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If you send it to one, send it to all, please. MS. SCOTT: I'll send it to Planning staff and have them distribute it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Perfect. Thank you. And then my second request -- and I think this is of staff, and it has to do with documents that I'm going to want to see. I hope I don't have to dig for them myself, so I'll just ask. I would like to see at least the out -boundaries of the proposed Longwater and Belhnar projects that are coming along as well so that I could see their proximity to Rivergrass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff has those from the pre -app, so just bring them -- provide them to us. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, we put together a map that includes all of them on -- all these SRA villages one map for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to do that, then include the Immokalee Road Rural Village. It's not SRA, so -- but it's comparable. It's in the same area. MR. BELLOWS: That's a very large project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to have five villages on top of Ave Maria you're going to show us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. That will be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got the map. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And if you wouldn't mind also indicating the ownership of those. MR. BELLOWS: I believe we know that information, so we should be able to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And when would we have that? Sufficiently in advance of October 3rd? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's -- most of it's already on a GIS. We just have to get the boundaries of the Rural Village and add that information. So midweek next week. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just curious. So we get -- in our packets we get a bookmark for each of the main sections. Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a more detailed table of contents? We've got like a staff report, developer's application, NIM meeting notes, that kind of thing. So a lot of times we see the same things two or three times in the packet. I'm just not sure why or if one is more relevant than the other or more recent. MR. BELLOWS: That's a good question. We don't have a table of contents because, as you know, there are last-minute changes right up to the time the packets go out, so it would probably mess up Page 91 0£ 94 September 19, 2019 any table of contents and make things more confusing, so -- but we can try to tab them, but, you know, that's a time-consuming thing, and -- COMMISSIONER FRY: If ifs not practical, it's not practical. It's just something I think would be helpful to -- MR. BELLOWS: In regards to duplicate information, that is our responsibility to cull anything that's redundant, and you should be getting the latest and greatest of whatever is submitted by the applicant. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean the same document that's up here and then it's down here, the same documents, or it seems to be the same document. I'm not even quite sure. MR. BELLOWS: And some of the confusion is when we attach the applicant's package of their application, they include some stuff that is part of the original submittal, and its been modified. So whatever's part of the applicant's backup material is probably the original submittal. The PUD document and revised traffic studies, that's the latest and greatest. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you just using Adobe to piece together a PDF with other documents? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You used to send everything out so that it was separated into different parts, like TTS and whatever, and I used to be able -- this is two or three years ago. I used to be able to go to different sections. And then you combined it all into one big PDF. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLOWS: And that was to accommodate Accela and computer programming that we now utilize. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. It's more efficient. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: For you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: We can look at it but, like I said, the system -- the way it is now is to accommodate Accela and the computer programming that we now have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is the end of our public hearings. New business? The only thing I'd want to mention, in October, because the new board is -- new panel is seated, and you're already seated, Stan. Joe hopefully will be after next week. Even if he's not, it will take months to seat somebody in his place. Rather than wait till October, does anybody want to see a change in the officers' positions; chairman, vice chair, or secretary of this Planning Commission? That's something we normally do in the fust meeting in October. That one's buried. Whatever you guys want, it's fine with me, but I didn't know what your thoughts are. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're saying if we're unhappy with you as the chairman, we now say that in front of this group? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I'm delighted with you as chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, except for the studio. COMMISSIONER FRY: Except for the studio apartments. I think you need to re -think that position CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would like to see Mr. Strain continue to be the chairman because I could never put up with -- no, he does a lot of work and extensive research, and I would strongly support a proposal to have Mr. Strain continue to be chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'll make a motion that Mr. Strain continue as chair. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. Page 92 of 94 September 19, 2019 (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Third. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONERFRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unanimous. We have vice chair, Karen, and secretary, Ned. Anybody have any motion on those? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I'll just comment, I do believe Ned does a --as a secretary does a very poor job of taking all the notes from each meeting. Terri does an excellent job, but Ned not so good. I would -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not a recording secretary. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would move to continue both of those officer positions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second, Joe. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That takes us to old business; there's none. Public comment. Anybody left that wants to talk about anything? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a comment, though. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the Board's vote on Tuesday, whether I return at the next meeting is up in the air, but if I don't, thank you very much. I extend my thanks to the staff and everyone. I know I miss meetings. And, just for the record, one of my other anomalies, after the long years in the Middle East, I do serve as a subject -matter expert for deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many times when I get phone calls to assist a defense contractor and the work that's being done over there, I answer that call. Of course, that's a paid consultant. And I normally forfeit my duties here because that takes me to other places. I apologize for that, but that's what my duties are. But I do miss you all, and I try and come back as often as I can. So thank you for all the support, and if I'm here, we hope to have another term. But if not, thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what we've got coming up in the rural lands, your knowledge of the Corps and DEP and all the environmental permitting is going to be invaluable, so I hope that on Tuesday the Board understands that goes -- and grants your request to continue on the Planning Commission. Page 93 of 94 September 19, 2019 And thank you for all the time and effortyou do put in. I know you're running two jobs, and I think your other job is actually more important than most people realize. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely more important than zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you're dealing with Afghanistan and places like that, that's heavy stuff. So with that -- "regular meeting has concluded." Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Joe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. No, it has not, Troy. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:07 p.m. COLLIER -COUNTY PL4NNING COMMISSION YIJ�� v STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on 10 — I 1 — as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 94 of 94