Loading...
CCPC Agenda 12/03/2019 S Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 11/25/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 December 3, 2019 5: 05 PM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. December 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 11/25/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call By Secretary 3. Approval of Minutes A. October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes B. November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes 4. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20190002545 - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida; to eliminate the seating limitations and extend the hours of operation for restaurants within the Golf Course and Recreational Use District (GC), when located within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] 5. Public Comment 6. Adjourn 12/03/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 3.A Item Summary: October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes Meeting Date: 12/03/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 11/20/2019 8:47 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/20/2019 8:47 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 11/20/2019 8:47 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 12/03/2019 5:05 PM 3.A Packet Pg. 3 October 31, 2019 Page 1 of 83 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 31, 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: Mark Strain, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Edwin Fryer, Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joe Schmitt, Environmental ABSENT: Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 2 of 83 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 31st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. It's a special out-of-sequence meeting to try to catch up on some backlog of reviews that we have. We'll start out, if everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? (No response.) 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? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. Go Nationals. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chair, we have a quorum of seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, is that one of those MAGA hats I keep reading about? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. Nationals hat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a MAGA hat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No comment. MAGA, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a MAGA hat? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Make America Great Again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's an acronym. I never even thought of that. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A MAGA hat is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was trying to figure out what the news was constantly saying about these MAGA hats. What's a MAGA hat? I thought for Halloween everybody would have one. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: For a big head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That brings us to the addenda to the agenda. Everything on today's agenda is continued from prior meetings. So we don't have any other changes to the agenda. And with that, we'll move on to the other -- move right into the Planning Commission absences. Jeremy Frantz, there's been a request for a special evening meeting to fast track an LDC change, and maybe Jeremy can explain to us what the change is about a little bit and talk to us about time frames. I had met with Jeremy, and I suggested before we hear it, it needs to go out to the stakeholders since it's site specific, and that he allow enough time for that to happen before it comes to us. Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. Jeremy Frantz, for the record, with the Zoning Division. The amendment that we're trying to move along at a kind of a quick pace is related to the Board's invitation to negotiate related to the golf course out in Golden Gate City. There has been, you know, just the beginnings of putting this amendment together, so we don't necessarily have a draft for review, but we're looking 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 3 of 83 at modifying the restaurant seating limits that are accessory to a golf course in the golf course zoning district. And we're trying to get the amendment to the Board for their first hearing in December. So we're hoping for a Planning Commission meeting that would occur sometime in late November. Of course, we've got the holiday to work around, but also it could push that meeting into the first week of December and just report directly to the Board what the Planning Commission recommendations are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that could be -- that would be an evening meeting. MR. FRANTZ: Yes, I'm sorry, an evening meeting after 5:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could schedule it around the ability to get some input from the public like we normally do on LDC amendments, I think that would be helpful for this board to know. And then the only other thing I want to suggest is, if it's under the golf course section, that means whatever you're changing could apply in any GC portion of the property. That's 100-plus acres and the bulk -- majority of that property borders residential. The uses that are being considered would be increasing intensity, which is obviously why it's going to have an evening meeting. How would we -- depending on the input you get from the community, under an LDC amendment, what is the philosophy on how we can tailor that to limitations? Because we're actually doing something in the LDC which we frown on the public sector -- private sector trying to do this, but now we're trying to do it just for one site. I mean, isn't there a better way to do it than trying to change an LDC amendment and make it into a customized -- what it would normally be, like a language in a conditional use or something? MR. FRANTZ: The LDC, yeah, does allow for a restaurant over 150 seats as a conditional use in the golf course zoning district. The Board, at the October 22nd meeting, did request this specific change to the LDC. So I can bring -- any potential, if we want to call them, development standards or any other changes, I can bring that to them for their consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how do we put that in the LDC? I mean, we don't do that for the private sector. How would we tailor an LDC section to be for a project that we -- when it's -- that's not what the LDC's for. MR. FRANTZ: Gotcha. Well, yeah, I mean, you know, I'm beginning to look at the amendment, trying to tie it more to, like, an economic development scenario or redevelopment area, you know, kind of philosophy rather than looking at a specific site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, which -- that's what I'm trying to get at. If you find a better way to do it, then -- because, generally, the LDC applies countywide. And I know we're trying to make it very specific, but in doing so, we might want to see stipulations to protect the interests of the adjoining residential properties. And based on that, I'd certainly like you to think about that before you come to us so we can get it to the Board without having to go back and forth with staff, you know, like they're asking. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, that's just a heads-up. And the rest of the board members haven't seen as much of it as I have. Okay. So with that, there will be a request from Jeremy's office to coordinate an evening meeting after he figures out how much time and dates that are available. I'm just giving you-all a heads-up. It will be just for that item; is that right? MR. FRANTZ: That's right, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And anything else you want to add, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: No, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you want us to look at our calendars? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because I don't know what dates are going to work for Jeremy. Unless you-all -- I -- we normally have -- especially site-specific LDC amendments, the stakeholders, whether it's -- usually it's not a NIM. It's usually a stakeholder, but people are informed of the change in the immediate area. And this is the Golden Gate Golf Course, so I had suggested to Jeremy, why don't you see if you can do 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 4 of 83 an informal meeting with the residents there. There's only -- it's easy. They're limited. See if we can just get their input before the meeting. I thought that would be helpful, and he thought so, too. Well, I think he thought so. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We can make an effort to do some outreach in whatever form we can make that happen in a short period of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Or at least let them know -- figure out a date that we're going to be here and let the people in that area know. A lot of people don't read that typeset in the newspaper. So it may -- some way of notifying them beyond that would be -- maybe that's a solution. But at least we've got to let the public know that this is going to happen. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We can do something like that. And if you-all are looking at your calendars today, if we're shooting for that first week of December, looking at this meeting room, it doesn't look like there's anything scheduled for the evenings during that week if you-all want to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: For us? First week in December for us? MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me look real quick and see what mine has. If you guys -- if you've got your calendars with you. MR. FRANTZ: I misspoke. It does look like on Monday, December 2nd, there is an evening meeting already scheduled in this room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. My evenings work during that time frame, so I'm good. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it would be, perhaps, Tuesday or Wednesday? MR. FRANTZ: That would work for me, if we would have a quorum. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm open both of those evenings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good, at least for now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else know if they're not? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll make it work. There will be enough -- we'll have a quorum one way or another. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeremy. Appreciate it. All of us were sent -- oh, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is November 7th, and it will be -- don't know yet how long of a meeting it will be. Kind of what I wanted to mention to you-all, that is the wrap-up for Rivergrass. I would like it to be the wrap-up and finish-up, and I asked that all of you -- we have two items on our list of issues we wanted to talk about. One is we haven't gone over the SRA document, so we'll kind of walk through that. It's like a PUD document, and there may be questions from languages in the LDC and GMP. If there are, that's fine. We'll go over those next. Then I'd like to wrap it up with any unanswered questions that we've picked up over the length of time this thing's been going on that we still have. And if you could have your questions ready for the meeting so we can move through it quickly, that would be helpful. I'd like to see us finish that on the 7th of November. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm up to date on the material I've received, but, of course, this assumes that we're not going to be receiving any more substantive material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was next my discussion. And Heidi and I talked. She has a document prepared that is the most recent package, I believe, that's been assembled, to go with it. And I -- she asked me if I thought it would be beneficial for us to get at with -- like we normally do, and I suggested it probably would be, not necessarily the one we'll be reading off of, but it would be the one that would be most likely to get to where we need to go. Heidi? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 5 of 83 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have a draft of the resolution that, whether approved or denied, will be what would be proposed to the Board of County Commissioners. So I will be circulating the resolution that had the SRA document, the master plan. It's got the NRI index assessment and a credit agreement attached. So it's about 50 pages. But that is accumulation of the final product based on the changes that have been made so far. COMMISSIONER FRYER: As long as there are no changes from the latest tranche of materials that have been sent, we don't need a redline. But if there were any changes, a redline would be essential. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I can create a redline, but the changes that are made is to change the square footage, and as a result of changing the square footage, the credits change. So that's primarily what the changes are. And the other thing is to make the changes to the deviations that has already been presented -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, then just a cover note would do it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- final form, and then the other change is to reduce, under the deviation, there was recreation center from 50,000 to 30,000 as part of a deviation. Those are the changes made thus far depending on what changes the Planning Commission has, if any. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I am up to date on all the materials that have been sent. MR. KLATZKOW: You'll get a redline. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is the -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark? Heidi? Heidi, I would just point out, that document, 50 pages is entirely unacceptable. We have a 1,000-page minimum here on the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for the record. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There's also a DCA, I believe, that's separate, I believe, but that will be another item that's presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody know if -- I know, Joe, you're not going to be here on the 7th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else not going to be here on the 7th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would expect hopefully we can finish this in on the morning of the 7th. And I'm not sure if there's anything else scheduled yet for the afternoon, but we'll play that by ear. We'll give it a best try we can. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There is. I saw the agenda this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, there's some changes to it now circulating as of yesterday. MR. BELLOWS: There's always changes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. So there may end up just being one item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. They were -- we were all sent minutes electronically. Does anybody have any changes? If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of those minutes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and second. Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 6 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. BCC report and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners met on October 22nd, and they had two items continued: The Courthouse Shadows and companion Growth Management Plan were continued to their 11/12 BCC meeting, as well as the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. They did hear LDC amendments, which, I believe, were approved on the summary agenda and that -- those LDC amendments were for the airport noise zones and fueling facility signage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask, if I may, for a clarification. And I know Mr. Yovanovich is here, and he may have the answer if staff doesn't. But how exactly in the Allura matter did the Board come down with respect particularly to essential services personnel? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If staff is available to know that answer. If you're not, by next meeting could you have -- by next week, could you give us that answer? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'm not totally sure how the final vote went down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I knew, but I'm not -- we'll just see. I'd rather you guys tell us officially, because I didn't catch it all. I heard it -- MR. BELLOWS: We'll provide an email response to that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, yeah. I thought I knew as well, but in a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, he and I do not have the same recollection as to what happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to Chairman's report, and I do have one issue to discuss under Chairman's report, and that is, one of the things that was continued that Ray just said was Orange Blossom Ranch. It came to the Planning Commission. It received a majority vote of denial, and the applicant has requested to bring it back to the Planning Commission. And I talked to Jeff. There is no reconsideration process necessarily for the Planning Commission, so it's really up to what we want to do. I don't know when it would be brought back, but I requested that if it be brought back, it be done when we don't have seven or eight things already calendared and that it doesn't push anything else out of sequence and there's adequate time for whatever changes there are to be heard -- reviewed by staff and the County Attorney's Office. And I believe the applicant was fine with those criteria. Again, it's something unique. I don't think -- we rarely have something like this happen. My opinion, just so you know, if someone's willing to try to make a project more compatible or better, then I don't know why you wouldn't want to hear it, but I'll leave that up to the rest of you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree with that. I would want to know -- I'd want some assurance from someone that there have been substantial changes made so that it's not just trotting the same thing out almost identical to what we saw before, because that's a waste of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Yovanovich is here, so maybe he can answer that question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I wouldn't want to waste your time either, so we believe the changes that we're making are substantial and address comments from both the community as well as Planning Commissioners, and we'd like the opportunity to present them to you first instead of just going right to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody in agreement we can reschedule it? (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Ray, you've heard the basic criteria. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get it scheduled to fit that criteria, whatever timeframe works? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 7 of 83 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'm planning that something like that would be an official re-submittal, and we'll set the 30-day review clock and route it through the entire review staff again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We want it done right. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this idea that things come through and don't get all the review, we've got to stop that. MR. BELLOWS: No. This will come in as a re-submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. Okay. With that, we have no items on the consent agenda, and we have, one, two, three, four, five -- seven items for today's regular agenda. We'll start on the first one. ***It's Public Hearing 9A1. This has been continued from September 5th, October 3rd, and to today, October 31st. And it actually is not a Planned Unit Development. It's a -- it should be a CP after the PL, but it's a transmittal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. PL20180002804, and it's for the Hammock Park Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. All those -- well, we don't need -- this is legislative, so we don't need swearing in and we don't need disclosure, if I'm not mistaken. Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the first one it's a GMP amendment, which is legislative, so no swearing in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. We're here today for a Growth Management Plan amendment on approximately -- well, it's in Activity Center No. 7, which is located at the four quadrants of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard. The requested Growth Management Plan amendment is applicable to the roughly 19 acres outlined in yellow, which is currently zoned Hammock Park PUD. With me today to present the petition and answer any questions are David Torres and Gary Haines with Wilton Land Company, the owner of the property; Alexis Crespo, Jeremy Arnold, and Lindsay Robin with Waldrop Engineering; Norm Trebilcock, our transportation consultant; Shane Johnson with Passarella & Associate, our environmental consultant; and Russ Weyer, who did our market analysis. On the visualizer -- I'll briefly go over the location of the property in the request, and then Alexis will come up and get into some of the greater details related to the request and the backup information and data to support our request. On the yellow that, again, is roughly 19 acres that that is applicable to. It's within the urban fringe which, as you all know, has a base density of 1.5 units per acre and it can go to 2.5 unit per acre through the acquisition of TDRs. Our request is to allow up to 265 apartments on this same property within the trip cap that was previously approved within the existing commercial PUD, which Hammock Park is a commercial PUD. Alexis will go into the greater details as to the availability of infrastructure to serve the project, and we can answer any questions you may have. This is -- as an apartment complex, your staff is recognizing that there still is need for market-rate units. We're getting closer to the point of where we'll meet the need, but there's still a need, and your staff is recommending approval. And with that, I'll turn it over to Alexis to go through some of the details, and we'll be available to answer any questions you may have. I know Mr. Fryer has some questions, but if we can go through -- and others I'm sure will have as well, but hopefully we'll answer many, if not all, of them through our presentatio n. But if you can hold your questions till then, we'd appreciate it but, otherwise, if you want to ask questions, ask them when you want to. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. Good morning. Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering representing the applicant. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 8 of 83 And I also want to thank the Commission for holding the special meeting for us. We know you've had a busy couple of months, so we appreciate you making the time. As Rich has noted, the request before you today is a site-specific text amendment to the Growth Management Plan to allow for 265 apartment units. It says multifamily on your screen, but these would be limited to apartment rentals through our companion amendment to the PUD zoning district. The amendment would also allow for commercial uses to occur on the property, allowing for a true mixed-use project within your activity center, which is intended for this type of mix of uses. One thing we want to walk you through today is that Activity Center 7 and specifically the east quadrants of this activity center are the only -- one of two activity centers out of all 19 within your county that don't allow for the 16 units per acre inherent to your activity centers. And these were set up to allow for dense, intense development at your arterial intersections where you have adequate public services and facilities to support those types of growth patterns and to preclude densities from entering established lower density areas throughout the county, is also preventing strip commercialization. So clustering, higher density, and higher intensity into these activity centers is a broad goal of your Growth Management Plan. And due to changes in this specific area of the county and in this specific activity center, since it was adopted many years ago, we believe increasing the density on this site is appropriate, and we'll walk you through that. One thing to note when introducing a residential use within a mixed-use activity center is, are we removing much-needed commercial land uses from this activity center and preventing buildout of this area in a way that is needed to support goods and services and retail uses for the general area? And we have done that analysis as part of this application. And upon approval of the multifamily portion of this project, you'll still have over 90 acres of available vacant commercial lands in addition to what is built there today in terms of the Publix, the ALF at the southwest corner as well to support long-term commercial needs within this area. We've also addressed through our application the demonstrated market demand for apartment-rental housing to support the growth of Collier County. This is supported by our -- Russ Weyer's analysis submitted with the application as well as your county staff's independent analysis and inventory that they're keeping track of almost on a monthly basis as new apartment projects come online. So with that, we believe this amendment is strongly supported by the appropriateness of this request in relation to that Urban Residential Fringe, the changing conditions since that land-use category was adopted in 1989, 30 years ago, the commercial availability within the activity center, the demand for apartment housing, as well as compatibility with the surrounding uses and why this is an appropriate location for additional density. We know you've spent a lot of meetings and a lot of time looking at the framework of planning in Collier County and how the county has historically managed rural lands in the urban rural interface. The Urban Residential Fringe category was created upwards of 30 years ago, 1989. You can see from the aerial the world was very different at that time. There were no impact fees in Collier County to support growth outside of established urban areas. Collier Boulevard/County Road 951 was not a six-lane facility. This was prior to a lot of the great acquisition efforts by the county and the state in the eastern portion of the county to ensure the rural areas were under permanent conservation. This was also prior to development of other key tools, such as your Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, which was approved in 2001. Another thing you'll note when looking at this slide and the changes that have occurred over the decades in this area is Lely Resort. That was approved in the late -- mid/late '80s. It was just starting to develop around this time when this aerial was taken in the early '90s, and today it is approaching buildout, and that's another key part of what supports this amendment in terms of the units that have not been built out within that community based on what was approved in the original DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you change that previous slide -- and I don't mean to interrupt your presentation, but I have to because something doesn't seem right. That rectangle is not where I believe you intend it to be. MS. CRESPO: You are correct. We were shifting things around, and my rectangle was moved. It 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 9 of 83 should be further to the right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That little yellow rectangle's supposed to be your project, yeah, which should be at 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was just looking at my map, too. I'm going, wait a minute, that's not what I read. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that we're all in the same location, we're good. MS. CRESPO: I apologize for that error, but, yes, it would be immediately east of Rattlesnake Hammock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you make sure you send all this to us, or to the planners so we have a copy of it since you're putting it on record? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. CRESPO: It is correct on this next slide. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. CRESPO: Helps me bounce back from that. Okay. So today the world is very different. This is a 2018 aerial. You can see Hacienda Lakes starting to develop to the south of Rattlesnake Hammock and filling in to the east of the project. The roadway system has significantly expanded, including the six-laning of Collier Boulevard. You have an impact fee program in place to manage growth and ensure facilities are coming online commensurate with development. You also have continued pressure to move out east to accommodate continued growth in Collier County. People want to live here. There's continued influx of population, and the areas, as you can see on the left-hand side, are urbanized areas along the coast, are filling in and finding locations to accommodate. The growth in the county is putting more pressure on lands to the east. Lely is also approaching buildout with significantly less units than planned. I had just alluded to that. The DRI had over 10,000 units approved originally. Stock Development, through the San Marino PUD, which you reviewed several years ago, took some units out of that in order to support their development further north of this project site. But today there's approximately 8,500 units approved and, per their latest monitoring report, they have only utilized 5,500 of those units. So even with some redevelopment of sites within the project, it's clear that that project will develop at approximately 1,500 to even 2,000 units under what was originally envisioned for the area. There's also a significant increased demand, as has been well documented, for workforce, essential service provider housing, and you've seen that through many of your recent applications. So just to have the side-by-side frame, we want to focus on the Urban Residential Fringe, which is to the right of the yellow urban rural boundary line. This was a transition area back in 1989 to allow for densities and intensities to step down as you move east. Today we have the Hacienda Lakes development approved to our east, which is providing for that transition. We have a lack of development and approved PUDs that have not been realized, and providing for these locations for infill development at prime arterial intersections is very different today than it was when the land-use category was established in the late '80s. And just to further that point, you can see the green arrow there providing for the transition intended by urban residential fringe between the urban rural boundary and the project site. So looking a little bit closer at Activity Center 7, we are in the northeast quadrant. The western portions are permitted 16 units per acre. So you go immediately across the street, and you can have that activity center density that you wanted to locate along your arterial intersection. The northwest quadrant has had no multifamily or residential uses developed. It's a Publix shopping center with some medical and banking outparcels, and it encroaches into the Naples Lakes community, obviously, with single-family/multifamily golf course uses. On the southwest side of the quadrant, also allowed up to 16 units per acre with one project developed on approximately five acres having 300 units. So that's Sierra Meadows. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 10 of 83 So the potential multifamily that could have gone on this activity center on the west side of the road has not been realized through the buildout of the western quadrants of the site; therefore, allowing for some of that demanded housing to occur on the east side with the protections in place for transition and adequate public infrastructure makes a lot of sense based upon the buildout over the years. Looking at the commercial lands, I noted that upon approval of the 265 units and using that land area of this 19-acre site, there will still be adequate available commercial lands to support the buildout of this activity center. To the north of the site you have a Planned Unit Development approved for 100,000 square feet of commercial uses, and the tracts to the north of that are conventionally C4 zoned lands also within the activity center allowing commercial uses. To our east we have the McMullen MPUD, which is approved for 185,000 square feet of nonresidential uses. That is owned or under control by the applicant, a demonstration of their vested interest in this area, the county, not only via Hacienda Lakes but also owning the McMullen and subject site at this intersection. To the south we have 50 acres in Hacienda Lakes allowed for commercial uses, upwards of 92,000 square feet, as well as hotel uses, and to the west there are still remaining undeveloped outparcels to the -- around the Discovery Village project at the southwest corner of the intersection. So, in sum, upon conversion of a portion of the site for multifamily, there will still be about half a million square feet of available vacant commercial development within Activity Center 7. Russ Weyer is here. He prepared the apartment demand study that accompanied this application. He's reviewed staff's latest numbers, I believe issued in August of 2019. With this project, assuming it is approved and also assuming Courthouse Shadows is approved, there's still more than a thousand apartments demanded in Collier County to provide for the housing needs of essential service workers and other folks at that income level. We are agreeing through our PUD document that we would bring back to you at the time of adoption that the units will be rental apartment units. They would not be for-sale condo product. As part of our application, we submitted all the required data and analysis to demonstrate potable water, sanitary sewer, roadway infrastructure services in terms of EMS. Schools are available to serve the population that would be generated by the 265 units. A key point that David noted at our neighborhood information meeting is these rooftops will help drive development of those undeveloped commercial parcels within this activity center. So we believe that's another important component of this request is putting the population in place to allow for buildout of this activity center with all the uses that folks in surrounding communities would like to see. This is an ideal location for infill mixed-use development based upon our relative lack of surrounding low-density neighbors. And the site is also adjacent to major employers. So just going back to that aerial, I want to note that we are very close to Physicians Regional Hospital to our south, we're well connected by a multi-use path that could connect future residents of this site with that employment center. We have FSW College in Lely Resort. Also, less than a mile from this site we have assisted living facilities also west of Collier Boulevard providing nearby employment opportunities. The future development of business park and commercial uses and Hacienda Lakes provides employment within walking distance of the site, and then we have those essential service workers in schools in Lely as well as the sheriff station and the library site all proximate to the property. We did conduct or neighborhood information meeting in June of 2019 and also met with the East Naples Civic Association. They did not express concerns about the requested density. They were looking to have more sit-down quality restaurants and were wondering why the commercial is taking so long to develop at this specific intersection. So those were the majority of the comments received at those meetings. Based upon that feedback, we would like to bring you back with the PUD a commitment that with the 265 multifamily units, we would commit to a minimum of 20,000 square feet of commercial uses so that this would be a true mixed-use project with a minimum amount of commercial, and of that, 5,000 square feet would be a sit- down or quality restaurant just meeting what we've heard at our neighborhood information meeting. So to wrap up our direct presentation, the proposed amendment will address the gaps that you currently 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 11 of 83 have in providing for housing for the workforce in this area of the county. There's over a thousand apartment units still needed even after approval of this amendment. This would allow for mixed-use development to occur in your activity centers, which is exactly what your Growth Management Plan is directing you to do via the adopted goals, objectives, and policies. This will help to reduce development pressures on rural areas and, as we walk you through some of the history and how this area of the county has developed with Hacienda Lakes with the infrastructure and with the underdevelopment in Lely, the transition will exist as intended by Urban Residential Fringe and allowing for site-specific density in this location. It's consistent with what the county is looking to achieve on a broad basis. With that, the whole team is here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Joe, then Ned, then Karl. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to clarify. I know you stated it, but if approved, there's a commensurate reduction in the square footage for commercial. MS. CRESPO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other comment I have is you are not -- you're just changing a portion of the Comp Plan language, but I do note that there is pretty significant commercial authorized of no personal indoor self-storage, various contractor and building construction trade specialists, and those kind of things. I think it's in the best interest to -- I believe we're oversaturated with indoor self-storage, and especially in that part of the county. I don't think this area -- in this area, with the apartment buildings and the reduction in square footage, my recommendation is that you would have a condition on -- in your PUD that this area would not be another self-storage area. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not asking for self-storage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's in the -- it's in the language. It is authorized for the entire site. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's authorized for your entire activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schmitt, when we come back to the PUD at the next round, assuming we get a next round, we're prepared to address that as part of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just wanted to make sure you had my thoughts on the record. I know we're not striking that language, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we can't, because it affects a lot more people than us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, correct. It's the entire activity center. But future reference. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't figure out -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I just wanted to make sure they knew what my thoughts are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, and it's good for the record. Go ahead, Ned, then Karl. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I raised some questions or issues with Mr. Yovanovich and had, I think, a good conversation with him that I hope the Commission will see as beneficial to the application. The first has to do with essential services personnel, and the second has to do with TDRs. Would you outline what your client's willing to do, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's talk about two things: First of all, if Terri will stop typing, I have to admit your memory of Allura was better than my memory of Allura. You can start typing again. What my -- let's do the TDRs first. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: As you know, under the existing Growth Management Plan provisions, there's the base density of 1.5, and you can get to 2.5 with the acquisition of TDRs. We would commit to basically acquiring one TDR per acre as part of the 265-unit apartment complex. So roughly 19 TDRs would be part of those 265 units put together with the base density of 1.5. I know you want to know what happened in Allura, I'm assuming for purposes of this, and I do have the 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 12 of 83 Allura PUD in front of me. In the Allura PUD, the commitment was to initially market to essential service personnel 55 of the 304 apartment units, and it would be for a period of 45 days during the initial lease-up; and then so forth as each unit became available, we would initially market to ESP personnel. Of those 55 units -- so that equates to -- bear with me. I wrote down the percentages. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One-sixth, something like that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wrote them down, but -- I think it was 28 percent -- 18 percent was the 55, and then -- so that equated to the 55. If you did the same thing here, it would be 48 of the 265 units being initially marketed to that. Allura went one step further and income restricted 31 of those 55 at the 80 percent or less income category. If you were to do that same percentage -- that was 10 percent -- it would be 26.5, rounding up to 27 if you applied the same income thresholds here. I know there's been some discussion about a potential concern that the 80 percent number might be too low for some of the essential service personnel providers, like nurses and firefighters and sheriff's deputies, and maybe the 100 percent threshold might be more appropriate. I think, if you're leaning that way, Mr. Fryer, as we discussed, I'd like to leave that issue open, if you're going to income restrict 10 percent of the units, to hopefully the adoption hearing, because I don't have the data on average incomes for nurses and firefighters and sheriff's deputies right now to know whether the 80 percent number was a good number or the 100 percent number was a better number. I just don't know. So I'd like to leave that open, if we can. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In our discussions -- I guess this is for the County Attorney. In our discussions about 80 percent or some other number, the affordable housing numbers, are we limited to those percentages, or could we talk, like, 90 percent of median income if we thought that that better captured essential services personnel? MR. KLATZKOW: You could, but I think I'd defer that to Cormac as to whether or not that's a wise idea. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning. Cormac Giblin, Housing and Grant Development manager, for the record. The Board, through its adoption of the Community Housing Plan a couple of years ago, did specify some very specific income level targets, and it syncs up our code, our Land Development Code, with state statute and with federal guidelines regarding housing affordability. Those are the 50 percent threshold, the 80 percent threshold, and the 120 percent threshold. We, additionally, have another threshold here called gap housing at 140 percent, but that was -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Where did the 100 come from? MR. GIBLIN: We did not propose 100. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. And the concern was if we were to go at 100 percent of the median income, 120 percent, I believe Mr. Giblin was concerned that those were really market-rate units and we were not addressing people who had some income-related issues. So we split the difference between the 80 and 120 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and capped ourselves at the 100 when we were discussing Allura. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. Sorry to interrupt. MR. GIBLIN: But Allura is at 80 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what ultimately got approved, but we were talking about 100 percent when we were before the Planning Commission at the time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. So I like the direction in which this has moved. My inclination is to try to find a way where -- and I don't have the data either, but it would be interesting to know, you know, what the median income of essential services personnel is or can that be computed. It seems to me that 80 percent is a little low, but I may be wrong. To me it would seem to be closer to 100 percent, but I take it that would be objectionable that it's setting forth another layer or another milestone? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 13 of 83 MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, the legislature, in fact, promotes inclusionary zoning. We don't really do that in this county, but it is part of the statutes. This is a form of inclusionary zoning, so I'm fine with it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. Okay. So I guess what I would like to say, unless the numbers tilt more toward the 80 percent and below for essential services personnel, I'd like to see what you proposed as against 100 percent of median income. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that something that we could get resolved today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we can -- what I'd prefer is, since we're at transmittal and both the adoption language and the PUD itself will be coming back in the future -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. I hate this. I hate when we send a half-baked thing out, you know. Then it comes back and they say, well, then we'll clean it up later. Let's clean it up now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So why don't we put 100 percent in, because we can always go lower. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to advertise it at 80 and then you find out it should have been 90 and then someone tells me we advertised it at 80, you can't go up. You can always go down. So why don't we advertise it at 100. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That works for me. Thank you. Chairman, I had a few other considerably less significant questions or issues to raise. Would it be appropriate to find out if the Planning Commission is supportive of these what I call enhancements of the application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Yeah. Go for it. What I'd like, for stipulations purposes, I'd like a clarification on what you just worked out at 100 percent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I say one more thing, Mr. Fryer? The way we addressed the affordability aspect of Allura was not in the Growth Management Plan language. It was actually in the PUD language. So I may have been a little quick on the draw to want to resolve that at this stage in the Growth Management Plan language, because I don't think we have to. I think we can address it at the PUD like we did with Allura knowing that when the PUD comes back, like Mr. Schmitt said he's going to expect that we clarify that there not be indoor self-storage, we'll address, similar to Allura, the income restrictions based upon information I can bring back to you and say, 90 percent's the right number or 80 percent's the right number or 100 percent's the right number. So I'll go either way you want to do this at this stage, but I just wanted you to understand that the Growth Management Plan for Allura didn't address the income restrictions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That actually makes the -- I'm sorry. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But you may recommend approval if that's where you go on the GMP amendment that you're hearing today subject to conditions that you would like to see in the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Perfect. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I would like to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give me just a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Mr. Yovanovich calculated the Allura and came to 18 percent, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: For ESP, initially offering to ESP people. COMMISSIONER FRYER: ESP. And then if you apply the 18 percent to 265 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 48. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- you get 48, and that would be -- those would be marketed first to essential services personnel for 45 days. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: At market rate? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 14 of 83 MR. YOVANOVICH: That was -- well, it's at any rate, and then in Allura they went -- of the Allura, 55 -- or Allura, 18 percent, 10 percent for a total of 31 units; 10 percent of the total project was income restricted at the 80 percent or less category. What I'm suggesting is we do that same 10 percent, and we come back to decide is it the 100 percent or less, the 80 percent or less. Leave that issue open for further discussion. But we understand that it's going to be a condition of approval of the PUD that we have a "10 percent of the unit" income restriction when it comes back to you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the plug number for median income for now, until we get the research, is going to be 100 percent? Because we can always reduce it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We understand that that's what you want us to bring back. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: In the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right, and then the TDRs. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not asking -- we'll make sure the language is clear. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One per acre is what you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what the current requirement is, and we'll make it clear we're not asking for an exception from having to buy the one TDR per acre in this activity center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And for the record, for what it's worth, I think going the mixed-use direction that you're doing, commercial with restaurants is good. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that will also be in the PUD. We understand that that is -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could that also be a condition? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was that now? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That 5,000 square feet -- well, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was 20,000 -- minimum of 20,000 square feet of commercial, and of that 20,000 square feet of commercial, 5,000 -- a minimum of 5,000 square feet has to be a quality sit-down restaurant. And that's a -- believe it or not, that's an ITE manual provision for how they calculate traffic. It's not an LDC provision, but we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between now and then -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll come up with a definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you're going to use the word "quality," we need to clean it up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what a "quality" is in our zoning code, so... And I think a Starbucks is a quality restaurant, to be honest with you. But anyway, let's go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, perhaps I should ask you to ask your questions and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to go to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Karl. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Karl. Mine are minimal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, quick clarification. Of the 18 percent offered initially to essential services personnel, those are offered at whatever the going rate is for those units, correct? It's not a discount rate? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a market rate. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's a market rate. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a market rate, yes, but we would target ESP personnel first for those. COMMISSIONER FRY: So they've got right of first refusal, basically. And then for the remaining -- for the 10 percent that are targeted to 100 percent of median income or less, also at the same rate, or is that at a discounted rate? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is -- and Cormac has a chart that tells you what the allowed rents would be for those income categories, and it's less than the market-rate rents. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 15 of 83 COMMISSIONER FRY: So that is stipulated by a table. MR. YOVANOVICH: The county has a table. COMMISSIONER FRY: County table. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as you -- well, maybe you don't know. I think you know. It modifies each year, because the median income for the county modifies each year. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So 10 percent are going to go at a discounted rate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the others -- I see. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, the other commissioners have gotten answers to my questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Did you want -- go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is 10 percent the highest you'll go for the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If you will recall, when we had -- actually, we didn't have this discussion in front of the Planning Commission. We did have the discussion in front of the Board of County Commissioners. And the 10 percent that was being provided by Allura and the 10 percent we would be agreeing to provide went a long way, if I remember, to addressing the numbers the county needed. And Cormac's nodding his head. And so I think that we are addressing a significant need by agreeing to the 10 percent. Keep in mind, there's another project that the same developer is developing in the area that also has an affordability aspect to it. So I think this developer is showing a commitment to meeting a need with those 10 percent units. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But Allura was 18. You did 18. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're doing that here, too. It would be 18 percent for offering to ESP, but only 10 percent of the Allura units were income restricted, and we would do the same 10 percent here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's just an issue for me. There's so many rentals in that area even -- I mean, just before, on the other side of Rattlesnake Hammock, starting at College Park Apartments, and there's 784 rentals by the time you get to 951. And then going north from there, there's almost 2,000, and that's just the ones that are -- I'm sure there's more. San Marino's going to have more; there's more property there. You probably have more than -- about 3 percent of all the rentals that supposedly you need in Collier County right in that one area. I know there's a need for it, and I know the sheriff's department specifically needs something. They need to be able to live here and not, you know, travel, and they have a hard time finding places to live to hire -- so they can be hired, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we're in this kind of Catch 22, if that's the right phrase. The lands that are left in the urban area where you can put -- could put apartment complexes are few and far between. We showed you that during the Allura presentation. To find parcels large enough to accommodate an apartment complex in the urban area is a very small supply. And this makes -- as Alexis pointed out, I mean, it's a good location for market-rate apartments based upon, one, traffic, the roads are right there, and employers that are right there and future employers to come that would be part of the Hacienda Business Park and the existing Physicians Regional. And there's a lot of employers in this area, and it's a good location for other employers that are even -- aren't in this immediate vicinity to have the housing. And this is kind of where we are. I mean, the urban area is getting pretty, pretty -- pretty full as far as lands being developed. There's not that much left in the urban area where you can put apartment complexes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I think an important point that I believe I read is that even though this changes the nature mostly commercial to mixed-use residential, the traffic that's generated will not exceed -- could you clarify the traffic expectations, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: The actual -- and Norm can come up and give you the specifics, but the existing 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 16 of 83 peak-hour trips in the already-approved commercial Hammock Park PUD, that trip cap will be maintained. If we build out everything but the 20,000 square feet of commercial as apartments, there will be a significant reduction in peak-hour trips resulting from the apartment complex being built versus the existing commercial. And we've done that analysis for you on Allura and for Baumgarten where we actually studied Collier County apartment complexes to verify that the ITE numbers that people were skeptical of really applied in Collier County. So we know from Collier County's studies that there will be, in fact, a trip reduction by doing the apartments versus the retail. Another thing that has come up during the discussions is because of the lower density in the infill area, you need a certain amount of rooftops for retail and restaurants to want to come here. As much as we may want retailers to change their analysis in how they decide where they're going to come, they still do it based upon rooftops. And we're taking the risk that we're going to be able to get that restaurant that the community wants or more, the 5,000 square feet, by imposing that as a condition on us. So it's -- you need rooftops to support all of the commercial that's already allowed in that area, and you'll just be having -- and we're meeting a need through the need for this type of housing as well and reducing traffic through this process. COMMISSIONER FRY: To your point, Alexis showed slides showing the, you know, tremendous development of the rooftops primarily in this region, in this area, since this was initially approved. Why are there not enough rooftops to support commercial? This would seem like an ideal location for commercial also. So, I guess, what I'm trying to understand is, you know, why are apartments a better use of this land now when, in fact, there's been an explosion of residential units that would theoretically support commercial use on this property? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the "theoretically would support the commercial uses on this property." We think we know their business; "their business" being the commercial developers. There's not. There is not -- when you look at all of this eligible land, we still are going to have 500,000 square feet of commercial at the end of the day. And absorbing that, not happening any time soon. And if this was an ideal location for restaurants and that type of use, it would have landed here. It would have already landed here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are there restrictions on the remaining sections of the activity center? I mean, you mentioned there's a, what was it, 500,000 square feet of commercial capacity left in the activity center. Does approving this project restrict or limit what can be put on those -- on the remaining acreage, or can we expect commercial? I guess they can come in and apply for apartments and mixed use as well, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: There would be a change to the zoning on the property to have to get to that. So I think it's a fair assumption that you're going to get commercial on what's left within the activity center. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess this is a question of Ray more than anybody else, but I'll -- it kind of dovetails to something I heard. Basically, you're going to do a stand-alone apartment complex throughout the project, but you're going to throw in 20,000 square feet to meet the MPUD requirement. Do we have a minimum amount of commercial that's required by MPUDs, Ray, when you do a mixed-use component? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Land Development Code and the PUD section that defines a mixed-use PUD, it doesn't have any thresholds or standards of that nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, basically, we're approving an apartment complex. Twenty thousand square feet isn't a lot for commercial out of 160- or so I think they've got already there. MR. BELLOWS: But there is a requirement to provide a mixed use to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the mixed use can be -- MR. BELLOWS: Minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 5,000 square feet if they wanted to say that. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 17 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They also said there's a reduction in the buildout of Hacienda Lakes, but I heard nothing here offering -- what did you say? There's -- the Hacienda Lakes isn't going to be built out to their full capacity? What project were you referring to? MS. CRESPO: I was referring to Lely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you offered a corresponding reduction to the Lely PUD to reduce the amount of that PUD for whatever you're getting here for density? MS. CRESPO: That worked well for the San Marino, because we were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just yes or no. MS. CRESPO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other projects in that one-mile corridor north and south with a similar request for this kind of density? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, the San Marino apartments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember what they were -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I forget -- you know I'm directionally challenged, so I think they're south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's north. It's north. No, it's north. MR. YOVANOVICH: North? The San Marino apartments, which is also in the Urban Residential Fringe, and it has -- there's an apartment complex, and then there's a residential development that we added density to. If you remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember; that's why I'm asking you, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'll give you the history. On San Marino -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was sitting here at the time, but I don't remember, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: What was that one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said I've been sitting here -- I was sitting here at the time that one came through, but I do not remember. MR. YOVANOVICH: San Marino originally came through on X number of acres based upon a calculation of 1.5 times those X number of acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me. I can hear you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Yeah. You are coming in one ear and he's coming in the same, so could you go ahead and -- sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll try to go -- on the San Marino apartments, that PUD originally was -- and I don't remember the exact acreage, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But San Marino was about 296 units -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on a small portion of a big parcel that was preserve or something else -- or golf course or some -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It originally came in as a residential golf course community. All of the density for that residential golf course community went on to the apartments. There were two units left, along with the golf course. We came through later and did both, I believe, a Growth Management Plan amendment and an amendment to the PUD to put single-family units onto what was the golf course. So it's not unprecedented to have an apartment complex at roughly 300 units. I don't know the exact number of units, Mr. Strain, but roughly 300 units within the Urban Residential Fringe, and that was the San Marino project just up the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when I look at the San Marino project, I'm going to see that they're approved at a density on a per-acre basis of 13.85; is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to see that on a net acreage for what the apartment complex would get -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, that's not the same. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and then you're going to see on the residential portion, a single-family 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 18 of 83 portion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But when San Marino was approved, they were divided by the gross acreage. That's the thing we always do in Collier County. You divide it over the gross acreage. The San Marino apartments on a gross acreage calculation were far, far less than what you're asking for here today, because the gross acreage included all the land that now has become single-family residential or townhouse or whatever it is. But I would wonder, then, if you were to take the San Marino apartments and the other facilities that got approved -- I don't know how many units, 160, 200, whatever the number was -- maybe it was 300, what do we have on a -- in a density basis for the gross acreage? Because that's what we use in Collier County, not net when it's convenient. We use gross. Do you know that answer? I mean, I'll look it up before the day's over. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I was going to ask you to give me time to look it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll look it up as we go to the next -- staff reports and everything. But, David? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, for the record, Comprehensive Planning staff. I just looked up on the PUD list, and San Marino PUD is approved for 2.76 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Well, now we're getting back to where I was trying to go. Okay. So does anybody in that corridor for a gross -- on the way we calculate density in Collier County, does any of the projects in that one-mile corridor have a density of 13.85 for their project? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I'll get to you in just a minute. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: The obvious answer to that question is no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: However, there has been -- as Alexis has explained and gone through the change in Collier County and the need for apartment complexes, there are apartment complexes in this corridor that have the -- effectively have the same density as we're requesting in the corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will disagree with you on that statement, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were saying that you're going to buy instead of -- you're going to buy one more TDR per acre. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is what the current Comp Plan requires. It could have a 2.5 unit per acre under today -- 2.5 units per acre on today's Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's hard to get a yes-or-no answer out of you. You've got about 20 acres for round numbers, 19.5. You have a base density of 1.5, which is 29 units. You don't need TDRs for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you have another -- you have the -- if you go to 2.5 units per acre, you've got to buy that additional one unit per acre for 19.5 acres, which will give you a total of 49 units. Now, here's what you're doing with this acreage. You're saying, on this acreage, the 19.5, you're going to pay the one TDR that would normally have gotten you one unit per acre, but instead you're picking up 236 units per acre -- you're picking up a total of 236 units divided by 19, whatever that comes out to. It's about 12. So you're picking up a lot more density on a one-unit buy of TDRs than you would get normally. I mean, how do you equate that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, what we're doing is we're meeting a need for housing that's not being met under your existing Growth Management Plan. And we've gone through this before. And I know you and I disagree on what's appropriate and when it's appropriate to increase density over what's currently allowed in the Growth Management Plan. That's why we're doing Comp Plan amendments for apartment complexes. We've also just agreed with Mr. Fryer, and I'm assuming others are going to appreciate that commitment, to serve essential service personnel for a number of units and income restrict a number of those units as well. So it's not just simply the number of units that we're giving. We're meeting a need for housing and a need for income-restricted housing for essential service personnel. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 19 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All I was trying to say is you would normally get one unit per acre for the TDRs. You're getting 11.8 units per acre for the same TDR in this case. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a substantial difference. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's your math. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, divide it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking for 265. You take out the 29 you would have gotten as the base. The difference is what you'd get by a TDR. You divide that by 20 units -- 20 acres, it comes to 11.8. Okay. It's rough, but that's what you're getting for one TDR instead of one unit. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not correct. We are income restricting 10 percent of the units, and we are also agreeing to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking about density, not how you're going to income restrict it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to equate the one TDR as the result of increased density. That's not factually correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to equate the fact you buy the density with the TDRs. You normally buy one TDR, it gets you the one-unit-per-acre density. You're getting 10 times that or more. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not based upon the TDR, but based upon the commitment to provide rental housing, servicing essential service personnel, and income restricting it also to essential service personnel within those units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking apples to oranges to make an argument. I'm just trying to get to the base argument. The base argument is, you're getting a lot more out of the TDR than the program ever intended. It intended one unit per acre. You're getting 10 times that. I'd like to ask Russ Weimer (sic) a question, if you don't mind. Good morning, Russ. MR. WEYER: Good morning. Mr. Strain. For the record, Russ Weyer, Real Estate Econometrics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Refresh my memory. What did you use for apartments in process and apartments on the ground in Collier County currently? MR. WEYER: I utilized -- actually, this study was done about a year ago, so I utilized what the staff has in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what numbers did you use? MR. WEYER: Oh, on the ground and in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's all in the same chart. I've got the chart. MR. WEYER: Yeah. It's approximately 5,000 on the ground and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's 12,000 -- MR. WEYER: Wait a second, wait a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the -- Beth Yang produced the chart. I thought I sent you one copy of it at some point in the past. MR. WEYER: Yeah, 12,346. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And how many you got in process? MR. WEYER: And in process -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-three thirty-one? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure you had the right numbers. MR. WEYER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEYER: And that's the current. That was as of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was looking for. MR. WEYER: August of 2019. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 20 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. WEYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I believe that's going to be close to all the questions I have. Yea h, that's all the questions I have. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, David, when San Marino was approved at the density that it was approved -- and I believe Mr. Yovanovich alluded to it -- it was based on the accompanying golf course, which was part of the density. Then that was later severed from that approval. So the density really would have been a lot higher on San Marino, was it not? I know what the original was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't severed. It's all part of same PUD. That was the process it went through to get there. That's why the density was so much less. It was within tolerance of the 2.5 that would have been allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Didn't the golf course -- they never built a golf course. The golf course was then sold, property, and if I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a new PUD that came in for a new -- or for additional density on that? MR. WEEKS: For San Marino -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if it involved TDRs. I can't remember. But it certainly increased the density of San Marino far above the 2 point, whatever, units an acre and the end result. MR. WEEKS: Okay. So the San Marino was originally approved at the one-and-a-half-units per acre. There was no use of TDR credits. They may not have even existed. I'm not sure. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It did not at that time, correct. MR. WEEKS: And that one-and-a-half units per acre was based on the gross acreage, which means it included the golf course portion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And then, subsequently, a companion PUD amendment and Comprehensive Plan amendment was submitted, which eliminated the golf course and added additional density. If I recall correctly, they did use TDR credits plus a little bit more. As I -- so as has already been discussed, two-and-a-half units per acre would be the maximum density using TDR credits plus your base, and the overall density is 2.76, so a slight increase above. MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- and we gave up a thousand units in the Lely Resort project. So if you were to compare apples to apples, you should give credit for the thousand units in that calculation of what was allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is that -- now -- so now the gross acreage of Lely is being added to San Marino? How do you get there? I mean, it's a convenient argument, but it's not the right way to make the argument. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's as relevant as your argument that somehow one TDR is equating to 11 bonus units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's sure a lot different than one TDR for one unit. You've got 10 times that amount. So, I mean, that's a pretty cheap price for that kind of density. MR. YOVANOVICH: There was a tradeoff density, and, Mr. Strain, we believe that this is a good project with good restrictions, and your staff agrees as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not saying it's a bad project. What I'm saying is the density there is the problem, and that's what I'm concerned over. So with that, we'll go -- go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a clarification. As I understand this, this is one of two out of 17 activity centers that does not allow -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- a density of 16. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 21 of 83 MR. YOVANOVICH: It does, and Courthouse Shadows is the other one. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the other one. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the other one. And there was no requirement to provide any affordability or any -- anything regarding that for that -- for that -- for that same type of situation where you have an activity center that had not the typical 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the basic premise here is that when this was approved at that lower density, it really is not up to date with today's conditions; that this density is a more appropriate density for this property at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: We believe the way the county -- remember that -- COMMISSIONER FRY: That's your premise, though, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, the transitional -- the need for the transition is still being met because you have Hacienda to the east, because the overall development of Collier County has changed significantly, and the reason to transition, we believe, is no longer necessary. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the -- David, for the benefit of those on the Planning Commission who may not be aware, is this considered the urban area or residential urban fringe? And is there a difference between the two? And what was the difference for? MR. WEEKS: This is a real oddity. On the Future Land Use Map, the property is -- we consider it both designated as mixed-use activity center and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. That's why commercial uses are allowed per the activity center, which is the full array of C1 through C5. But that's why the density is limited to one-and-a-half units per acre or two-and-a-half with the use of TDR credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the Courthouse Shadows is in the urban area, not the Urban Residential Fringe? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. It's in the -- it's in the mixed-use activity center and within the urban coastal fringe subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it's not in the Urban Residential Fringe. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: But capped at a four-unit-per-acre density versus 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's in the urban area, and it's not transitional to the rural lands in Collier County as the one mile east of 951 is. MR. WEEKS: That's true. The Urban Coastal Fringe is considered a transition from the higher intensity and density of the urban residential subdistricts and other subdistricts and the conservation lands further to the south. But it's not part of the rural area, you're correct or, excuse me, Urban Residential Fringe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any other questions of the applicant. Anybody? Is there a staff report? I mean, I think you've already talked enough about staff, but if you guys want to -- have anything else to add to it, please. MR. WEEKS: I'm sure we'll be brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS. FAULKNER: Good morning. Sue Faulkner with Comprehensive Planning. And I do have one thing to add. In your packet you'll notice that the staff report had a recommendation for slightly different wording. And I can read that into the record for you as to what staff was recommending. This is a transmittal project, and so at this time what we're recommending is that the Planning Commission forward this to the BCC to consider transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other state agencies, and that is the gist of what we're recommending. And then we had a change in the actual language that is the sentence that's being added to the Activity Center No. 7. Do you want me to read both sentences or just the one that we're recommending? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to ask the applicant if they have any objections to what you've recommended, and if they don't then -- 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 22 of 83 MS. FAULKNER: No, they don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you might as well read into the record just the one. We don't need to waste any time on the other. MS. FAULKNER: Staff is recommending previously established residential density limits in the mixed-use activity center subdistrict notwithstanding, comma, up to 265 multifamily rental apartments shall be allowed in the northeast quadrant within the Hammock Park MPUD. That's Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Sue. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Is there any public -- anybody in the public like to speak on this matter? MR. JENKINS: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to come to the microphone, identify yourself for the record, and you most certainly can. MR. JENKINS: My name is John Jenkins. I'm running for Collier County Commissioner District 1. I'm curious about this project. Is there any way that we can get a commitment from the developer of this additional high-density residential and mixed-use development that should Collier County, at some point in time, want to use or put a public transportation stop at the corner, would the developer -- would the project be willing to provide a cutout for said public transportation so that we don't have to have buses stopping on roadways at what is obviously going to be a very busy intersection with public housing that -- you know, affordable workforce that's going to need that transportation, you're going to have people wanting to go into the restaurant or the businesses that are there. I think that that might go a long way as well for the developer to commit to providing public transportation access -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those kinds of issues are operational in nature. This is transmittal for a GMP amendment. We wouldn't get involved in that at this stage but will get involved in that during the next phase, which is the adoption and PUD stage. MR. JENKINS: Fantastic. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next time this comes back, that's part of the discussion that will be had. MR. JENKINS: Great. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just as an FYI, that's already in the PUD. MR. JENKINS: Is it? Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted -- I just wanted the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't read the PUD because we're on the transmittal, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll get to that. Any other members of the public to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, is there anything, Richard, you want to wrap up with? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that -- and staff, David, you look like you're about to say something but -- MR. WEEKS: Well, perhaps you're going to get to it, Mr. Chairman. There were certain commitments being made and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: I think we discussed it enough that we would not have all the details in the GMP amendment but some general reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 23 of 83 MR. WEEKS: And I didn't know if you had -- anyone has crafted language. I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- well, you can -- I always defer to somebody else's language. I've got four items in summary that were talked about as things that we'd be looking at should it come back when it comes back or should it come back as the PUD portion of it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We don't need a GMP reference in the text. It would just be as part of the CCPC action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. That's where I think we're headed. So it wouldn't be a stipulation to add to the GMP. We'll just -- but I'll -- for the record, here's the considerations I think some of the Planning Commissioners had asked for. That 18 percent of the project, when it does come back, is considered as an essential service personnel with 10 percent of that part at or above -- below 100 -- is it at or 100 percent? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Hundred, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ten percent of the total. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten percent of the total, 10 percent. And then 10 percent of the total. Instead of 10 percent, 18 percent. So 8 percent will be left that's not part of the 10 percent. Because 18 percent total is what's going to be set aside for some type of affordability. MR. KLATZKOW: Can you make that a minimum, just in case the Board of County Commissioners is asking for more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be a minimum. When it comes back, we considered striking the storage facilities. I'm not -- we'll have to talk about that when it gets to the PUD. And then the -- there will be a minimum of 20,000 square feet commercial, 5,000 of that to be sit-down restaurant that will be further described in the PUD part of it, and the staff's language that was read into the record is the language that the applicant and we're accepting as the part in the transmittal process. Has anything been missed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, I'll put that in the form of a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. David? MR. WEEKS: There was also a commitment to purchase TDRs, one per acre. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought that was already part of the Growth Management Plan. But if we need to make that clear... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll accept that to my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, you accept that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're going to purchase one TDR per acre. Okay. Discussion? Anybody have anything they want to say? COMMISSIONER FRY: I think the only question I have is the density from 2.5 to 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not a question. It's just -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, my question is just the thoughts of other commissioners in terms of the relevance of that, or is this -- was that 2.5 units per acre somewhat outdated, and is it time to update it? Is this a reasonable update to that density? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to speak to it, Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In my view, this is reasonable and appropriate, because I think it's consistent with the concept of an activity center. It's consistent with the concept of compactness, walkability, if you will. And I believe it is consistent with the desire to avoid urban sprawl. I believe that significant concessions have been made on the TDR, which will help with conservation. I believe that essential services personnel concession is very important. And I like the idea of having 20,000 square feet of commercial with 5,000 of sit-down restaurant. So in my view, that all adds up to a net significant public benefit to the county to justify the density. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 24 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I concur with everything stated but, additionally, when you consider just across the street the density is acceptable, it's all part of the same activity center, and I mean, in reality, Collier County -- or Collier Boulevard was, essentially, I call it kind of an artificial line that 25 years ago divided and indicated anything east was beginning to be the rural fringe when actually it's one mile east of 951 was where you really start the rural fringe. So I believe with what was stated, I think it certainly is acceptable for that area. It's the last area of the county that's really going to grow. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For my position on this, we have different segments of the Comprehensive Plan set up for reasons of proper long-term strategy and planning. This area was a transition area from stopping the urban at 951, transitioning to other uses a mile beyond that. I asked the question specifically where have we done this before in this area, in this -- based on the county's standards of how we compute zoning, and there is none. Clearly, there is none. Even the project that was used as an example was really 2.76, much closer to 2.5, and this one's 13.85. By diluting the TDR process by saying that instead of one unit per acre we're now going to approximately 11 units per acre with only one TDR, I think that's going to hurt the system, not help it. I don't see the need for that. I don't see the consistency of how we're going to approach other projects in this same corridor up and down. It goes a long ways north and south in Collier County -- how we could say no to somebody else. So I don't agree we should be where we are today, and I don't think it's good planning, so I will be voting no on this proposal. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm going to have to agree with you on this one, because I think it's just too dense in the area, and we keep -- there's just -- it's too much and there's so many rentals there. The Growth Management Plan was made the way it is for a reason, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I'm sensitive to the fact that it is an activity center. So to your point, Mark, I guess my question is: If we allow it here, because it's an activity center -- if I vote for it, it is specifically because it is in an activity center, which does generally allow higher density, and I do believe that the point has been well made that there have been significant concessions and that it's an appropriate place under today's development patterns for the higher density, so -- but my mind is still open. I guess my question is: What -- if we approve it today because it's in an activity center, are we opening ourself up to have to say yes to the next one that is not in an activity center? Because I would not be inclined to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Jeff would answer the question, no, everything's on a case-by-case base. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. Everything is on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, do you mind. Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: All I know is every time I'm sitting here, Mr. Yovanovich is coming in asking for increased density, and every time staff has recommended it, and virtually every time the Planning Commission has recommended it, and virtually every time the Board has recommended it. So if you're asking me, is it precedential? No, but it doesn't matter anyway, all right? And at this point in time, he's arguing that because if I ask for increased density all around here, I should get it here, too, he's going to make that same argument up and down the corridor. It's as simple as that, okay. This Planning Commission, staff, and the Board of County Commissioners has essentially pushed the urban area out east. That's what it's done. It hasn't changed the Comp Plan, all right? But, essentially, through one application after the other, we have shifted the urban area out east by at least a mile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the recommendation on 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 25 of 83 transmittal for approval as noted to the Board of County Commissioners, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed, five -- wait -- five of us in favor. It's 5-2, motion carries. Thank you-all. We're going to take a break until 10:40, come back and resume with Enbrook. (A brief recess was had from 10:27 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, would you please take your seats. We'd like to resume the meeting. ***The next item up is Item 9A2. This one's been continued from the October 17th meeting. It's PL20190002899. It's for the Enbrook RPUD on Manatee Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to talk today, please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures, and we'll start with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I had a phone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, and I got some mails through staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: The same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke with Mr. Yovanovich and, likewise, emails from the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You skipped right over me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I didn't. I skipped over me, and I started back down at that end. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Yeah, I think you skipped me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't skip you, kid. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with -- I had a conversation with Commissioner Fiala and a group of people from different communities in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails and conversation with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for my disclosures, I received the same emails I think staff's distributed, I've talked with the applicant, had a meeting with them. And just during break I did talk with staff, and there's something I want to suggest, and this is probably the best time to bring it up, rather than get into the presentation. The Planning Commission quite a long time ago had requested that from now on when there's concurrent reviews in process for a project we're reviewing to provide that information to the Planning Commission. This particular project is in for review. I'll read you what they're in for: A construction phasing plan, which has been approved; an early work authorization, which is pending; excavation permit, which is pending; and plans and plat, which are PPLs, which is in for review right now. And I know -- I understand staff missed it this time. I don't know how to suggest we proceed in the future, Ray, but it needs to be provided to us when we get the packets from now on. So let's get a checkoff box in the things that staff looks at and make sure the Planning Commission's received. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 26 of 83 MR. BELLOWS: That's a great idea. And one of the solutions I was thinking of is that we have -- we all work from a model template. That template, we'll add that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: -- as an automatic response. So either there are no current applications, or these are the following concurrent items. So it forces everyone to took at that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so -- and the applicant knows -- I heard -- I saw Wayne talk to you, so he knows I'm going to bring this up. Could you put the -- just as an example, this is something -- now, the -- put the plat plan on first. That's the plat that's going through for approval. It's for 298 units. And the highlighted areas in yellow are areas that are not necessarily going to have residential units on them. In fact, if you look at the language in the plat, they go beyond just being for residential, three or four other uses, and -- such as common areas, a community park, landscaping, hardscape, and signage. Now, could you put on the master plan that I also gave you? That's the plan today. Those areas aren't called out on here, but it's important we know about those, and I'm bringing this up now so the applicant can address them in their presentation, because how those areas are treated next to residential and the uses they can have need to be clarified -- make sure they're clear in the master plan. So those are the reasons why we did these documents early. So if someone is doing concurrent submittals, we certainly would appreciate staff making it more of a formal check. So -- and with that -- other than that, that's my full disclosures. And we'll go to a presentation by the applicant. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates, here representing the applicant and property owner today. With us is Wayne Everett from DR Horton; Rafael Reyes from the Rimar Companies; Rich Yovanovich is our land-use counsel; Kim Schlachta is our environmental consultant; Steven Martin from Grady Minor is our professional engineer on this item; and Jim Banks has prepared the traffic analysis. So I'm going to go through a short presentation. On the aerial photograph is the subject site. It's a little over 65 acres. It's currently zoned RMF-16 with a density cap of eight units per acre. That came about through the 1992 zoning reevaluation ordinance where the county was trying to rectify the density and intensities of development with their fairly newly -adopted Growth Management Plan. This property had some prior approvals on it. Its density was allowed to remain with a cap of eight, which equates to the 526 units that are in our application. So it's the acreage times eight that gets us to the 526 units. As I mentioned, the property was previously approved for 483 apartments. And I'll put that up. And the significance of that is twofold. One, this was a vested density associated with the property because the Rimar Companies were a contributor to what was called a consortium of developers back several years ago that paid money upfront to pay for the improvements at Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41, and that included WCI Communities at the time and Walmart and Rimar and a couple of others. Kite Development, I think, was also a party to that. But -- so with that was a developer agreement that associated -- because they had the zoning approval and the site plan approval for the 483 units. So you'll find in our document there's a reference under transportation that talks about the 483 units and the trips associated with it, that those are sort of the vested trips, and anything that's generated beyond that are subject to concurrency and impact fees. So I just wanted everybody to realize that there is a zoning plan in place, the property's been cleared based on this particular plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you go back to that again? I want to study that some more. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 27 of 83 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was not in our packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was an early plan. Actually, they went through -- I think, Wayne, through another rendition before this one, too, before you got involved. MR. ARNOLD: There was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. This is just an early plan he's showing as an example of what they were going to do. MR. ARNOLD: This shows the density calculation on it, the 483 units on the 65 -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is what they -- sorry I'm asking the questions, but this is what they planned back when they paid for the CORs for the -- MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And this remained a valid site plan, Mr. Schmitt, and the property's recently been cleared based on the site plan approval that would still remain valid for -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till you're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's let him finish his presentation. MR. ARNOLD: So part of other thing I would mention -- and it's mentioned in the ordinance title -- because the zoning reevaluation ordinance not only capped the density, it contained two conditions that were associated with it, and one of those was to provide 100-foot-wide green belt on the eastern portion of site and a portion of the south portion of the site, and also a limitation to two stories in height. So the PUD zoning action takes both of those out of the picture. While we're not proposing to do additional height, we are proposing to eliminate the green belt of 100 feet. It's actually shared in common with the county's utility site to the east. I know that Nancy Gundlach and David Weeks and myself and Rich and others have really looked back through the record, and there's really no strong indication of why the county came up with the 100-feet green belt. But we believe that providing the more extensive preserve area to the south and southwest of site in lieu of the green belt is better for the environmental and obviously allows the developer to bring forward -- in this case, the DR Horton plat you saw is for a twin villa type product, and it would be a lower intensity and lower density than the maximum density permitted. All right. So this is our proposed conceptual master plan, and you saw that on the visualizer a few moments ago. Access, of course, is to Manatee Road, and the R's are designated residential tracts where we will have residential or any of the other permitted residential uses and accessory uses. The internal road network we've asked for a deviation to have 50-foot-wide roads but having dual sidewalks. That's a deviation you commonly see. We're showing a series of a couple of lakes and residential tracts, and then on the western/southwestern portion of the site, we have an extensive preserve area, and then also noted on the plan is a conservation easement that's already in place along the southern portion of the site. So this represents the conceptual plan. Our amenity center is located in the northwest portion of the site, and there are some conditions and a wall deviation that carries forward around the amenity center and along the Manatee Road frontage. We have neighbors to the west, obviously, and we're aware of that and, obviously, trying to put the appropriate buffer in place for that. The deviations that we've requested are a few. The first deviation I mentioned -- I'm not sure if you want me to go through each and every one of those, Mr. Strain, but we asked for two deviations related to signage and fences and walls, and we asked for a deviation for the on-premise directional signs. I think you-all have seen this in several recent PUDs where it allows the developer on a private road system to place directional internal signage closer to the right-of-way line than your normal Land Development Code would. Those are signs that may say "amenity area" with an arrow ahead or "U.S. 41 ahead," or whatever the case may be. But those are internal signs, and I think it's something you've typically seen. Our third deviation was to ask for a wall and fence height deviation to be allowed to put an 8-foot-high wall along Manatee Road and a portion of the amenity center that would be on top of a berm, and that achieved some additional height and cross-sections in there, and we think that that makes for a project that makes a better buffer to our neighbors to the west by carrying forward that same wall height and berm along the Manatee frontage will make it look more consistent. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 28 of 83 Deviation No. 4 was the architectural and site design standard. Your code would require, if we have an amenity building that's within a certain distance of a right-of-way that it has to meet your architectural standard, and we don't believe if we're able to achieve the 8-foot-high wall that there's a necessity to necessarily meet your architectural standards for a small amenity building on this site. I think we've used that for a couple of Neal Communities where they've agreed to the wall height in lieu of having to architecturally treat four sides of an amenity building. It made sense, and when you hope -- we hope you think it does here, too. We've asked for a deviation for the amenity area parking. And, Mr. Strain, you mentioned this in our brief meeting. And I can't say that I've used this exact phraseology in a deviation on other projects, but I know that on many of the projects where they don't anticipate having an elaborate clubhouse structure and they're non-golf course communities, that we've asked for the parking deviation. Here they envision that they're going to have -- obviously, we have a dual sidewalk system to allow people to walk. We're probably going to have the remote dog park in the area that is highlighted on the plat. Can I draw on the screen in this? I think I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just have to get us a new screen. MR. ARNOLD: Can you all see that, where the arrow is? In that general area where the yellow area is, it's going to have probably a dog park. And, Mr. Strain, I think you had highlighted that on the plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was one of them, yes. There's two others. I was hoping by giving you that explanation earlier you'd discuss all of them. MR. ARNOLD: I'd like to see that exhibit. I didn't study it closely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Put it on. It's your PUD. I mean, it's your plat, so... MR. ARNOLD: So one of the other deviations we asked for was the sign permit that would be on Manatee Road. We've asked for that to be 8 feet high, which would coincide with the wall height. So if we had a wall sign, it would be on the 8-foot-high wall. We asked for the deviation because, technically, I think we have to. I think, practically speaking, it would just make sense that if we have an 8-foot-high wall, we would be allowed to put our sign on it. But we've asked for that deviation. So, with that, I think that sort of covers the general presentation, Mr. Strain. And if I could spend just a moment looking at the exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I mean, yeah. Have you got somebody else that wants to -- or maybe -- no, you have no other presenters? Okay. MR. ARNOLD: One second here. Mr. Martin was marking up the exhibit. So it looks like the -- let me put it on the overhead. This was your exhibit, Mr. Strain. I apologize. We just marked on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That differs from the master plan, and the points of difference are highlighted in yellow. I just wanted to get them clear so we know what in the language in the text of the PUD matches up to the yellow areas on this plan. MR. ARNOLD: Right. And it is noted -- I'll start at the south end of the site, what's labeled Sheet 7, there's a continuation, obviously, of the plat. But the area there is going to be utilized for stormwater detention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which area is that? I'm sorry. MR. ARNOLD: On the south end where it's -- on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sheet 7? MR. ARNOLD: Stormwater detention, Sheet 7, it's labeled on there. That's really going to become a stormwater detention area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says, common area for landscaping, hardscape, signage purposes subject to the easements depicted hereon. So if you're going to use that for stormwater, you didn't say that in the plat. You platted it for landscaping, hardscape, and signage purposes. Are you -- you mean that's a DE as well? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- MR. ARNOLD: And if you go to the small area in the northwest I pointed to momentarily, that's 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 29 of 83 envisioned to be a small internal park for the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's Tract D, which is landscaping, hardscape, and signage purposes. So it's going to be what did you say? MR. ARNOLD: I believe it's going to be a passive park area, is it not? Yes. That's one of the uses that's permitted under the residential design standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Park areas -- it's good to have park areas. I just -- they're different. And when we get to the language that you're asking for as accessory uses, we'll have to see how those -- each one of those fits in that location. MR. ARNOLD: And then, as noted near the entrance, that's also a utility easement area that will be identified at the very far northeast portion of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. "I," which is the one in the middle with the hook on it toward the left, that one's the one that is dedicated as a common area and community park. It's Tract D up on top that you just said was going to be utility area? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's dedicated to the common area for landscaping, hardscape, and signage purposes. Whose utilities are you going to put there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Collier County's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why would you want to have it a common area dedicated to landscaping, hardscape, and signage? MR. ARNOLD: They may end up being able to put some of that in there. I don't think it's prohibitive for the utility easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just -- okay. I'm just trying to understand how your plat fits your master plan and the language, and we'll get into it more. MR. ARNOLD: Unless you want a presentation from each of our team members on traffic and environmental, I'm happy to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. I am confused over whether you're asking for a relaxation of the two-story height limitation. MR. ARNOLD: We are technically eliminating it from the 1992 ordinances that was part of the zoning reevaluation ordinance. We have asked for heights in our standards that allow for 35 feet, for instance, for the single-family, 35 feet across the board for the zoned height, which is consistent with almost every single-family district we have in Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And actual height -- MR. ARNOLD: And the actual height was 40. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Forty, okay. That will be in the new PUD? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What else did I have? I had a couple others. Oh, you're asking for 259 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. I think, if I understand correctly, you're vested for 240. I would prefer to see you at the 240 level. MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to have to let either Rich or Mr. Banks address the trips associated with those. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fryer, when we discussed this, there's a provision in the PUD that says if we go above what we're vested for, which is the 240 peak-hour trips, we would be required to go through a transportation review to see what impact, if any, those additional 19 peak-hour trips would require, and we're committed to doing that. The owner of the property, the current owner of the property, the zoning would allow for up to 526 units. We're not in a position to reduce the already existing permitted density based upon the existing zoning; therefore, it could come in, modify the already-existing plan. If there's any impacts to go above the 43, then he'll address those impacts. So we're not in a position to reduce the density through bringing that -- to capping it at 240 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 30 of 83 regardless of what's vested versus not vested. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That segment of Manatee is not part of the AUIR, is it? I don't believe it is. MR. BANKS: It's a county road. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you're correct, it's not part of it. I was looking for Trinity. She's probably outside. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd be interested to know what the -- what the status of that road is with respect to peak p.m. trips and whether it's near deficient or whether we've got lots of space available. Where are we on that? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Collier County Transportation Planning manager. You're correct, Manatee Road is not part of our Annual Update and Inventory process. Until recently, we actually didn't own the entire roadway. We, in the past year or so, worked with the school board. They actually owned the piece that connected U.S. 41, and that's recently been transferred over to the county, so we were not collecting traffic-count data along the roadway during that time. What I can tell you is that the Florida Department of Transportation, as part of their analysis with Collier Boulevard widening, did study the intersection at Collier Boulevard and Manatee Road, and the intersection is operating -- current operations, actually, in 2014 was operating at a Level of Service B. Based on their analysis of what was coming out at that existing intersection, it was less than 6,000 vehicles per day which is certainly an acceptable level of service for a two-lane roadway. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't leave yet, unless -- are you finished with Trinity? COMMISSIONER FRYER: On that question I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please, you go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, how did you take into consideration the Argo Manatee project at the end of Manatee Road and U.S. 41 that has 191 residential units, their impact on Manatee? MS. SCOTT: So when the Florida Department of Transportation did their analysis, they looked at growing the traffic through 2040. They also analyzed the intersection on future t raffic conditions make sure at the other end, not at the intersection of 41, that the intersection would operate properly. So they established growth factors. It's roughly about 2 percent growth over 2040. So those additional trips would have been accommodated with that growth, and the intersection actually would continue to operate through 2040 at an acceptable level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Ned. Yeah, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you still asking Trinity? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I just want to see if we can get to a somewhat higher level of comfort that that road is not going to be deficient in the future. As you know, I rely heavily on the AUIR. Without the benefit of it, it would have been nice, I think, to have an actual count for peak p.m. purposes. But can you say a little more empirically, or can someone else? MS. SCOTT: Well, I can tell you that the Florida Department of Transportation counted the vehicles that were coming out at the other side of the intersection -- at the other side of the roadway out at Collier Boulevard, and there were, you know, 5,000 vehicles or so. And I can go back and pull up their traffic analysis, which is significantly less than what a two-lane roadway can carry. So as far as operations go, it's operating at an acceptable level of service from a capacity standpoint. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That gets me where -- MS. SCOTT: We do have -- and if I could, I also have Chad Sweet here from our Collier County Traffic Operations section if there's any specific questions with regard to the existing operations of that intersection. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not interested so much in the intersection as I am Manatee. I think you've given me what I want. Thank you. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 31 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, let me make sure -- Karl, did you have something you wanted to ask Trinity? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just quickly. Some of the objection letters mentioned traffic on Manatee and concerns. Traffic is always a concern. It sounds like at a service level -- Level of Service B there would be no plans to four-lane Manatee? It's nowhere in the short, medium, or long-range plan at this point? MS. SCOTT: That is correct. There are no plans to widen Manatee Road beyond the existing two lanes at this time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there right-of-way available to do it if at some point in the future it was needed? MS. SCOTT: I honestly don't know. I can check the Property Appraiser and see what the right-of-way width is. I believe it's about 80 feet, but that's from memory. But I will go check that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions of Trinity while she's up here? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the public's education -- I clearly understand, but I know there will be some issues with traffic. But could you explain for the record what vesting means and what -- essentially what the developer has done so that they have a clear understanding of what it means. They've already -- already paid for their traffic impact. MS. SCOTT: Correct. So previously there was a consortium of developers who, essentially, fronted their impact fee funding in return for transportation concurrency vesting for X number of trips. And so when those developers come in, they have kind of a credit sheet, and so they're able to utilize those credits towards their development. So there's not a further concurrency review with regard to the number of trips that they, quote-unquote, prepaid for. Now, we will still look at operational review as part of the Site Development Plan or the plat process. They'll still look at the operational improvements that may be necessary: Turn lanes, extending turn lanes, et cetera. But from a true concurrency standpoint, Mr. McLean's group won't do any further analysis for concurrency as long as it's within those trips that they've already prepaid for. Anything above and beyond would be required to go through our usual concurrency review. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'll use the term "phantom trips," but they're already counted in your impact. MS. SCOTT: They are already within our trip bank within the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So any analysis that's being done for any other project -- MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- let's say the impact on 41 and 951 these, quote, "phantom units" are included, and part of the impact is already taken into account -- MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- correct? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what's wrong with our system, because now our road systems can't be functioning at the right capacity because we've got phantom units sitting there and dead in the water, and other projects now have to go and rise above that quantity that's already accounted for. My question about the impact fees: They paid a certain percentage of impact fees to get the COA vesting; is that correct? MS. SCOTT: I believe so. I'll have to go back and pull their -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they got a COA. MS. SCOTT: Yeah. They have a COA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think they paid full impact fees. I think it might be 50 percent or whatever the number was. I asked -- I tried to get clarification from our Impact Fee Department. I didn't get an answer in time. So I don't know how to analyze this today. But even if -- say they paid 100 percent of impact fees for 483 or 50 percent for 483 and they only build 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 32 of 83 298, do we get to keep all that excess money? The answer is probably no. I think we'd credit them back, and it goes against the full payment. But I'm waiting -- I don't know if any of the impact fees -- any of the impact fee people who could tell us what's really going on. MS. SCOTT: Well, I know that Ms. Patterson is in the building. I believe she has a meeting right now on the second floor, so I will go back and see if I can grab her and have her come up here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the end of the day -- I think she's the one I emailed. I haven't gotten a response. MS. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything of Trinity? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not of Trinity. I want to go back to Wayne, if I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick one for Trinity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, you've got another question. MS. SCOTT: Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRY: When we talk about the trip bank, that, at this point, would include the 240 vested trips, correct? MS. SCOTT: It is -- for what is vested today is already included in the trip bank that's accounted for in the Annual Update and Inventory Report. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's 240, not 259 trips? MS. SCOTT: The additional trips above what they were vested for would be subject to concurrency review and also we reviewed as part of our impact for the PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which means you would go back and take a look at -- those additional 19 trips would negatively adversely impact the road system? MS. SCOTT: If it would, yes, then we would have had a different recommendation. But based on our analysis, they do not negatively impact the roadway operations, the capacity, or the operations of the intersection. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So the analysis is that the extra 19 trips, if approved, would not negatively impact the roads. MS. SCOTT: Correct. There would still be sufficient capacity to accommodate those additional trips. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe, did you have something else you wanted to do? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not of Trinity, but I am very interested in the question that Mark asked as far as concurrency, so we'll have to wait for Amy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, Wayne, would you put on that -- since it's now part of the record -- the PPL. I think at least that's the preliminary PPL. From what I'm looking at here, those all appear to be individual platted lots; is that correct? Is this now -- are you focusing now on single-family versus multifamily? MR. ARNOLD: This plat -- and it's submitted by DR Horton, who's the contract purchaser. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Their intent would be to construct -- this plan has 298 plotted lots that would be attached villas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Attached villas. Platted as fee simple? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what you said in the NIM minutes I noticed that you attached, right? MR. ARNOLD: That's what I said, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Telling the public that, too. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 33 of 83 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not necessarily duplex-type villas. MR. ARNOLD: They would look like a duplex but, obviously, it would allow each individual owner to own half of the structure. We call it two-family attached in our development schedule. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They could go four and six; they could still be fee simple. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That, I guess, was my question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Of course the building code, anything above three, the development code requires fire suppression and other type of things that would have to be part of the building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you're asking for the capability of doing all of that. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. We are, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, yes, just to clarify. In simple terms, this -- the PUD is just giving you more flexibility. You're already authorized to build on that site now two hundred and -- how many did I have? MR. ARNOLD: Four hundred eighty-three; it's under the consortium vesting agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could build today at straight zoning. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Yes, we could. And those are multifamily. And keep in mind, the real distinction from a use standpoint is by having the variety of uses, we've added single-family detached and two-family attached which is not allowed today under RMF-16. So this takes us -- if DR Horton moves forward as we hope they do, you'll end up with 298 attached two-family units on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: So the net effect of this is that, whereas you could have built many more units, the goal here is to build fewer units that are attached villas. So you're taking the RMF-16 and basically asking for the same thing only less in order to build these villas. I'm predicting that traffic is an issue for everybody, or a lot of the speakers. I see heads nodding. What could you -- what could be done -- what would you offer to assure those people that if this -- we approve this, they would, in fact -- and the -- I assume this project -- I'm sorry -- this property is in the process of being acquired to make this possible? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: What would we -- what would you offer to assure these people and the county that if the first -- they do move forward and the first property is platted as an attached villa, that the maximum units that could be developed would be the 298? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- we can certainly discuss that. I'm not prepared to tell you we can absolutely do that, but I think there's probably some language we can craft and agree to that will get you there, Mr. Fry. I think what Rich just put on the visualizer comes from the traffic impact analysis. And what you see are on the top, with reference to the p.m. peak-hour trips to the far right of that column, is 240 trips associated with the 483 vested multifamily units. You look at two-family attached units as multifamily. They're not considered single-family for the ITE, so they come in as multifamily as well. So we're comparing multifamily to multifamily, but the 298 units equate to 156 peak-hour trips. So there will be a reduction if DR Horton moves forward with what they're proposing today over what's been vested. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I'd simply like to see a way to lock that in -- if they do move forward, to lock it in at the lower count of units. MR. ARNOLD: I'm sure Rich will be thinking of a way to craft some language that gets us where we can all hopefully agree to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now you're going for 526 units of any combination that's listed, so your 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 34 of 83 point's well taken, and that's the point that I've been concerned about since I talked to the applicant earlier this week. They have -- 298 units is what they're going to build. Just simply say that. Why are we giving them 526? And if they want 526 because they're entitled to it by straight zoning, then don't ask for a PUD. That's simple. But, anyway, anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I will start my questions then. And, Wayne, let me -- I know I've got questions of the -- in the document. MR. ARNOLD: Are you looking at the ordinance itself, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be. That's where I'm working my way towards, yes. Yes. Under Exhibit A, permitted uses, I mentioned this to you when I met with you-all. Residential B -- now, this is on Page 23 of my electronic file, but it's Page 1 of 14 in the PUD. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B1, you had some accessory uses there that now we can see -- they could apply to all those areas in yellow that I highlighted on the map. Could you put that yellow plan back on the overhead, that plat. Nope, that's the master plan, Nancy. The yellow plan. That one right there. So those spaces could have the residential accessory uses that you have in B1 or B2 or B3? MR. ARNOLD: Everything designated R, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the -- those areas, even though they're designated R on the master plan, are not residential on this plan. They're really accessory uses. So now you're saying that you can put utility buildings in any one of those three sites? And I'm just wondering how compatible that is to the people you're selling to within your own project as well as the people to the -- I think it's called the Rookery Bay units or whatever to the north of that one square in the left side of the thing. I mean, you put a utility building there, it's going to get noisy. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess maybe we need to define what a utility building is. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, right now I picture you could have loaders in there bringing dirt in for sod doing things -- or maintenance on the roads. You could have all kinds of things. There's no limitation right now, and I probably doubt you intend that, but it's not the way the language is written. MR. ARNOLD: And I think after talking to Mr. Martin, our engineer, I'm thinking more in the context of utilities, water, and sewer, if we had to have a utility structure, not a utility building for maintenance purposes, et cetera. Nothing like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to fix that language then. That's all I'm suggesting. This is Steve Martin, by the way -- I'm going to let him address that. MR. MARTIN: Steve Martin, for the record. Yeah, at the northeast corner that is the -- there's a common area, as you stated. It's just for the wastewater pump station. There's no aboveground building proposed. It's just simply the wet well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this applies to all the pieces in yellow, so -- well, actually, it could be anywhere. You just -- under your accessory uses for the residential, you're saying you can put in utility buildings. And I'm just saying, why don't we limit that to what you really want to do and the tracts you really want do it on if that's the case and not just have it as an accessory. And, Wayne, we go through this every time y'all write a PUD. You put accessories under the residential components that go beyond residential uses. Utility buildings aren't necessarily a residential use. They're a use to themselves on a tract that's usually dedicated as an easement to that use. MR. ARNOLD: But we normally don't show those easements in that detail, because we have the luxury here of having somebody who's in with a plat. You don't normally see that in conjunction with your PUD submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I wish that was something we could change. But the point is, when you say utility buildings, any one of those tracts -- any one of those lots that have R on the master plan, you could drop a utility building in there, and there's no limitation as to what that building could be. I'm saying, let's define 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 35 of 83 it if it's not going to be a utility building. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe we should drop "building" and just simply say "and utilities" or something to that effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That makes a lot better sense, yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Because I -- every residential tract has easements on it for Comcast and FP&L, and in some cases, Comcast comes and drops in a box and, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that, Wayne. I was just trying to get to something that makes more sense than the blanket utility building, so... MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under amenity area, you have the clubhouse, and it says uses intended to serve residents and guests. Can you just drop the word "intended." You're going to only serve residents and guests; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. We can drop that word. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see. I asked -- oh, the height. I know the heights' limited to two stories. I think someone already asked this -- I think Ned brought this up. If you do multifamily, you're limiting it to two stories, but if you do the townhouses or single-family, you're limiting it to what our typical is, 35 feet and 40 feet. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under Asterisk No. 4, your LBTs and your LMTs, the last sentence says -- it's your footnote -- for lots abutting Manatee Road, landscape buffer easements may be permitted in lieu of separate tracts. Can you explain what your intention is there. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Mr. Strain, on the plat there's a short tier of lots that are abutting Manatee Road. There's going to be a right turn lane, is my understanding, constructed for the property. Those lots, because we have to provide compensating right-of-way, we have just a little bit less area to work. So instead of having a separate tract, we're asking for that small tier of lots to have the landscape buffer easement on the lot itself as is allowed by code. I mean, this Planning Commission on newer projects has asked them to be separate tracts, but your code still allows them to be easements. And that's also where we would have the wall. So, I mean, you don't have the situation typical where you have shown concerns about people just encompassing their landscape buffer as their yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I was going to ask you about the wall. You are intending to put a wall along Manatee, right? MR. ARNOLD: We are, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for lots abutting Manatee Road, landscape buffer easements may be permitted in lieu of separate tracts so long as there is a wall or something to that effect. I mean, you're going to do it anyway. It just locks it in. That's all I'm trying to do. MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The property that's to the left -- to the west and the corner down where the future dog park goes all the way to the preserve, from that preserve east/west up to north/south link up to Manatee Road, you're abutting another project that is already built. I don't have a -- do you have a photograph of it? I don't have a photograph. MR. ARNOLD: I have an aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one somewhere. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that shown as Sheet 9; is that what you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. This is -- it's not shown on a sheet of their plat because it's the Rookery Bay apartments, I think they are, or project or condominium or something. I believe it's the only residential tract that abuts this property. Yes. How -- what are you proposing to put into that Type B buffer? Because that buffer can have a wall. Are you putting a wall in? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we were proposing a wall. I'm not privy to all the details of their construction plans, Mr. Strain. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 36 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Theirs" meaning whose? MR. ARNOLD: They being DR Horton. Steve, you may know a little bit more, but this was envisioned to be a passive dog-type park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean the dog park. I mean the full length of your development. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the way from the preserve east/west to the corner, then all the way north to the Manatee Road. Those are the folks that -- I've at least seen one letter from the people, and they're concerned about how close you are to their property line, and I was just wondering what you're proposing to do along that property line. MR. MARTIN: The wall is pretty much just proposed along the west side of the amenity center to buffer the residential uses from the amenities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you only have a wall in that first tract up -- that A tract up on the north end. MR. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Depending on public speakers, do you have any objection to adding a wall all the way down to the preserve? MR. ARNOLD: Honestly, I'm not sure we think that's necessary to separate residential from residential with a wall for that entirety. We've provided a wall near the amenity center as an enhanced buffer, if you will, from those nearby residences. But I don't think it's necessary to provide a solid wall between two residential projects. The Type B buffer already gets the opacity with the hedge or wall combination, but it does not require the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll wait to see where we go on that. Thank you. Let me get to my next -- I'm working through them, Wayne. I'm just about finished with my questions, so... On the restriction that you have based on the zoning reevaluation, you had a limitation of eight units, all structures will be limited to a height of two stories except provided in the Land Development Code. Are you proposing anything above two stories in this project? MR. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you still will accept that limitation at two stories? MR. ARNOLD: If you prefer where we list height for the principal structure, why don't we just -- where it says maximum height, we'll say not to exceed two stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like it to be conjunctive with the zoned and actual height, two requirements: Two stories and not to exceed zoned X, actual Y. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already do that for the multifamily. I think he's -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, if you go to our development table, Exhibit B, it's Page 3 of 14 of the PUD document, where we say maximum height, it's one, two, three, four, five rows down, we have zoned and actual heights expressed. I would just propose that after the words "maximum height" we indicate "not to exceed two stories." COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will work. And I think -- oh, no. I've got some more. Boy, I forgot how big this thing was as far as pages go. We had -- that was 266 pages. Most of this has been already answered, so I'm trying to move through it, Wayne. Yeah, that's most of it. I went into your NIM, and I noticed your discussion about the number of units you're really going to have. Although the -- I'm not sure all the folks understood that was just a possibility, not necessarily a condition. So we'll talk more about that after we have public speakers. Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wayne, since you have the aerial on the screen, maybe, to give us some context for the public speakers to come, what do we see north of Manatee Road, and then what is off to the west? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 37 of 83 What are those developments and what kinds of uses are on those properties to the north and then also to the west? MR. ARNOLD: The properties to the north is a mobile home co-op. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not correct? MR. ARNOLD: It's not a co-op. Excuse me. It's a mobile home park. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the name of it? MR. ARNOLD: Let me find my exhibit that lists surrounding uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Holiday Manor is somewhere around there, but I don't -- I think that's the co-op. We can't have -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Riverwood Estates. MR. ARNOLD: Riverwood Estates. COMMISSIONER FRY: Riverwood Estates. And then in the elbow there to the west? MR. ARNOLD: To the west you have two different multifamily projects, Mr. Fry. So we're adjacent to the South Bay Condominiums farther south, and then adjacent to Manatee Road are the Gulf Winds East, and those are both multifamily projects. COMMISSIONER FRY: Got it. MR. ARNOLD: Of course, further west we have the outlet mall on Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go to -- well, first of all, Amy's here. Good. MS. SCOTT: If I could, Mr. Chairman, just clarify the right-of-way question that I received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MS. SCOTT: The right-of-way varies from around 60 feet to 100 feet along the corridor from Collier Boulevard all the way through to 41, which would not be sufficient right-of-way to complete a four-lane roadway, and that is not in the plans through our 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you had to acquire it through eminent domain, would it take out residences or is it free space? MS. SCOTT: Oh, I'm sure that there would be some residential impacts based on the aerial that's shown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good to know. Thank you. And, Amy, good morning. MS. PATTERSON: I'm not -- I haven't been sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record, director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management. And, Chairman, I apologize. I completely missed your email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no problem. You're usually right on top of everything. I figured you must have been out on vacation or something, but I've never known you to take a vacation. MS. PATTERSON: No. I don't -- I don't know. My email box just got a little out of control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. My intention was to try to find out how you handle excess impact fee payments or if that's what the case is here. Say they didn't -- if they paid for -- I don't know how they get the COA, but let's assume they paid for impact fees equivalent to 483 units, and they only build 298. Where does the excess go between the two? And if it's full fee or 50 percent of the fee, or how is that done? MS. PATTERSON: So this particular development paid under two different scenarios. As you know, for the certificate of adequate public facility program, we originally had a 50 percent down and then 50 percent three years later of the estimated transportation impact fees. That changed to one-time payment of 20 percent with subsequent payments over the additional four years of 20 percent with security which then changed to a 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 38 of 83 certificate of adequate public facilities in perpetuity once they paid 33 percent. So when we made that shift from the 20 percent payment over time to the 33 percent, those people were given the opportunity to convert and get their certificate in perpetuity. This is one of those developments that did that. So they've currently paid 33 percent of the estimated transportation impact fees at the time for 483 multifamily units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the difference between -- well, you're looking at four hundred -- what, 281 units of excess fees paid against the 298 that are in for platting right now. What would happen to those fees? Do you just keep them and say, well, too bad, you've paid for them, or don't we credit them back and add them, say, potentially to the 298 that's there so they would have had about two-thirds of their fees paid under that program? MS. PATTERSON: So they may have, depending on how it pans out in the type of units, size of unit. Obviously, we would exhaust those to the extent that they -- those payments -- so, essentially, when building permits come in, a credit is applied for the upfront payments until those fees -- until those credits are exhausted. If their development is less intense, the fees are going to go further until they have to start paying again, and remember that the fees will be calculated at today's rates, and depending on when these were paid, which I can pull that information, there's probably a differential, and they're going to be having to provide some cash payment as well. But under the scenario you're saying, if they exhausted -- if they developed fully and still had remaining credits, those credits become transferable within the same or adjacent road impact fee district. So they'll just go to -- they'll be assigned over to another project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you very much. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do fees run with the land, or if you go to return a fee and the owner sells the land, does the fee go with the land, or does it go back to the guy that paid the fee? MS. PATTERSON: The impact fees run with the land, generally. There are sometimes circumstances where we would have a past owner or a then current owner where you would have to work out if there was a dispute about ownership, quote-unquote, of the fees, but typically the impact fees do run with the land. The only exception here that I'm talking about is once they've fully paid their impact fees and there may be excess prepaid impact fees available, those are allowed. It's one of the only cases where impact fees are allowed to be m oved off of the property. That, and the Developer Contribution Agreements have the same provisions. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, Trinity, can I ask you another question, please. Trinity, in the vesting issue of the 483 versus whatever the new number needs to be, if it gets approved at 526, assuming it -- let's assume it got approved at 526. They come in with a plat at 298, but the PUD had 526 in it. How does that 526 approved density interact with your calculations for future? If it stays on the property, potentially they could always build it. Is that something you factor into the road network, or how is that looked at? MS. SCOTT: So from the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me think of -- like Lely or Fiddler's Creek or one of the big projects, 10,000 units, say, for Lely, or even Ave Maria's got 11,000 units. But say they finish potentially building out all the space they have, but they only build eight, and that leaves them three units -- 3,000 on the table -- Pelican Bay is a prime example -- that just sits there. Do you, when you take into consideration the impacts you've got to be ready for on the road system -- long-term strategy. I'm not talking five year; long term. Do you have to count that -- do you have to consider those approved numbers even though they are already potentially built out, because they're approved 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 39 of 83 they could bulldoze something down and put in different numbers that they want to? MS. SCOTT: We actually do. As part of the Long Range Transportation Plan, for our base-year data, we look at what's on the ground and what population and commercial is out there, but then when we are looking at those projections through -- right now the current Long Range Transportation Plan goes through 2040. We're getting ready to extend to 2045. We look at median BEBR numbers, Bureau of Economic Business Research numbers. And so the first thing that we do is we go allocate those households to existing approved developments within -- you know, that have come through the Board and been approved. So we allocate that out based on -- I will tell you some of the larger developments, particularly out east, we capped them at 80 percent because we didn't think that they would build out in that time frame, and then we start applying, based on the Growth Management Plan, where additional growth could be. But, yes, you are correct, for Lely and Fiddler's Creek, we are holding additional units within that area for our transportation models. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now that means when you hold it for your transportation models, if someone else wants to come online but that density is being held in the model for existing approvals, they now have to come in above and beyond that density for consideration to fit into the system. MS. SCOTT: Yes and no. As I said, we allocate that additional -- you know, when you go and you allocate it out to what's been approved, you don't get to the median BEBR numbers. So you still have additional, so that's when we start looking at the Growth Management Plan and seeing where other developments can come in within that area, and we start adding that on, and then that traffic analysis takes that into consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean, it's easy -- our transportation system is certainly stressed right now. I just want to make sure that we're not over-calibrating it because of the densities that are being approved versus what is really going to be built, and then someone coming on board with additional density is somewhat caught in this other density that's not going to be built but, yet, we've still got to count it, and that's the synopsis I'm trying to get to. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. It's things that we take into consideration, that long-range planning, and then in our short-range planning, we're looking at what's happening today versus what has been through the Site Development Plan and plat process. So it's looking at both of those in companions and then determining what we need to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's kind of the difference between the LRTP and the AUIR. MS. SCOTT: Yes. That is what -- we try to marry those together more so in that six- to 10-year time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: So, yes, looking at the short range and then looking at long term what we anticipate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all my questions. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: One of the issues I've been talking about for years, and I'll continue to talk about it, we need to address phantom units. We just do. It's not going to be an issue in the next five years. It's not going to be an issue in the next 10 years. But 40 years out from now, and we will have had our road system completely built out, there's going to be redevelopment. And if we're going to have redevelopment far more dense than we have now, it won't work. It can't work. So unless we put something on the books that this phantom density goes away at one point in time, all right, you're just planning for a nightmare here. I mean, if somebody's -- we don't know if they're going to put 250 units up but they're asking for 500 units. Why in God's name would they be asking for 500 units when we know they're only putting up 250, all right? It's a nightmare for Trinity to plan. It's just a ticking time bomb for the county 40, 50 years down the road. It just is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I agree. The problem is, we are pretty well built out this side of 951, so you'd have to go back and take all those units away from those people, all these subdivisions that asked 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 40 of 83 for 6,000 units and only built 4,000. They're never going to -- they're never going to destroy their golf course. They're never going to tear down their houses. They're just never going to build these other units. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. These golf course may be converting one day, and what I am telling you, okay, is you've approved the golf course community for 500 units. They put in 200 units. Lo and behold 20 years from now somebody comes in and they're going to convert the golf course, okay, and they want to put in residential units, and they have the 300 units in their pocket. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's more than that. It's more than that, a lot of cases. And I'm with him. Somehow staff ought to come back with an item how we're going to take these units away from people, and there's going to be weeping and the gnashing of teeth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's real simple: If we don't give them, we haven't got to take them back. Joe? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought we had a process where we close out the PUD and, essentially, that caps it once the PUD is completed. Ray, do we not? We used to do PUD monitoring. And part of the PUD monitoring, when they reach the maximum -- or the capacity, quote, that was deemed buildout, we then closed that PUD to further development and, essentially, as Jeff termed, the ghost units, because that's -- or phantom units essentially are gone. I mean, it's -- Lely is a great example. Lely was originally zoned for 9,000 units. They'll never build 9,000. Maybe they will. I don't know what they're going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, buildout just means they met their commitments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that doesn't mean that we take away their density. That's a value that -- for example, Pelican Bay uses it to negotiate with every single time they come in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought we had a process of taking it away. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. You are correct, Joe, there was a time when the county was looking at ghost units or -- at the time of either turnover from the developer to the HOA or at the time of trying to determine something was built out. And we brought things to the Board of County Commissioners, but I'd have to do some research. I don't know why we stopped doing that. It might have been a legal issue, but I would need to do some research. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, actually, density's a property right, and that's why we have it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are careful on this board, I think, to honor that once we have it. MR. BELLOWS: And that might have been the -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the issue I'm worried about. Trinity? MS. SCOTT: PUD monitoring actually falls under Transportation Planning now, and Laurie Beard, and she does close out PUDs, but there is an item on the form that is -- when folks are asking for that PUD closeout of how many units remain. But they have not been required to give those up. There's a whole question of who actually owns the density and all of that. And so it's not something that's been given up through the years. But it is on the form, so we do know how many units still remain when we close out the PUD, but it's not something that we've been asking folks to relinquish. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, Jeff, we did pass some pretty restrictive requirements to convert golf courses residential. It's in the LDC. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I know. I was part of that. I was the one who brought that to the Board and originally said, you've got to do something about this. But, you know, boards change, times change. And I'm just saying, Trinity's trying to put together a transportation network that's going to work. What I'm telling you is that with these ghost units here, with redevelopment, it's not going to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to staff report. Nancy? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wait. Excuse me. Could I -- 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 41 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Staff, what are we going to do about this? I don't want to just move on from this. He's right. We need to do something about it. Can we start again? Can you guys bring something up saying we have this many units? Is there a count somewhere how many ghost units there are? MR. BELLOWS: Well, through -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: PUD monitoring monitors how many have been built and how many were allowed to be built. So it's just a matter of subtracting the two, right? Is it that easy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do it differently. Why don't you come back at the next Planning Commission meeting with a calibration of how many units are out there left to be built that are considered on completed projects. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see how serious the issue is, which I think it is and I think Stan -- intuitively, it seems to be. Then once we have that, you can come back also with some thoughts on the best way to proceed with that in regards to what legal issues may involve in demanding returning density that's been awarded versus what we used to do in the past and how -- whether or not -- why it didn't work or why it did work. Let's give them some time to think about it. I don't want to do anything on the rush. We're dealing with property rights and things like that, and we need to be careful on how we handle them. MR. BELLOWS: We're definitely dealing with property rights. There's many instances where a PUD is deemed to be built out, and 20 years later there's a redevelopment scenario where there is a slight increase. Available density allows them to do that without having to go back before public hearings. If we did something where the ghost units or other commercial square footage or dwelling units are removed, you're pretty much curtailing redevelopment activities down the road, or could do that. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not curtailing. What you're doing is requiring them to go back to the Board of County Commissioners and ask for a rezoning. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And so at that point in time the then current Board of County Commissioners can figure out, you know, whether or not we can handle the additional zoning. Having these ghost units out there takes away that process before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Ray, what I'd like you to do is take a look at our calendar and a time frame which you guys could put some of this together with Transportation and give us some answers. I'm not asking for long, detailed executive summaries; just some answers to the kinds of questions we've been asking to see if there's a way this board could recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to consider -- MR. BELLOWS: I'll reach out to Laurie Beard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get it going? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because the PUD monitoring used to be on an Excel spreadsheet, and it used to have how many units were there, and it's a matter of adding this column and that column and that column, and you get this column, and then you subtract that column from that column and you get ghost units. To me, it's, you know, a couple-hour operation. I could be wrong, but it used to be that simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will take longer than that, but I can tell you using the CTS system, it's not going to be that fast, because you've got 450 separate spreadsheets. They can't link those that easily. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They took off the one Excel spreadsheet and then created 450 Excel spreadsheets? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's another -- there's a PUD summary sheet, and maybe that could be used. MR. BELLOWS: Stan is referring to the PUD Excel spreadsheet. It's a summary sheet. Within the CTS, there are individual PUDs with individual monitoring reports going back year by year since property was rezoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The assumption is they're all interlinked, and if they aren't, it's going to take longer. If they are, it might be shorter. Let's just let staff -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 42 of 83 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- one spreadsheet, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let staff come back with a synopsis the best they can, and we'll discuss it after you've had time to digest. MR. BELLOWS: We'll coordinate with transportation staff what they have in their records, and see how -- and bring something back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far astray, let's go into staff report next and get that done. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning Division. And staff is recommending approval of the Enbrook petition, as it is consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we're getting close to lunch. I'd like to get the public speakers done, but it depends on how many. Ray -- where'd Ray go? There he is. The guy moves faster than I expected. How many registered public speakers do we have, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We have approximately five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will take us barely right up to lunch. That means we're going to have to finish this after lunch or work through lunch and go to lunch late. But we'll -- then I have a request on the Immokalee issue. So why don't we start calling public speakers. We'll see how much time we have, and we'll break about five minutes to 12. I want to -- well, I'll settle that right now. How many people are here to talk -- from the public are here to talk about the Immokalee Master Plan? Just one lady. What I would like to do -- two, okay. At 10 minutes to 12 I'd like to break from Enbrook, get the public speakers for the Immokalee Master Plan to say their piece so they can go home if they want to, and then we can keep Immokalee -- we'll get to the Immokalee Master Plan later today when we get to it. Is that -- just nod your head. Does that work better for you guys? Because you've driven in all the way, and we're sorry to keep you so late. But let's handle it that way. So we've got 10 minutes worth of -- so we'll take two public speakers depending how long they take. They get five minutes each, and we'll go from there. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is David Huff. MR. HUFF: Here or there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one, sir. Take your pick. Whatever looks the best for you. MR. HUFF: I'll try to do this quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you take your time. We're not here to rush. We've just -- we've got to fit some people that are later this afternoon, and we're trying to accommodate them so they can drive home, and we'll still get back to you before the -- we'll get to everybody before the day's over. MR. HUFF: Well, we have other meetings at 1:00, some of us that are on the board of directors, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how many of you are here in that scenario? MR. HUFF: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's talk to the four of you first, then we'll do the two Immokalee people, then we're going to take a break for lunch. That will get you through it. MR. HUFF: I'll try to make it quick. My name's David Huff. I live at 211 Riverwood Road, Naples, Florida. That's right across to the north of this project. I am the president of the Riverwood Association -- Riverwood Estates HOA, and I want to clear up one thing. We are not a mobile home park, and we are not a co-op. There are 280 individual property owners in this development, and it's one of the nicest mobile home developments in the county, in my opinion. I'm not here to complain about growth. We all recognize that's required, and that's desired. But I am here in concern about the traffic. I read this traffic study, and it concerns me considerably. Number one, it said all the information in the traffic counts was obtained from the trip generation manual 10th edition. My questions to the -- Mr. Banks -- I think he's here. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 43 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to ask the question of us, and you -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. HUFF: I'll ask you and maybe you can ask Mr. Banks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HUFF: Where's the in-season traffic counts on Manatee Road and the wait times at the light at Manatee Road and Collier Boulevard? I did not see any of that. One of the speakers mentioned that there was a traffic count by State of Florida some time ago. It wasn't determined when that was, whether it was in season or out of season. Approximately three years ago, I was contacted by the State of Florida traffic someone who was working on the Collier Boulevard extension that's going to go to three lanes from Manatee north, and I don't know if that's when they're doing the traffic counts. Where are the impacts of the service providers that are going to service these properties? You know, those being, you know, lawn services, trash collection, school buses, and all the other services that are coming in and out of here when you look at these 240 trips a day? Where's the study of the impact on the new development, the 191 units right across Manatee school? It's my own attempt (sic) from that development to the corner of Manatee and Collier, if those people are going to Marco Boulevard, Isles of Capri, anywhere south, they're not going to go around the long way. That's about two-and-a-half miles. They're going to go down Manatee Road. Where's that impact going? How about the cut-through for Riverwood Estates? Now, there's nothing mentioned in this report, but if I can show you Riverwood is directly across from the entrance to this development, proposed development. We're going to find -- and we have people cutting through there now. There's an exit on our development that goes north on Collier Boulevard right up on the top left of that picture. Somehow this map doesn't show that. Maybe it was intentional, maybe not. They'll cut through this residential area avoiding that light, because when these additional people come back and come in here and go down Manatee, if they're going north or south, that's going to back up way past where their entrance is. It backs up in season almost that far now in the morning. The light takes 10 or 12 vehicles per switch. I've sat there and observed it. It's totally inadequate, Manatee Road, for that much more traffic. I think the development ought to be looking at either acquiring some other land or working with some of the landowners to get an access for directly onto Collier instead of pushing all that traffic on Manatee Road. The people that live in our development all along Manatee Road, they're going to be screaming at somebody because they aren't going to be able to get out of their driveway in the morning. So -- and it doesn't just affect us, you know. It's going to affect everyone in that -- those developments up there: Enchanting Shores, Marco Shores, Quail Roost, which is going out -- come on there, Gulfwinds, and everyone else. So I think you ought to have a lot better traffic presentation than looking at something that says -- because you've got that many -- how many trips you're going to take, because there's a lot of traffic on there, and in season it's a night -- there's going to be a very (sic) nightmare. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, once we finish with public speakers, we're going to take a break for lunch. We get back from lunch, and then we'll finish. We'll complete the public speakers at that time, and then afterwards, the questions -- I made note of your questions. We'll have the traffic engineers discuss it. You'll hear the discussion of why it is the way it is, or it should be changed. MR. HUFF: I've got a meeting at 1:00, so I won't be able to be here for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be -- it's recorded. So if you get a chance, turn it back on. And if you really want some entertainment, you can sit there and watch it in the evening. MR. HUFF: I'll do that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Terry Thompson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we'll take the four speakers on the -- that are on the board of directors who have got the 1:00 meeting first. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 44 of 83 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think there's three there that are going to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This gentleman, are you the second of the three? MR. THOMPSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: For the record, Terry Thompson. I'm the vice president of the board of Riverwood Estates. Like Dave was saying, there is going to be an issue with traffic. I mean, right now, the turning lane, if you go on Manatee up to 951, it only holds three cars. Once that's past three cars, the right lane cannot turn. So it backs up tremendously. And you get cars and trucks pulling boats on top of this. It's a nightmare. Now, with this development, yeah, once it's constructed, all our residents, they like to take walks. They walk their dogs. They ride their bikes. We have no sidewalks. Now, we have two entrances on Beverly and Oaks that -- on Manatee they can cut through and zip right over to go out on Riverwood. Now, that's going to create a problem for our people, cars zipping back and forth. If this goes through, I would like to recommend that the developer put speed bumps in our community at their cost to protect our residents, because this is just going to be unacceptable. I mean, it's just -- it's going to be a big safety concern. And also, too, I noticed on this -- right down here on the back side, you've got that PUD. Why can that not run a road on the back side all the way out to Collier to help eliminate traffic on Manatee Road? That would be an easy access for that development. And there's going to be another community there anyway, the business center, so that would make sense to put a road on the back side out to Collier. These are just some of our concerns, and we would like you to consider that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll ask the questions, sir, after lunch. MR. THOMPSON: And like Dave said, yeah, when did they take that traffic count; in the middle of the summer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll find all that out. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: A quick question for you, sir. I just want to make sure I'm clear. You have roads that are not gated that run through your community that people can use as a cut-through to get to 951? MR. THOMPSON: Oak Street and Beverly. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two streets -- MR. THOMPSON: Two streets that they make a cut off of Manatee, go -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Turn north off of Manatee and go through your neighborhood to get to 951? MR. THOMPSON: Yes, go into Riverwood, and then come right out on Collier and go right through. And they will do it. People look for shortcuts all the time. And they're doing it now, not as much, but once this excess traffic comes through, it will be a nightmare. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: It will be a -- you know, our residents -- you know, we don't need them to be run over when they're walking their dogs. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are those -- is that a private street or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're private streets. The county wouldn't maintain a street -- MR. HUFF: No, that's county streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's county? Trinity will have to verify that. So, Trinity, we're going to be asking you questions. That's a -- those streets inside that Riverwood are county streets? Please find out when we get back from lunch. That's new news. I don't know we would -- isn't that -- don't you have -- well, I mean, I can't -- MR. THOMPSON: No sidewalks. There's no sidewalks in our community for our residents to walk on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't imagine how we acquired private streets like that, but we'll find out. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 45 of 83 MR. THOMPSON: I encourage all of you to take a drive down Manatee to see how narrow that road is to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've probably -- I've spent a lot of time -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you're saying the people will actually cut -- I'm looking at a map on the screen here. From Riverwood, they would actually come out of Riverwood -- well, they only can make a right-in, right-out. MR. THOMPSON: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're beyond the Manatee section, but that's all -- MR. THOMPSON: If look at Manatee, and there's Oak Street and there's Beverly. Those streets run through our community, come out on Riverwood, and come out on Collier so you can go north. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So what you're saying is somebody may be coming down Manatee, heading west, turn right on the Beverly, and then cut out -- to cut around the signal? MR. THOMPSON: Go through our community, go to Riverwood, then cut out on the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I thought those were all private roads, but Trinity would have to verify it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't do -- we've got to go to lunch, and I'm trying to fit these people in as an accommodation to them. So let's try to get to what we're focused on. Sir, thank you for your time. We'll go to the next speaker on your board, if he or she is here. MR. BELLOWS: Mike Kumicich. MR. KUMICICH: Mike Kumicich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then after this gentleman, we are going to go to the two speakers from Immokalee. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're still on the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's on the Board? There's one more person on the board that has to leave for a 1:00 meeting. We're trying to accommodate you. So, please, let's hear what you've got to say. MR. BELLOWS: Barbara. MS. BELKOFF: Yes. Good morning. It's Barbara Belkoff. I'm just glad I could get a substitute teacher in for my class today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What is your name again, ma'am? MS. DELCOFF: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name again, please. MS. BELKOFF: Barbara Bellcoff. I actually live at 853 Manatee Road, and I welcome you to come and sit in my driveway with me in the mornings that I can't now get out and get to work. This has been happening since last year when they went ahead and recalibrated the traffic light over at the new Racetrac gas station. Line comes -- starts out off season all the way from Collier Boulevard heading east up and including Oak Street. In season, we just sit there in our driveways trying to get out because everybody sees the green light at Collier Boulevard and says, hey, this is straight road. I'm going to make it down there, and they step on it, okay. They just step on it in the mornings. They step on it in the afternoons because you get the people coming out of Marco that they come around the corner, and they're sitting there thinking, hey, this is a great street. And we've got hotrod'ers going down there. I've called the Sheriff's Department to sit in my driveway and see if they could ticket some of these guys, because we don't have a sidewalk on the north side of Manatee Road. There's just that small sidewalk on the opposite side where they are planning the community. And I walk with a flashlight most hours of the day and night. I do walk a dog. We have a lot of dog walkers and people that live in the communities. But I am one of -- well, there's myself -- the first three homes right behind the Racetrac gas station, we sit there and wait for traffic every morning now, and it's not even season. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 46 of 83 It backs up. We have lawn companies with their trailers. We've got the trash trucks. We've got cars and -- you know, pulling boats, and everything just backs up. And now, as of last year, we also have a CAT but that comes down from the east, coming down, and the school buses from Manatee and 41 towards Collier Boulevard. So we are sitting there, and we are highly impacted now, and it's not even season. In season it runs further than that, and I just sit in my driveway because really nobody wants to give up because they are trying to make that left turn to get down to Marco. And it's just a real narrow street. And I just want to also let you know that there's an additional issue with people cutting through the Racetrac gas station parking lot, and there have been more than one near misses and probably hits. So just want to make you aware of that, because they're trying to beat the lights. I love living there. My students said, but Ms. Barbara, please tell them, where are all the animals going to go with all the building? And that's their concern. But we do have a lot of traffic, and it's all off season right now. And the only time I see that the counts have been pulled out, you know, the rubber stripping, it's been off season. So just letting you know that there are a lot of perils right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Ray, the next speakers are two, I think, people from Immokalee we're trying to finish up. Do you have a -- Ray -- MR. BELLOWS: Do you want the Immokalee speakers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Please call the Immokalee speakers. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those of you come forward, use one or the other mics. Please call them. MR. BELLOWS: Andrea Halman followed by Frank Leon. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KUMICICH: I didn't get to speak on this, sir, and I was in line for this, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, if you don't silence yourself, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. We're going to resume Enbrook when we come back from lunch. We'll be on it for another hour or two. There will be plenty of time to talk. These people asked for -- to move -- be forward -- be moved forward this morning. I'm trying to accommodate them because they've got to drive back out to Immokalee this afternoon. Ma'am, go right ahead. MS. HALMAN: Good morning. My name is Andrea Halman. Thank you very much for hearing us. We do have a long ride back to Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you do, ma'am. MS. HALMAN: I'm here to offer my support for the master plan for Immokalee. I have here a letter that was written by the CRA, and it talks about a restudy that was done. So, basically, I'm just here to say that I support the master plan for Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I remember you from the first time. So thank you for coming all the way out here again. MS. HALMAN: Thank you for remembering me. Who do I give this to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The best person is that young lady right there because she will make sure it's recorded with the minutes, and it will all be in its right place then. MS. HALMAN: All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Frank Leon. MR. LEON: Good morning. My name is Frank Leon, and I'm just here to support the planning that we do want on the development of Immokalee. And it is a growing city, and I think that when you see everything that we have to offer, I think you'll agree with most of our ideas. Appreciate all of your candor. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 47 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Ray, do we have any other speakers on Immokalee registered? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else from Immokalee that needs to speak before they have to head back? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we're going to take a lunch break for one hour. We'll resume at 1:00 and -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- into Enbrook. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: For the essence of being compliant -- I know we're trying to rush this thing. It seems like this gentleman wanted to speak. I'm not sure if he has somewhere else to be, but it seems we should at least give him a chance to explain why he's got to be somewhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that will go for anybody else. If anybody else would like to speak right now, we'll entertain that, and we'll just defer other activities. Sir, come up on. Please use -- state yourself (sic) for the record. MR. KUMICICH: I'm sorry. Thank you very much, and I'll keep this brief. My name is Mike Kumicich. I'm from Guardian Property Management, and I manage Gulfwinds East. The information that the board received regarding our traffic information study was inaccurate, and the reason it's inaccurate is that the lines that they do the study on was actually by my property. It didn't pick up three of the streets that lead to Collier Boulevard off of Manatee Road. I, like everybody else in my community, is really worried about the traffic. And we don't know when they did the studies, because everybody that spoke before us was 100 percent correct, you can't get out of Manatee. You can't get to Collier Boulevard, and that's right now while we're not in season. At Gulfwinds East I have 400 people, 400 automobiles. It's an issue for everybody. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that can't be here at 1:00 who would like to speak now? Sir? MR. JENKINS: I might as well go now just so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. JENKINS: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you coming back at 1:00? MR. JENKINS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JENKINS: My name is John Jenkins. I'm running for Collier County Commissioner for District 1. This will reaffirm everything and really make it a lot clearer for you-all, for previous speakers. In -- I live in Riverwood Estates. In Riverwood Estates -- and we are a manufactured home community. We own the land. All the residents own the land. We're not a mobile home park. We're not a co-op. We're retired people. Some are on fixed income. We enjoy -- we pride ourselves in our enjoyment of life, sometimes outside of the HOA and property management companies. We enjoy our privacy. We have elderly, disabled, people walking dogs. We don't have children. We're a 55-year-and-older community. But as you do see from the aerial photograph here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to stay near the mic. MR. JENKINS: Sorry. If you could point to this area here. How do I -- yep, this area here. This is -- this is Oak. This is Oak coming in here, and this is Beverly coming in here. Those two streets. And you'll see the streets. They come down the sides, and the sides here. This is Rookery that wraps around. This is Twin Pines that comes down here. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 48 of 83 On my map that I'm going to show you, these maps here, this is exactly what these are. This is Twin Pines coming down, this is Rookery coming down, this is Audubon coming across the bottom, and Beverly comes down the side here. This is now Riverwood coming out, and it comes out to U.S. 41. All that's stopping you here is a stop sign. So anybody coming in on the north side, coming in either Beverly or -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you turn that upside down so the north arrow's pointed up, because I'm a little disoriented. MR. JENKINS: So anybody coming down off of Manatee doing a cut-through is going to come down through here to Rookery or come down -- or, I'm sorry. Rookery or Twin Pines or if they've come down Beverly, and these become racetracks coming through here to make that left-hand turn lane or right-hand turn lane onto Collier Boulevard, okay. The only reason why any traffic gets stopped at that stoplight is because they've been stopped too far to cut through the Racetrac gas station, okay. If you -- traffic going southbound to Marco Island, that gets blocked up in four cars. Anything four cars deep, nothing can go north, nothing can go south. It's an absolute nightmare, okay. If people are walking already right now from South Bay Plantation, which is -- which is this property here, they come through -- if they want to go to Walmart and they walk through the neighborhood, there's trash being dumped, all sorts of stuff. If we're adding another 520-some-odd units to here, imagine the foot traffic alone, let alone the car traffic in the morning or whatever coming through here at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we understand the point, but we need to kind of expedite this. MR. JENKINS: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: At Patrick's request, I'm trying to accommodate everybody, but we can just go so far before we need a break. MR. JENKINS: I just want to say, I am absolutely for affordable workforce housing. We need that in Collier County. But I would love to see the developer work with an existing community, a 55-year-old-and-older community to come up with a solution that's going to work for all of us, whether it's restricting the access to Riverwood Estates, whether it's helping us out with speed bumps or circles or some sort of community goodwill to ensure that Riverwood Estates stays a community that we're proud of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, do you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to make sure -- you do understand, though, that they do have existing zoning that allows them to build on this site? MR. JENKINS: I understand. Anybody that lives here, if they thought that this wasn't going to be built at some point in time, they should have bought in Disneyland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. To be fair to other members of the public who came here to speak on this matter, if you cannot be here at 1:00, we'll allow you to speak now. Does that affect anybody else here today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll come back from lunch at 1:05 and resume the meeting. We'll resume with Enbrook and the public testimony. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:05 p.m. to 1:05 p.m., and Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, if you'd please take your seats, we'll resume the meeting. A couple of announcements. Patrick Dearborn had to leave for a meeting, so he's got an excused absence. And, by the way, Tom Eastman isn't here, and he did notify us he couldn't be here for the same -- he had another meeting he had to attend. So with that in mind, we'll move forward where we left off on the agenda. And we had left off on the discussions on Enbrook RPUD off Manatee Road. We were going into public speakers. And, Ray, will you call 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 49 of 83 the next registered public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure if we got everybody. John Jenkins? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who? Mr. Jenkins, he spoke last time. MR. BELLOWS: Then there are no more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are no more? MR. YOVANOVICH: No mas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that takes us to the end of that item. And, first of all, let's go back to the applicant to see if they have any rebuttal comments that you'd like to make. I do have to -- well, before you go to rebuttal, we have some questions of transportation. So I guess Jim Banks gets to come up and entertain us for a moment. MR. ARNOLD: Jim Banks is not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he is. He's right behind you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Wayne said he's not here. I said I just talked to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, I'm getting old, but I'm not blind. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He was here until he got called, and then left. Your turn. MR. BANKS: For the record, Jim Banks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jim, what hat are you wearing today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Marketing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marketing, okay. I figured as much. MR. BANKS: Whatever you like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's a man of many professions. One of the people that were here earlier asked a series of questions, and I'd like your input, then I'm going to ask Trinity to confirm or -- and elaborate if she feels it's necessary. And your traffic counts, the question was about seasonal traffic counts. How do you account for those in relationship to your -- how you're using the ITE manual? MR. BANKS: If you count out of the season, we have seasonal adjustments. And, typically, if you count in, say, the month of -- I'm just using an example. If you count the road in the month of July and you want to project what it looks like in the season, it's usually about a 30 percent increase in traffic. So if FDOT -- I don't know exactly when they took the count, but if they counted it out of peak season, they do establish the seasonal adjustments in the area as well as Collier County does too, and they would have adjusted their traffic based on seasonal conditions, if they did not count during the season. And then they forecasted the future conditions using standard growth rate and trends in the area, and then they do the analysis. And you heard Ms. Trinity Scott mention that they did the analysis, and they determined it was operating at LOS B, the intersection, and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You just said something, though -- you keep saying "they." You did the traffic report, didn't you, the TIS? MR. BANKS: I did; I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you don't know what kind -- where -- how they did the count? I mean, you don't know what date and time -- MR. BANKS: I don't know what date they made the count. I do know that they adjusted it for seasonal conditions, though, to reflect seasonal -- FDOT, Florida Department of Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it isn't you that do (sic) it. You hire somebody -- who does it? The FDOT does the count? MR. BANKS: In this case, the Florida Department of Transportation did the traffic count on Manatee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what year, or you don't know that either? MR. BANKS: I think it was 2014. Trinity might be able to speak to that. And they applied the growth rate to that year they counted it to forecast in the future conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have Trinity come up after you finish then. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 50 of 83 Did -- and the gentleman asked about service provider impacts. Are those included in the -- how do you -- how do you -- now, I -- obviously, I think I know how you're going to answer it, but for the record, I need you to describe how you attribute to, like, landscape companies and service to people who are servicing the community. How are they counted in the trip counts? MR. BANKS: They're included in the ITE trip rates, because what you do to establish what the trip rates are for residential, the engineers before I did went and counted community, and that includes the mailman, the UPS driver, the person that comes to fix your A/C unit, everybody that comes in and out of that community, and they come up with a weighted average of how many trips are generated per the number of units. So it's included in the traffic estimates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I thought you were going to say that. The Argo Manatee project that's 191 residential units at the end of Manatee, how were those taken into consideration in your TIS, or were they? MR. BANKS: I actually prepared that report for the Manatee project, and it is in the Argo Manatee project. I worked on that project. I did the traffic study for that. Ninety percent of the traffic will be using U.S. 41, not 951. If you drive on Manatee Road -- I don't know when the last time you've been there, but there's two or three speed humps. It is not a road that encourages a lot of cut-through traffic on it. The people -- the vast majority of the traffic that you see on Manatee Road are the people that live along Manatee Road or directly access Manatee Road. It's not conducive to cut-through traffic. So we -- what we expect is when Argo Manatee develops, the vast majority of the people will use that traffic light right there at the intersection of Manatee and U.S. 41 to access the hierarchy road of U.S. 41, which in that area is six lanes, in order to travel north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is a left-turn lane at Manatee, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BANKS: That's correct. It's got an exclusive left-turn lane and a right-turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any improvements from your perspective -- I know you probably are going to say they're not necessary because of the current Level of Service B. But do you know of any improvements been proposed for Manatee and 951? I'll ask Trinity the same thing. I just thought I'd ask you if you know. MR. BANKS: There's no improvements that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's an issue of speed bumps, and I'm going to really talk to Trinity about that. I didn't know the county owned those roads in Riverwood. I can't imagine why they would. MR. BANKS: I was surprised too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a private development. How we would justify that is a puzzle, but we'll see. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Has that been confirmed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity's going to be next. She's sleeping. Wake up, Trinity. She's hoping -- thank you, Jim. Is there -- anybody else want to ask Jim any questions before Trinity comes up? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think you covered them all. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning -- good afternoon again, Trinity. And we'll take the same questions in order. Can you verify Jim's synopsis of how in-season traffic counts are relegated or how they're determined? And where was the source of these traffic counts? MS. SCOTT: Well, what I can tell you is -- I actually have access to the Traffic Operations database for traffic counts, and just because we don't utilize them with the AUIR, we still collect traffic counts all around the county. And so I was able to pull up traffic counts. And we do traffic counts on Manatee Road east of 951 twice a year. It's a semi-annual count. I can tell you that in September of 2018, there were 4,000 vehicles -- 4,016 vehicles in a 24-hour period on Manatee Road, and in January of 2018, it was 5,788. So, yes, they have a bit of a seasonal influx, but, still, that is well within the capacities of a two-lane 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 51 of 83 facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But a two-lane facility that has what some people have described as a concern that the intersection of 951 and Manatee as a result of, I guess, the turn lane, maybe there's not enough turn lanes there. I mean, whatever. Is there any improvements, or how is that intersection going to be improved, if at all it is? MS. SCOTT: So the Florida Department of Transportation has planned improvements at this intersection in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the 6.8 -- I looked at their recent plan. MS. SCOTT: It is funded in Fiscal Year '22/'23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. SCOTT: I'm sorry. I have to go to the right one. Hold on. I had a different one tagged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have their plan if it will help, but I figured you -- MS. SCOTT: I'm sorry. It's in Fiscal Year '23/'24. We're actually going to be widening State Road 951 from Tower Road to Manatee from four to six lanes. So as part of that road widening project, the intersections will be rebuilt at that time as well. They'll be redoing the mast arms and putting in crosswalks, et cetera, at that location, as well as extending the southbound left-turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What year? MS. SCOTT: It's in -- the Florida Department of Transportation's Fiscal Year '23/'24. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are they going to change the configuration of the turn lanes on Manatee approaching 951, or are they? MS. SCOTT: Per their analysis that they did, the traffic study was dated in 2015, I believe. I'm going to pull it back up here really quick. Their traffic analysis was dated October of 2015, so they would have collected that data probably in the 12 months prior. What I'm going through I don't see a specific date, but I can go back to the Florida Department of Transportation and ask them when they collected their data as far as on Manatee Road. But when they looked at that and they did the analysis based on current conditions and they did the future analysis based on 2035 and 2040 conditions, the intersection operated at an acceptable level of service and so, therefore, the portion that they -- that they are anticipating would be extending the southbound left-turn lane that goes onto Manatee Road as part of their project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess, then, the next question, which would really provide the solution depending on how you answer it, the gentleman said that the Riverwood roads are county roads. I mean, how would that have happened? That's a -- I mean, I doubt if they're even consistent with our code. I mean, they're more like driveways. How -- are they or are they not? MS. SCOTT: I looked up and, yes, Beverly -- he mentioned Beverly Road. Yes, it is a county roadway. I have no idea. I don't know when they were accepted by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we maintain that private development's roads? MS. SCOTT: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. So if they wanted to put speed bumps or something in, they'd have to come to the county to put them or to get permission for the county to contract out or do some permitting to get them established? MS. SCOTT: They would go through the neighborhood traffic management program, our traffic-calming program, just as any other roadways do, and we would work with them to look at their volumes, to look at the speeds, and do that analysis. And if that – ultimately, we got to an engineering solution and speed tables or so on so forth were the answer, then we would proceed forward. Before we do any traffic calming right now, we go to the Board for them to authorize funding for this. And some of the projects that we -- are currently in the works as far as our neighborhood traffic management program are ones where we're actually suggesting that there be a partnership with the local communities. It depends on the amount of cut-through traffic, if it's just actual cut-through traffic or if it's just neighborhood-specific issues. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 52 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess the -- if they want to privatize these, because we know that's doable -- Fox Fire did it, and that was actually a collector road they did it on compared to these. They could privatize and do what they want with the roads if they want. Is that a process they could potentially go through? MS. SCOTT: They could petition for a vacation of the county right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just shocked that we would -- we are doing all those roads. I mean, are we doing Enchanted Shores and Marco Shores Estates and all the rest of them? Because out of fairness, we should be doing everybody. I'm just -- that's is actually shocking. I had no idea we would be working on that in those -- that's all I've got. Anybody else have any questions? Stan, and then Ned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Manatee Road's about a mile-and-a-half long. Where'd you put the counter? MS. SCOTT: That's what -- I'm actually trying to get -- there's a GIS layer of where they put the counters, and I just updated my Google Earth and lost my layers, so I can't pull it up and tell you exactly. My description is east of 951. So, typically, they'll get beyond the intersection. But is it in the middle? I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious, because if people are turning in these other streets, you're missing a lot of traffic. MS. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And if people are cutting through from 951 to 41, you're getting those for sure, but any internal stuff you could be missing a lot. MS. SCOTT: What I can tell you is is that it looks very consistent with what FDOT did at the intersection as far as their volumes at the intersection with the turning movements and all of that. So it looks very consistent. So I don't think we're too far away from the intersection, not say the center of the road, but I can't verify that until I get that new layer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But if you have it close to the intersection, then you're missing all the cut-through traffic they're talking about. MS. SCOTT: If, indeed, there's a substantial amount of cut-through traffic. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, and then Joe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Trinity, you've got two numbers from FDOT, different years. One, I think, was in season, one was out. They're based on 24-hour periods. Is there a way that, based upon the relationship of peak p.m. to 24-hour on comparable streets, that you could interpolate or calculate or estimate what the peak p.m. might be on Manatee? MS. SCOTT: I have the 24-hour counts broken down by hour. Hold on. I'm just looking. So eastbound is the p.m. peak hour/peak direction. And from the 5:00 to 6:00 -- now, this was January of 2018. Hold on. Let me just look and see how much it changes to 2019, because I do have the 2019 January number as well. I'm sorry, it was February. It's about 230 p.m. peak-hour peak-direction trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, what can we say about capacity of that road? MS. SCOTT: That there's sufficient capacity to accommodate what's anticipated with this development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If you had to estimate the peak capacity, would you be able to do that with the numbers that you've gotten from FDOT? MS. SCOTT: Typically, our capacities on a two-lane similar-type roadway is about 900 p.m. peak-hour trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I wanted to -- MS. SCOTT: Peak direction. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe next, and then Stan. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 53 of 83 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just to clarify you said the State is going to do widening from Tower Road to -- MS. SCOTT: Manatee. It goes just south of Manatee. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just south of Manatee. So that includes the new bridge, then, which will be the most extensive work over Henderson Creek. MS. SCOTT: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that will include a full revamping of that intersection? MS. SCOTT: Yes. It will have -- they're going to be replacing the mast arms as well as including intersections -- I'm sorry -- crosswalks, because they'll be introducing sidewalks and the pathway to this area as well, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there -- the complaint primarily was people leaving Manatee was -- the stacking, which does happen, either if you're going Manatee west and going north, turning right, or you're going to go left to Marco. It's -- you still get some significant stacking. Are they going to do any improvements to Manatee at that intersection as well? MS. SCOTT: I did not see that. As I said, their analysis showed that the intersection is operating at an acceptable level of service today and is projected to do so in the future as well; however, I can look further into their design plans and see if they're anticipating any extension of those turn lanes. Perhaps maybe just even striping because -- depending on what the striping looks like out there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I -- just knowing that area, of course, because I live down in that area, the -- you probably have to acquire land either from the one service station on one side or the Racetrac on the other to make any improvements to turn. But that said, if they come and do the improvement, at least down to just south of Manatee, it certainly would be a significant improvement to that intersection. On your traffic counts, I haven't been back there in a while. Is the gate still up at the school since now the county took over the road? MS. SCOTT: It's still up, but it's not closed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not closed. MS. SCOTT: It previously had been closed when the school owned the roadway, but -- so it's still physically there, but it's not being closed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On your traffic counts were -- are the counts measuring anybody going all the way through? Like, for instance, I don't know why, but they may come from 41 going west and then cutting through Manatee to get to Marco Island. MS. SCOTT: I mean, if someone were doing that, they would be picked up on our -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They would be picked up. MS. SCOTT: -- on our traffic counts, yes, because we're looking in both directions. We're not just measuring in one direction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, I'm looking at the DOT's plans. There are no improvements for the turn lanes on Manatee. MS. SCOTT: Yeah, just the -- what I was able to quickly see was just the extension, the southbound left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're actually going to improve and six-lane all the way down to the main entrance to the Naples Outlet Center. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. SCOTT: Yes, just south of -- I'm sorry, Terri. I was talking over Mr. Strain. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're talking about. There's no improvements there. It's still two-lane. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't think there was enough room for any improvements, quite honestly. They would have to buy land, acquire land. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 54 of 83 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How do you guys relate the capacity of a road to the capacity of the intersections on that road? MS. SCOTT: So we would run a synchro analysis for the intersection. So the link-by-link capacity, the link itself, is based on what volume a link can carry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And what you're talking about is the link-to-link capacity? MS. SCOTT: I'm talking about both, actually. So looking at the volumes of the roadway, the link-by-link capacity can still accommodate many more trips in the p.m. peak, just as we would look at any other roads. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MS. SCOTT: The Florida Department of Transportation, as part of their project development and environmental study, looked specifically at the intersection, and they did the synchro analysis, and the highway. They looked at the operations of the actual intersection to determine the level of service for the intersection, how it's operating today and how it's projected to operate in the future, which are two different analyses. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But do they look at only their road, or do they look at the level of service on the road coming into their intersection? MS. SCOTT: No. They have to look at all of the movements, because that all impacts that intersection. So all the side streets for that intersection have to be looked at as well because that impacts the overall level of service for the intersection. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And they're saying that that intersection functions just fine? MS. SCOTT: That is -- in their opinion based on their traffic analysis that was October of 2015. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Trinity, if, by chance, it was determined that the folks within Riverwood Estates needed speed bumps and that process was pursued that you described, who would foot the bill? MS. SCOTT: That would be a determination made by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff or anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Trinity. Richard, do you want any opportunity to close or rebut? MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought you -- did you have any more questions of our team? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I just asked. Nobody said anything, so I think we're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're -- we'd like you to recommend approval. I think we made some minor changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be subject to those minor changes that we walked through, like the striking the word "buildings" after "utility," looking at stories on the -- all those little ones we went through. It all would be subject to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. The intended to serve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll just -- I'll go through the -- there's only -- it was a two-story limitation, the building issue, and the only thing I was going to bring up is what volume of units we're looking at. You already have said you're staying with 526. I certainly won't go there, but somebody else might. So we'll see where that goes. Anything you wanted to add? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I know when we met -- I have under Exhibit A.B.1 -- and you may have gone through this with Wayne. We were going to say dog park and screen enclosures and get rid of "and utility building" under accessory uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did. Wayne said they wanted it for some utilities like sewer lift stations. Then you dropped the word "buildings." MR. YOVANOVICH: That was in reference to that. I want to make sure; that was the only note I had 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 55 of 83 in there. No, we -- on the 526, our client -- the owner of the property already has the right to go to 526 under the existing zoning today. What this PUD does, it gives the opportunity to put single-family or twin villas into the mix, which would actually result in less density than what could be done today. The seller is not interested in going to a PUD that would result in less than what he already has, and we hope that the Planning Commission could support the PUD that adds single-family and twin villas to the mix, because you've seen what the intent for DR Horton later on, which would be to do 298 twin villas, which is less than what could go on this site today. So we hope that you can accept the PUD as currently written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, then Karl. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If we go at 526, are we creating phantom units? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The way it works -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just so we're clear -- it is no, because the way it works is if I -- any PUD that comes through the process today and you approve 500 and the developer builds 400, you go through a concurrency review for those 400. If you -- the developer comes back 20 years from now and wants to take any of the 100 he may have left on the table, you go through another concurrency review. There is no banking of those units or taking up any road capacity. The only time that that happens is if you have a vested project, mainly older DRIs like Lely Resort, like Pelican Bay, like Marco Shores and Fiddler's Creek. All of these other projects that you're approving do not create ghost units. They're not taking up capacity on the road. MR. KLATZKOW: Whoa. There's a difference between capacity on the road and zoning, okay. He's asking for the right -- the zoning right for these additional units, all right. They are for -- a transportation planning system, and it has to calculate them. Those are two different concepts. So we're mixing apples and oranges here. So, yes, these are ghost units. They will have the vested rights to these units over time. And, you know, whether or not we have a concurrency system in 20 years, who knows. That's up to the legislature, quite frankly, and the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me answer it a different way. Today I could do 526. I'm asking to do 526. I'm not creating anything that doesn't already exist. So how you could say I'm creating ghost units, that is not correct, because my zoning today allows 526. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's say that after your analysis is complete you decide to build 298. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. At that point could the -- the additional units, call them phantom or ghost or otherwise, could they go away? Could they sunset? MR. YOVANOVICH: The purchaser of the property is willing to -- let me say it -- I think we're saying the same thing, but let me tell you what I understand the question is. If the plat that goes through the process that's going through, which will occur after the acquisition of the property -- that's the timing. So seller's protected, keeps his 526. The buyer gets their plat approved for 298, although the buyer would prefer not to give up those units because things could change -- but if they have certainty of the plat being approved and they move forward with their first building permit so they're really committed to the twin-villa concept, I believe they would agree to a condition that whatever's not on that 298-unit plat they would begrudgingly give up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that doesn't get a complete solution, but it seems like a reasonable step forward to me rather than doing nothing at all about what would be available residually for a redevelopment, a teardown, or a rebuild 20 years from now. So I would like to see that condition added in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I added it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the word's begrudgingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, then Joe. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 56 of 83 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karen, then I -- Karen was going to add something, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, too. So let's go Karl, Karen, and Joe. COMMISSIONER FRY: The condition -- the agreement that Rich just described is exactly what I was looking for, so -- but just to clarify: 483 units are vested out of 526. So when we talk about ghost units or, I guess, remaining capacity to build, they would have, really, 43 units additionally they could build. If the sale did not go through, they could at some -- they have 483 vested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, vesting and ghost units are not the same thing. They're not the same thing. You're getting them mixed up. Vesting means what they paid fees for. Ghost units mean what they're totally approved for that are still on the books. They're going to be -- if they get approved for 526, the difference between that and 298 is the issue that we're talking about. COMMISSIONER FRY: Then the agreement that was just described satisfies my concerns with that regard. We'd be cutting the units by 40 percent and, along with it, the traffic, if that plat is approved for the attached villas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're gambling with 298 minus 526. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So -- but this is a rezoning from a zoning district to a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So why can't we regulate the number of units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: You have to vote on what we request. You can vote no, and you can make a recommendation that they reduce the units. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The capacity -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. Before I ask the question -- because I think you're going to do the same thing, so go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich's client needs short-term flexibility to go one way or the other. Every intention to go to 298, and if that comes to pass, then there would be a sunset of the additional capacity that we call phantom units. Did I say it right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. Can I put something up? You've already seen this. That's the existing approved Site Development Plan for the property at 483 units, okay. That's shovel ready, ready to go. DR Horton has come in and said, we'd like to do something different. Let's fast forward to the Board of County Commissioners, and they say, we're only going to give you 298 in your PUD. I've been told my client will then tell me, Rich, get up to the podium and withdraw because they're not going to give up -- the seller's not going to give up the 526, and we'll go and have to develop the already-approved site plan and cleared site at 483. We're trying to come through with what we think is a win-win project, and the seller is absolutely concerned that there's a chance that the closing doesn't occur and doesn't want to give up the 526 units of density he already has to the property. We've proposed a -- what I think is the very reasonable solution that should the closing go through, you will end up a little -- almost 200 units less than an already-approved site plan, and we hope the Planning Commission can recommend what we're requesting through the PUD because, in the long run, I believe it's better for the community. It gives the community a chance to have less traffic on the road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So, Rich, if they do the attached-villa design, then your client is willing to go with the 298 units? MR. YOVANOVICH: When the plat is approved and the first building permit is issued for the first twin villa, they are then committed to that, and they would bring the density down to the 298 from the 526, which should take care of the discussion we've had about phantom units, ghost units, whatever units we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we talk about the 526? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 57 of 83 MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. All day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just kidding. That's all we've been doing all day. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For the last two-and-a-half minutes, I finally have a clear understanding of what your client wants, because I was going to ask the same question. So now it's clear. So based on that, Ned, I think we were saying if we put in that provision, as was just stated, at the first building permit or whatever, then administratively we would reduce the density? Is that what you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The PUD would say it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The PUD would say it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Would reduce it. MR. KLATZKOW: It's like a contingency clause. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What did you say, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: It's like a contingency clause; contingent upon the building permit on this plat, density would reduce to whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But as of right now -- and I know this is a crystal ball -- the intent is to build the single -- or the attached units. Tomorrow that may change, but right now the plan you showed, from a marketability standpoint, your client believes that's what the market is asking? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we'd have had things the way we wanted them, the plat would have been on the same agenda as the Board approving the PUD. That's how close we are to certain, okay. That's how close we are to certain, but you know things can happen. But there's a standard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is getting kind of redundant. We actually know what you and your applicant are going to do. We've asked it, like, six times in the last 15 minutes. So is everybody done? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions of anybody before we wrap up? We're going to close the public hearing, and we'll go for discussion. Does anybody have any discussion, or do you want to go straight to the motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to hear from the Chairman on the merits of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My point is the same as I told Mr. Yovanovich when I met him: It makes no sense to approve 526 when he knows -- we know he's going to do 298. I don't care what quirky little deal or game we're playing. I'm done playing games. It's 298 as far as I'm concerned or I'm -- my vote will be for denial. They've paid for a construction phasing plan, an early work authorization, an excavation plan, and the plans and plat. That stuff -- being in the business myself, that doesn't come cheap, and there's nobody going to walk from this. If the seller doesn't want to sell it unless he gets 526 that he's not going to sell because he's only going to sell 298, that's his business decision, but it's no bearing on what I see as far as proper planning. As far as proper planning goes, it's 298, and that's where I'm going to stick. So you wanted my input; that's it. Now I'll turn to the rest of you guys. You guys got any comments? Because we need a motion depending on what you want to do. I'll read you the conditions that were worked out so far: The two-story limitation, the various verbiage that we described as we went through the document that they would change, and then the closing contingency that the buyer will give up the excess of 298 once the plat is approved. Those are the notes that I made. I don't know if there's any more, but that's the notes that I've made. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a further request of Mr. Yovanovich to consider. What is the approximate time frame between now and when you would know for certain that you don't need the extra units? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are trying to get everything that Mr. Strain just said, the plat, on the agenda as soon as -- I don't know the scheduled closing date; do you know? We would have closed -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you have a closing date in your contract? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's contingent upon getting the zoning approved and getting the plat approved. If I -- I'm moving as quick as I can to get -- I can't get the plat on the agenda until the PUD's approved. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 58 of 83 (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question is is that after those conditions are satisfied, if they are -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's quick. It's quick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- satisfied, are you willing to tell us how quick? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would think within a month or two, probably. Am I close? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We'll close within a week of getting this through. MR. YOVANOVICH: Within a week of getting the plat approved. So you have a little bit of risk -- and things happen where people walk away from deals for whatever reason. It may make no sense to you guys that they spent that much money to walk away, but it could happen, and you have a seller who's saying I'm not taking the risk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've closed the public hearing a couple times. I'm not even going to bother repeating that. Is there a position this board wishes to take on this for the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to throw the grenade out. I'll make a motion that this be approved subject to the conditions as discussed. I think it's better we move this thing forward than have it come back. So I think the timeline is appropriate. I'm pretty confident that the 298 units are what's going to be built, and based on that, I recommend approval subject to the conditions as mentioned by Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was only two conditions mentioned: That was the two-story limitation be added to the footnote or an asterisk or whatever on the Development Standards Table, other changes that we've made as we walked through it, and then the closing -- post-closing condition that the 298 will be the maximum units. The rest will be given up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's make sure we're clear. It was the plat approval and the first building permit for the first twin villa. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it wasn't the first building permit. It was the plat was approved. Now you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. I said the first building permit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He did say first building permit, too -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- which is fine. That will be fairly quick after the plat. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my reasons are for the ones previously stated. And with that, thank you, all. Motion carries 4-2. And we'll move on to the next item on today's agenda. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Karen, were you a vote against the project as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, she voted against. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like to state your reasons for denial? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The same reason as Mark. I don't think it should be at 562 -- 526. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***The next item up is Item 9A3. It's for PL20190001138. That's the 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 59 of 83 Barefoot Estates subdivision at Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 2 subdivision. 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: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just normal staff communications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Staff communications and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same here. I don't remember any others. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only the painful memories of this development in my years as the administrator for Community Development. I remember all the issues, so it's post-traumatic stress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I did have an email from Ms. Spector, didn't I? MS. SPECTOR: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, basically, she was wanting to show this presentation, and I told her it would be fine. So go right ahead. MS. SPECTOR: Perfect. Good afternoon. Sarah Spector. I'm an attorney with Roetzel and Andress, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant, which is the Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association. See if I got this. And, yes, this PUD does have a long and tortured history. And unfortunately, this is a very straightforward request, but it is rather confusing, so I am going to go through this in a little more depth than I typically would for something that's this straightforward. All right. So what we have here is all of the property that is subject to this request is controlled by the applicant, the Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association. The first property that you are seeing here is the property that was platted by the Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 subdivision plat in 1978. What you have platted is Blocks A through the north half of K. That is just west of Barefoot Beach Boulevard. I keep trying to use the mouse; sorry about that. Then what you'll see here is I have highlighted where there was -- Block E was pulled out of this plat and was later re-platted. So Block E is no longer part of the Unit 1 Subdivision plat; rather it was re-platted by the Barefoot Estates subdivision plat in 1995. So everything between Saint Eustacius and Felipe Lane was originally platted by the Unit 1 plat but is now legally described as being a lot within the Barefoot Estates subdivision. This is the plat that originally platted the Block E property, and Barefoot Estates shows you that seven lots were created from what was originally Block E and are now, rather than being Block E, referred to as the Barefoot Estates along with a beach tract. As I had mentioned, the Unit 1 plat, which was recorded in 1978, platted Block A through the north half of Block K. Then the south half of Block K was later platted in -- I believe it was in 1985 -- was platted -- there are four lots in the south half of Block A and the half of a beach park. So this came later even though it is part of the property that is controlled by the applicant. This shows you that on the left-hand side the Unit 1 plat stopped, and it's solely to show you that it stopped at the north half, and it's also highlighted on the right side in yellow showing again Unit 1 stopped at the north half of Lot K -- I'm sorry -- Block K. Then you had Unit 2 come along, and it finished platting the horseshoe and finished platting that area so that it's four lots and the beach park. So you have two separate plats completing the entire area contr olled by the applicant. Just so you have an overall view of what we're talking about, I've highlighted in pink the Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, the Barefoot Estates is outlined in dash -- in the dashed area, and then the Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 60 of 83 2. Again, this represents -- everything that's colored is controlled by the applicant. Now, further leading to the confusion is it was platted one way and referred to one way on the plats as the Blocks A through K, but when you get to the PUD ordinance, it's completely different nomenclature. So what we have here, same highlighting, but the -- everything that was platted by the Unit 1 plat in Barefoot Estates is addressed in Unit 3 of the PUD ordinance and referred to as platted Lely Beach Unit 1, Blocks A through K and also referred to as the low-density single-family residential development. Then you have that -- what's left in blue there is addressed in a completely separate section in Section 9 of the ordinance, and it is referred to as Tract D. So in 2001, the Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association came to you and asked for you to consider increasing the maximum height of the buildings within that area from two to three. If you look at the minutes from both the CCPC meeting and the Board of County Commissioners' staff report, it highlighted in yellow the area that was addressed by that 2001 ordinance. This is the map that was attached to the minutes and to the staff report. And as you'll see, it's a little difficult to tell with all the dash and highlight and whatnot, but this actually covers Unit 1 and Unit 2. So the south half of Block K which was platted by an entirely different plat and was also addressed in a different section of the ordinance. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I need to clarify this statement. I'm sorry to interrupt. MS. SPECTOR: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But this section that she's saying that was included in 2001 was not. This is clearly a separate Tract D on the master plan, and what was amended in 2001 was blocks, what is it, A through K of Unit 3. So it is very clearly differentiated in the staff report, and that's why she's here today, because she's having the other low-residential section sync up with how Lots A through K were handled. MS. SPECTOR: And I apologize if I was misleading there. I was just intending to say that this map shows everything that was platted by both the Unit 1 and Unit 2, because then I do have the ordinance next, and you'll see the only section that was amended at that time was Section 3, which deals with the Unit 1 subdivision plat. So even though the map that was included shows both Unit 1 and Unit 2, only Section 3 of the ordinance was amended. It appears that it may have been the intention, because there was only four lots that were left out, that it was also intended that Tract D would be included. Unfortunately, that was not amended at the time that Ordinance 01-35 was approved. And, again, this is just to point out that they're both dealing with low-density single-family residential development but in two separate sections. So we're actually requesting two amendments here today, I went through the long analysis at the beginning with regard to Barefoot Estates solely for the purpose of pointing out everything in the PUD ordinance only refers to Unit 1 even though Barefoot Estates was platted at the time the 2001 ordinance was approved. So for purposes of correctly referring to the property that is addressed in unit -- or in Section 3 of the PUD ordinance, we're asking that you also include reference to Barefoot Estates, and that's what's in the first amendment before you today. There's actually no change in any of the development regulations. In this section it's merely a cleanup item. Then in Amendment 2, we're asking that you apply what was approved in 2001 for Blocks A through the north half of Block K to the four lots that were platted by Unit 2. So we are asking that you increase the maximum building height from two stories to three habitable floors. And, actually, the reason that this came to light is those four lots that are on the south half of Block K are actually developed. There are four houses on the four lots. The issue is when they originally went in for building permits, they were given building permits for four stories -- I'm sorry -- for the three stories. The top floor was not habitable. Over time the top habital -- non-habitable floor was converted to habitable, and they can't now get building permits because they don't match with what's approved by the PUD ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The top habitable floor or the bottom? I thought the bottom of all these 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 61 of 83 units were non-habitable. MS. SPECTOR: Correct. But they were allowed to have a third story as long as it was not habitable. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That falls under the LDC exemptions from building height if they're not air conditioned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Because one of the -- I mean, it's a long story. We had problems there -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- when I was with the county, there were people building on the first habitable floor, which was below the floodplain, which was another problem -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the Building Department encountered. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there was a code issue. MS. SPECTOR: Yeah. So we're not talking about that. That -- we have built that into here that they are able to have a utilitarian space below on the bottom floor with parking, but we're talking about going up three habitable floors. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only if the requirements meet the base flood elevation as far as electrical and all the other requirements that are required for BFE. MS. SPECTOR: Correct. And like I mentioned, these have all already been built. They're just going in for remodeling permits and aren't able to pull them with the way that the ordinance is worded right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the bottom line is this recommendation is essentially bringing everything into consistency? MS. SPECTOR: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It unifies the entire development. MS. SPECTOR: Exactly. And I do have maps. I just included the development regulations for both sections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you done with your presentation, by the way? MS. SPECTOR: Am I done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. SPECTOR: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe, we ought to let them get done before we ask questions, because they may answer in the subsequent -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought she was done. Sorry. MS. SPECTOR: Oh, sorry; no. So I've included the development regulations but, as I mentioned, the only thing that we're changing is the maximum building height, which is found in Section 9.4.7, because -- I've also included 3.4.7 that was amended in 2001. We're just asking that 9.4.7 be amended similarly. And then, as you'll note -- and this is -- this goes to Mr. Schmitt's point. This is the only tract -- Tract D is the only tract within Lely Barefoot Beach that is limited to two habitable floors. And to put that into perspective, what is highlighted in yellow is Tract D. Everything else has at least three habitable floors, and the property immediately next to Tract D is already developed as a condominium complex, and they're actually allowed to go up to six floors. So if the amendment is approved, or if you recommend approval of this amendment, it will be bringing this one tract with four lots into conformity with all of the other lots within Lely Barefoot Beach for the low-density single-family homes. And I don't know if you recall, but I came in a year ago and asked for the same request for Tract I, which is immediately across the street. It wasn't -- we didn't realize at that time that Tract D was not also addressed in the ordinance. So we did change Tract I from two to three habitable floors a year ago. So this request is compatible and does meet the requirements of the Future Land Use Element of the 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 62 of 83 Growth Management Plan, and it is in an area that is designed in the urban residential subdistrict that is des igned for this type of growth and intensive land uses. So with that, we would request that you do approve or recommend approval of the request to include Barefoot Estates and increase the habitable stories from two to three habitable stories for Tract D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned -- and I know you've been waiting for a question. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the effect of this -- well, the current situation is is that both Barefoot Estates and Unit 2 on the southerly part -- southerly part of K, right now our height is limited to two floors? MS. SPECTOR: As to Barefoot Estates, it's unclear. They are covered in the section that Unit 1 is covered in. They're just not correctly -- it doesn't refer to them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. SPECTOR: So it's really only Tract B -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's to clear up an ambiguity with respect to Barefoot Estates -- MS. SPECTOR: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and it's actually -- would be more generous with height on Unit 2. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Lely Estates is the -- or Barefoot Estates is the re-plat of Block E, so it's covered. This is more of a change to make it easier probably for the residents to follow where they're supposed to be. I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's really all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you have anything else you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Thank you, Ms. Spector. Is there any staff report? I'm sure there is, but -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there's a staff report, and we are recommending approval of this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of the applicant or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any members of the public here to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. On to the next one. ***Next item is Item 9A4, and it's PL20190000479. It's for a project zoned RMF-6 called Cayo Whippoorwill, I think that's what it's called. Is that right? It's C-a-y-o Whippoorwill. Located about 3500 feet south of Pine Ridge Road off of Whippoorwill Lane. 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.) 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 63 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I can't remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my excuse. You can't use it. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- if I discussed this with -- is Rich Yovanovich involved in this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had emails and communications with staff and with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- same thing, so that matches mine. I talked to the applicant a couple times, as well as the County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Vanasse. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Patrick as well. Mr. Chairman, I have to make a phone call at 2:00. I'll be out for about five or 10 minutes, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We should wrap up by the time you come back. MR. VANASSE: That would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, we will take a break at 2:30, but... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to make a call. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correction. I did receive a telephone call from someone affiliated with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do I need the name, or is that enough? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that's enough. I'm not too concerned about it at this point. So with that, Patrick, it's all yours. MR. VANASSE: Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Vanasse. I'm a certified planner with RWA. I am here today representing the applicant for the Cayo Whippoorwill petition. I'm sure you've seen the package and you know the details of this, so I'll try to keep it brief. You've got a busy agenda. The petition is for a rezoning from RMF-6 with conditions to RMF-6 with modified conditions. So this makes this unique in that typically straight zoning like RMF-6 does not contain any conditions of approval, but this one does. So that was approved in 2006. Four conditions were attached to the zoning approval. And we are here today to ask to eliminate one of those conditions and to modify a second condition. I'll put that on the illustrator. So the first condition is associated with an affordable housing contribution. We are requesting to eliminate that completely. That is consistent with Board of County Commissioner policy and directives that landowners that have that condition imposed on their property can come forward through a public hearing such as this or administratively and ask to get this removed. The other condition is Condition No. 3, and we are asking to modify this condition. When we first were looking at eliminating that condition completely; however, we've had discussions with staff, and we have decided to modify it. So back in 2006 when this property was initially rezoned, a condition was put on there saying that no CO, certificates of occupancies, can be pulled for that property until the Whippoorwill Lane extension to Livingston was constructed. At that time, the construction of the roadway project was imminent. Within one or two years, the project would have begun. The condition was reasonable and made sense at the time. Unfortunately, the project was de-prioritized. The project was not built, and to this day it still has not been built. As such, this project -- this condition has really prevented any development from occurring on this property for 13 years. So the property owners have been handcuffed with this. And what we are asking today is to come back in and remedy that. In talking with staff, we weren't fully aware that the project was coming back to the Board of County 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 64 of 83 Commissioners, so they told us they would bring it back and that there would be a vote. That has happened. The project has been approved, and it has been funded. So it has been funded for 2020/2021. Our understanding is that it's a design/build project, so it will move forward very quickly. And the completion date for that project is June of 2021. So staff has asked us to simply modify that condition. And what the condition now says is that you can't pull any COs until the roadway is constructed or June of 2021. We believe that is fair. The applicant wants to work with the county, but they also want certainty. So right now they don't have any immediate plans for development. They are trying to sell the property. The property is listed but, as you can imagine, when you have a condition that says you can't pull any COs until the roadway is built, it's pretty hard to sell the property. So what they're asking for is certainty, and should the project fall apart, once again, for whatever reason, at least they know that by June of 2021 development could occur on that property. So that being said, I just want to also point out that we're not asking for any other zoning changes to RMF-6. Nothing else changes; only these two conditions. We've read the staff report. We concur with their findings, and we concur with their recommendation of approval. And with that said, I'm available for questions or to address comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: When was the first time that you or your client asked for a removal or change of Condition 3? MR. VANASSE: I do not know the full history, because I wasn't involved throughout the entire process. But I have gone back and looked at meeting minutes dating back to 2006, 2013 when the issue came back, and then in 2016. The current owners have had the property since 2012. In 2016 the broker representing the owner came forward. There was discussion from what I can surmise of the meeting minutes. There was discussion of was this a fair thing to do to try to remedy this, but there was a question as to who should bring this forward. Should county staff bring it forward and just get this remedied, or should the owner bring an application forward. And my understanding is it didn't go anywhere, and we're coming back today asking to get that cleared up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me ask it again. When was the first time an application was filed for this type of relief? MR. VANASSE: I have no idea if there was one prior to ours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was a few months ago presumably. MR. VANASSE: Yes, from us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The reason I ask is because in our telephone conversation yesterday you made much of the fact that this has been pending before the county in some way or another for 13 years, and that just didn't ring true to me. But -- so your application is fresh and first time in? MR. VANASSE: The application is fresh. The discussion has been ongoing for 13 years. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, but it's not -- it's not that the county's been stonewalling you, because you haven't made an application until now, correct? MR. VANASSE: From an application standpoint, correct, but the issue of remedy has been discussed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Now, the -- to me, the heart of this is what the impact is going to be on Pine Ridge Road. As you know and as we discussed yesterday, there are several segments, three, I think, extending from Shirley all the way over to I-75 that are already deficient. And anybody who drives along that way with any frequency knows that it is a serious problem. Now, with that concern in mind, I am very reluctant to allow for more traffic without an escape valve at Livingston. Now, I understand how, in fairness, it would be appropriate to establish some endpoint, and I'm going to want to ask Trinity what is a reasonable time. I'm not at all sure -- and maybe after I hear from Trinity I will be -- that September the 1st of 2021 is an all-but-certain date within which this extension will be completed. If that's the case, I'm going to be more favorably disposed to your application, but we can't -- we just cannot continue to allow for traffic on those portions of Pine Ridge Road if there are plans afoot to alleviate the problem and they haven't been executed yet. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 65 of 83 So that, I think, is all I have to say about this. Oh -- and another approach might be -- and I'm not suggesting that there needs to be a fix to your application. I haven't made up my mind yet, but if there does, another approach would be to limit the number of COs that could be granted starting at graduated dates so that you get some things going but not the whole nine yards. So I'm just putting that out for thought at this time. Chairman, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, it would have helped to know the traffic impacts. Why didn't we have a traffic impact statement like we do for other rezones? MR. VANASSE: We had a pre-app with staff, and we asked for a TIS waiver from the standpoint that this is straight zoning. So the maximum that could be built today is 60 units; six units per acre, 10 acres, 60 units. Moving forward, if we change those conditions, the most we can build is 60 units. So we provided -- what they asked us to provide was a letter of no additional impact in lieu of a TIS, and we did that. Understanding that there might be some concerns, Norm Trebilcock ran a trip-generation analysis for us. We have that. It's the same that Trinity also has prepared and can present that to the group. If not for Pine Ridge being an evacuation route, our trips would be considered de minimis, meaning that the trips that we generate on the network are less than 1 percent. We do understand that this is an evacuation route, so we can't claim that, but it is pretty much an insignificant amount on the network. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do realize Pine Ridge has failed? MR. VANASSE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned just said that. Trinity said it too. MR. VANASSE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just -- what peak-hour trips did Norman come up with? MR. VANASSE: I'll let Norm address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. VANASSE: Come on. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good afternoon. My name is Norm Trebilcock, professional engineer and certified planner. In terms of peak-hour trips for the project, if there are 60 multifamily units, it would be a total of 37 peak-hour trips two way, 23 of which would be entering, and 14 would be exiting the project. That's using the ITE trip generation manual. And I was involved in this project since 2002 in the master planning of the Whippoorwill area, and this property actually was identified in that orange master plan that we prepared as well, and similar trips were analyzed at that time, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you didn't do the original Traffic Impact Statement. MR. TREBILCOCK: Not for this site, no. I haven't directly been involved in this site, but the overall master plan, the transportation, when we were looking at the development in this area, because there were concerns of the county of this, we looked at an overall master plan and took care of the north/south segment of Whippoorwill, and the county would take care of the east/west segment and also the intersection of Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So was that master plan analysis made realizing the connection to Livingston? MR. TREBILCOCK: Conservatively, the initial master plan, no. It was based on all the traffic north/south. So on that, including this volume of traffic, there is sufficient capacity on Whippoorwill Lane based on that volume, because -- a conservative assumption. But the moment, then, you split it and you go east/west, then you divide those numbers in half. And it has a significant benefit to the area, and that's why staff has always been pushing to do the east/west section of Whippoorwill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you my concern is not Whippoorwill Lane. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 66 of 83 MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is Pine Ridge Road. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. And I think Trinity will be able to address the improvement plans that they have. So -- but I just wanted to give you the volume information you asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I appreciate that. You're close to the TIS that was provided in 2006, but you're not the same. That was a new traffic engineer I haven't heard of before; a guy named Gary Butler. I didn't know he was a traffic engineer. MR. TREBILCOCK: He's not, but it would have been a different version of the ITE trip generation manual. Again, the numbers I did in 2002 actually had a different volume as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is his entire TIS that the county accepted. It's kind of a summary. Why can't you say them this simple? MR. TREBILCOCK: I would love to, but this actually -- because the volume is under 50 vehicles per hour, this would be called a small-scale analysis, and you don't require, like, intersection analysis and stuff for this type of project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, the requirements back in that year are in the staff report that went to the Board in 2006 along with this one paragraph -- one little block of data. And they did have quite a bit of information required, none of which is here, so -- most of which is not here, I should say. I was a little surprised that it got through like it did. MR. TREBILCOCK: Hence, maybe the requirement. Yeah, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Go ahead, Ned, then Stan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Norman, this may be for you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Back in 2002 when these conditions were applied, presumably Pine Ridge was not failing. MR. TREBILCOCK: No. These conditions were not -- it was 2006 is when that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- condition. And at the time -- you know, again, this is -- the history is interesting. Quite frankly, the interchange at Golden Gate and I-75 didn't exist then, so the traffic on Pine Ridge was heavy, and that was the whole reason to connect this link back. This in two thousand -- that's why the county had been working to get this connection east/west to Livingston to relieve the area. And they said, well, the moment that interchange is built down there, that will fix it, and then we get the connection. As Patrick was saying, if it was imminent that it was taken care of, then that would relieve things. In fact, it would. And then, you know, fast forward, 2013, similar thing where let's make the connection. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So I had my year wrong. It was 2006. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But at that time I assumed -- and I was not following things very carefully. In fact, I wasn't even down here in 2006. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I assumed that Pine Ridge was not in a failing mode in those segments, correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: It was moving towards it because -- and then it got relieved when the interchange was built at I-75 and Golden Gate Parkway. It provided relief. And then everyone, you know, has a sigh of relief and didn't put in this jug handle that, you know, staff has been saying for the last, you know, quite frankly, 17 years is needed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So back then, back in 2006, we were not as aware of problems on Pine Ridge and, presumably, the problems there were not as significant as they are now; nonetheless, there was a provision put in that said no COs until you connect to Livingston. Now, fast forward, we see that we've got three failing segments, and the situation is much worse, and 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 67 of 83 we're being asked to relax the condition. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, that's not correct then. The same concerns were there. The difference was in 2006 when the applicant agreed to this, they were given the assertion that the connection would occur on Whippoorwill Lane thus relieving this. In addition -- and it's in the minutes of this adoption of this ordinance -- it was stated, too, that the relief would be provided to by Golden Gate Parkway at I-75 interchange, because it's going to relieve traffic there at this area. So I would submit to you Pine Ridge Road, there were issues back then, but the idea was that it was going to be relieved. And some of that relief did take place. Unfortunately, the connection of Whippoorwill never did. And then fast forward to 2013 when staff again brought this up to make this connection. There it was discussed to say, we need to give relief to this particular ordinance person, because they're relying on it, and they've relied on it. And they've kind of just sat back. But, in fact, they've, you know, really been, you know, held to not be able to develop and, you know, it's 60 units. It's an insignificant amount of trips, et cetera. And they've really been put on the back burner. And I would submit that this proposal seems very reasonable, you know. Quite frankly, I don't think they should have a restriction at all, it would be my opinion, as a traffic person, but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm not surprised. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I ask a question of the applicant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make sure we're done with Norm. Anybody have any other questions of Norm while he's up here? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not a question; a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know if you all remember a planner named Ron Nino. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This entire one-square-mile section of Whippoorwill section, there were about five or -- five or so projects all came in at one time, wanted to develop, and there was no master plan for the area. They just all wanted to develop and tie into Whippoorwill Lane and somehow get out of there. So Ron made them all come in for utilities, transportation; any infrastructure that needed to be put in had to all be designed at one time. And the idea was, when it was done -- and the tie-in from the end of Whippoorwill because they didn't want only one lane or one road coming out of that whole big area. They wanted to tie into Whippoorwill. Well, somehow -- Tom Kuck fought this for years. He wanted that road built. And somebody traded away some right to build that road back then. Not a right maybe, but they caved into something, and the road was never built. So the road should be built, and people have been pushing for it. And it needs building. But all these deals were made back then, and this entire -- this is just the last piece in the puzzle. I see no reason why this thing can't just go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm. And then, Ned, what's your next question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: For the applicant, Mr. Vanasse. MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you representing the current owner or contract purchaser or who? MR. VANASSE: I am representing the applicant, who's the current owner, 333 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the applicant is the current owner? MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there a contract for purchase? MR. VANASSE: There is a contract. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Is the -- I'm not saying that this is necessarily relevant to my decision, but just for a full record, am I correct in my understanding that this would be for affordable housing? MR. VANASSE: The contract purchaser currently is Habitat for Humanity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 68 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But aren't you removing the affordable housing requirement? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just paying into the trust fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right. MR. VANASSE: Again, it's the same issue as the previous petition. Contracts come and go. The owners want to shed that condition no matter what. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? If not, we'll go to the staff report. MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, planner for the county. Our recommendation is approval of removal of Condition 1, which is the trust fund contribution, and Condition 3 changed to September 1, 2021, whichever is sooner in terms of removal of the condition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet your questions are going to be more of Trinity than you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Trinity, if you're available. And who's got questions of Trinity to start? Karl, then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRY: Trinity, could you just give us an update on the status from the connection from Whippoorwill over to Livingston. MS. SCOTT: Yes. We went before the Board of County Commissioners in April of this year, April 9th of 2019, to get approval to move forward with a concept design that we had worked with the community, the neighboring communities adjacent, all along Whippoorwill and Marbella Lakes. We worked with them to modify our original design, and the Board of County Commissioners gave us the authorization to proceed forward. The roadway improvement is in our current fiscal year, which is our Fiscal Year 20, which started October 1st. It is a design/build project. Our transportation engineering staff right now is currently working to get a design/build consultant on board and then construct the roadway. The date of September 2021 came from coordination with our Transportation Engineering and Construction Management folks to determine when they anticipated being able to have the roadway open to traffic. COMMISSIONER FRY: What are the chances -- what are the obstacles that might cause further delay in the construction of this road? MS. SCOTT: Permitting. Previously, we had a permit on the roadway segment as it was originally designed, which was merely just connecting both roadways. So we have to go through the permitting process. Unfortunately, that permit has expired. So we have to go through the permitting process. Our new concept that we came forward with is actually less pavement, so we're hoping that we don't have any major permitting issues. We've reduced down the travel lanes and, actually, overall just reduced the pavement that we were going to be putting out there. So we're not anticipating any major permitting hurdles, but that would be our only hurdle that I could potentially anticipate. COMMISSIONER FRY: It seems like a lot rides on the county moving forward with paving this road. When you compare this to other road projects that you've seen over the years, how complicated does this one seem compared to others? I know that's a subjective call, but does it seem like a relatively straightforward project that -- MS. SCOTT: It's a very straightforward project. And the reason it's been delayed through the years have been, you know, a lot of public outcry about the roadway and folks not really wanting it connected, which was why staff was directed to go out and work with the individual homeowners associations to develop a design that took their neighborhoods into consideration. We've done that. And for the most part -- I'm not going to tell you that everyone came and spoke in favor of this project at the Board of County Commissioners, because that's not the case, but folks were saying this if the county was going to proceed forward with the interconnection, they preferred our new design, and that's what the Board of 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 69 of 83 County Commissioners directed us to do, and that's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we already have all the right-of-way we need? MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: Eminent domain any property or anything like that? MS. SCOTT: No. Everything is within existing right-of-way. As these development had come forward, we had set aside the right-of-way for the roadway, and so that right-of-way is fine. MR. KLATZKOW: This road should have been built years ago, all right. The Board of County Commissioners made a political decision not to do so. That political decision not to do so has negatively impacted this applicant. It's as simple as that. MS. SCOTT: And then if I could also talk about Pine Ridge Road, if you don't mind. So Pine Ridge Road also -- it's in the 2019 AUIR, but the project is funded with sales surtax funding. So those projects are now showing up in your 2019 AUIR. It is -- and we're also partnering with the Florida Department of Transportation. We're working on the segment from Livingston Road to Napa Boulevard. We went before the Board of County Commissioners in May of 2018 for them to approve our concepts for that, which is -- what we're looking at is a series of what we call innovative intersections along Pine Ridge Road. We're improving the intersection at Livingston Road, at Whippoorwill, and then also rebuilding the interchange, the I-75 interchange. Based on our modeling efforts with that, we anticipate an approximate 30 percent increase in the p.m. peak-hour capacity of the roadway without adding any additional lanes; so just making our intersections work much more efficiently in being able to push that traffic through. That is funded in Fiscal Year '22/'23, as I said, with -- the Florida Department of Transportation is partnering with us and providing in excess of $5 million for us to proceed forward with that project. And then the sales surtax funding is approximately $30 million for that project. COMMISSIONER FRY: So when you came up -- was it the Transportation Department that helped negotiate the 9/1/2021 date with the applicant? Was that your recommendation? MS. SCOTT: What we -- what I did was I went back to our Transportation Engineering and Construction Management knowing that the project was funded in the current fiscal year. I went to them and said, when do you anticipate it would be open to traffic? They anticipated, they said, September of 2021, which was where the applicant got the date, or sooner. So if we can get the roadway done sooner, if we're done in June and it's open to traffic in June, then they would be able to get their certificate of occupancy by that time frame. The roadway's a design/build project, which should hopefully expedite those procurement processes, as well as the fact that -- because there's no existing traffic, at least where the connection is going to be made, there is less maintenance of traffic that we have to do. So, typically, when we're widening a roadway from four to six lanes, you have to deal with existing traffic that's out there. So it allows you to kind of expedite the process a little bit. We are looking at not having to really deal with -- for a large portion of the project you don't have to deal with existing traffic. Now, we will, where we make the connections, and some of the improvements that we're doing along Whippoorwill, we will, but the actual connection itself can be put in rather easily. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Trinity, you're one of our valued experts. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And we rely on you and your judgment. I have learned a little bit about traffic and transportation through my service up here but, of course, I'll never come close to having your expertise. MS. SCOTT: I'd love to download some to you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, I'd love to have it. So we must, therefore, rely upon your expertise to give us a solid sense of likelihood of completion with all the variables such as permitting taken into account, the lack of a need to do a taking, to do eminent domain, and the other variables. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 70 of 83 I'm just not satisfied with the word "anticipate." You know, our people, your people -- you talked to your people, and your people say that they anticipate completion by this date. Well, I'd like -- I'd like a more solid estimate, if I could, based on percentages or something -- something that -- for which it would be reasonable or upon which it would be reasonable to cast a vote in favor of this rather than just anticipation. Could you express it in a percentage, recognizing that it's just an estimate and you're not to be held to it? How can you -- how can you give me more than just anticipation? MS. SCOTT: I can't, because you don't know if there's going to be a bid protest. You don't know if the Board of County Commissioners tells staff "stop." Those are things that are beyond our control. Who I spoke with was our principal project manager for our Transportation Engineering and Construction Management group. She oversees all of our designers, and that was the date that she felt comfortable with based on -- it's two years, nearly two years for us to do a little over a mile of roadway that has, most of it, no traffic on it, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you think I was being unreasonable if I asked for the date to be September 1 of 2022? Is that unreasonable? MS. SCOTT: I think that the roadway will be completed prior to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What do you think the likelihood of that is? MS. SCOTT: I think it's very likely that it will be completed prior to that. I mean, that would be three years. That would mean that we got into some major item. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you think it's very likely that -- well, let me rephrase it. Do you think it's very likely that it will be completed by September 1 of 2021? MS. SCOTT: Based on the guidance that I've received from our Transportation Engineering folks do designing construction every day, that's all that they do, they were comfortable with that date. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So I guess the word "anticipate" was maybe not a good -- you're willing to go, based upon the people whom you rely on -- MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- with "very likely"? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No one's going to come back -- MS. SCOTT: It's a crystal ball. Oh, I don't know about that. Mr. Scott has warned me about giving dates up here, because he gave Mr. Strain a date back in 2006, and it still haunts him to this day. COMMISSIONER FRYER: He just doesn't want you dating anymore, which I understand. No. But, really, I think we have a right to ask for clarity from our experts, recognizing that certainly -- well, I don't think there could possibly be a cause of action on the part of anybody against you or any other staff person, but I don't have the expertise. If I did, I would be able to make the judgment for myself and say, in my expert opinion, it's very likely that this is going to be completed in 2021, recognizing that there are factors out there that would mean it won't be completed then or ever. But if I'm an expert and I have that level of experience, I should be able to give more than the kind of cold comfort that "anticipate" has provided. MS. SCOTT: We work with our staff that does this every day. This is a design/build contract. It is very -- it's different than how we typically deliver projects. Usually we design them, we acquire right-of-way, and then we construct, which is usually a six-year process. Usually each of those phases take two years on their own. By doing a combined design/build, that allows us to only have one procurement process, which takes about six to eight months off of the process. As I said, not having traffic that we have to deal with for the most part, that also allows us to have a comfort level that we will complete the roadway by September of 2021. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just trying to get to "yes." MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I apologize for delaying this, but it's important, I think. And what I believe I hear you saying is is that certainly you can't guarantee which outcome, you can't be sure that these variables are going to fall in favor of the applicant but, nonetheless, based upon your experience with similar 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 71 of 83 undertakings, it's very likely that this will be complete by that date? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see how we can get her to twist it -- say it any more. We've beat it to death. Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There have been a lot of stops and starts on this project for years. So I think that's why Trinity's reluctant to absolutely commit to a date, because we have received different direction. Go forward with the road. Don't go forward. Go forward. And, you know, that's not (sic) beyond her control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's put her job on the line, so we're fine with that. It's enough to go forward with. So let's just go and get past this one, because this is just a couple sentences to deal with here. MS. SCOTT: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bring Amy in here at the same time. We'll put them both up there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we have room for her at Guantanamo Bay? MS. SCOTT: I hope Mark has an extra room at his house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My barn. Is there a -- did we get past it? No. This is the staff report. Okay. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from the public here who would like to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else from the Planning Commission that we have to kill? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are we done? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's talk about this again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity's sneaking away, and I don't blame her. Okay. I think we've got as much out of Trinity as we possibly can get today. As long as you're satisfied, Ned, we're good to go. With that, we'll close the public hearing. We'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to approve with the conditions of approval as they're written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. I'm glad that I got to "yes." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRY: I just would like to ask if it would make sense to -- if they're looking for a time-certain to, of course, provide that, but to build in just a little bit of flexibility meaning an extra three months and make the date certain December 31st, 2021. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a very fair resolution of this issue. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fair as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three months is no different -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: On behalf of the county, this is a very fair resolution of this issue. COMMISSIONER FRY: I do agree that 13 years is long enough to wait, so -- to build your project, so -- MR. VANASSE: If I may -- COMMISSIONER FRY: You stood up very quickly. MR. VANASSE: -- I do not have the authority -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We actually closed the public hearing. So let's finish discussion of this, and -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I withdraw. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 72 of 83 COMMISSIONER FRY: I withdraw. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, all those in favor, signify by saying eh. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Eh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, you guys, you've got to say eh -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Canadian now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on your toes; good. All those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Eh's carries it. We're British today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Canadian. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Canadian; whatever it is. Now we're going to take a break, and we'll resume at 2:45. Well, actually, what is it -- yeah, 2:45, and we'll come back and we'll try to work on the next two. They're companion items, and then we'll see if we want to continue with Immokalee -- or do Immokalee Road today. (A brief recess was had from 2:33 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Please take your seats. We've got to resume the meeting. ***We have two items that will be discussed concurrently but voted on separately. They're companion items. One is PL20170003337/CPSS217-2, which is the Orange Blossom mixed-use subdistrict at the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive. The other is Item PL20180002170, which is the Longview Center -- Longview Center Planned Unit Development. It's at the same intersection. It's part of that same subdistrict. 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: Okay. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if Rich Yovanovich stood up, I must have talked to him, but I got nothing else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just staff emails; a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Staff emails and communications -- conversations, and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same disclosures for me. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing; just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoken with Mr. Yovanovich and had some emails as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Bob, it's all yours. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church. I'm sure you're all familiar with the location, but just for the record, the property that is the part of these petitions collectively is located -- both the -- for the comprehensive -- well, for all of them, both on the north and south side of Orange Blossom, at the intersection on the east side of Airport, at the intersection of Airport and Orange Blossom. You can see it on the visualizer right now. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 73 of 83 The church acquired this five -- oh, I've got to use my skills here. The church acquired this parcel right here from the owner of the subdistrict, which is these two parcels here. So at the outset, I'd say the subdistrict language was very detailed and, to me, a little bit complicated, but it is what it is. And so we had to find ways to address the church's desires in amending the language to the Orange Blossom mixed use subdistrict. Mr. Chairman, I assume I can speak to both. They're companion items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: So in yellow is the urban area. The white strip running down the center there, or more or less the center, is Airport Road. You have the Italian American Club across the street, that CPUD. And you can -- the existing north tract -- excuse me. The existing church tract was the subject of a conditional-use approval some time ago, and that's a little over five acres. That's where St. Katherine's sits today. And as I said, they've acquired that -- I think it's 5.16 -- 4.92-acre what's labeled as the north tract on this exhibit. We, over the last several years, have worked collectively with St. Katherine's as well as Erickson Communities who are developing the Siena Lakes PUD. You'll recall that, by way of background, that Orange Blossom PUD was the remainder portion of a larger PUD that has now been added to the Siena Lakes PUD. The church owned that parcel and sold that parcel or will sell that parcel to Erickson Communities. This is the zoning map. It shows the subject property which, in aggregate for the church, is 9.67 acres. The church property -- the existing church property right now is zoned A agricultural; had a conditional use approved in '92. It's developed with the church, sanctuary, and accessory buildings. The reason we called the north tract the north tract is we had to differentiate between the two separate tracts of the subdistrict separated by Orange Blossom. The north tract is 4.52 acres, and it's part of the Longview Center PUD. The other portion of the subdistrict is also part of the Longview Center PUD. So as part of this process, we will now incorporate the ag-zoned church parcel into that PUD. I'm looking to see what's there that I haven't already said. The objective here is to allow the church institutional uses as an option on that 4.52 north tract as an alternative to the currently-approved commercial and office development and to establish development densities and standards for that institutional development alternative on the north tract. We've also limited some of the existing rights. For example, there will be no residential development on that north tract. Let's see. These are criteria for development within the subdistrict that currently exist, and these -- some of these are what we're requesting. For example, the No. 8, to allow institutional ancillary uses to the church limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet of gross floor area. So if the church chooses to exercise the option of constructing additional church-related facilities, they'd be limited to 30,000 square feet. They also retain the option -- it's not both. It's one or the other -- of constructing up to 10,000 square feet of retail and 15,000 square feet of office, which is presently allowed in the district. So as I said, we were going to add the 5.16-acre existing church tract to St. Katherine's. We're going to establish the north tract to differentiate some of the existing regulations within the subdistrict and within the PUD as they relate to that north tract. We're allowing -- requesting to allow institutional uses as an option on that 4.52-acre tract and also expanded uses on that existing 5-acre-plus tract and to identify the maximum intensities and densities. Well, there's no density, because we're not allowing any residential. This was the approved master plan. Pretty rudimentary by today's standards, but you can see the approved master plan which shows the north and south tract. And this exhibit is a portion of the updated master plan excluding the portion that applies -- the existing portion that applies to the south tract. We don't have the opportunity to change anything on the south tract, so we've added a separate sheet that deals only with the north tract and the church tract as part of the PUD. So I do have a correction to make. In your materials we identified a maximum allowance of square 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 74 of 83 footage on the existing church parcel of 27,000 square feet but, in actuality, the church was requesting 28,000. In just a few slides I'll go over the traffic analysis. We did revisit that. It doesn't have any impact on the trip caps that we've proposed, but we did ask Norm to revisit that. By the way, I forgot to mention, Norm Trebilcock is our transportation engineer; Barry Jones is our civil engineer; Paula McMichael works with me and worked on this project extensively; and Rich Yovanovich, who's been here all day, is our land-use attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wouldn't have known that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've been very quiet. MR. MULHERE: So I will go over those pages where that change has to occur momentarily. But on the church tract, we are allowing up to 420 seats -- that facility exists as we sit here today -- and accessory uses typically ancillary to a church, those are listed there. And on the north tract it's either up to 30,000 square feet of institutional uses or the 10,000 square foot of retail and 15,000 square foot of office. This is just more detail on those uses that are allowed. What's prohibited in the PUD. These are our development standards. We did ask for a deviation from the landscape buffer adjacent to Orange Blossom. The county has had three separate acquisitions or requests. I think two have gone through an order of taking, and the third was a request as part of this zoning action. The total acreage that has been taken from this property is to accommodate future enhancements to Orange Blossom, particularly at the intersection to allow for turn lanes and so forth, is over an acre, 1.04 acres. I did not know this but found out recently that one of the orders of taking has language in it that says that we could use up to, I think, 10 feet. It basically says we can use the land within the portion of the property that was taken adjacent to the property for the landscape buffer. But by today's standards, we'd be required to have a 20-foot buffer there based on the future configuration of the width of that right-of-way; probably based on the current width of that right-of-way. And we don't have room for that. We only have room for 10 feet. Practically speaking, you'll still have 20 feet. It's just that we'll put all the plantings within the 10 foot that we do control that's on our property. I actually think that's a better -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not what that stipulation requires. You can put the planting in the 10 foot of the -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 612 if you've got concurrency with the Utility Department. MR. MULHERE: It allows it, but I think we would still be required to do the deviation. Since we have the 10 feet, we'll put the plantings -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but the deviations would only fall back to 10 feet if the Utility Department would tell you they can't use the additional 10 feet you have of 612. I thought that's how you were going to rewrite it. MR. MULHERE: No. Well -- I mean, I certainly could do it that way. My thought was we've already committed to do it within the 10 feet that we have. If, you know -- I mean, we already committed to do it. It says we can use it for landscaping, but it doesn't really talk about plantings. I'll put it on the visualizer. So it says, respondents and their successors may -- I'm sorry. Battery's dead. All right. It's not going to work. Okay. How about if I just read it into the record. It says, respondents and their successors may also use said Parcel 612 for landscaping purposes not conflicting with the petitioner's use, and said use of Parcel 612 shall be a credit toward the required landscaping buffer for development of the remainder parcel used by respondents for such purpose. I just didn't want to end up having some condition later on where maybe the county agreed that it does conflict with the use because there is that conditioning language in there, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Bob, I'm not clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that that document that you just showed us is justification for reducing the buffer to 10 feet -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, partly justification, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- or are you also saying you're going to put it in the slope easement that the 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 75 of 83 county has? MR. MULHERE: No. I'm -- I personally was suggesting that that is partial justification to the deviation, and the plantings would be on our property. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not quite clear on why you would put the plantings all on your property when you have the ability to have a 20-foot buffer subject to the county's approval. If they refuse it, then the deviation kicks in. I thought that's what you were -- boy, I must be completely misreading things anymore. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: From the county's standpoint, I would think that it would want the landscaping out of the buffer. I don't -- I worked with our outside counsel at the time on this project, and I don't recall whether or not there's overlap with utilities in this location. So the county -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the stipulation doesn't apply. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The stipulation that he just showed doesn't apply. I thought it did. That's the problem. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's out of context. You have to read the whole document, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- look at the construction plans and see what it says. You know, I don't have that right in front of me now. I don't have the -- MR. MULHERE: The language is on the podium. The concerning portion of the phrase for me is it says may also use said Parcel 612 for landscaping not conflicting with the petitioner's use; the petitioner being the county. So I don't know -- they're not moving forward with the improvements now -- to what degree us putting landscaping there might conflict with the petitioner's use and, also, we would have to enter into a landscape maintenance agreement. Since we have 10 feet and we can put the Type D buffer plantings in that 10 feet, I just thought that was the easiest path for my clients. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My recommendation is to keep it out of the right-of-way. That's Orange Blossom Road, which probably is going to need more right-of-way in the future, and we don't need to be paying for plantings. MR. MULHERE: Perhaps I misunderstood. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, to me we do have the 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was -- saw this as making it better. But if -- for you guys, if you don't want it, that's fine. You had a benefit of this stipulation from the courts. I thought it would work to your benefit. The heck with it. It's not worth the argument, not worth the further discussion. So just move on, please. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So I mentioned that we had -- your documents had 27,000 square feet, and I would go over where that exactly was located, which should read 28,000 square feet. And this is the TIS. Norm is here to answer any specific questions, but I just wanted to show you that we did revisit the trip impacts based on the 28,000 square feet in the second box called "proposed development," and that is summarized here. The total p.m. peak-hour trips under that scenario, the higher total p.m. peak-hour trips is 98, and the existing approvals net a p.m. peak-hour trip of 99, and that's the number that we've agreed to. So it doesn't change the 99 trips that we have agreed to in our zoning document. On page -- just let me get to that. On Page 4 of the proposed PUD document, there is a table in the middle of the page under Paragraph 10 that identifies the proposed intensity and density for institutional. That's 57,000 square feet. That was based on the 27,000 limit for the church parcel. Since we are correcting that to 28,000, that number would be revised to 58,000 rather than 57,000. And also on Page 11 of 23 of the PUD document, there are two separate references to 27,000 square feet, and those would be revised to 28,000 square feet. That concludes my presentation. I have Norm here or Barry here if you have any -- Norm on transportation; Barry on stormwater/civil engineering, and I'll answer any questions that I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 76 of 83 MR. MULHERE: Also, Page 14 has a reference that we would correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, Bob. I'm looking at the GMP amendment. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the language seems to be -- seems to allow for both the ancillary uses and the commercial and office uses whereas the PUD is an "or." And I was just curious if those needed to be consistent. MR. MULHERE: Well, it says -- it actually says -- I mean, it depends on how you read it, I suppose, Mr. Fry. Item 21A on Page 2 of the GMP amendment -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I was looking at the item summary. Perhaps that's not the right place. MR. MULHERE: The actual document itself, on Page 2 of the proposed GMP amendments at the bottom of the page. I don't know if you have that readily handy. It's Agenda Packet 1288, if that helps. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ah, yes. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: When you get to it, I'll -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Got it. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So 21 says, the north tract is limited to the following maximums if it is developed with a mixture of small-scale retail and office. There's your 10 and 15, right? And then you go to B, and it says, not notwithstanding A above, which includes Paragraph 21, if the north tract is developed with institutional ancillary -- uses ancillary to the church located adjacent to the north, the following will apply, and it doesn't specifically reference the cap of 28,000 square feet or -- excuse me. I'm talking about the north tract. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thirty. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So you're talking about the church tract. I apologize. COMMISSIONER FRY: No, I was talking about the north tract. MR. MULHERE: So the north tract -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I was looking at the item summary. MR. MULHERE: Yes. The north tract has a limit of 30,000, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to make sure that the GMP amendment was consistent in saying it's either the ancillary purposes or the commercial and office, not both. MR. MULHERE: It's -- it's the intent. So let me just make sure. Does it say that? Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So it reads in that opening -- the third paragraph under 8 on -- I guess it's Page 1,287 of your agenda packet, which reads -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's unchanged text, I think, on the south tract. MR. SCHMIDT: It's "or." MR. MULHERE: It does say "or" there. COMMISSIONER FRY: It does say "or" there. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Bob, let's go to a few that I have. MR. MULHERE: Okay. PUD or GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4 of the PUD. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your -- you have, like, a summary on No. 10, and I followed most of it. The institutional, how did we get to 57,000 again? Twenty-seven thousand and -- MR. MULHERE: Twenty-seven and 30-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't it supposed to be 28- and 30-? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 57- goes to 58-. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 77 of 83 MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. If we go to Section 3, which is on Page 11 -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- residential uses are only supposed to be on the south tract; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And 3.2 says that as well as 3.1. But when we go down a little bit -- let me get to the next one. If we go down to Page 16, No. 7, residential units may be located on both the north and south side of Orange Blossom Drive. I'm trying to understand the clarity there. MR. MULHERE: Yes. No, that's a good catch. That probably should read "residential units may be located on," and strikethrough "both the north and," so that it would read "residential units may be located on" -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: South side. MR. MULHERE: -- "the south side of Orange Blossom." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have both ancillary and uses accessory uses. The ancillary uses would be ones that would generate their own traffic, and accessory uses would be with the church so the church generates the traffic for them. Is that how you guys looked at it? Because you're calling out ancillary uses on the north tract which would be off the church tract. So the accessories on the north tract have to be accessories to the ancillary uses on the north tract even though the ancillary uses are ancillary to the church on the church tract. You wrote this. I'm trying to figure it out. MR. MULHERE: I'm not even sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to -- MR. MULHERE: No. I just want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good project. I'm just trying to figure out -- make sure it's clear. MR. MULHERE: I got it. I just want to know what -- I'm not exactly sure where you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not written that way. What my understanding is, you've got a north tract and then a church tract. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ancillary uses can go on the north tract or the business uses, which is the retail and office. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you do the ancillary uses, they're ancillary to the church that's on the church tract. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then the accessories to the ancillary uses are accessories to the ancillary uses on the north tract but not accessories to the church on the church tract; is that right? MR. MULHERE: It sounds right. Then I'm going to ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys wrote this. I'm trying to figure it out. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I got that. Corby mentioned ancillary uses are only ancillary to the church use -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're on the north tract, not on the church tract. Accessory uses to the church are on the church tract -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but accessory uses to the ancillary uses are on the north tract, not the church tract. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 78 of 83 MR. MULHERE: It's the last sentence that I'm having a little trouble with, everything up until that last sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go to Page 12 and look at 3.4. Uses permitted within the north tract. A, principal uses, and it's talking about the 10,000 and 15,000, but then No. 2 talks about ancillary uses. Then you have B, accessory uses. What are they accessory to; the ancillary uses? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. Okay. So that's what it is. So those accessory are accessory to the ancillary uses, but the ancillary uses are accessory to the church uses tract. That's correct. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ancillary uses require the TIS, but the accessory uses do not. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So No. 2 actually calls them uses affiliated with the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got it figured out. Now, it probably won't matter that I got it figured out, but I got it figured out. Let me check to -- there's a couple stipulations by staff. Do you have any objections to those? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could turn to Page 17, the top of the page -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it says in the first -- second to -- the second full sentence on the top of the page, additional plantings will be added within the existing 10-foot landscape buffer to the greatest extent practical. What does that mean? What's the greatest extent practical? Whose opinion is that? Can we say staff landscaping reviewers at Collier County? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just add something so that somebody has a sign-off to determine what "greatest extent practical" is. MR. MULHERE: We'll add "as determined by staff." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. And you're okay with the county stipulations? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that's all I've got. I won't even get into Norm's traffic thing because it will be too confusing to figure out which accessories are ancillary and which are accessories to the church, and where would we go from that, Norm? MR. TREBILCOCK: I've got a one-sheet summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about two blocks? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, on Page 17 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Item No. 4, design standards. I had in my notes we were deleting. It should read, "No residential units are required to be constructed prior to construction on the church tract or north tract." So we're going to delete -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We just talked about that. You're going to delete -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Yeah, okay. So that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob and I just went over it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You did? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were taking a little nap. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I was following your ancillary uses to accessory uses to the TIS that doesn't really apply to the accessory uses. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 79 of 83 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the convoluted way we got there, it's actually the way you intended it to be. That's what was so surprising. That's interesting thinking. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any more. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we're totally confused. Corby, why don't you see how bad you can confuse this further. Are you doing Nancy's staff report? Oh, Nancy's still here. Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Just to report on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and be sure that you're talking about the two parts of the project that are involved. Shown in, I believe this is Page 59 or 19 of 59, it's the site plan or the exhibit that goes along with the resolution here. The north tract is the south half of the piece of property that's north of Orange Blossom, and these are the two parts of the property -- there it is again -- the south half of what's being shown there. And those are the parts of the property being referred to and the text changes that go along with the small-scale plan amendment. The PUD refers to these two pieces of property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only the north side. MR. SCHMIDT: They overlap in a strange way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, they do, but I think we've -- MR. SCHMIDT: And ancillary uses are accessory to what again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Nancy, do you have something you -- anything you wanted to add? MR. MULHERE: We could have thought of a better word than "ancillary." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a fine word. I just want to make sure we understood the flow of what you're getting so it's written in a manner that's not going to get kicked out when it gets into review. That's all. MS. GUNDLACH: Is it okay if I offer staff's recommendation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. GUNDLACH: And staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, that's perfect. Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, any public speakers registered, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public here wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, there's no reason for rebuttal, so we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. Do you want them separately? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we have to do each one -- I'll read them out. Give me a minute to read them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my fault. I should have done that. The first one is the CC -- it's the small-scale plan amendment, PL20180002258/CPSP2018-5, and it would be subject to the staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 80 of 83 COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The next item is PL2018000 -- yeah. You know what, I read that first one wrong. The first one was 20 -- the CCPC1 -- CPSS1 was PL2017003337/CPSS2017-2. That's the Orange Blossom mixed-use district. Could I have the vote again, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. And that's the GMPA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the GMPA, yes. I read the one below it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I'll re-second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All -- discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Re-aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is the PUD. It's PL20180002107, and that one we had a couple of conditions on. Let me see if I can find them. Staff recommendations and the revision as discussed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for an enlightening afternoon. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I feel like an accessory after the fact. MR. MULHERE: Wait. I was only responsible for a small part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you blame this on Paula. Oh, Paula. MR. MULHERE: No, I meant your entire day. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does this mean I'll never see another political sign on that corner again? 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 81 of 83 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Well, on the -- on the north tract. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: On the corner. MR. YOVANOVICH: The north tract, not the south tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the last things on the agenda today, and it looks like we'll be able to get through it. ***It's the PL20180002258/CPSP-2018-5. It's the adoption hearing for the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And since this is not legislative but the adoption, all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to testify on this, please hold your hand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Communications with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had just the same as -- this is from last time. I've had nothing since last time. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing since last time we met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Anita, it's all yours. MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Commissioners. This is the adoption hearing for the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Since we last met, the Board of County Commissioners did hear the item at transmittal. They approved it unanimously to transmit it to DEO. The Department of Economic Opportunity did provide comments back to us. They made a couple of suggestions that are included in your staff report. And that was to include development standards or intensities for commercial uses. We did not make those changes and do not recommend including those kind of standards in your Comprehensive Plan amendment, and that's been the only change so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow, that was quick. Okay. There's no public speakers. It looks like this will -- you haven't got to wait till November 7th now. So with that, we'll -- I guess there's nothing else. We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Anybody want to -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will not be supporting the motion for the same identical reasons I didn't support it the first time, and they are: Number 1, changes in the density are not warranted based on revised downward population projections for buildout of the Immokalee urban area. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No data has been provided justifying the increased intensity. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 82 of 83 Number 2, allowing the LR areas for industrial uses such as alternative energy and RMD facilities unnecessarily consumes limited urban areas, and it's incompatible with not only the low-density residential areas but also the MR and HR areas. Number 3, adding an additional band around north and west side of Immokalee Airport will exasperate the development of the existing Immokalee Airport, and no data has been provided justifying this need. Number 4, the new plan downzones some properties without due process to notify owners and adds densities next to existing properties that were not contemplated when the owners originally purchased, thus creating incompatibilities. Homeowners in what they thought were low-residential neighborhoods could be facing substantial issues with higher-density neighbors. Number 5, this plan does not take into consideration the changes that might occur during the surrounding RLSA replanning effort, such as the population reduction. The entire replanning effort was supposed to allow for a period of overlaps between the different abutting areas so one plan could be modified to reflect the needs of the other. This has not happened. And, finally, No. 6, Immokalee needs to look at long-term strategy for the future; however, the future with this plan continues the limitations of the past. The higher densities and intensities mix closer with a dissimilar residential, limit economic diversity, and without the prospect of substantially improved property values, Immokalee will never be independent of Collier County. Now, those are my reasons for voting for denial. With that, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, are we in the discussion phase? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are. Well, I think we passed discussion. You guys made a motion but, I mean, that's where it was. I'm not -- I think -- COMMISSIONER FRY: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got something -- COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, your input is always very well considered. And so my question for you is, if not this, then where would we go -- where would Immokalee go from here, you know, with those concerns that you have? How would -- how would we be able to move Immokalee's future forward? You suggested, I think, a lot of rather substantial issues with the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think these make the plan worse, not better. So if Immokalee had the plan it's got now, we'd probably be better off than with this plan. This one is going to increase densities that we're going to have to deal with in the future from 129,000 to -- or 126- to 139-. And we were told they're going to have a reduction in population to 47,000, which needs less than 20,000 units. Now, that's not practical either, but it sure doesn't justify 139,000 units, and I just don't see the need for it. And it's like everything else; you give density away, you can't take it back. And so that's my concerns. But I'll be long dead before that ever happens, so that will be for future entities to deal with, and I'm fine with that, but I just want to make sure I'm not someone contributing to it. So that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. With that, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed? Aye -- like sign. Okay. That wraps it up, 5-1. And I think that takes us to the end of our agenda, gentlemen, and that was a good day. So I want to ask 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) October 31, 2019 Page 83 of 83 again, please, come prepared to ask your final questions on Rivergrass next Thursday -- or next Thursday. It may be the only thing on the agenda. I'm not quite sure yet. There's been some talk about moving it around. But regardless, we should get out of there at a decent time. I hope Rivergrass doesn't take the whole day. I'm not counting on it. So with that, there's no new business. There's no old business. The public's gone for comment. So is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. 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: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:21 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 10-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (10936 : October 31, 2019 CCPC minutes) 12/03/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 3.B Item Summary: November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes Meeting Date: 12/03/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 11/21/2019 1:07 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/21/2019 1:07 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 11/21/2019 1:08 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 12/03/2019 5:05 PM 3.B Packet Pg. 87 November 7, 2019 Page 1 of 55 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 7, 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: Mark Strain, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Edwin Fryer, Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board ABSENT: Joe Schmitt, Environmental ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 2 of 55 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the November 7th of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 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? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt notified us he had an excused absence today for another commitment. Addenda to the agenda. We have four items on today's agenda, but two of them have been requested to be continued. So I'll ask for a motion to continue the following two. It's 9A2, and I'll read it. It's PL20170002897/CPSS-2018-3. It's the Oil Well Road community facilities subdistrict, and the second one that was being continued, both of them to the December 5th date, is PL20180002368, and it's a parking exemption located on the east side of Tamiami Trail North south of River Court. So with those two, is there a motion to continue those to December 5th? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick, seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is on November 21st, and unless we don't finish something today, November 21st, I think, has one regular item and several LDC amendments. That may change, but that's the best I can recall right now. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 3 of 55 So, anyways, does anybody know if they're not going to be here on November 21st? Okay. We'll have a quorum. We're good for that day. Approval of minutes on October 17th. Is there a motion to either -- is there -- anybody have any changes to the minutes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick, seconded by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Ray, BCC reports. MR. BELLOWS: There has not been a Board of County Commissioners meeting since last Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's quick. I have no chairman's report. There's no consent-agenda items. We'll move right into the first public hearing. ***It's a continuation. It's 9A1. It's PL20190000044. It's the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area. It's been continued from September 19th, October 3rd, and October 17th to today. 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 since the last time, or if it's just the same as last time, that's fine, too. Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Same as last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Kind of a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When I worked at the county, we had a process called an insubstantial change. And if they sent one change sheet out of 30, and I got all 30 sheets, I felt obliged to read all 30 sheets to look if anybody had changed anything that wasn't shown on that. When I get a -- I have 3,000-something pages to look at today. I'm not going to do that, okay? Yeah, you laugh. It's not funny. I would prefer just to receive the changed sheets from now on; is that possible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, like you, I can't keep rereading all those pages, so I'm still working off the first set of documents that was sent out. And I expect as we walk through those documents, we'll be told of any corrections -- questions we raise. So that's been working for a while. I don't know how to do what you're asking and still give us all the information that we need to have because some of us may want to see it in context and not just the changes. Is that -- so you're just asking -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have the original that you got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you've got to open up two documents on your screen and compare them page by page and walk through. That will actually take longer than probably rereading the whole document, honestly, at least it would from -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I don't care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any disclosures? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Only the usual correspondence that I got through staff. COMMISSIONER FRY: Since the last meeting, a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, a meeting with two members of the applicant team, and Mr. Mulhere and additional emails from various groups filtered through staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 4 of 55 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing since last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had the same ones last time. I did receive some correspondence from the Conservancy; I think everybody did. I talked to the -- Meredith with Wildlife Federation, we had actually a correspondence, and then that's -- I think that's about all. I can't remember any others. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing, whatever we received in email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing since last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, the way we had approached this, we laid out an order of review for the various documents. And from the best I can recall, we reviewed -- we had the applicant's presentation, the traffic report discussion, the economic report discussion, the environmental report discussion, and at the request last time we moved public comment up to the end of those, and we had public comment at that last meeting. So what we haven't done -- and these are probably smaller sections and segments to deal with, but we haven't walked through the SRA document to ask questions we may have from that. We haven't walked through the staff reports to ask questions we still have -- may have from those, and I compared some of the LDC and GMP languages, and there's probably still a few of those I need some clarification from staff on. After that, we would get into the applicant's rebuttal, and then the CCPC would discuss and have a recommendation. So if it's okay with the rest of you, we'll just move on through like we were supposed to and pick up with the SRA document. And, basically, it will be us asking questions of either staff or the applicant from the language in that document. And so I'll turn to the Planning Commission. Does anybody have any questions first from the SRA document? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just want to be sure that I understand where the -- what certain numbers have evolved to. And, in particular, is it a minimum of 62,5- square feet of scaled retail and office uses? The number 62,5- is not 60,000, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: It's 62,5. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And, second, in earlier evolutions of this, it said a maximum of 250 dwelling units. And I think we mean a minimum, correct, single-family? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, multifamily. I'm sorry. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. It was a minimum of 250 multifamily. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, yes. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it's minimum, not a maximum. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not max. It's a minimum. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question from staff. It's on Page 3 of the staff report, and it's a Roman Numeral II, Item 9. And it's a question I brought up before, and I don't remember getting a clear answer for it. And I'll read the language that I think is a problem with that section. Let me find another document that has that language in it. So hold on a second. And in the LDC, and it's Section 4.8 something J under design criteria, it says, the size and base density of each form of SRA shall be consistent with the standards set forth below. A couple sentences after that it says, the base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in an SRA by the acreage therein that is entitled through stewardship credits. Now, the division that I've seen so far is simple 1,000 acres divided -- 2,500 units divided by 1,000 acres. And it's easy. It comes out to 2.5. But if you follow that direction in the LDC, it comes out to 3.23 development units per acre. So I don't know which one is the correct one for -- it seems to me the LDC is designed -- that's the criteria that 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 5 of 55 would be the correct one for the LDC on Page 3 -- or, I mean, for the SRA on Page 3. But I keep -- I've asked this now privately with staff in the pre-meeting, I've asked it at the last public meeting, and I've never gotten an answer. I just need to know what you guys want to do with this so we get the right number down here. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Well, the calculation, when you subtract out the excess open-space acreage per the LDC, ends up being 3.099 dwelling units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I had a different number than that, but then I had the old acreage. Maybe I erred in that, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I'm sorry. Can you give me the -- quote the section of the LDC again so I can read along? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You know how -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it under villages? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem -- no, our table -- our LDC has got these huge sections, and you've got to scroll pages and pages back. So let me go back to the beginning and see what page we started with or what -- and it's 4.08.07, SRA designation, and then you've got to scroll all the way down to Section J, which I believe -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Design criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then if you see design criteria, if you go down about two-thirds of the way, you'll see a sentence that says the base and then it's bolded, residential density is calculated by dividing the total number. That's the piece I'm trying to understand, because that is the acreage that needs stewardship credits, not the gross acreage of the town, of which about a quarter to a third is noncredit acreage. So I'm -- I just need to make sure we use the right divider and multiplier. That's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask you -- can we pull the visualizer up. Is this the provision you're referring from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm referring to Section J. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's under J, and that's the table that pertains to the villages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the language in that sentence I read under J. You don't have that section. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, but I'm looking specifically at the village tables, and you'll see under the village tables it says it's one to four DU's per gross acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it doesn't say that's how you calculate the density for the way -- necessarily, for the way we have to state it in the SRA. And since this is the design-criteria section of the RLSA, I thought that sentence must mean something. Where would you put it if you didn't use it there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere for the record. To further confuse things, there's two terms used there. One says base density. The other says gross density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it says residential density. Does it say gross? Where's the gross? MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm saying the table that Rich just put up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. MULHERE: So you have two different, you know, ways to calculate them. We can calculate them both ways if that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to figure out where you defined where your base residential density is. If it isn't in the SRA document, why are we asking the question if it's never used? So somewhere that was intended to be used, and I don't know what it's supposed to be used for. It is a different multiplier, and it may have impacts on other documents because of the way things multiply, and I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it. And I've brought it up at the other meetings, but I've never gotten an answer. I thought staff would research it before today, but I guess that didn't happen. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it does matter, and here's why I think it matters. You don't want to discourage developers of towns and villages, et cetera, to provide excess open space and shrink the footprint, because -- and if you do that the way you're talking about calculating it, if you provide more open space than you're required to 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 6 of 55 do, you don't have to use credits for the excess open space. So you could, inadvertently, trip yourself and be 4.01 because you went with a smaller footprint by providing more open space. That doesn't make any sense to me that you would punish somebody for providing more open space in a more compact footprint in a village or a town. I would think you would look at them more specific, which is the village criteria that speaks in gross density, gross acreage. So I think that the calculation that we have of 2.5 is the correct way of measuring it, and that's my two cents and I think the way the document should be reflected, but I don't think you want to go with a net acreage, if you will, because you would be discouraging the provision of additional open space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it's net, because it's only excepting out those areas that aren't entitled to stewardship credits, and that would still include all the commercial and the other areas that aren't residential. So you've still got more than just the net residential parcels involved because you've got everything that isn't stewardship credits. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if I said "net residential parcels" -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said "net." MR. YOVANOVICH: I said "net acreage," I thought, which would mean any of the open space that exceeded would not count towards your calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Richard, if this was written in a manner that you wanted to use it, I'm sure the argument would be, well, it's put there for a reason; therefore, we get to use it. I need to know what the intent of that section was because if that multiplier changes from 2.5 to 3.23, there may be impacts on others documents and agreements that are in play here. I just don't know. And I've asked -- like I said, it's not -- this didn't come up today. It's come up well over a month or six weeks ago, and I still have not got an answer from either Comprehensive Planning or Zoning on this matter. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let's get the answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we do that? MR. KLATZKOW: Easy. David? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David's not zoning. This is an LDC -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, but I want to know, how do you calculate it by -- pursuant to the GMP, which is the controlling document? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks for the Comprehensive Planning section. I'm looking it up right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to other things, and we'll get past this one, then. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to look to see what the Future Land Use Elements says, but sometimes the Land Development Code can be different. It could be more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Specific. MR. WEEKS: -- specific or limiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you do recall I did ask this before. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: It could be more restrictive? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but if you get more density under the Land Development Code than contemplated by the GMP, that would be inconsistent with the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not the question of more density or less. It's more the calculate -- the density's going to be -- the amount's going to be the same. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just going to be -- it's going to have a different multiplier, and that involves all kinds of documents, you know, so that's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And perhaps you can have a base residential density that exceeds four in a village, but the measuring criteria for consistency with the LDC is on a gross number. So you're looking at the gross acreage for determining how many units you can have, and perhaps the Board wanted to know how does that translate into a -- I'll use the word "net." May not be the best word, but a net based upon the amount of credits. They would 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 7 of 55 be consistent interpretations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or -- yes, and maybe they wanted that to be something that helped them understand how we reached fiscal neutrality, too. So it has a lot of other impacts. And I just want to make sure we look at all of them, whether it's a DCA or anything else that's involved. But I'll move on, and we'll come back to that before -- before we end up today. In your permitted -- this is on Page 5 under the context zones of the SRA document, 5.1.1.A, permitted uses and structures. This is No. 3. Senior group housing including, but not limited to, ALFs and CCRCs subject to Florida Statutes and applicable LDC provisions. There's no cap. I mean, so, basically, you could make the entire 1,000 acres all senior group housing if you wanted to. Is that what you're intending? Because I'm not sure how that's going to factor into other issues either, because you could have -- I mean, I don't even know how many units we're talking about. There's nothing here to define it. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Strain, at the risk of getting off on a good start of agreeing with you, I agree that, theoretically, the entire village could be senior housing under the neighborhood general, which is basically everything but the village center. That is clearly not our intent. If you will give us some time to figure out a maximum number of units, or we can do acres -- because don't forget it's still a floor area ratio. But I know that is a big square-footage number, and I understand what your question is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just come up with some number, and we'll use that as a basis for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll either come up with a number of acres, which will translate to a number of floor-area-ratio square feet, or we'll come up with a number of units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 6, clubhouse and amenity centers for residents and guests. My issue here is, you're asking for those in the neighborhood general context zone, which is the bulk of the project, but those are going to be subject to the locations on the master plan, as shown on the master plan, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: I apologize. I was listening to a comment. What was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the same section of the SRA. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 6, clubhouses and amenity centers for residents and guests. I know you want to do those, but because you're putting them in the context zone, they have to coincide with the locations on the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Come up here, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Those -- I mean, we can put a reference to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Master plan. MR. MULHERE: -- as depicted on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's all. Your master plan is conceptual. You've got to be generally in that area, and that's all I'm trying to get to. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Because if you look at No. 7, that's the smaller recreational facilities that we don't know where they might be located within particular neighborhoods. So, yes, No. 6 could reference the locations depicted on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go down to accessory uses and struct ures, you also have clubhouses and amenity centers and residents and guest under accessory uses and structures, and you also have them under permitted uses and structures. Why do you have them in both sections? I mean, if they're accessory, you've got to have a single-family or multifamily unit on the same parcel in the context zone to qualify. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, good question. You know, my opinion is that the -- No. 3, the clubhouse and amenity centers for residents and guests would not be accessory, because it's a, you know, permitted principal use, but No. 4 would be accessory, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't -- I was questioning 3 right now. So let's -- so 3 you would take out -- you could strike out of that section. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 8 of 55 MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, I'm reading off the most recent version that Heidi distributed, I think, earlier this week or last week, because it's the easiest one. There's so many. I figured that's the best one, so I reread that, and that's where my questions are coming -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm reading from the document attached to the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I am, too, right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure you and I are reading from the same. MR. MULHERE: So I understand. And, Mr. Chairman, my thought was along the same lines that No. 7 under permitted principal uses could be taken out since it's listed under accessory uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that would work. And, Bob, when you plat this context zone, the intent would be to subdivide it into fee-simple lots, but then you'd plat wherever you're deciding to put these neighborhood recreation centers or clubhouse as common areas or something like that. You'd plat those separately. That's how you would end up doing that? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: When it's a project that would require platting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You could have an SDP. I understand. But I'm just -- I want to make sure you're not going to take R tracts and try to plop these on them. It wouldn't be what I intended. You're going to actually separate the tract out, whatever lot it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we were not lumping everything into being a single-family project, because we have to do multifamily as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your general development design standards table, it's on Page 6, a couple small questions. Your minimum front yard for clubhouses and amenity centers, that's the only one I have a question of. You say 10 feet. You do know that 10 feet will still have your overhangs going into the utility PUEs that are alongside all your roadways? So if your front is fronting a roadway, and you've got your utilities alongside it, we don't allow overhangs to go there. So usually we look at those at a minimum of 12 feet now. We've been trying to correct that as we've gone forward. MR. MULHERE: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the footnotes, the No. 4 and No. 5, they both have a word that I'm -- I mean, I know what the word means, but I'm trying to figure out how we judge it. Number 4, zero lot line and townhouse development means three or more attached units typically one or more stories in height. Then it says, other multifamily means three or more units other than zero lot line or townhome development typically more than two stories in height. "Typically" doesn't give us anything. So you could have multiple heights but they -- because of the word "typically" wouldn't you -- how do we -- how do we judge -- how do we set a standard with "typically"? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll tell you what. I would strike through the reference to height in both and just leave it as zero lot line townhome developments means three or more attached units, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Other multifamily means three or more units other than zero lot line or townhome development, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. MR. MULHERE: We just wanted to be sure we defined -- use the zoning definition for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your permitted uses in the next section, it's the allowable uses in the village center context zones, Number 7. One of the criteria for an SRA that's different than a PUD is you're supposed to show that you've got some convenient shopping or necessary facilities, both commercial and retail so that the residents don't have to drive into the urban area every time they need something. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a whole mix here, but I don't see a standard that says you're going to 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 9 of 55 have -- you're going to at least have X, like a grocery store or a gas station or something like that. I don't see any detailed planning of how this village center is really going to serve the community that it's supposed to serve. MR. MULHERE: Well, we have a minimum required amount of neighborhood commercial -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- square footage, and we have a list of uses. And depending on the market -- I mean, obviously, our optimal design would include a shopping -- would include a shopping center with a grocery store. And, you know -- and to be a shopping center, you have to have eight or more separate retail establishments or, you know, personal space. But in this case it's limited to neighborhood commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, Bob, look at No. 22. Now, right there, you could blow 80,000 square feet in just a couple of acres, and there's your whole -- I mean, there's your whole section. So I know you don't intend that, but we need -- I think from a planning perspective, we need some commitments on some of the uses that are going to be there to service the village so that we know the village isn't going to put an abnormal amount of traffic on the road system. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, I don't think -- and I know there have been different definitions of group care, but I don't think in any definition I've ever seen from the county a "qualified as retail." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why do you have it under there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because that's an allowed use within the village center. I still have to do, in the village center, at least 62,500 square feet of retail and office neighborhood goods and services. It doesn't mean I can't also do with that 62,500 square feet multifamily because, in fact, village centers are required to be mixed use. So it's not -- I still have to meet the 62,500 square feet of retail and office requirements. I still have to meet my civic requirements. So I would agree with Bob that the lists of retail and office uses are the types of uses that will serve our residents, and I'm obligated to do at least 62,500 square feet of those. I'm not obligated as part of the initial approval of the SRA to identify which from those uses I guarantee you I will deliver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but my concern is that you could pick any one of those, and some of them more reasonable than others, and say the bulk of your 62,500 square feet is going to be that item, and that item may not service the needs as completely as a multiple of items with limitations on square footages for each under a planning perspective. MR. MULHERE: Just give me one. I might have a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand the concept. Would that be something we can -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll just talk -- before the meeting's over, let's get back to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: That will be on the list like assisted living. So you're asking -- you basically say -- and I know this is what they teach us to do in law school. Go to the ridiculous. You don't want me to do 62,500 square feet barbershops. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, or retail nurseries. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But you want us to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or retail services. You need to tell us -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Or you want us to say the grocery store can be, who cares, because Publix has all kinds of different kinds of prototypes. You're saying the others you want to say "not to exceed X." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to have a grocer, that's great. If you're going to have a gas station or something so people can service themselves out there, that's fabulous, but we need to have some kind of commitment of the sizing so we don't have all of -- too much of one thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Following up on that, the same -- sort of coming at the same concern. In earlier iterations of the description of the proposed ordinance, the words "neighborhood retail" or "neighborhood scaled retail" appeared in that -- in those iterations. And then the word "retail" dropped out and "commercial" came in in its place. I just want to be sure that we're still talking about a minimum of 62,5- and a maximum of 80,000 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 10 of 55 square feet neighborhood scaled retail and office uses. Is that the language? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. All right. And so now what we're concerned about is tightening up to some degree, if possible, the concept of diversity of mixed uses. It's things that are geared to keeping people from having to drive to urban areas, like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Reducing the times that they would need to do that. Because for us to say somebody's never leaving this village to go -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Ned, that's what we're trying to get to. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. We've got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to the next -- Page 9, and this is the village center development standards. And, Bob, if you look at the second column, ALF, CCRC, and multifamily buildings only. I recall -- and Richard may not remember this project, but it was one about a hotel in Bayshore that had a demand that they -- because the table said 700 square feet per unit, that all the units had to be 700 square feet. You're not telling me you're going to do a CCRC with every unit at 700 square feet, are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: I remember that very well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figure you would, but then maybe we ought to correct this so that it reads -- I don't think this should be -- I don't think you're intending to do all those senior living facilities at that size? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you need to asterisk and reference the multifamily. MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm making a note, to put an asterisk and say, does not apply to CC -- to the ALF or CCRC units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It wouldn't be good to have a dispute on this one when we just got out of the last one. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we should -- lessons learned. I think we both agree that as we get older we get smarter, or we reserve the right to get smarter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a compliment? Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I'm aging with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're a lot younger. Let's look at front yards. Same issue with overhangs on front yards, Bob. It says zero or 10 feet. How are you going to deal with any utility easements that are there? You can't do zero because then you'd be in the utility easement. So what was your thoughts there? MR. MULHERE: Well, I'll be honest with you, I wasn't really considering the conflict -- if there's a conflict with the utility easement, then it obviously has to be whatever -- it has to be outside of that conflict. I think we're okay to put 12 feet there for front yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go down to buildings, height, actual, you're looking at 60 feet, and I think -- well, I think you just answered it. Yes. Okay. Never mind. I got -- that tied into the front yard. MR. MULHERE: And that's consistent with what the requirements are in the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you explain Footnote No. 1. MR. MULHERE: So let me just read through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to picture how that applies. MR. MULHERE: I think it came from discussions with Landscape Review, but let me look at it for a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be Mark Templeton. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if -- yeah, he's not here. No. Well, maybe you could get back with us on that after you have time to think. I'm not trying to rush you with an answer that might not be accurate. I just need to know -- I can't figure out how it applies. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think the first sentence is pretty self-explanatory. You -- I mean, maybe it would 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 11 of 55 have been easier to say, shall -- because it's measured from the property line if you have a separate -- well, not necessarily if you have a separate platted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract, it's measured to the tract line. MR. MULHERE: Tract line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you'd have tracts abutting the minimum required 25-foot landscape buffer which in itself would be a tract -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Oil Well Road shall provide a front-yard setback measured from the landscape buffer. That's where your zero and 10 would apply, right, or zero and 12. MR. MULHERE: Now 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depending if it's a PUE or not. Tracts abutting the project entrance road shall provide a front-yard setback measured from the 10-foot landscape buffer tract adjacent to the entry road. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Oil Well -- you mean, like, a driveway entrance, not a road? MR. MULHERE: That's correct, within the project -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wouldn't be -- would it be a public road or private road? MR. MULHERE: Private road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And that did come from discussions with Mark Templeton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, if you look at the end of No. 2, except as described in Footnote No. 1 above, front yards for parcels abutting a street or internal driveway shall be measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. This excludes public roads. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means none of your internal roads, then, would be public if you're going to use that measurement. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. MR. MULHERE: Well, no. If it's a public road, then the setback will always be measured from the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right-of-way line. MR. MULHERE: Right-of-way -- well, that's the same as the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the PUE issue kicks in for the overhang. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's why we're going to change it to 12 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The lake setback up on the table says 20 feet, but you've got this little Footnote 3 after the word "setback," and down below it says the required 25-foot lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract, and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to zero feet. Why say 20 if your intention is zero? Because you'll never -- you're never going to use the 20. MR. MULHERE: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to plat your LMEs, aren't you? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, this is really a standard that we've applied most recently. As long as you have a separate tract that provides the 20-foot landscape maintenance easement around the lake -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What if we change "shall" to "may"? If we do decide to provide a separate tract and you can't go to zero -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if it's on -- if it's an easement, then we've got to meet the 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's what you were saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, I know we've done these things in the past before, but this one land-use 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 12 of 55 attorney used to say we reserve the right to get smarter. MR. MULHERE: I got it. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Believe me, I regret saying that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I use it a lot. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 5.2.3, village center required parking, you have a second paragraph that's a whole bunch of language. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a deviation? Is that what you're trying to get? And if it's not a deviation, then why is it there? Or if it is a deviation, it should be in the deviations section. If it's not a deviation and it just says you're going to abide by the LDC, then why do we have that paragraph there? And the same thing falls under VI, excavations. What are these two -- what is this in there for? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a question of timing. And I had this discussion -- although he's not here anymore, this was inserted after a discussion with Mike Bosi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, the last guy leaving always gets blamed, till the next guy leaves. MR. MULHERE: I know. It's okay. I mean, the point here, Mr. Strain, was that if you think about it for a minute, how do you do a multimodal split determined parking analysis? I believe the intent of this was that you maybe don't need all of the parking that the LDC requires. So if you do this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: If you do this comprehensive study, you could come in and ask for less. It's asking for that up front. We don't even know the mix of uses. How could we possibly do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But even if you didn't ask for up front, when you determined your mix of uses and the LDC allowed you to apply for that, why -- you would just be able to. Why would you need -- see, I hate seeing us repeat the LDC in the documents all over and over again, because it screws things up. MR. MULHERE: No. The difference is the timing. The LDC requires it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning with -- MR. MULHERE: Right now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with this application? MR. MULHERE: -- with this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then wouldn't you need a deviation from the LDC to clarify that issue? MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. It's not a dimensional standard, so we're asking for different timing. So at least according to the discussions I had with Bosi, it was put it in the SRA document. MR. YOVANOVICH: To the extent, if Heidi and Jeff now decide we need to add a deviation for that, we don't have an objection to adding it to the list of deviations. It didn't come up. But if we need to do one, we'll add it as a deviation. Nobody thought we needed to call it out as a deviation. But if we need to, I don't think it's -- we can do that as part of the review. MR. MULHERE: It was just timing. You got to know the mix of uses to be able to do the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, why wouldn't we be doing this, then, for every PUD? Why does it seem to be unique then for an SRA? MR. MULHERE: No. Because this study is only in the SRA section of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the SRA section, which was written by the property owners out there through their engineers at the time or experts -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- put that language in there to apply to a certain time as they move forward, and the timing was now one that you've decided isn't the right timing? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, to me it's -- I'm not saying -- I don't know that everything was done right 17, 18 years ago. The timing of this just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't disagree with you. I think there's other things, though, that don't make sense either that we keep telling -- we're now saying we've got to live by. So I think it's a quid pro quo. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 13 of 55 We've both got to go back and forth a little bit. MR. KLATZKOW: If it doesn't make sense, we're not going to insist on it. I mean, Ray, does the provision make sense? MR. BELLOWS: No, it doesn't. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you jump that it doesn't make sense, if the intent of the village context zone or village zone was to show that it's providing some self-sufficiency for the village that's being produced and that this would have happened at that time based on those uses that you're going to put there, it would have answered the question I started earlier when I said we need some limitation in knowing what you're going to put on a size basis. So I think the intent was probably correct. It puts it on the table earlier so we have a balance in what the village commercial and residential needs are to one another. We don't have that now. So they're saying because we don't have it now, we're still supposed to approve it on the faith we're going to get it, but on the second -- we want this exempted until we do figure out what we're going to do. But we want you to give us the faith and approve it without it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My recollection of this issue was, in prior versions of the SRA, they wanted to be able to count alternative types of modes of transportation that might occur in the future that might be more in use or -- in other areas, and so they wanted a little bit of flexibility to bring in other types of transportation that -- I don't know, Nancy. That was my recollection. They wanted -- you know, there were some other things. I don't know if mopeds were included, but it had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you bringing in -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Electric bicycles. I mean, I don't know. I remember there was golf carts. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's my preference. We recognized -- we amended, basically, the Land Development Code several years ago recognizing that there would -- you were only allowed to bring deviations originally as part of the very first SRA document. You couldn't even do it through the amendment process. So we corrected the Land Development Code to allow for deviations to be asked later on in the process, recognizing that the one-size-fit-all criteria may not work and deviations would be appropriate. I would prefer that we just add a deviation for this to say we're asking for a deviation to be allowed to do this at SDP instead of at the SRA because it takes makes more sense in the village to do that when you know the mix of uses and whether or not you need a -- whether or not you're going to want an alternative parking calculation. I think that's more consistent with how other deviations are being processed right now, recognizing this is the first village to go through. I think, consistent with what the Chairman is saying, perhaps we just should list it as a deviation instead of a provision, and we'll add a deviation. I don't think anybody's objecting to the provision. We'll just call it out as an additional deviation in the -- are we in the village center section right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're in -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on Page 10, 5.2.3 under village center required parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we'll just add it as a village center deviation, if that's -- if that's okay with the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I've just got one question. Deviations to be added as PDIs or, in this case, an SRA-I, if that's what we would call it, have become rather common because they're a way to clean up some things like this that may not have the right applicability at the time. What would -- you don't even know if you're going to need this yet. You're putting it here just in case you might. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. But if you're -- and I know you used to work on the development side. Certainty and time are two critical elements to the development process. So to then come back and do an amendment process to say I'd like this deviation, best-case scenario is six-month process, and why would we add another six months to add a deviation that everybody's saying right now it mak es sense? Let's add it up front and say, we'll deal with this later at the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to walk through all the deviations, and we'll get into that 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 14 of 55 discussion, then, and see if we need to add this one as whatever number. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I don't -- if it's inconsistent -- any of the language in here is inconsistent with the LDC, it's supposed to be called out as a deviation; that's all I'm getting at. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about excavations? Why do we need that language there? I think I know what you're trying to do. You don't want to be called a commercial excavation because you're crossing a road. Like Orange Blossom Ranch has got one on both sides, and they have to cross Oil Well, and I think they got an exemption from commercial excavation to cross Oil Well, didn't they? MR. BELLOWS: That's my recollection as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know how they went through that. Do you, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There was a PUD amendment where that was part of that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a deviation to the PUD amendment? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that's what I'm getting at. MR. YOVANOVICH: This was -- this is actually a codification of -- and Mr. McLean's not here, I don't think. We met with him way back when this was even part of the original town application; that he agreed that this was the correct interpretation of the LDC. So it's not a deviation. It's just putting of record the interpretation as part of the SRA document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, Matt McLean isn't authorized to provide interpret ations to the LDC. Only Mr. Bellows is. MR. YOVANOVICH: The correct application, and he does apply the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand he applies the code, but I think the interpretation is what Zoning department does; is that not correct? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there has not been a request to officially interpret this provision. I don't know if Matt has -- and it sounds like he may have been applying it this way. But my recollection is when -- Orange Blossom Ranch, that was part of the PUD discussion. But I'd have to double-check if it was listed as a deviation. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is one of those instances, Mr. Strain, when some of us are no longer here to say, when you're going through this process, what was supposed to be the rules of the game. We wanted this in the document so everybody understood the rules of the game. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all I'm trying to do is make sure it's consistent with the way we're supposed to do it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing. I just want to make sure the consistency's there, because whatever happens to this first village is probably what we're going to be seeing repeatedly in some of the other villages in regards to how they operate. So I want to make sure we're right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will? Yeah, see. That's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I said I don't think that you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you said we will. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I don't think that we will. I'm trying -- you know, I'm familiar with what's coming in and one that's already in, and I don't remember that being in any of those documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The deviations are the next item. And I asked Nancy to write up her summary of the deviations, because so many have either changed, been withdrawn, or modified, and she did. The problem is, don't match the document that Heidi produced, and they don't match the notes -- or the markup that I saw on the other documents that we've had, what, five or six copies of. So I'm afraid I don't know what deviations are good or bad. I don't know what modifications are good or bad. I don't know how to say this is a deviation or not. I don't know where to start on this, Bob. I know you walked through it last time, but then I've got now two different more -- two new different versions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Could we just hear what Nancy says is inconsistent with what Heidi wrote? 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 15 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if Nancy checked them. I did, because I read Nancy's, then I read this, and I said, wait a minute, these aren't the same. MS. GUNDLACH: I've checked them, Mark. So I can help you if you need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start -- well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I need help, because I thought we were right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with No. 1 and make sure everybody's on the same page, and we can -- we'll have to walk through them all and just get it done. And I don't mind if you move fast, Nancy, just so we know -- I don't want to spend time on ones that have been withdrawn. I just need to know which ones are withdrawn and which ones have been modified. MR. KLATZKOW: And could you put them on the overhead so everybody can see. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many of them are there now? MR. KLATZKOW: A lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would like to work off of Heidi's resolution attachment. MR. MULHERE: Fifteen I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifteen? Because we started at 19. So you've withdrawn some. Okay. And the way this one's written, instead of 1 through 19 or 1 through 15, it's written as 7.1.1 or 7.1.2; whereas, Nancy had some that are 7.1.13 and 7.1.14, and those are the kind of things that I found I couldn't match up, and I need -- that's where we're coming from today. So let's start with the first -- on Page 10. Okay. There we are, right there. So No. 1 is struck, is withdrawn? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And No. 2, the only change you want on that, which will now become No. 1, is what's in red. And I have a question: When you support a shopping center that includes a grocery store, shopping center would need to be bolded. I believe it's a defined term in the LDC. And the reason that's important is is because your TIS defined shopping center differently than the LDC does, and I want to make sure they're all on the same page. MR. MULHERE: I'm unaware of any bolding in any PUDs. I know the LDC uses bolding or any SRA document. I'm unaware of that. If you want us to bold it, we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But say shopping center as defined in the LDC. MR. MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't want us getting mixed up between the TIS which uses a different standard. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think Corby had some changes to the No. 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: Mark, staff has a comment from Corby Schmidt. MR. MULHERE: I got that, as defined in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, is Cormac Giblin here? MR. MULHERE: He's out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point today we've got housing questions. We'll need him to respond to those. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Corby Schmidt, principal planner with your Comprehensive Planning section. In order to resolve some of the issues with definitions or uses of terms, staff has come up with a better way to address this listing and the one that follows it to the LDC section, the one below it. I'll read through it. It's J.3.d.ii.q. They read somewhat similarly and had the same reference for the exception to front -yard parking. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 16 of 55 And in order to remove the shopping center reference but yet have the same result, staff recommends the phraseology that parking is prohibited in front of buildings, then replace it with "except when such parking is within the same block perimeter as and is in support of a grocery store." And for the following -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that particular one applies because of the reference, 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii), that applies to No. 1. Is that the one -- the first one? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the one they've withdrawn. You're saying leave it in but change the language. MR. SCHMIDT: It's the new 1. The one which is numbered 1 to you -- MR. KLATZKOW: Why are we doing this? Honest to God. Can't we get these god damn documents just straight? It's like every -- everybody -- time somebody looks at it, they've got to say, I've got to make a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I don't know what we're voting on. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea. Honest to God, I've been asking for, I don't know how long, could we get a box with a bow to go to the Planning Commission so everything's set. You guys get to read the documents once. You comment on the documents. We get some changes. It goes to the Board of County Commissioners. This is like the never-ending story here with changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what you expect us to do because -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm just -- why are we doing this? MR. SCHMIDT: You've asked to make reference to the resolution version. That's what we're looking at now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Right. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm working off of the resolution version, so there should be no confusion for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we working off the top paragraph on this page that's in front of us or the bottom? MR. SCHMIDT: The top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The top paragraph, look at your reference, 4.08.07.J.3 whatever. That's the reference that they're now saying they've withdrawn as a deviation. That's No. 1. MR. SCHMIDT: It's not in your resolution. There's no withdrawn No. 1. The resolution that's already withdrawn with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just got the -- this is the document Heidi gave us just -- just sent it out last week. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Hold on. Let's go -- Mark, let's go back to the document that was originally on the overview, okay. All right. So we got rid -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not -- MR. KLATZKOW: We got rid of 1. Now we're on 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, because -- you're on 2, because -- old 2 is now 1. MR. YOVANOVICH: Heidi's version that you're reading from is the Old 2, No. 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Corby is now trying to modify what Heidi provided to you-all right now for the first time for anybody to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: County Attorney and us, because we had gone through all of these, and I believe Heidi has accurately reflected in -- and she said she was going to do that for everybody. That you were going to have the resolution, and that's what we're going to review from. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, unless -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to do, yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Unless -- staff, unless you've got something that's material, I mean, this is nonsense. I mean, we're not changing them on the fly here. I mean, Corby, you're in the same building as Heidi's in. You know, you guys have got to sit down with us and just say, look, this is the reason why we want to have it changed. Honest to God, it's not like you live in a silo without a door. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 17 of 55 But, no, I don't understand the change. I think the change is worse than what you have. And I would just go with the way, you know, Heidi has it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only exception I have then is that we define shopping center -- MR. KLATZKOW: As defined in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, can you put your language up so we can just make sure we get an agreement. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want Corby's language. I want Heidi's language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want Corby's language. I want Heidi's language. And we'll reference the LDC, as you just talked about. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The language that, you know, I provided to you is the version that you saw before as modified. So these are new changes that I'm seeing this morning for the first time, and so is Nancy, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- you know, I can't comment on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have any concerns one way or the other? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we need to know what we're voting on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to be voting on Heidi's version that she used from the other meetings, and I was real pleased she put this together, because it's a complete package that we're hopefully working off of. Unless somebody's telling me it's the wrong package to work off, we've gotten I don't know how many versions of this over the last month and a half. It's ridiculous. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whatever you decide to do is -- you know, you're the board who has to make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- decisions. I was just trying to put something together so we were all on the same page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. We're going to withdraw Corby's edits and, if need be, we'll address that in front of the Board because we don't want to cross -- obviously, we're contributing to confusion. That's not our intent. So, again, we'll just withdraw, and we don't believe they're substantial, but regardless, we'll withdraw. We'll address at the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's move into the next one that we should be working off of. If we go back to the most recent resolution language sent to us, which is the one we're referring to as Heidi's, we'd be looking at 7.1.2, was the one we just corrected in that document, but where do we go from here? Because the next paragraph, 7.2, and I believe you had 7.1.3 and 7.1.4, Nancy. Did you not? Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, would you mind if we take maybe a five- or 10-minute break? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be a great idea. So let's come back at 10 minutes after 10 and try to figure out what document we want to use. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 9:54 a.m. to 10:04 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. It looks like the discussion that needed to happen for 10 minutes or so has occurred, so we are going to try to figure out how to move through with this. And I am one of the people who has had multiple documents of the -- basically of this -- of different changes, and all I'm trying to do is figure out which one we're supposed to be voting on. Staff, I believe, now, has got some clarity. Nancy's going to walk through -- and you can do it quickly. Just tell us which ones are in or out and which ones have changes and what staff's position are on them, and we'll be good. MS. GUNDLACH: Great. Good morning, Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're using Heidi's SRA version. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 18 of 55 MR. YOVANOVICH: Resolution version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The resolution version. MR. KLATZKOW: The one you're voting on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I wanted to make sure I understand it, because it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: Work off the one we're voting on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the one we're voting on already has No. 7.1.1 withdrawn, right? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. 7.1.2 is changed as the language indicates, but they're going to add a reference to it's the LDC definition for grocery store -- or shopping center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shopping center. Okay. Where is the next one, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Give us a number. There we go. MR. MULHERE: There's another deviation on the other page. MR. YOVANOVICH: Does staff agree with Heidi's version? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. That's why we're walking through it, to find out. MS. GUNDLACH: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Zoning staff and legal staff are in agreement with the document in front of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa. MS. GUNDLACH: It is the SRA document dated 10/30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Your agreement with the document in front of you on the overhead, because the document that we have in front of us doesn't have No. 1 crossed out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it's not in there at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That's going to be fun to follow this. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll tell you what. Let's make this even easier. Can we put on the -- I don't know, the resolution that we're voting on rather than what you have? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. That's what we've got in front of us. MR. KLATZKOW: So the first one's fine except with the reference to the LDC in the shopping center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Second one, same thing. MR. MULHERE: Same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 7.1.1 -- okay. Except for the reference to the shopping center and the language to make it a definition as found in the LDC; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 7.1.1 in Heidi's document is not withdrawn. 7.12 in Heidi's document is the one below. What's the status on that one? That also references the shopping center, so that would also need the same language. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And anything else, Nancy, on that one? MS. GUNDLACH: Staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any changes to that one? MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to 7.2.1, on the second page. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Can you scroll down. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. Operator error. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: 7.2.1, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any changes? 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 19 of 55 MS. GUNDLACH: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 7.2.2? MS. GUNDLACH: 7.2.2, staff recommends approval and no changes. 7.2.3, staff recommends approval, and there's no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Moving along to 7.3 -- do you want me to go through each individual one or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Do you have any changes to any of those? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. There's no changes to any of them. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff is okay with all of those? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, we are. MR. KLATZKOW: So it's whether or not the Planning Commission has any comments on any of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I'm trying to find out. Okay. So staff's okay. There are no changes. That's the language we've got in front of us? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. Moving along to Section 7.4, sign standards. Staff is recommending approval of 7.4.1 and 2. And moving along to 7.5, landscape standards, staff is recommending approval of Deviation No. 1. And regarding the other deviation, 7.6.1, 2, and 3 and 4, staff is recommending approval of all of them as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what basically remains, with the exception of changing on the very first one or two, staff's approving all of those? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to find out. I think that's only thing -- I don't have any questions right now on those. We may come back to them later, but right now it's fine. Anybody else have any questions on the deviation? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't have any problem with the deviations. I have other problems. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have that in my rebuttal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are in the SRA document. If you have any questions about the SRA document, great timing right now. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, when would you like us to clarify the two items that you asked us to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as you have time to figure them out. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're ready, but I didn't want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's bounce back up. I'm going to be going to number -- Page 14, that's the last page of the document, next. Why don't we finish that and we'll go back to your next two items. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to know when was appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C, it's under transportation, 8.3.C, no more than 1,750 dwelling units will be issued COs until a minimum of 30,000 square feet of neighborhood retail and office uses have been developed and issued COs. So that's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven years into the project. So for seven years the capture rate and internal pass -- and pass-by rate on the TIS wouldn't apply. How are we looking at that from a transportation perspective? And I don't mean you to answer that as much as I need our staff. Since this was -- I don't -- I imagine this was reviewed by transportation staff and signed off? You can't have a capture rate if the commercial isn't there. And I'm trying to figure out how that was allocated in. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. We realized that as the project takes off, that their internal capture will get greater as the project progresses throughout; that they will need the rooftops to be able to support the commercial retail uses. So this language had come in, and staff didn't have a problem with it. Our bigger fear would be that they would build out all the residential and not build any commercial at all, and so 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 20 of 55 this gives a little bit of protection as far as getting some of that. And so, yes, we are fine with that language. We understand that the internal capture will come as the project matures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the internal capture won't come until the commercial's there. Are you on the same page as me on that thought? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not going to come as the project matures. It's not going to come until the project has gone on for seven years with a capture rate that is not real hitting our road system because there is no capture rate for the first seven years. So how we factored (sic) that in? MS. SCOTT: So as they come in for their individual Site Development Plans or plats for these projects, they will not be able to apply in internal capture if there's nothing to -- for that, and that internal capture gets applied for the commercial side, not on the residential side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in the meantime, the folks that would drive to these commercial facilities will be driving into the -- elsewhere. Orangetree, the urban area, somewhere else. MS. SCOTT: Ave Maria, other areas around Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: All around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you took that into consideration in their traffic analysis for the local road system for the first seven years? MS. SCOTT: They don't break it down into that manner. We're looking at the project overall at buildout and what it will look like on the roadway system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at buildout you're taking in full impact of the capture rate and pass-by rate. MS. SCOTT: Yes, but it will be as they come in for their individual projects. It will be reevaluated at that time. And they have a trip cap that would be their base -- or their maximum that they can go to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. So if they have a trip cap, does the trip cap get exceeded by -- say without commercial but with 1,750 residential dwelling units? MS. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that means we're covered because you based everything on the trip cap. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If you said that at the beginning, I probably would have understood it better. Thank you. Richard, on the parks and recreation, 8.4.A, the SRA shall include a minimum of one children's playground that conforms to yada, yada, yada at 2,500 square feet in size. The playground shall be located in the amenity center tract on the SRA. There's only one of those, though, isn't there? So you're either going to have a playground on the north side or the south side. You're not going to have two of them, because you've really got a separated village. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have an amenity center tract on the north side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what are you going to do with the children on the south side? Oh, they don't count? COMMISSIONER FRYER: They get to cross the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, real -- Rich, I mean, if you're going to -- if you got communities -- the kids have got to have probably two tracts. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, providing a playground is not a requirement of the SRA in the first place. Staff asked us to do at least one, which we've agreed to do. We may have more. So we've committed to the one. Someone, I forget who it was, asked us, where is it going to be? Because they wanted to identify it, I guess, because of the concern of having one on the south side that might actually be within somebody's subdivision and you'd have kids playing and it somehow would create a problem. But I think we've addressed that now in the development standards that exist. We can have more. We have to have a minimum of one, and the minimum of one will be in the amenity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 21 of 55 MR. YOVANOVICH: We can have more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just makes it -- but, see, it just accentuates the awkwardness of a village split by a six-lane road. And -- because you're going to have kids using -- if the kids want to use the playground, they've got to go to the north side of your development, and they've got to cross that road to get there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if we have an issue where kids want to use playgrounds, my guess is the builders who are going to develop are going to provide playgrounds for the people who are buying their homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8.5 is other. Is "A" a deviation? MR. MULHERE: No. No. That was a request from staff to put that in there. I reviewed the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why would they put it there if it's required by the LDC? Maybe Nancy can answer that. I mean, if it's required by the LDC, it doesn't need to be there. If it's there, that means it's not required or it's different than the LDC, and we would either need it as a deviation or whatever. You're -- explain. MR. MULHERE: It is not a deviation. Street trees are required in the village center as specified in 4.08.07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: You know, I can't really remember what the basis of the staff request was to put that in there, but it's not a deviation because they're required as is written there. We can take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just suggesting, why put it there if the LDC already requires it? That's all I'm getting at. It says so in the first sentence. MS. GUNDLACH: The LDC doesn't specifically address it, so they're just providing it for clarity. MR. MULHERE: It does require street trees. I think it doesn't deal with, you know, what -- the dimension of on center and so on. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, the spacing. The tighter spacing. So they're actually doing something -- they're clarifying it. Giving us an equal amount of tree canopy, but just spacing it tighter so that they have an equal amount of canopy. That's not addressed in the LDC specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It sounds like it's more of a developer commitment than a deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think, yeah. If it's there and that's what we're going to get and it's better than the LDC, that's an improvement. MS. GUNDLACH: That's good. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's in the developer commitment section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'm fine with it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying, in response to the comment, it's not in the deviation section; it's in the developer commitment section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the two clarifications you had you wanted to bring up that we talked about earlier you found out about? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are those? MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's -- could we go back to the sections so I make sure -- Mr. Strain, what page was that in the SRA that you brought up? Let's talk about the CCRC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 9. It's on your development -- your Table 5.2.2. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we would cap the number of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. That's the table. You're -- that's the square footage. You -- you're talking about the total amount of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Wherever -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- acreage for ALFs. MR. YOVANOVICH: Wherever appropriate -- and I think we were in the neighborhood general section when the comment came up, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Page 5. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would cap the number of -- the CCRC, ALF, independent numbers at 300 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 22 of 55 MR. YOVANOVICH: And then on the comment on 5.2.1.A, permitted uses, how do you know you're going to get a diversity of these type of uses? We would commit to a minimum of eight of the retail and office uses identified in 5.2.1.A being developed within the village center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does that include a grocery store? MR. YOVANOVICH: We would have eight of them. If we had a grocery store, we'd have seven of the other. If we didn't get a grocery store, we would have eight from this list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would give you the diversity. I think you were concerned that we would just have one big whatever and not -- and not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're close to other developments. For example, if they have a grocery store and the rooftops and yours can't support standalone, obviously then it wouldn't be good to put another grocery store side by side, or it may not work right. So I'm not -- as long as there's some kind of mix that we're assured of -- and I think by having at least eight retail and office, we get that mix, and you also qualify, I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That would meet the definition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for shopping center. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. That answers those two questions. And let me make sure I've got all mine on the SRA part of it. And I don't know if any of you have anything left. Oh, we've got to go to the master plan. The master plan is following the 14 pages of text. I mentioned this before. I can't remember if it got solidified. We are going to be removing the references to the panther fence on the north and south ends of the Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way area. Do you see where the word "panther fence" is up on top and on the bottom? It's on all the master plans. And I don't think it's appropriate, because we'd have to end up changing the master plan to have that -- to extend that road. It doesn't make sense. MR. YOVANOVICH: I see it. Do you want the entirety of the panther fence, or do you want the panther fence not -- you're right, it does look like it crosses over Big Cypress Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm trying to say. Let's not show it there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if we go to extend that, someone's got to amend the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: I got it. I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And all of them have the same reference at the same location. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So it will stop on the east side of Big Cypress Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I get the direction right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, you got that right. Under your disclaimer, Bob, the master plan is conceptual, internal roadway alignments, golf course routing, light siting and configurations of development areas are subject to modification within the RLSA guidelines at the time of final development order. Your -- that is indicating then that they be insubstantial, because if you get -- you can't do anything that's going to need a public process. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. If they rise to the level of substantial, we have to go through an amendment process or a public process, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your next master plan -- it's the one that is black and white. On the table to the right, you say Rivergrass Village SRA land-use summary. You go down, you have a lake ME and open spaces in a shaded gray. Where is that? And you also have lake tracts, LME, which I'm thinking you're only going to put an LME where the squigglies go north and south instead of east and west, but I don't think that's true either. That's it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Judging by the light gray color, yeah, it's up here. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But all the -- okay. Because you've got a lot of lakes. I just don't know why those are the only ones that you're calling lake ME and open space. Sixty-five acres, that's not just that. But the color 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 23 of 55 coding doesn't match the diagram is what I'm trying to say, so I couldn't follow it. MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you look at the table below where it says WRA land-use summary, see those little squiggly things going north -- they're up and down? I see where that is, so that makes sense. But next to it there's a little gray patch to the left of that symbol. And, again, I don't know where that occurs on this map. And then you've got -- MR. MULHERE: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the little squigglies that -- I keep referring to them as that -- they look like a water area. See your ones that go east and west, Bob, down in the core of your development? What symbolism is that referring to? Because it can't be the club site and amenity center because that's on the south side of Oil Well. Those aren't matching up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think what -- the right thing to do, get rid of that little gray and just make sure that's all just the squigglies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You like that word? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. If I didn't like it, I would have changed it. I didn't know what to change it to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. MR. YOVANOVICH: But squigglies, I think that light gray should come out of that rectangle so it's just the squigglies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so, too, because you don't intend that to be an LME that -- I don't see it there at least. Do you see -- if you look at the lakes in between your two roads going north and south, you notice the squigglies are going east/west. MR. MULHERE: Yes, right -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What symbol do they fit under? MR. MULHERE: So they fit under -- well, there's two symbols under lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says lakes include aqua range at 14.3. MR. MULHERE: So these are -- obviously, you can see that those are not north and south. They're east and west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those are all the lakes and including the aqua range to the south. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is on the south side -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. I think, though -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me move down. If we go down to the next master plan, this is Page 3 of the master plans. Under your notes -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all roads -- all road right-of-ways shall be 50 feet unless otherwise noted. They're going to be -- MR. MULHERE: There are a couple -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be at least 50 feet unless otherwise noted, right? Because you don't have anything below 50 feet, do you? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're not going to make a smaller road than 50 feet, because you're not -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 3, project sidewalks will connect to future pedestrian facilities installed during Oil Well Road expansion. Okay. What expansion are we talking about? Two lanes? Four lanes? Six lanes? MR. MULHERE: It's already two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already two. But, I mean, when it goes to four? It is going to go to six? So what -- what time are they putting the sidewalks in? I guess that's going to answer it. And then those -- wherever they are, you'll connect to them. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 24 of 55 MS. SCOTT: Once again, for the record, Trinity Scott. The roadway is designed and permitted to be built to six lanes. We may build four within a six-lane footprint. We'll make that decision when we program the construction of the project. But in either event, the sidewalks will be built whether it's a four-lane or a six-lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And will they be required by that sentence to connect at either point, whether it's four- or six-lane? Because they'd be connecting twice, then. Because if you go to four lanes, then expand to six -- or would you build a sidewalk out to the six-lane configuration? MS. SCOTT: When we build a four-lane and a six-lane footprint, we build the outside lanes and then later widen to the median. So we would build the sidewalks in their ultimate configuration, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. Number 4, at the developer's discretion, a 10-foot-wide pathway may be located within perimeter landscape buffers 25 feet or greater in width provided the required plantings are located between the property line and the pathway; however, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased in a width by five feet. So you take 25 feet, you drop it down to 15, but you add five more feet giving you a 20-foot buffer if you put a pathway in it. Is that what that's saying? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next one, a 10-foot-wide pathway may also be located within the perimeter buffers that are less than 25 feet in width; however, in no such cases the buffer width shall be increased in a width by 10 feet above the minimum required width. MR. MULHERE: However, in such case, the buffer width shall be increased -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Can you explain how that -- so you've got a 10-foot pathway, and you've got a buffer width of 15 feet, let's say. I mean, I'm not sure what buffer widths you're talking about. MR. MULHERE: So the buffers that are less than 25 feet in width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How -- say, a 10-foot buffer. MR. MULHERE: Or a 20-foot buffer. 10 -- let's go with 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ten-foot buffer you put a 10-foot pathway. MR. MULHERE: You'd have zero, so now you have to increase that by 10. So you're losing nothing on those smaller ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed to understand, okay. And that may, thankfully -- oh. On your -- I don't know what page it's on, a few more pages down, you have what's called an SRA local street right-of-way section. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the intent of putting that in here? MR. MULHERE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take a stab, and if I need to bring Dominic up, I will. But there were issues -- apparently, this SRA program really never contemplated Public Utilities serving these CRAs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rotate that 90 degrees, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I liked it better like that. MR. MULHERE: So we worked with the Utilities Department to come up with a cross-section that was supported by utilities, and this represents that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't a cross-section of the streets you're putting it. You just said 50 feet. This is 48. MR. AMICO: For the record, Dom Amico, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. Forty-eight feet is the minimum cross-section for a local road in the SRA standards out of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but they're putting in a 50-foot street. MR. AMICO: We've got two more feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're adding something to the 48 standard that you're not using because you're asking for a deviation or you're asking for -- you're going to be putting in 50-feet roads, right -- 50-foot roads? MR. AMICO: Yeah. That extra two feet doesn't really change the situation that we had. The situation was the interface between the street trees and the utilities. That's the entire purpose for this cross-section is for the utility 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 25 of 55 issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- MR. MULHERE: Change to 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You're going to attach this to your PUD or SRA as you call it. Staff's going to look at it when your plans come in. They're going to see 48 feet, and that's what's going to happen. MR. AMICO: We can change the 48 to 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's all you need to do. MR. AMICO: The sole purpose of this was utility driven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- I don't have a problem with -- I understand your purpose. I just saw the road was the wrong configuration. MR. MULHERE: Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see. I think that's the last thing I have on the SRA document. MR. KLATZKOW: Can I ask a question about the master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: If we can put it back on the overhead, the color version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I just want to get clarity on the record, because the Board of County Commissioners just recently went through a hearing where initially it was supposed to be one PUD, it got separated into two PUDs, both of them gets gated. And the issue here is, are we sure that we're not really creating two separate gated communities here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they said these are going to be gated. MR. YOVANOVICH: Within, for instance, Pelican Bay or the Vineyards, they have multiple gated communities. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But you've got an activity center on the north, all right. So how -- if you got two gated communities here, for example, the community that's now on the south, how are they getting to your activity center? MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean the amenity center? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, amenity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I just want to make sure we're talking the same language. Well, what they will do is they will -- the communities interconnect in multiple locations, but right here, they would simply cross over Oil Well Road to get -- I can't tell from my reading glasses. Is that the amenity center? Thank you. So you could -- there's the ability to cross multiple locations to go from north to south. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just saying, is there a prohibition on where the gates go? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. They would have access to get there. MR. KLATZKOW: Until there's a gate. When you have two separate communities with two separate HOAs -- and I've just gone through a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners on this. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I watched it from the cheap seat, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. So you understand the issue I'm raising. How can we ensure that the people who live on the south portion of this village actually have access to the north portion are not gated out? MR. MULHERE: Well, there's an amenity center on the south portion, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a golf club, right? MR. MULHERE: But it's also an amenity center. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So what you're saying now is you're contemplating two separate things. What I'm saying is, can we get clarity that the residents in the southern portion will have -- will have access at least to the amenity center to the north? MR. YOVANOVICH: I misunderstood what you were saying. Okay. Step back. The amenity center on the north is for the residents on the north. MR. KLATZKOW: Not for the residents on the south? 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 26 of 55 MR. YOVANOVICH: No -- there's no commitment today that the residents on the south will have access to the amenity center on the north. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So for clarity, we're not talking about an integrated village. For clarity, we're talking about two separate gated communities here. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's not true. MR. KLATZKOW: It is true, because you just said that you're not going to make a commitment that the residents on the south will have access to the amenities on the north. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just like I'm not going to commit that people who are not members or playing at the golf course will have access to the golf course either. That doesn't mean they're separate communities. We have projects throughout the county where access to amenities are limited. Not every resident has access to an amenity. MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't a criticism. I'm just trying to get clarity. So what we are creating here, Richard, are two separate communities that will be gated, all right. So when we're talking about amenities to the north, that does not mean that the people on the south will get them, and the same thing vice versa. So if the Planning Commission's fine with that, you know, that's fine, but that's what we're creating here. We are creating two separate gated communities, not one integrated village. And unless there's a prohibition on gates here or where gates can go, that's what's going to happen here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, are you saying that what we're really creating here is two villages? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Not -- you're not creating any village. What you're creating here are two separate gated communities. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Frankly, I just -- I've got to respond to that. The testimony from your staff is that we are, in fact, creating a village. Within that village there will be gated communities. I just want the record clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hear what you're saying, but we're going to get to the staff report in a minute, which those issues will all be requested -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anybody else? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a couple of questions. One came up in the material that we got from the Conservancy recently, and that has to do with the number of stewardship credits to be assigned to SSA 15. Would you care to explain what is going on with respect to that process? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, SSA 15 is an approved SSA that is being held in escrow, and it gets released from escrow when this SRA document and all of the required state and federal permits are issued. It already has an identified number of credits. And I don't have the number right off the top of my head. Bob will look for it while we're talking. We are in to amend that SS -- and we meet -- that SSA as held in escrow by my law firm has enough credits already assigned to it to allow for this village to go forward. It has enough credits. We are doing some amendments to that to further reduce the types of activities that can happen in the SSA that will generate more credits. We're going through that amendment process right now. Those amendments are not necessary for the approval of this Rivergrass SRA. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the consequence of this, I believe, is going to be that the owners of the SSA 15 will be able to provide lots more credits to other receiving units. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's exactly how the program was intended to be developed. You were to create SSAs, get credits, reduce the amount of activity that can happen in the SSA, i.e., doing a better good for the 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 27 of 55 environment and, in exchange for that, open lands that we went through the very first day, would be allowed to be developed. The process is working exactly like it's supposed to work. There's no consequence. It's the intended consequence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And out of fairness to the applicant, the SSAs aren't something reviewed by the Planning Commission. The application in front of us today is for an SRA. We really need to confirm that they have the right amount of credits for the SRA, which was acknowledged by staff. The program's issues with abundance of credits from SSAs really needs to be addressed during the review of the RLSA, to be honest with you. I don't know how we'd bring that into play here today. I read the Conservancy's document closely. I saw there's potential problems today, but I don't know how they would enter in today's discussion, because they base the village on credits they already had, and we don't review SSAs. So unless you've got another idea, Ned, I don't know how to bring that in. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I just wanted to remove the blinders for a moment so I could see what the bigger picture was, and I think I see it. My next question is that -- am I correct that buildout is planned for 2032? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I believe that's correct. For some reason I have 2030 in my head, but I might be confusing it with another project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So really the achievement of neutrality, of cost neutrality to the county, won't be measured until 2032 and conceivably could result in additional costs -- undoubtedly will result in additional costs to the county between now and then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the program is set up to measure neutrality at project buildout. That's when you measure it. Those are the rules of the game. That's when we measure it. That's what all the documentation is there for. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the program. MR. KLATZKOW: Fiscal neutrality, forget it. What you have to ensure is that the impact fees will pay for the growth. Because when you get to 2030 and you start calculating it, what are you going to do? Are you going to give them -- are you going to ask the developer -- you know, you're $5 million short. It's not going to happen. So I think what the county really needs to do is ensure that the impact fees are properly set so that hopefully growth pays for growth. That's the only neutrality you're going to get. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it could be a rather long time before the project is off the dole, so to speak, in relation to the county. MR. KLATZKOW: The project's not going to be on the dole, though. It's -- the school board has the opportunity to ask for land if they need land for the schools. I don't know if they have or not, but that's an opportunity that they have, and the county has the opportunity to either ask or acquire land for, you know, its government needs, and then we have the exact impacts fees that pay for it, at least a portion of this, and that's how this is set up. And truth be told, it's no different than any other PUD. Essentially, that's what we're approving here is a glorified PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, one of the policies refers to a progressive urban-to-rural continuum. So the multifamily is a part of that equation. I wanted to just review the commitments regarding the multifamily and make sure that I understand them, and it's out on the table. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe the commitment is a minimum of 250 multifamily units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Within a half-mile of the village center -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- at this point. The original -- 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 28 of 55 COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. It's 250 single-family. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. We talked about this earlier. The minimum of 250 multifamily. Minimum of 250 multifamily. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're right; you're right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Around the village center within a half-mile. MR. YOVANOVICH: Within a half a mile of the village center. COMMISSIONER FRY: The initial policy or the rule was written that it was maximum four-acre parcels for these multifamily projects, but you've asked for a change to 25 acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, not to exceed 25 acres. So you can have the multifamily products that you're familiar with seeing: Apartment complexes, condominium developments. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- I guess my question is -- it's similar to the question about the commercial uses that go in the village center. And you've clarified. You've, more or less, made commitments to do eight commercial uses within the village center. Are there further commitments in terms of where these multifamily projects would go? I mean, I guess my concern is that are we opening ourselves up for the possibility of one multifamily development on 25 acres, which is two-and-a-half percent of this overall thousand acres, that's 2.5 percent, where all the multifamily is concentrated, or is there a commitment to spread that around the village center and to define what types of multifamily projects there are? I mean, are you committing to condos? Apartments? Villas? Townhomes? I just -- I'm looking just to understand the commitment to make sure that we have this -- we achieve this progressive urban-to-rural continuum. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And for clarity, you're referring to the half-mile distance to the village center related to a deviation. If they comply with the LDC and do the four-acre projects, I don't believe that there is a limitation -- Nancy, do you know -- as to the distance that multifamily needs to be from the village center? It could be anywhere. MS. GUNDLACH: There is nothing in the LDC. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's only if they elect to do the deviation that that applies. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. That's not -- if that's how it's being interpreted, that's not what was intended. This came up with a question of how do we show that you're getting more dense to less dense as you got further away from the village center, and we committed that our multifamily will be within a half a mile of the village center regardless of the size of the acreage. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So we'll place that outside the deviation section? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So make sure we get that right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Second, I don't know the exact mix right now, but we will commit that we have multifamily on both the north and south side of the project, if that will help. I don't think I can commit to you today the type and the exact location. I think the half mile helps. But I think to give you -- to show you that we're spreading it out, if you will, we'll put it on both the north and the south. I don't know the exact split right now, but we do plan on splitting that minimum of 250 to both the north side and the south side. We might be able to get you a better -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I can get you exact numbers by -- MR. YOVANOVICH: By when? How about we'll try to see if I can get you that exact number today, but if I can't, I can definitely commit to it at the -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Exact number of what? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of the split on the north and south side. I can definitely commit to that as part of the final SRA document that the County Commission hears. But if you want to -- what we talked about, I guess, at the last hearing is condition your approval upon there being a split between the north and south side if I can't get the exact split before we conclude business today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would there be any commitment as to a mix of the types of units that would be put in? 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 29 of 55 I mean, would you commit to at least there would be some mix of townhomes, condos, attached villas, that type of thing, so we have a diversity of housing types as is called for? MR. YOVANOVICH: We do, and we're already required to do that. But I cannot commit to you to X percentage of townhomes, Y percentage of, you know, flat -- you know, I can't commit to that today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac Giblin is here, and during the discussion in the staff report, there's a portion of it about housing. I was going to ask him to talk about the issue of diversified housing in this location as well. So you'll hear some more at that point, so... Okay. Anybody else have any questions from the SRA document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've got that far through it. Let's move on to the staff reports. There are two staff reports. One is the FLUE, and one is the staff report that Zoning Department did. I think we'll just go through the Zoning Department's staff report, and then there are portions of that pertaining to the Comprehensive Planning staff, and we'll ask for clarification to for those items that work. Is that okay with everybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Nancy, I'm afraid to ask this next question: What version -- the staff report that I'm working off of, September 19th, 2019, is that the right one? MS. GUNDLACH: There's only one staff report, and that is the right one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we have an issue, because that staff report still has your recommendations that you've previously pulled the plug on. Okay. And so does the -- we don't have a Comprehensive Planning staff report from either you or Zoning that says you no longer have these recommendations. We have it on record, but our writing in our document still put all that stuff as part of the review. So we're going to have to review it. Now, I know you stopped reviewing it last time because you changed your mind, but I'm going to need to know why you changed your mind on each one of the things you previously felt so strong about you had to put it in writing. So I guess we'll start there. We'll work our way through the staff report done by Zoning first. And does anybody want to ask any questions before I start? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy, on Page 5 of the staff report, back to the question I've asked repeatedly, first bullet point, 2,500 residential units with a density of 2.5 units per acre. Again, we have a different -- did anybody check that to see if they've gotten a resolution to that? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I've checked it. And there's two different definitions. There's one in the GMP, so there's a density you arrive at per the Growth Management Plan, and there's density that you arrive at per the Land Development Code. And the Land Development Code SRA section has an interesting definition for density in that it's not -- it doesn't include the excess open-space acreage. So if you take the number of SRA acres, total number, which is 997.53, and you subtract that excess open acreage, which is 222.77 acres, you arrive at 774.76 acres divided by the 2,500 units, and you arrive at 3.099 dwelling units per acre or, if you want to round it off, 3.1 dwelling units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the SRA document an amendment to the GMP or the LDC, or is it a change to the LDC or to the GMP? Richard, I'm asking staff. MS. GUNDLACH: I think I know the answer, but, Ray, I think it's the LDC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a resolution. I know it's not an ordinance. But does it -- is it pursuant -- is it a document that's under the LDC or GMP? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The SRA document is a designation process covered by the Land Development Code, and it needs to be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the calculations, definitions, and references in the zoning staff report are 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 30 of 55 those relevant to the LDC; is that correct? Because if it is, then we would be looking at a density of 3.1 rounded to this number. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, correct. We are reviewing this to be consistent with the LDC requirements. And if there's a consistency problem with the GMP, that would be part of the staff report as well, if there was one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The GMP, apparently, has a different way to measure it. But this document, if it's -- and David's coming up, so maybe he can help us with that. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. I concur with what Nancy has stated. The difference in the Future Land Use Element RLSA overlay is it provides for no exception. It simply says, take the gross acreage of the SRA and divide that into the total number of dwelling units to get your density. The net result is, through the Future Land Use Element calculation, you're going to end up with a lower density. Because, as Nancy's explained, the LDC provides that for the open excess open-space acreage, two things go hand in hand. First of all, you don't require stewardship credits to be consumed for the excess open-space acreage and, secondly, you don't calculate that -- use that acreage in calculating density. So because you have fewer acres divided into the number of units, your actual density, then, is higher than you would get under the Future Land Use Element. I would point out that this is not unique. We actually have a different circumstance. It's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing here, but it's a parallel, and that's within the Future Land Use Element's density rating system for how density is calculated. If you have wetland acreage, that would still be included in the Future Land Use Element calculation of acreage -- excuse me -- a specific type of wetland, tidally influenced or marine wetlands. The Land Development Code definition of density, residential, would exclude those marina wetland acres. So we have a parallel circumstance where the Future Land Use Element density would be using a larger acreage; therefore, we're resulting in a lower density, and then the Land Development Code's requirements would have a lesser acreage and resulting at a greater density. It's a direct parallel, in my mind, to what we're seeing here. Different reasons, perhaps, but it's -- this is -- my point is, this is not unique that there is a difference between the two documents. MR. KLATZKOW: David, is the proposed density of this development consistent with the GMP? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is the proposed density, Nancy, of this project consistent with t he LDC, which is 1 through 4? So they don't have excess of 4, but they have 3.1, and from the GMP they got 2.5. At some point those multipliers get to be used in other documents. I just want to make sure we know what the multipliers are and they're used in the correct documents to come to the correct calculations. That's the whole question. That's where all this was coming from. MR. WEEKS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I appreciate your clarification, David. Thank you. In the conditions of approval under -- in conclusions and conditions of approval under the Comprehensive Planning section of the Zoning Department's staff report -- so I'm not sure if Nancy wrote this or if Nancy copied this or Corby wrote this or David wrote this. Conclusions: Where the proposed R -- SRA lacks consistency with the intent of the RLSA provisions of the LDC, it may not be considered consistent with the FLUE. Where the proposed SRA does not conform to the fundamental village design characteristics as identified in the standard review findings above, it is not supported by a recommendation for approval. And based upon the above analysis, this proposed SRA may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE; however, the application may be deemed consistent if and when the conditions of approval below are met. One, all formal SSAs have been approved and concurrent -- or -- before or concurrent with the SRA. Those deviations, development standards, SRA statements, and suitability criteria, et cetera, listed under consistency review findings above are removed or revised as discussed above. The ratio of multifamily to single -family dwelling units is increased to a meaningful level. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 31 of 55 Now, that's in this staff report. Are you going to issue a new report to the Board of Count y Commissioners, and if you are, is it going to say that or not? MR. WEEKS: We, I think, need to revise the memo. Here's the bottom line. Comprehensive Planning staff is recommending to the Planning Commission that they find this petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, David -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this project, in some manner or form, has been going on for a long time. You-all wouldn't have written this without putting some thought into it before you did. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then after you wrote it you changed your mind. Then I asked you about it, you changed your mind back. We came to the meeting a week ago, and you changed your mind back again. I need to know what drove you to originally conclude the conclusion I just read into the record, I mean, and why did you change it? What made you change it? These -- you normally don't do things lightly. MR. WEEKS: No. Here is what happened: There are objective standards in the Future Land Use Element. There's the same table of SRA requirements, number of acres, density, number of acres of certain types of uses using a metric of X square feet per dwelling unit of commercial, X square feet per dwelling unit of I think it's civic uses, open-space requirements, and so forth. Those are objective, black or white. They either meet it or they don't. And that's what we've always said they're consistent with. The more subjective standards are those that pertain to innovative design, compact development, things of that nature, things that are not defined. They're -- they are subjective. And that is where staff was initially saying this petition is -- we're not finding it consistent. The deviations undo some of those subjective conditions. You know, is it compact? Well, maybe it could be, but with certain deviations, you have certain things about the way they've designed the project, we're saying they're not. And so we were including that in our finding of saying this is not consistent. The change that staff has made is to be, I'll say, consistent with what we have done on other projects looking at the other portions of the Future Land Use Element. Let me explain that. There are policies under Objective 7 in the Future Land Use Element pertaining to smart growth principles such as interconnections, walkability. When staff reviews a rezone petition under those policies, if we find that the policies are not being complied with, because the language in those policies says encourage, encourage walkability, encourage interconnections, if they don't comply with those, the staff position is going to be to point that out to you as the Planning Commission and the Board, recommend that they do certain things but, nonetheless, if they meet -- if they don't do those things, we would not recommend that they be found inconsistent with the plan; whereas, for example, the density rating system is a more black-and-white calculation, you either meet it or you don't. And so if a project didn't meet the density rating system, we would be recommending that the project be found inconsistent. The parallel here is that those objective standards, those black-and-white in that table, if all of those are met, then staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element under those other subjective terms such as compactness and innovative design. If we disagree there, we point that out to you, tell you we think they could do better, but we don't use that as a basis for finding them inconsistent. And as I stated at the last meeting, as far as the design goes here, staff does not like their design. We don't think it's compact, or certainly it's not as compact as it could be. It's not an innovative design. This is just taking what we do over here in the suburban Naples area and plopping it down out in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and we don't think that was the intent. But we're not saying it's inconsistent with the plan because we don't have a black-and-white definition or requirement for what that means. Let me give you one example regarding compactness, which I think I might have said at the last meeting. At the very high-level view, any SRA within the RLSA is compact development because it's taking that plus-or-minus 195,000 acres and changing from the checkerboard pattern of one dwelling unit per five acres and instead 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 32 of 55 concentrating the development into these Stewardship Receiving Areas. So at that high -level review, any SRA is a compact development. But looking at the site-specific petition in front of us on a case-by-case basis, compactness to staff means looking at language in the FLUE policies and in the LDC that speak to a compact core, speaks to a continuum, of a density hierarchy, whether it uses that word or not, where we start with a core of intense development and then have gradients going outward to the edges of the SRA. In this project, we don't see that much of a gradient. They do have a -- I say a town core. I mean village core. They do have a village core, a village center, which is where the commercial, the higher intensity uses are at. They do have multifamily proximate to that, and then they go to single-family. So there is some gradient, but their gradient goes out all the way to the very edges at the same -- appears to be the same density. They've designed it with lakes throughout the entire community with residential around it. So, yes, everyone gets to enjoy a lakefront view, but here we have this low density spread throughout. If they were to -- this is just an example. If they were to take a lot of these lakes and push them out to the edges of the village, pull the residential units in closer towards the village center, that would be one way of achieving a more compact development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. I appreciate it. Now, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I confess to being somewhat surprised and disappointed that staff has come to the place where it has, particularly in view of all the things that have been written in the beginning that I supported and applauded staff for being able to stand up and take these positions, all be they perhaps unpopular in the developer community, in the interest of making a better Eastern Collier County. And so I'm just -- I'm quite disappointed in that. And, first and foremost, the problem that I have with this proposal is its total lack of connectivity, and I mean within the proposed village, and I'm focusing specifically on Oil Well Road and the numerous are they 15 or 18 cul-de-sacs which to me are just dead-ends. And those dead-ends and that potential six-lane highway running through this so-called village, together, in my judgment, it is completely antithetical to what my understanding, after hours and hours of reading of what led up to the RLSA, what was intended by the planners, by your colleagues, by the Board of County Commissioners, and by our predecessors. So I just -- I can't see how you're able to come to that conclusion which is so diametrically opposed to some of the things particularly that Corby wrote early on and how you can square your recommendations at this point with Section 163.3177 of the Florida Statutes that calls upon these types of developments to avoid resulting in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. This development fails, quote, to provide -- to promote walkable and connected communities, and it fails to provide, quote, an innovative development that in any manner addresses these obvious flaws. Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes, calls for the use of innovative planning and development strategies and creative land-use planning techniques. To me, this proposal is nothing more than a garden-variety urban or suburban PUD. Objective 7 of the FLUE in Policy 7.2 through 7.4 call for the use of smart-growth policies and practices in the RLSA as well as to use, quote, internal accesses or loop roads to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby roads and minimize the need for traffic signals and to provide walkable communities. Objective 4, and Policies 4.1 through 4.7, call for creative land-use planning techniques in the Stewardship Receiving Area and pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. 4.08.07 of the Land Development Code, which requires villages to be designed in a, quote, compact pedestrian-friendly form, to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including all -- excuse me -- and interconnected sidewalk and pathways systems serving all residential neighborhoods and for a high level of mobility for all residents through a design that respects the pedestrian. I just don't see how you get to where you have gotten. And I'm going to continue here while I'm -- while I'm reviewing what I consider to be a transformation on the part of staff. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 33 of 55 Promotion of urban sprawl is obviously intended in the -- in the RLSA by the creators and the people whose ideals were put to writing. To me, the geographical out-boundaries of this proposal -- it's got a long neck, it's got a long tail. We've asked and we haven't received any indication as to how far people would have to walk or bicycle from the remotest points, not to mention crossing Oil Well, but how far they would have to walk -- how many -- what percentage of the occupants would have to walk or would be able to get to the amenity center and get to the commercial area within a quarter of a mile? What percentage a half mile? What percentage three-quarters? What percentage a mile? What about a mile and a quarter? I'm not saying that everybody has to be able to be within walking distance, but it seems to me it should be skewed, and there should be promises made to us that is it skewed in a way that most of the residents of the development will be able to achieve walkability to these important places that they want to go. And, again, those two statutes I mentioned, I think, call for the discouragement of urban sprawl, and FLUE Objective 4 also calls for the discouragement of urban sprawl. Lack of diversity in housing. Now, I grant that there is no requirement of affordable; however, that's the most obvious way, it seems to me, to achieve diversity, and absent that what you have is 90 percent of the housing is going to be single-family and 10 percent is going to be multifamily. To me, without affordable housing, I don't see how you can get to the requirement of diversity. Failure to move from greater to lesser density, as Commissioner Fry mentioned, I don't believe that that has been represented to us in a fashion that coincidences with the requirements that I find in these various statutes and regulations and, for those reasons, I am headed down a path almost certainly voting against this project. MR. WEEKS: May I respond? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Okay. First of all, because this is an SRA, staff did not review this under Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes. If it were a Comprehensive Plan amendment, then we would have. But in this case we are implementing the county's Rural Lands Stewardship Area program adopted in our county regulations, our GMP and our Land Development Code. Secondly, I think you've helped to make my earlier point about the more subjective provisions of the Future Land Use Element and the LDC regarding the design of the project. I thought I said it clearly a moment ago; I'll repeat it. Staff does not think this is a good design, period, but that is not, in our view, a basis for finding it inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it complies with the objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Future Land Use Element RLSA policies. But those FLUE policies that you've referenced about walkability, 7.1 through 7.4 and various ones within the RLSA overlay, staff agrees with at least some, if not all, of the points that you've raised. It's up to this body and the Board of County Commissioners ultimately as to how you react and ultimately recommend or act on those more subjective provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. And, finally, I would just make a general comment that staff must acknowledge that there are certain geographic constraints to this property. You know, looking at the shape of it, particularly looking on the north side where it's long and linear, because they're bound by WRA and then SSAs further to the east. So they have some constraints as to just what the shape of their property can be and, therefore, that does affect their development pattern. Staff acknowledges that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, in my belief, now is the last clear chance for us and, more importantly, for the Board of County Commissioners to get this right for Eastern Collier County, and whatever we do will set norms and the expectations for future developments. I think it would be a serious injustice worked upon the county if we, with this very first project, allowed it to go forward based upon the application in its present terms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: David, what I took away from what you said is really your definition of where you feel the boundary is of staff's scope in the level of review that you can provide, which is on the objective side, and that -- and I guess I would ask for clarification from our County Attorneys in terms of our latitude today. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 34 of 55 We're here -- I interpret your statement by saying you handled the objective. The subjective is up to us and the County Commission; is that accurate? MR. KLATZKOW: Staff's role is -- they're administrators. They get an application, and they just check off boxes. They don't make policy, all right. Your role as our Planning Commission is to recommend policy to the Board of County Commissioners. Your role is to review the Comp Plan, make change to the Comp Plan, or at least propose changes to the Comp Plan; same with the LDC. You're our local planning agency so that your role is different from staff's role. Staff gets an application, they say, does it comply with the LDC, yes or no? If it complies, they check off the boxes and make the recommendation. Your role is far greater than that. Your role is to look at something and say, wait a second, this isn't what we meant or this isn't, in my opinion, what this project ought to be. You're here to do the actual planning. COMMISSIONER FRY: So applying this to the points that Mr. Fryer -- Commissioner Fryer made, it's within our latitude to look at the objectives of the RLSA and evaluate this application based on those objectives. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. At the end of the day, your primary responsibility is the Comprehensive Plan under the statute. I mean, you look at the Comprehensive Plan, you know, you interpret the Comp Plan, and you then make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners accordingly. And if you don't think this application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then you'll make your recommendation accordingly. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would echo that I find this to be an extremely important occasion in that this is the first of four villages to come before us. I see it's impossible to escape some precedential impacts from our decision today on those remaining three villages as they come before us. So I just -- I believe we should all be weighing all of these factors in consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Nancy, if we move on with your staff report, under the section for Transportation, there are two conditions of approval, and I need to know if Transportation's still on board with those or they've changed their mind, because they're part of Nancy's overall recommendations which I think have been pulled. Conditions of approval, 4, the companion developer agreement is required to be approved with the SRA request and, 5, to provide for potential interconnections north, east, and south on the master plan. In addition, it's not in here. We have heard discussion concerning itself about the ability to acquire what properties we could in some manner of a commitment for Big Cypress Parkway. So I need to understand how those three things now fit into your position on this project, because we're coming to the end, and we've got to get a conclusion on it, and I need to know where you-all stand, so... MR. SCOTT: The quick answer is is that Transportation Planning has not modified their recommendations. We are still recommending that interconnections be shown, we are still requiring that the companion developer agreement be approved along with the SRA, and we are requesting the right-of-way reservation north and south of Rivergrass based on the Big Cypress Stewardship District in the discussions that occurred as part of that and what would have been the required interlocal services delivery agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The part about Big Cypress Parkway, why wasn't that included in your conditions of approval in the staff report? MS. SCOTT: It actually is in the discussion, and if you notice in the companion developer agreement, we did not have the acreage for the roadway that would be provided, so that would have been contemplated in that. That acreage was changing up in -- our right-of-way widths were requiring the changes of the master plan up until the last hearing, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what kind of a document are you looking for, or what kind of statement are you looking for to assure that when and if the time is ripe for acquisition of those additional lands north and south you have -- the county has the ability to actually look at that or consider acquiring them? How does that -- MS. SCOTT: We are okay with the reservation of right-of-way north and south, so that way it delineates where the future right-of-way is and, currently, in a majority of the locations -- I'm not going to say in all of the 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 35 of 55 locations, because I know that there's been some property sales on the north -- the present landowner still owns that land. And so we want that delineated so if the property is sold in the future that the people who would buy it are aware that this roadway is planned and is necessary for the overall network to support the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Rural Lands West project, did you review that when it came through previously multiple times? MS. SCOTT: Yes. The Rural Lands West, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was what the -- that's the town that will be there. MS. SCOTT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The interconnections that were shown on the Rural Lands West project, were those adequate for your department? Because you're asking for interconnections now in other villages that used to be part of that town, and those interconnections, if they were -- MS. SCOTT: We were okay with those interconnections, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you don't get a commitment on right-of-way or some kind of deal to go north and south further than this project for the Big Cypress Parkway, what does that mean in regards to potential traffic elsewhere and road systems, potential failures elsewhere? How will that impact the overall network program? MS. SCOTT: Without Big Cypress Parkway as it was delineated and we put on the record previously with our alternative two-plus through our Randall/Oil Well Road corridor study, the traffic that would have utilized Big Cypress Parkway will divert to the roadway network within the Golden Gate Estates. So DeSoto Boulevard, Randall Boulevard would see an increase in traffic, Everglades Boulevard. The parallel roadways and the adjacent roadways would see an increase in traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Traffic trying to go east on I-75 would have to go where if Big Cypress eventually wasn't all the way acquired and connected to I-75? MS. SCOTT: Well, the interchange is still an unknown at this point, but all the traffic would find its way to Golden Gate Boulevard, Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, Immokalee Road, or it would go the other direction and go to State Road 29 and get on the interstate at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they'd pile up on 951 to go to that interchange, which would be where you could go east and west, 951 and I-75; is that fair? MS. SCOTT: Yes. I mean, in this particular area, depending on which way you're going. If you're going to Miami, you're going to go probably to State Road 29 and hop on there. If you're trying to go the other direction, Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road, Pine Ridge, depending on the route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only questions I had left on that part of the section of the staff report. Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on, Trinity. I'm going to go to a different section; hopefully not yours. The Environmental Planning staff had a recommendation, a condition of approval. I'm assuming it still stands. Have you heard anything on that, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that's Condition of Approval No. 6, and there is a slight revision. Prior to the -- it says, prior to the issuance of the first development order, strike through "development order" and replace with "Site Development Plan or plans and plat." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: The rest remains the same. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Could we have it on the overhead? MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, sure. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Nancy. Just for everybody to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 6, right? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A little too far. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I can see it, but I can't read it. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 36 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go down to the Public Utilities review, they had four recommendations. Is Utilities here? Somebody's pointing to somebody. MS. GUNDLACH: It would be Eric Fey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Eric Fey's here. Okay. Eric, you had Recommendations 7 through 10 in the staff report. I need you to tell us where you stand on those four, please. MR. FEY: Yes. For the record, Eric Fey, principal project manager with Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management. All four -- well, the first three of my conditions have been satisfied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning they no longer need to be conditions? MR. FEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEY: The last condition, I believe, should be part of any recommendation to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEY: That is the interlocal agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Nancy, based on the discussions that we're having, you will be able to amend your recommendations for this panel? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you would drop No. 7, 8, and 9, and incorporate 10 still? MR. FEY: Correct, and that's simply because it's concurrent with the SRA resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Let's see -- okay. Thank you. That's all I've got on that matter, and next is the housing issue, so... MR. FEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know Cormac's here, and I've also -- so I'd like him to address us in their position, because they have a requirement or a request for a housing need analysis. I need to know where the Housing Department stands on that. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Development Grant Manager, for the record. My review and recommendation for this application has not changed since the very first submittal. So that would -- that recommendation still stands. There was really nothing that I had to go on in order to perform my review in terms of housing affordability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And can you tell us what determines your ability to require a housing needs analysis? Where did you -- how did you come into the thought that this was something that should be required and, unless it is, you can't sign off on it? MR. GIBLIN: I think that will -- it's not required that housing sign off on it; let me start with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we do look to you with your experience to -- MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- weigh in on this stuff. And if I'm not mistaken, there's a diversity requirement that we've heard different arguments about, so I need your position on that. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. You've heard that. As David, I think, adequately and very well summarized earlier, there are objective criteria and subjective criteria. The housing affordability criteria, I think, would fall into the subjective side of the house. I think that the policy that a village be primarily residential community with a diversity of housing type and mixed uses appropriate to scale and character of that particular village, that FLUE 4.7.2, when you -- it would be a subjective call on how one defines a diversity of housing types. In my review, I review that as meaning different price points, different styles, different makeup of units, that sort of thing. The applicant's economic assessment does go a little bit further into describing the different unit types 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 37 of 55 and price points that they propose. It says that they're going to do about 1,086 residential condo/duplex or single-family attached product and 1,414 single-family detached. The multifamily condo/duplex they say will have a sales value of 270- -- an average sales value of $272,000 a unit, and the single-family detached would have an average sales value of $394,000 a unit. Their economic assessment further states that the average assessed value for Rivergrass Village single-family home is $370,000, which is 41 percent higher than the county's median value. In reviewing the FLUE policy and, also, I also reviewed this against the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan which has certain goals, objectives, and policies dealing with housing affordability, the analysis had not been completed to let me know how the village would comply with that. And, in fact, the data that I was able to find through their economic analysis seemed to point us in the wrong direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Were you -- I know you were with the county, and you left for private sector for a while and now you're back. Were you here with the county when the RLSA came through for its initial setup back in the early 2000s? MR. GIBLIN: I certainly was. I was a part of the team putting together the RLSA. When I separated with the county, I actually went to the company that then invented the Rural Lands Stewardship, and I worked in the department that implemented it in the private sector, and now I've come back here to the county again. One of the reasons that there are certain things in this, when we deal about housing affordability, I think, and why there is no specific objective criteria in our Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Code is that at the time these fell under the Development of Regional Impact state statute that required that same exact housing needs analysis that I'm recommending now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The villages wouldn't have been under a -- they wouldn't have been big enough to call for a DRI evaluation, would they? I mean, I know that Town of Ave Maria was, but usually you've got to have a substantial impact regionally or show some kind of regional impact. Villages would be too small. So I'm not sure they would have fit. And the reason I'm asking you this, I was here like you were back then. I sat on this panel reviewing the RLSA. I think I'm the only one on this panel that is still here. And I know that we -- at the same time, we have the RFMUD coming through. The RFMUD, we actually required affordable housing as a component, and I can't remember why we wouldn't have followed that same trend with the RLSA unless the language was intended to include that. And I'm trying to figure out how all that -- I can't remember that. It's been 20 years. I just can't remember back that far. Maybe David -- he's young. He's got a better memory. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, again, Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, I believe that the county was relying upon the DRI requirements for affordable housing. And the villages could fall under two scenarios. They could be small enough that they would be below the DRI threshold, or they might be above that threshold, because remember the density ranges up to four units per acre, so that could be 4,000 dwelling units. And if they opted for the density bonuses, the affordable housing density bonus could be even higher. So not with -- the threshold -- the old threshold for DRIs was 2,000 dwelling units; however, if you had a mixed-use project, the threshold then elevated higher. But I think that at that maximum density of 4,000 dwelling units, even in a mixed-use scenario, would have crossed the threshold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the mindset from the Housing Department and yours, most likely, was if they're going to do a DRI, they're going to have to address the affordable housing issue, so it's covered. MR. GIBLIN: Exactly, I think, and that covers many other reviewers' subject matter had that same mindset. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Cormac, you mentioned numbers of multifamily versus single-family in the economic analysis. Are those commitments? Because the only commitment I know of is a minimum of 250 multifamily in the SRA document, so could you please clarify that. MR. GIBLIN: You're correct, these do not read as commitments. These are estimates in their economic assessment. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 38 of 55 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In Design Criteria 3.A.4 of the village, it does require a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. That's your affordability language. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions of Housing, and appreciate your time, Cormac. Thank you. MR. GIBLIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, on Page 26 of the staff report, it's under the section titled "Collier County Public Schools fiscal neutrality." Maybe that's Tom Eastman. The last three paragraphs, I'm trying to understand, it says, the village center is located along the northern edge of the southern half of the SRA along Oil Well Road, a major arterial road and freight route. The village center is disconnected from the northern half of the SRA village by Oil Well Road resulting in a less walkable community. Why did these -- why was -- why is that located under the Collier County Public Schools fiscal neutrality section of your report? I think it is. MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, in the staff report it's located under the Zoning Services review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I'm going by the bold titles. You're going by the -- okay. Then let's go back. Then it isn't Tom. It's under an italicized title instead of a bold title, so fine. Let's go to that italicized title. Can you tell me what -- you added that because it must bother you from a zoning perspective. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, what page are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 26 of the staff report, bottom three paragraphs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Well, the intention was to be walkable, and it's difficult to walk across six-lane road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: It just segregates the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I just needed your synopsis on that. Second paragraph of that section says some of the deviations contained in the Rivergrass Village SRA development document, town, decrease walkability of their SRA village. The result is a compact suburban-style development similar to many Planned Unit Developments located in the urban area of Collier County. So you're saying this is more like a PUD than what you expected as an SRA? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on your understanding of the LDC? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next paragraph: Staff believes that five of the proposed deviations are not consistent with the development standards of the RLSA zoning overlay regulations contained in the LSD -- LSD -- LDC as previously stated in the GMP consistency review. So you're on board with their previous position as the zoning reviewer? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that mean you're still making recommendations on those items? While they may be subjective in the GMP, are they more nonsubjective in the LDC, meaning are they more regulated? Are they more required? MS. GUNDLACH: They're more regulated in the LDC, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LDC prohibition of no parking lots in front of buildings, a key element of a walkable community has been eliminated. The "LDC prescribes maximum lot sizes of four acres" has also been eliminated, creating the potential for super blocks areas which destroy vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. Is that your writing? MS. GUNDLACH: That's my writing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in your previous, kind of, lightening up on your position on your recommendations, are those not your recommendations now? Are you still concerned about those things or not? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. In regard to the four-acre that's in the LDC -- and I believe that's part of a deviation now. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 39 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Didn't you guys just say -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one of the ones that you approved? And I'm trying to wonder how that approval corresponds with the statement I just read that you wrote. MR. BELLOWS: Well, when I was reviewing this, my opinion is that a developer can combine these four -acre parcels into larger parcels. So I didn't see that there was a practical benefit to holding onto that position. So that was my call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the reviewer didn't like it, but as her superior you're okay with it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the same with the no parking lots in front of buildings, because now we're reversed, and that one is one that you're now saying you don't -- you're approving, but it wasn't. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just checking to make sure I got all my questions from the -- that's all the questions I have from the staff reports. And, you know, I don't know -- we'll probably -- we're going to -- I'm going to make every attempt possible to wrap this up today. I'm going to need your help a little bit by telling us what recommendations on your staff report will remain when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. And then we will go from there -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- during our debate and discussion up here, and that will help us out a lot if you could do that. And that -- anybody else have any questions from the staff reports? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to LDC/GMP questions. Anybody have any specific questions on those documents and your reading? I know, Ned, you've already expressed your concerns. If you have more, now's a good time to bring them up. It's up to you. If not, then we will move on to other things that I may have or anybody else. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only thing that I would say further is at the end of the staff report there is a section called County Attorney's Office review, which I thought was very helpful in identifying the scope of our review of this and examination of it, and so thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm looking through the questions I have. Anybody else have any other? If not, I'll just quickly go through what I've got and see if there's anything here that hasn't been discussed. And I don't have anything. So we've -- in the GMP we're thoroughly -- I can talk to staff about that. In the GMP -- I'm going to move through those real quick. I had questions on the ALF, but that was about the fact that they needed to give us a size on it, because from the LDC it seemed necessary. And now we've got that; that cures that problem. The density one, we seem to have concluded that, so I don't have anything else on that. And I think that takes us to the end of it. I don't have anything left on the two. They were resolved with the discussions we've had, so I can pass on any more discussion on that. I have a question of the applicant. Rich, I took a look at the Rural Lands West town proposed. I took a look at a development to the west called Hyde Park. Hyde Park is at the corner of Oil Well and at the edge of the Estates from DeSoto over to that point. Your project has a corner right up against them separated by the future extension of Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well to the south, and then to the south you have your commercial center in that northeast corner. In fact, I think I put it on a little drawing to better understand it. Ray, could you put this on the overhead? You need to zoom out a little bit to get all those squares in. Rich, what I was trying to do is figure out how could you make a more cohesive village, and I took the fact that you could have developed the town on the areas you previously were coming through for, I'm assuming you could have, and I tried to approximate by the time you take out the excess open space and the preserve areas and all that, what you'd end up with for a couple of villages. Because you've got the villages to the left, which is the Hyde 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 40 of 55 Park village that's proposed, and the red of each one of these could indicate potential commercial. And I'm just wondering why didn't you do villages in a manner where you've got one to the north of Oil Well and one to the south? Because Oil Well Road is a big divider. And I'm looking at the developability of the one to the north, and the fact that you could have had some really nice housing with the amenity of that preserve or WRA in the center as a view amenity or something would have been a good asset. Likewise, on the south, you could have had a championship golf course across from the preserve areas and working down there. I'm just curious, why did you divide the village -- why was the decision made to divide the village in half; do you know? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm not trying to do you're planning. I'm just suggesting, here's a couple scenarios. I just don't know why it was look at like it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you know what, we've evaluated many scenarios and arrived at the scenario that was -- made sense and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And let me know when I'm allowed to go beyond that response, or do I hold the rest of my comments to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to my rebuttal and close because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to go to the Planning Commission next. I don't think -- anybody have any more questions on anything at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're more than welcome to have a discussion, and you can go into rebuttal after that. I'm not trying to hold you up on time. I'm just -- this thing has gotten -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not worried about time. I'm worried about subject matter, because your question leads me to a comment that I think's appropriate here. You'll tell me to stop if not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go ahead, Rich. Get it all on the table. MR. YOVANOVICH: The Rural Land Stewardship program is a voluntary program for landowners to put into SSAs for the benefit of the environment and the benefit of agricultural lands in return for being able to develop open lands. The option and permutations of how to divide up those open lands is probably hundreds of different options that can occur. You may have an idea like that plan right there that you think's a great plan. It's consistent with the program. You don't have to like our plan, but our plan is consistent with the program, and the program has multiple aspects to it. And what I've heard people say is we don't like your design. That's not one of the review criteria, whether you like the design or not. And I feel like when exhibits like this get put up and it's not -- and I know you had good intentions of talking about it. And when we start talking about Rural Lands West -- and I could show you the countless comments from your Transportation and Planning staff saying why they hated Rural Lands West, including where we had decided to put the two million square feet of office and retail and business park and all the reasons why they didn't like that. But they come up here and they show you that and say, hey, this is what they were originally proposing. What they didn't tell you is that they were originally throwing up all over it and didn't like it. So I find it a little bit -- I'm trying -- I'm looking for a different synonym for disingenuous, but I can't think of one right now, to get up there and put that exhibit up there and say this is what we want when I can show you hundreds of pages -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what Transportation staff is saying. This is what they want, interconnectivity. They want all these things, but they didn't tell you -- they didn't tell you they were recommending denial of that town. So don't -- it's wrong what they're doing, and it's wrong to say there are other options, and that's why you should deny the project, because there are options. I'm going to tell you there are options. There are many options that are consistent with your Growth Management Plan. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 41 of 55 And I'll stop on that topic right now, because I think that's really what you were talking about, and I'll go into other things later. But there are other options. You may like other options, but that's not the measuring sticker are "are there other options." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wasn't trying to say they were. As you had pointed out earlier, I was on the development side of the table for a while, and I saw some assets there that would have been valuable to maybe consider. And I just was wondering why you thought the best avenue was to split that village like it is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And all of those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when it may not have had to be. That's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, there are other factors to be considered, and they were all considered as to, what's the market? What do people want? What's the best location for the village center? How many rooftops can, in fact, support a village center before you start dividing this up? And, you know, those -- all of those factors were, in fact, considered in arriving at this configuration of this village as well as the other villages, and including Hyde Park's village. It's not -- it's not like you have a perfect square for a section and you have a blank canvas. This whole program recognizes that there's flowway areas, there's habitat areas, there's WRAs. So you have some physical constraints on how to make the program work, which one of the most important parts of the program was the preservation of Habitat Stewardship Areas and other sending areas, Flowway Stewardship Areas. All of that was part of the program. And as David pointed out, there are constraints in how to make it work, and that all was factored in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there -- now, as far as Planning Commission goes, do you have anything -- do you want to ask anybody before we go into -- first we'll do Rich's rebuttal, and then we'll decide where to go. Do you have any more rebuttal you want to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: A little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: A little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't you go forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me answer one question first before I get into rebuttal. I told Mr. Fry that we -- it turned out that we actually have committed to splitting a minimum of 125 multifamily both on the north and south side. It doesn't mean we won't do more, but we have an absolute commitment to 125 multifamily north, 125 multifamily south. I want to go through a couple of -- and Jeff and I go round and round on this, so I would appreciate if you'd just let me say what I'm going to say and try not to rebut me too early into the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have I ever rebutted you? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I said Jeff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I have a different legal opinion as to what your Growth Management Plan does and what your Land Development Code does and what it can't do, and one of the things it can't do is it can't be ambiguous; you have to have laws that have objective and measurable standards. I fundamentally disagree with the concept that your Growth Management Plan is subjective; it's not. You have measurable objective standards that have to be met for villages. We showed you the checklist, and I'll show you that again when I finish my rebuttal. You're also here in a role -- we're in a quasi-judicial process. Quasi-judicial process means you're the judge. You leave your personal biases out and you listen to the evidence that's presented as to whether or not we meet the criteria in the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. You may dislike this project in its entirety. Some of you have said some pretty strong statements about it. You're not to apply your personal opinions. You're to look at the code and whether or not we meet the objective standards. And you're to look at the code based upon the evidence that's presented to you. What is the evidence that's been presented to you? The evidence as presented to you has been our professional staff, or our consultants, that have 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 42 of 55 prepared documents, TIS, the environmental report, Mr. Mulhere's analysis. That's evidence that's into the record. Your staff is evidence that's in the record. It's got to be competent substantial evidence. I think I pointed this out in my opening, but that was so long ago that -- it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was. No, you're right. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was so long ago that perhaps it was forgotten over time. But in order to submit a master plan, which is up on the -- well, it went away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Put theirs up so we know as he speaks what to look at. There we go. Thank you. Can you zoom out just a little bit so we can get the top and bottom. You don't know how to do that either, huh. I don't know either, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Anyway, that's fine for purposes of where I am and what I want to say. But I'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, that's sufficient enough for the point I want to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, that will work. That's good. MR. YOVANOVICH: The point I wanted to make was your Land Development Code requires that the plan be prepared by an urban planner who possesses an AICP certification together with at least one of the following: One is a professional engineer licensed in Florida or a qualified environmental consultant per Chapter 10 of the LDC, or a practicing architecture. So your Land Development Code recognizes that you have to have a specialty in order to prepare the master plan and testify to the criteria of whether or not you meet the Land Development Code requirements through the -- through this design of the master plan. Mr. Mulhere is even further qualified because he's a fellow -- do I have that right, Bob? That's even a more limited set of people who have the AICP required credentials. So you've had testimony from an AICP planner who prepared this plan together with Mr. Amico who is a professional engineer in the state of Florida, and they've all testified that we meet the Growth Management Plan provisions and the Land Development Code provisions. You haven't received any testimony from the public that we don't meet those criteria from people who have the right credentials, and those credentials are they have to be an AICP planner or any of the others. You didn't have a professional engineer get up here, you didn't have a qualified environmental consultant pursuant to Chapter 10 get up here, or a practicing architect get up here and provide any testimony that our master plan is not consistent with your Land Development Code and your Growth Management Plan. That's competent substantial evidence, and that's the standard. Your own research, your own feelings is not competent substantial evidence. It's what's in the record before you over these last three days. And I submit to you that the record before you proves that we meet all of the required criteria. You've heard Mr. Passarella testify to all the environmental requirements and the types of lands that can be qualified. Heather also testified to that. They all have the required credentials. They've applied the rules. Your environmental staff applied the rules. You've heard testimony from some groups that had previously supported the adoption of this program. I showed you the quotes. I don't back down from those quotes. They said this was a great program. It was a compromise. They don't like the program anymore, and all they did was provide you testimony as to what should be changed in the program. That's one of your roles -- and you'll be going through that role -- what changes need to be made to this program, in your opinion, and through recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners after you have public testimony on that issue. But under the rules that are adopted today, we meet all the environmental rules. And you've seen that testimony both through your staff and our expert testimony. Transportation, Mr. Trebilcock testified to -- that we satisfied all of your requirements. I've asked Trinity, and I'm assuming -- because she hasn't provided a provision as to how they can require interconnectivity of some future villages through SSA lands, where that exists in the Land Development Code. She hasn't provided it to me. I can't find it. I've word-searched it, you know. I don't think it exists. And if you remember, David Weeks even said there's nothing in the Growth Management Plan that requires interconnectivity of villages. He got up there and he showed you the provision, and I'll show you again. It 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 43 of 55 defers interconnectivity to the Land Development Code. When it's appropriate is in the Land Development Code. And it talks about it with PUDs. It doesn't talk about interconnectivity with regard to SRAs. It doesn't exist. There's no requirement. You can't impose requirements that don't exist just because you'd like to do it. That's not how Land Development Codes work. You can't require us to give you the entirety -- or set aside the entirety of the Big Cypress Parkway when we have no relationship to the need for the Big Cypress Parkway, and we've given you that testimony. You don't need -- this project doesn't need Big Cypress Parkway for it to meet any of your criteria. We have said to you on more than one occasion, and we've committed to you that for the length of the Rivergrass Village, we will set aside that right-of-way. And then when we come in with the two other villages that we've shown you, we will set aside the right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway for those villages as well. We've never said we're going to get in your way on Big Cypress Parkway. In fact, I think Trinity said Big Cypress Parkway's not coming any time soon. The county has a lot of powers to get Big Cypress Parkway if for some reason we decide to not go forward with the next two villages or those villages are denied. It's like every other project that Collier County has for road right-of-way. If they need to, they can use their eminent domain powers to get Big Cypress Parkway. We know it's a public purpose and a public benefit. We can't fight the eminent domain. We just talked about how much does it cost the county to buy it at that point. So to characterize us as being unwilling participants in the ultimate provision of Big Cypress Parkway is not accurate. I personally like Cormac a lot, and I wouldn't want Cormac's job for anything because having to try to get affordable housing from property owners is a difficult task. It's even way more difficult when there's no legal basis to ask for it. And he's really trying hard to say, do a housing needs analysis even though I've got nothing to hang my hat on to require a housing analysis. And that was the one thing that was resolved. I don't know if you understand the process. We submit. We get a round of comments. Then we get all the reviewers in a room, and we go through all the comments, and we chip away at which comments are valid, which comments are not valid. And in that very first meeting where everybody was there -- I think even Mr. Cohen was there at that very first go-round -- it was clearly stated on the record by Cormac and others, I can't make you do a housing needs analysis. There's nothing I can hang my hat on it, yet I get a recommendation that I need to do a housing needs analysis. And we meet the diversity requirement. The word "diversity" means multiple types. Single -family, multifamily, check the box. We meet diversity. We meet the diversity requirements. Nobody's saying we don't. They'd like to -- they'd like to come up with a new requirement that somehow affordability needs to be factored in. If they were relying on the DRI statutes for villages, that's not what the Growth Management Plan says because, as you know, we all know, you don't have to trigger a DRI for a village. So perhaps the way they really intended to deal with it was if a DRI comes in, that's when we're going to make you deal with affordable housing. If you come in at something less than a DRI, we don't -- we're not going to make that a requirement. So I think you could take -- we're not a DRI, we don't trip any of the thresholds to be a DRI, and the fact that DRIs are basically gone anyway doesn't matter. This project was never intended under anything you have in your code to require affordable housing. In fact, your code gives bonuses above the 4, however you calculate it, if you decide to do affordable housing. It doesn't require it as part of your base. We meet those criteria. There are three founding principles in that final order that became part of your Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code: To protect prime agricultural areas; that's being done through the RLSA program and, in fact, we've assured that by selling some lands that were formerly in the town to an agricultural company. Check the box. Directing incompatible uses away from upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regiment -- or regime, I'm sorry, as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. I showed you the code and Comp Plan provisions that say you do that through the SSA process and 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 44 of 55 through the SRA process by prohibiting development on anything that scores greater than a 1.2. Check the box. We meet the requirements. And then assess the growth potential of the areas by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations while discouraging urban sprawl. I showed you the provisions in the Growth Management Plan that said that this RLSA program is not urban sprawl, and the governor and cabinet and the Department of Community Affairs, now the Department of Economic Opportunity, agreed that the Growth Management Plan provisions that I showed you the very first day we were going through this do not -- they are not urban sprawl. So whoever keeps saying we're doing urban sprawl, go back and read the order and read the provisions. We're not urban sprawl. As I do this longer and longer and as I get older and older, I have fonder memories of law school than I did as I was experiencing it. And one of the things that we had in law school -- and, frankly, the bar exam, it's a pass/fail. I had some classes in law school I just had to pass. There was no A, B, C, D. It was a P or an F. That's what the RLSA program is. It's a pass/fail analysis. And I pass; I get approved. These are the requirements that are in your Growth Management Plan and in your LDC, and we meet them all. You may like us to meet them a different way, and you may just say you get a P. I really wish you got an A, but you got a P. And that's all I have to get is a pass, and we've passed them all. Mr. Weeks got up here two weeks -- was it two weeks ago, whenever we did it the last time, and he got up there and said, it's a grading scale. Same analogy, pass/fail. We passed. According to your staff, we passed all of your criteria. I stood up here the first day and I said, the only issue that I'm aware of that there was a disagreement on was the interconnectivity of the villages and when we needed to give you Big Cypress Parkway or set it aside. And one thing that wasn't mentioned was we got the staff report, and we sat down with staff and addressed all of those recommendations. And when I left that meeting with your staff, they said, we're in agreement. You meet diversity of housing, you meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan, you meet the requirements of the Land Development Code based upon the changes we made, which included maximum size of 25 acres now for multifamily. That's when Mr. Bellows said, you know what, I can live with it. Before it was -- it could have been 100 acres. He didn't like that. He liked the 25 acres. He liked the fact that we agreed to the half-a-mile requirement for where multifamily would be to show the grade of more dense to less dense. Mr. Weeks was in that meeting, and so was Mr. Cohen. We had that meeting, and that's why there was a change in their recommendation. David's already said -- he's told us that, you know, if he had a different -- if he had the ability, the wherewithal, the financial -- the ability to do it, he might lay it out differently, but we meet the criteria. That's all that matters is, do we meet the criteria? And if we meet the criteria, we're entitled to a recommendation of approval. We meet every one of the criteria. That's the testimony from your staff, that we meet the criteria. There's only one criteria that -- and I don't know where it is, because Trinity hasn't provided it to me, the interconnectivity, and she hasn't provided me anything in your code that says you could make me set aside road right-of-way beyond my project when my project doesn't even cause the need for that road right-of-way, and I'm willing to give you the road right-of-way through the Developer Contribution Agreement or, I'm sorry, the Landowner Contribution Agreement along the entire boundary of this project. There are people who clearly are not happy with the current rules and regulations. There's a process for that to change, and you're starting that process. That's -- if you see flaws in the current code, deal with it in the process. You can't deal with those flaws because you want to change the rules at this time. So my rebuttal is over. We've met the criteria that are established today, and we're entitled to a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, it's noontime, and I think we've got a lot to think about. I'd rather we take a break for lunch now, come back, have our discussion, any comments and questions we have of Mr. Yovanovich or follow-up with staff that we may need, and then go into final discussion and vote. So with that, we'll come back at 1:00 and resume the meeting on Rivergrass at that time. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 45 of 55 (A luncheon recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., and Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from the lunch break. We're going to resume the meeting. The first announcement is Patrick Dearborn had to leave for a meeting that he got called away to, so he won't be here for the rest of the afternoon. That means the rest of us will deal with the remainder of the time on the -- we've got Rivergrass and finish up today's agenda. We left off with discussions -- with the rebuttal by the applicant. And I want to know if the Planning Commission has any questions they have of anybody else before we close the public hearing and go into our own discussion. Do any of you have any questions of anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to ask, is Trinity here? Poor Trinity. She knew she might be called. Hi, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Hi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was some discussion about the need for -- the ability for you to ask for the Big Cypress Parkway. How did you fit that condition into your responsibilities? MS. SCOTT: As noted within the staff report -- and I didn't bring my staff report up here with me, sorry -- we looked at the commitment based on the Big Cypress Stewardship District when that was going forward within the Board in 2003 and 2004, and the commitment for an interlocal services delivery agreement, which was never executed. And so that is -- as shown in our staff report, that was -- thank you -- that was why we were requesting the right-of-way within the entire Big Cypress Stewardship District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And remember when they -- that exhibit where it showed the stewardship district lined out in greens, and then the potential location of Big Cypress. It was Exhibit H. I think it was one of those exhibits that showed it connecting to I-75. Do you remember that one? We talked about it last time. MS. SCOTT: Yes, we did talk about it last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did that originate? Did you -- you might have said it before, and I just can't remember. MS. SCOTT: That -- where I actually found that exhibit was as part of the I-75 interchange justification report. It was an attachment with the memorandum of understanding. That particular exhibit was produced by Collier Enterprises, I believe, and then it was -- the snippet we had was taken from, it looked like, a Naples Daily News article. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything else. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a representative of the Conservancy if she might come up and perhaps reply to statements that had been made by counsel for the applicant concerning the original planning for this effort, if they care to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the request of a Planning Commissioner, that's appropriate. MS. OLSON: Which one? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Whichever one you want. Since you were referred to earlier today, I thought, in fairness, we ought to hear from you, if you have a different recollection of history. MS. OLSON: For the record, April Olson with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Just two points to make regarding Mr. Yovanovich's statements about, first of all, the Conservancy's support for the RLSA program. We did support the program at the time it was being created when the public was told that only 16,800 acres could be built, but then we found out five years later that it was a whole different program, and we no longer support -- we support the fundamental goals, but we feel there are a lot of fundamental flaws within the program. So I just wanted to clarify that. The other statement that Mr. Yovanovich said was that because the program is set up to basically direct development away from the SSAs or the WRAs, HSAs, FSAs, that that means that the program automatically 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 46 of 55 creates compact communities, and DCA had actually stated that. DCA was in agreement. But I have a quote here from DCA that they wrote during -- at the same time of the five-year review that they also reversed their opinion that -- and they believe that the 93,000 acres worth of open space is actually sprawl. And I can put this quote on the prompter if you'd like to see it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. OLSON: Okay. It's right in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, would you orientate that properly. Everybody misses that. MS. OLSON: Okay. It says that the large 93,000 acres eligible for designation of receiving areas which also allows the conversion of land uses to the underlying low density uses is the exact opposite of a plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas. This may lead to fragmentation of natural areas, wildlife habitat, and agricultural areas. The overall rural character of the area is under threat from the potentially large amount of urban development. And here is the citation right there from the DCA 2007 December RLSA annual report to the legislature is where that comes from. So they did reverse their position on that, okay? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, April. MS. OLSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I get to rebut the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You get to rebut the rebuttal of the rebuttal? I mean, you opened door for this activity, so what is it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's not take another 20 minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't need 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I do want -- a couple things for the record. First of all, she showed you the Conservancy's analysis of what the DCA did. That was not the DCA's full report. It was a footnote of what they picked that they thought was important to include in their memorandum; "they" being the Conservancy. Those are the Conservancy's actual words when this program was adopted. You can -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you move it in. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how to do any of that, so... Those are the Conservancy's actual words. It doesn't say anything that Ms. Olson just said on the record. It says, we think it's a great program and we think it's a compromise. And I'm not quoting verbatim, but not everybody gets what they want. You have to compromise. The program it going through a review process, and the review process will change the program. Until the program is changed, you have to apply the standards that exist. You don't get to simply say we don't like it now, apply a different standard. You have to change the standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of anybody at this point? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd like to ask Trinity again. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I have one more thing about that. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: I'm getting my steps in today. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you or did you have locations for interconnections from Rivergrass to Longwater or any other communities? MS. SCOTT: Yes. I have ideas of where they could be. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The connection roadways? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have them? MS. SCOTT: And I'm actually going to pull up Mr. Yovanovich's prior presentation, because I think it 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 47 of 55 shows -- well, maybe I will. There it goes. So this was the exhibit that Mr. Yovanovich showed that showed open stewardship area. Oh, it's coming up. Let's see if I did it right. Yes. Of the pink areas that were open stewardship area that could be developed in the future, this -- on the north side of the property, I understand this is a large WRA area, and interconnection could occur here. An interconnection could occur in this location. And in prior submittals -- and I understand that they were that of the town -- there was another interconnection shown in this location as well. Those were the three interconnections that I was referring to. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was discussed in the -- MS. SCOTT: In the staff report we were asking for potential interconnections in the north, the east, and the south. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And that will alleviate a lot of the traffic impacts in the future 10, 20, 30 years from now if that were to happen. MS. SCOTT: In my original presentation we talked about the Master Mobility Plan and that the Master Mobility Plan specifically did a subarea model with regard to these interconnections and that based on that subarea model, that there would be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? Did you summarize the remaining recommendations of staff? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you -- MS. GUNDLACH: Happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tell us which ones. I think there were -- let's see. There were 11. Which ones of the 11 are we still staying with from your view? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Do you want me to go through them one by one, or I can just generally -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us the numbers. I think that's all we need to know. MS. GUNDLACH: We're going to be keeping No. 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11, and we are just -- are going to be revising No. 6 to state SDP and PPL. Those are the ones we're keeping. All the others we are removing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the ones that you're removing are -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We're removing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 2 and 3. Two is about the SRA statement of suitability criteria. Three is the ratio of multifamily to single-family that was brought up by -- originally by Comp Planning. MS. GUNDLACH: Four and 5 remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six. MS. GUNDLACH: Six has been revised. Seven has been removed; 7, 8, and 9 have been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: Ten and 11 remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: And that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's the summary I was looking for. As far as the deviations go, I know we walked through all those, so I think we're comfortable. You've got a list. You know which ones -- you've got that all organized now. So, wherever -- if this gets recommended, those deviations will be concise when they go to the Board. Accurate. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And let's -- yeah, I knew you were going to say correct. No, they're not going to be. That takes us to the end, I think, of any questions. Anybody else have any questions of anybody before we close the public hearing? (No response.) 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 48 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing on this matter, and we'll go into discussions from the Planning Commission. Do you guys have anything you've got to say? Ned, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I have the utmost respect for Rich Yovanovich. He's a great lawyer. He's an advocate, and he's doing a great job as an advocate, and I always listen carefully to what he has to say; however, our lawyers are the County Attorney's Office, and they come to us not to advocate but to explain to us what the law is. And we were favored with 14 points of consideration that we were -- that was explained to us that we could utilize when we apply whatever it is we apply to this process before we vote. And No. 10 said, consider conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. And No. 12 said, consider the SRA master plan compliance with all applicable laws of the RLSA district regulations. So what I take away from that is the sense that our responsibility is not a totally objective or pass/fail check-the-box kind of endeavor. If it were, I don't think we would need a planning commission but, rather, I think we have to bring to bear a number of skill sets, if you will, or points of considerations, including what I would call our own common sense to the analysis. And when I apply my common sense in relation to the many thousands of words that have been put before us on behalf of the advocate on the issue of connectivity, my common sense tells me that the standard of connectivity has not been reached, and with Oil Well Road in there and with 15 dead ends, I don't see how you can responsibly get to a conclusion of connectivity. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl, then Stan. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you want to go first, Stan? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm just happy that I waited to speak after Ned today, as he always elucidates things so well. I guess in the question that we posed to Jeff earlier, I would agree it does appear we have latitude and I think even responsibility to look at the objectives of the RLSA and see if this project as a village supports those objectives. So as of now I'm -- I guess I'm -- my great question is, we have four villages ahead of us. I definitely view this whole process of the RLSA only working if it's a partnership between the applicants, the developers, landowners, and the county in working together to come up with a solution that not only gives them a profitable -- a viable project, but one that also supports the objectives of the RLSA to create something different in the east, seize the opportunity to focus the development, preserve natural areas, preserve key agriculture, protect natural resources, but create a different dynamic where we don't have the same thing we have in the west where we have gated communities and everybody is forced to travel only main roads in most cases to get where they want to go. So there are a few objectives of the RLSA that I do think are key. I lament the fact that although we know Rural Lands West is not before us now, that a lot of the vision of the RLSA I felt was encompassed very well in the master plan that I saw for Rural Lands West, which was there was interconnectivity. There were public roads through the middle of what are now becoming villages with interconnections between what are now the villages and outside of the villages. There were pathways. There was a large commercial section that was a destination, which I think was one of the objectives, and maybe not formally. I don't know if Ned would know better than I if it was formally part of it, but the idea being so that the people in the eastern RLSA did not have to travel back far to the west to get essential goods and services. I'm not sure how I see a Publix and a couple of outparcels in 60- or 80,000 square feet as keeping people from having to make the long trip to the essential services. I note that there are some PUDs in our -- in the western side that do have public roads through them that seem to offer alternate routes to travelers but not at the detriment of the development. The Vineyards being one, Lely being another. I look at this application -- and I have great respect -- Rich is a great attorney. Far better arguer of his points of view than I ever will be, so I always feel a little outgunned if I'm even attempting to express a different sentiment than, perhaps, you're stating up there. But I really would like to see these four village as they come through, and 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 49 of 55 this one being the starting one -- and I think it has no less responsibility than the others to support a success for the RLSA program. And my opinion is more could have been done on this village to support the goals of the RLSA. Definitely, the great win here, which I think is inherent to the RLSA program, is that we're preserving over 5,000 acres to develop a thousand acres. That's a wonderful win, and I think that's kind of the foundation of the RLSA program. Some agricultural land was sold after the town was withdrawn, thereby preserving some key agricultural, so preventing the premature conversion from agricultural to developed lands. But when I look at some of the tenets of the RLSA, creative land planning techniques, I don't find that -- the mere fact that we're using credits and preserving land in order to focus a thousand acres of development, I don't find that in itself to be an example of creative land planning techniques. I'm not able to see a lot of creativity in this plan. To me, this plan looks as if it's a gated PUD -- actually, two gated PUDs that are very similar to what would be in the western part outside of the RLSA that have simply been moved east and added to it a little bit of commercial as a requirement of the village. I actually see this -- I don't know why this is not two villages. This is, to me -- it's hard for me to -- while I'm willing -- if there were other components that were present in order to satisfy the -- what I think are the objectives of the RLSA, I would be okay with the village center being south of Oil Well Road and really not easily pedestrian friendly or bikeable for the people to the north. Is -- crossing a two-, four-, or six-lane road to get to what is supposed to be a village center to provide internal capture, is that really bike and pedestrian friendly? Is that really an integrated single village with an integrated village center that serves all the people equally? Certainly, it favors the people to the south side, and it becomes a little bit of a challenge for the people on the north to get to. So I really don't see the creative. When it comes to bike and pedestrian friendly, I guess that -- this is on the subjective side, as we discussed. I -- the position seems to be taken that we have neighborhoods with roads and driveways and that you can walk the sidewalks, you can bike down the roads, you can bike down the sidewalks. And that, in itself, is bike and pedestrian friendly. I guess I have a different vision of that; speaks to what Ned would say maybe is common sense. Personally, I think you could -- it's a hard case to say that it's really a friendly biking environment to ride through 100 driveways and have cars backing out, pedestrians, kids playing. You know, who-all has golf carts, perhaps, in this case going down the street? Bike and pedestrian friendly to me means you walk and you're really not at risk of being hit by a car, you're not at risk of being hit by other types of activities. A bike path -- separated bike path or walking trail is bike and pedestrian friendly. I don't see why there couldn't be some accommodation for that in the thousand acres where there's a trail around the perimeter or through the center of it that is not competing with automotive traffic to get where you want to go. So I don't see that as bike and pedestrian friendly. Diversity of housing types with a progressive urban-to-rural continuum as you move from the village center outward. I appreciate the commitments to split the multifamily between the north and south halves. I noticed in the economic plan there are over a thousand multifamily units that are predicted and proposed, but only 250 being committed to and only -- and no committed mix of whether they are apartments, condos, villas, townhomes, this type of thing. I think that in order to build the case that is -- meets that criteria, there should be more definition about where these -- where these areas go and what the mix of diverse housing types might be in there. That is only two-and-a-half percent. Twenty-five acres is two-and-a-half percent of a thousand-acre proposal. And if we're supposed to have a propensity of the density toward the center, I don't see how you really meet that objective with that undefined footprint. The increase from four-acre parcels to 25 acres, which has been requested, I don't have an issue with that on its own, but it does raise the possibility of one multifamily development that's in one small corner, one small area of this thousand-acre development. And by that, the whole requirement for this progressive urban-to-rural density 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 50 of 55 continuum is met. I don't feel it does meet that criteria. And I think -- and this, I do not believe, is an official requirement, but to the extent that the RLSA is intended to create destination-type commercial areas where there really is -- there are enough services where people don't have to make a long trip somewhere, I'm not sure how we get there with the collection of villages with a minimal commercial footprint that really only provide a grocery store. There are many other reasons you have to travel other than a grocery store, although that is definitely a main one. So I really -- I see this as almost two villages rather than one. I sure wish we were talking about a town here. I was excited at the prospect of being part of the group that gets to preview the next RLSA development for a town. I think it's really important in terms of being a precedent for future developments, and I just find myself -- and I believe the applicant spent millions of dollars to develop the town. So I just find it unfortunate that we're here talking about a village. And I believe the reaction, understandably, is that the town, for whatever reasons, was economically not feasibly. And so let's draw back and let's go for what we think we can get through. I believe we need to meet further in the middle to achieve the objectives of the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, thanks, Mark. One of the first things I do when I get a project like this, or most projects, is I ask for a LiDAR of the site because I can tell a lot from the flow of the water and the elevation of the ground. And I looked at this, and then I looked at the historic aerials. And I'm looking at the shape of the parcel. I heard comments that nobody -- people don't like the idea of developing south of Oil Well Road. You could do the whole thing north of Oil Well Road. That's going to make an even worse situation than what you two guys are describing if you moved everything up to the north side. Just be more people. Well -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't say that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. It's the impression I got. But, okay. Anyway, I've looked at the shape of the parcel, and what could you do with it? The north parcel has a very bad shape for development. You know, too many thin areas. The south one is a little nicer. It's probably more easily developed into something that might look like one of the towns you guys are talking about. But as I look at the plan they prepared, to me it looks like a logical alternative to -- a logical solution to what they're stuck with. They're pressed up against Golden Gate Estates. They're pressed up against an excavation -- you can see the -- on the LiDAR you can see the holes there -- that, eventually, I'm told, is going to become a PUD of some kind. They're probably going to fill in all the excavations, and that's difficult to do properly, but, okay, I believe it. And the other side you have an area that's natural, part of a slough that starts up at Lake Trafford that is never going to be developed. So it's kind of isolated in there, and looking at what I see, I thought they did a pretty good job, and I'm not sure what else they could do. Yeah, it would be nice to have a bike path, and it would be nice to have a pedestrian overpass so people could go from one side to the other, but I'm not sure that would accomplish that much. So I'm probably going to vote yes on this. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I just clarify. If I mistakenly gave the impression that I only thought the development should be to the north of Oil Well Road, it really wasn't my intention. It was more that -- I even -- with the village center south of Oil Well Road, I think, considering this parcel, which is all farmland, it looks like a very good place -- it makes sense for development overall. I would even be able to look past the Oil Well Road cutting in in the middle if some of those other criteria were met to meet the objectives of the RLSA. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. You never said no development south, but what you said was -- there were other people that said no development south of Oil Well Road. And what you said was you wanted all these amenities, and if you take everything that you want to do south of Oil Well Road, don't develop that and move everything north of Oil Well Road, your amenities are going to be a lot less, and your density's going to be greater, and your design is going to be a lot harder than if you spread the thing out north and south. It's a difficult parcel to design to. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 51 of 55 You know, if you really want to kill it, I guess, not a problem, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen, did you have anything you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I think they've pretty much said it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have just a few comments. You know, there's been a -- we have a program that's going to come through for a restudy, and there's some things that should be addressed there. One of them that I understand is going to be addressed, it's something that was raised by one of the environmental groups about not having the original documents to understand how the NRI values became to be initiated, base issue apparently with the RLSA, and that's the piece that has disturbed me with this. I asked for a working document for the fiscal neutrality, fiscal impact analysis, and I was told no. That helps me understand how you got to where you needed to be. When you can go in and see when the multipliers change, if they have an impact, that sure raises questions, which may be why it was not given to me. But if you don't have an impact, it settles questions. So I'm really disappointed that that document couldn't have been provided. I did it not out of a concern to find something wrong but to understand how the neutrality was proven. Without that document, I certainly have no faith in the analysis for fiscal neutrality, and I certainly don't know how the consultants we hired, if they didn't have that document, could have done the same thing. So that's a big issue with me, and it's one that I'm very disturbed over. The second one is, I think the village interconnections can be made. They were part of the Rural Lands West submittal. There's no excuse not to make them. They were there, they can be made, and it's an opportunity to take some traffic off the road and keep interconnectivity among those villages, especially when that golf course is probably going to have members of a village nearby that maybe want to join it. The diversity for the housing was insufficient. Yes, they're going to -- they say, well, we're going to 250 (sic) and we're going to have a mix of single-family. Well, that really isn't telling us how diverse it is. I think there could have been a better opportunity to show adequate diversity by the types of mixes, the types of units that they're going to have and provide what was referred to as a gradient density that would flow through the town. Even Comprehensive Planning says that was something that they had expected to see, and it's not there. The issue of Big Cypress Parkway, I firmly believe the county has a right to ask for some reservation of that land. It was part and parcel to the basis for the approval of the Big Cypress Stewardship District, and it should have been -- the county's remiss, just maybe as the developer is. It should have been addressed decades ago or years ago, whenever it was. It wasn't -- it's not bad to ask for it now. We're not saying we're not going to pay for it or we're not going to work out provisions, but it would be nice to know we can count on planning a road system that that system's going to be part of rather than say, well, we're not sure where it's going to go, but it's going to impact a lot of other areas if it doesn't go north and south. And that part bothers me. We can't have enough of a commitment to count on it on a long-term planning basis. The village center not being centralized because it's split by Oil Well Road. I mean, it's center, but it's split by a six-lane freight road, soon to be six-lane. That will do exactly what was referred to is probably end up with two separate gated communities. That's no different than all the PUDs we have in the urban area. And if -- I was the only one on this panel sitting here when the RLSA came through. It was supposed to be the new town concept, more of the Ave Maria style for what they came through and were asked to be. Walkable communities. We were supposed to have a certain density, a certain quantity of everything. None of that seems to be sticking like it was when it was first presented. And this does not give us anything more than the PUDs we have in the urban area. I was expecting more out of that eastern area. The deviations. I think it's interesting that we're stuck to the language in the code as not being a requirement in something that they have -- they're entitled to, but yet they have, at one time, up to 19 deviations. Now it's down to a different number. I think it's 14 or 15. So they don't have to stick to the language, but we're supposed to. So for those reasons, I cannot go along with this plan, but at the same time, I'm not saying they don't have a right to develop. I just don't think this is the right plan for the way they've approached it. And I can't support it. So with that, if anybody has any other comments or questions. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: A question for you, Mark. When you mentioned the interconnection between the villages, that would also mean that the road -- at least one road through the village is a public road, correct? An 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 52 of 55 interconnection to a private gated community, is that really an interconnection, or does that meet your criteria? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What I -- their original town plan on the south side showed two interconnections between the east and west portions. Those interconnections were there. We know they can be ma de. They should still be there. They should connect those villages. Now, how they operate them to let people through and use them and converse, that's something that would come out during further review once we know we had them. But they would have to be open to the residents in some manner or form, kind of like -- we've got a similar problem going on with the -- I think it's the Orchards and some other place up in the north end of the Vineyards, and another problem going up like that in Heritage Bay that's potential. So those things don't need to happen. We can fix them now. And I think that's part of what we're supposed to do for better planning for Collier County. So, anyway, I hope that -- COMMISSIONER FRY: It does. I guess I wonder -- I wonder what the future of the RLSA is since we had a town that was very dynamically designed that did not survive, and now we have four independent villages coming, don't know what would come after that. It seems to me -- I was reading through the RLSA restudy white paper, and it seemed like that -- this reality might have been the reason for an item that is to create an aggregation rule for villages if adjacent and under common or related ownership or control and judged to be part of a uniform plan of development, town standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage. So by coming through with all these one-thousand-acre maximum size villages but just slightly underneath the town requirement, all the advantages of the town with the larger commercial areas, the interconnections, the -- you know, just the more diverse housing, all those benefits of the RLSA go out the window, and I'm very concerned about that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, enough said. Then is there a motion by anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move to deny the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the discussions that we've just had? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Karen. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor for the motion of denial, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries 4-1 for denial. Thank you, all, for the three days' worth of effort and the 3,000 pages we received. ***And that will take us to the next remaining item on our agenda, which is 9.3. It's PL20180002741, 3600 Radio Road CPUD located just east of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Radio 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. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than what's in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 53 of 55 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None other than what's in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: The same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The public record, plus I spoke to representatives -- and I don't even remember who -- a couple times about they were having problems getting through the system. So we talked about the process and the time frame it takes and things like that. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, if you don't mind identifying yourself for the record, it's all yours. MR. GALLANDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name's Ken Gallander. I'm a certified planner with RWA Engineering. Thank you for your time. So we've got a petition in here. It's probably the complete opposite of what you've been dealing with, but each are important on their own face. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will take about three days, you know. MR. GALLANDER: I'm here on behalf of the owner and applicant for this item before you. I have owner representatives here and also members of the project team. I do have a brief presentation for you. I'm more than willing to go through that for efficiency purposes. I don't know if you have any other thoughts on that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me see how many questions we have. The presentation may help. Does anybody have any questions on this project? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I favor the project. And one thing that's -- that I noticed, though, and would point out to you and other applicants is there was reliance on the 2016 AUIR, and we've got the 2019 one in front of us. Now, I realize that maybe when the work was done, that was maybe more current. But when I look back which, of course, I'm going to do, to your credit, the 2019 numbers are more favorable to your position than the '16. So I don't have a substantive beef with that. I guess that's because some construction was resolved elsewhere. But I just -- in the future I'd prefer that we use the most current. And if you have to come in -- if your traffic expert has to come in and do an amendment or just an update, that's helpful. MR. GALLANDER: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what? You don't need to do a presentation. I think we've all read it. It's a pretty simple project. But we'll see if there's any public speakers. And if there are, you have an opportunity to rebut. MR. GALLANDER: Yes. If I may, we are concurrent with the staff report and recommendations, so I just wanted to end with that. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any members of the public here for this item? And, Ray, you probably don't have any public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You certainly don't need rebuttal. But let's try a staff report. And, Jeremy, I want to compliment you. That was a very well-done staff report. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you did to figure out how to do it so well, congratulations. MR. FRANTZ: I have one minor change to the -- to point out in the PUD document. Other than that, the 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 54 of 55 application is consistent with the GMP and the LDC, and we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the change? MR. FRANTZ: The change is on -- is to the Tract P preserve in the PUD document. Under the accessory uses, there is -- there's a reference to the LDC but no actual LDC citation, and I think that that should be referencing Section 3.05.07.H.1.H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't hurt anything, and it helps clarify it. Does the applicant have any objections to that? MR. GALLANDER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No public -- there's no public speakers, and you don't need to rebut anything, so we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of the PUDZ as presented. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. That was as quick as it could possibly be, and it's a relief after the last one for several days, so thank you very much. MR. GALLANDER: We appreciate staff and your time. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the end of our agenda. I believe -- make sure -- I think -- there's no new business that I can find on here. There's no old business. There's a no public left for comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's be out of here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're out of here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded that. We're -- all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you, all. ******* 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) November 7, 2019 Page 55 of 55 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:40 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 11-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (10959 : November 7, 2019 CCPC minutes) 12/03/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 4.A.1 Item Summary: PL20190002545 - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida; to eliminate the seating limitations and extend the hours of operation for restaurants within the Golf Course and Recreational Use District (GC), when located within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] Meeting Date: 12/03/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Jeremy Frantz 11/12/2019 3:26 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/12/2019 3:26 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 11/13/2019 9:20 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 11/13/2019 10:21 AM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 11/14/2019 12:53 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 11/14/2019 3:55 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 11/14/2019 3:59 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 11/14/2019 5:53 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 12/03/2019 5:05 PM 4.A.1 Packet Pg. 143 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20190002545 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment eliminates seating limitations and expands the hours of operations for restaurants within the Golf Course and Recreational Use District (GC), when located within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners HEARING DATES BCC 01/14/2020 12/10/2019 CCPC 12/03/2019 DSAC 12/04/2019 DSAC-LDR N/A ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR N/A DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND During a discussion regarding a proposed public private partnership (P3) to provide golf and other complimentary experiential opportunities on the Golden Gate Golf Course property on October 22, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to draft an ordinance to eliminate the seating limitations on restauran ts in the Golf Course Zoning District within the Golden Gate City area. Then, during commissioner communications on November 12, 2019, the Board also acknowledged the need to extend the hours of operation. Some of the goals included in the Invitation to Negotiate for the proposed P3 include the development of “complimentary experiential opportunities such as miniature golf, modern driving range, quality food and beverage services, and community space” (See Agenda Item 11.C). Golf courses operations have undergone changes in recent years in response to declines in participat ion in the sport, especially among younger generations. This has led to innovation in the industry so that the modern golf experience includes a variety of family-oriented golf experiences, such as community spaces open to more of the public, driving ranges, and food service at restaurants that are larger than have historically been associated with golf courses (See examples of regional or national modern golf experiences in Exhibit A). Additionally, several restaurants associated with golf courses throughout Collier County have opened to the public, rather than limiting their service to club members. The proposed amendment removes the 150-seat limitation and extends the hours of operations from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. for restaurants that are accessory to a permitted use in the Golf Course and Recreational Use District “GC” within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone (See Exhibit B). The seating limitation and hours of operation were originally added to the LDC in Ordinance 92-73. This amendment does not make any changes to the site design or development standards applicable to the GC district. Additionally, LDC section 5.05.15 B states that, “where a permitted, accessory, or conditional use is sought for a golf course zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC),” the standards in LDC section 5.05.15 H would also apply. See Exhibit C for development standards applicable in the GC Zoning District. 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19.docx The Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone was established in Ordinance 2018-56 when the Board designated the Golden Gate City area as a target for economic development. Expanding the allowance for larger restaurants that are accessory to a golf course will support both the operation of the golf course as well as the larger economic development and redevelopment goals for the Golden Gate City Area. Public Information Meeting On October 31, 2019, while discussing the CCPC’s review schedule for this amendment, the CCPC requested that staff reach out to the community surrounding the Golden Gate Golf Course to alert the community to the change. As a result, a Public Information Meeting was held on Monday, November 18, 2019 at 5:30 p.m., in the Golden Gate Community Center. See Exhibit D for a summary of the meeting. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. This amendment will support the Board’s goal of continued operation of the Golden Gate Golf Course through the ITN process and redevelopment in the area. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Modern Golf Experience Examples, B) Ordinance 2018-56, C) Development Standards in GC Zoning, D) Public Information Meeting Summary 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts 1 2 A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district 3 is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, 4 including certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in 5 scale and manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with 6 the urban mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land 7 use element of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards 8 established in LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards. 9 10 1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the 11 uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district. 12 13 a. Permitted uses. 14 15 1. Golf courses. 16 17 2. Hiking trails, walkways, multi-use paths and observation decks. 18 19 3. Passive recreation areas. 20 21 4. Disc golf. 22 23 b. Accessory uses. 24 25 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses 26 permitted as of right in the GC district. 27 28 2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course 29 use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center 30 building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming 31 pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms. 32 33 3. Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet, 34 associated with a golf course. 35 36 4. Restaurants, associated with a golf course, with a seating capacity 37 of 150 seats or less, provided that the hours of operation are no 38 later than 10:00 p.m. However, the seating capacity shall not apply, 39 and the hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m., within 40 the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. 41 42 5. A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf course 43 employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf course. 44 45 6. Maintenance buildings. 46 47 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses 1 in the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established in 2 LDC section 10.08.00. 3 4 1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift 5 shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square 6 feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats 7 outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone; 8 cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve 9 patrons of the golf course. 10 11 2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens. 12 13 3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to 14 residential uses. 15 16 4. Museums. 17 18 5. Water related activities, including non-motorized boating, boat 19 ramps, docks, and fishing piers. 20 21 6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, 22 tennis, and racquetball. 23 24 7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers. 25 26 8. Parks and playgrounds. 27 28 9. Pools, indoor or outdoor. 29 30 10. Botanical gardens. 31 32 11. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the 33 foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of 34 Zoning Appeals, as applicable. 35 36 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 37 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit A – Modern Golf Experience Examples 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx Top Golf: Source: Screen captures from www.swingsuite.topgolf.com and https://cdn.topgolf.com/assets/galleries/50934/5500_edison-Single-Bay-01.jpg 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit A – Modern Golf Experience Examples 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx Pop Stroke Source: Screen captures from www.popstroke.com 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit A – Modern Golf Experience Examples 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx Big Shots Golf Screen captures from: www.bigshotsgolf.com 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit B – Ordinance 2018-56 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit B – Ordinance 2018-56 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit B – Ordinance 2018-56 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit B – Ordinance 2018-56 11 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit B – Ordinance 2018-56 12 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx 4.A.1.aPacket Pg. 155Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit C – Development Standards in GC Zoning 13 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx 4.02.01 – Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts A. The following tables describe the dimensional standards pertaining to base zoning districts. Site design requirements apply to the principal building on each site. Table 1. Lot Design Requirements for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Minimum Lot Area (square feet) Minimum Lot Width (linear feet) Maximum Building Coverage (%) GC None None None * * * * * * * * * * * * * Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Maximum Building Height (feet) Minimum Distance Between Buildings Minimum Floor Area of Buildings (square feet) Floor Area Ratio (%) GC 35 None None None * * * * * * * * * * * * * Table 2.1 - TABLE OF MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS (SETBACKS) FOR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS Note as to setback line measurement: minimum setback lines are typically measured from the legal boundary of a lot, regardless of all easements burdening a lot, with the exception of easements that comprise a road right-of-way where the minimum setback line is to be measured from the road right-of-way easement line. Zoning district Minimum Front Yard (feet) Minimum Side Yard (feet) Minimum Rear Yard (feet) Public School Requirements GC None None None # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4.02.03 - Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures A. For the purposes of this section, in order to determine yard requirements, the term " accessory structure " shall include detached and attached accessory use structures or buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessory use to the principal use structure or building. Accessory buildings and structures must be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure and shall conform with the following setbacks and building separations. B. Accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than five (5) percent of the total lot area in all residential zoning districts, or occupy an area greater than forty (40) percent of any building envelope (i.e., area of lot remaining for building purposes after accounting for required setbacks), whichever is the lesser, provided the total maximum coverage provision of this ordinance for all principal and accessory buildings is not exceeded. Nothing herein contained shall serve to prevent the construction of an accessory building containing an area of less than 500 square feet provided all yard and building spacing requirements can be met. C. All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E) zoning districts must meet principal structure setbacks. For accessory structures related to the keeping of animals and livestock in these districts, see LDC section 4.02.07. 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit C – Development Standards in GC Zoning 14 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx D. Table of dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structures in zoning districts other than Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E): Location Accessory Building/Structure Setbacks Front Rear Side Structure to Structure (If Detached) Non-Waterfront Lots and Non- Golf Course Lots Attached porch SPS 10 feet SPS N/A Carports (commercial, industrial, and multi-family) 1 SPS SPS SPS 10 feet Carports (one- and two-family) SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet One-story and multi-story parking structures SPS SPS SPS 1/1 2 with a minimum of 10 feet Parking garage (one- and two-family) SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet Permanent emergency generators 1 Not permitted in front of building 10 feet SPS N/A Satellite dish antennas Not permitted in front of building 15 feet SPS 10 feet Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one- and two-family) SPS 10 feet SPS None Swimming pool (multi-family and commercial) SPS 20 feet 15 feet None Tennis courts (one- and two-family) SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet Tennis courts (multi-family, and commercial) SPS 20 feet 15 feet 20 feet Trellises, arbors, and similar structures that do not exceed the maximum fence height in LDC section 5.03.02 None None None None Trellises, arbors, and similar structures that exceed the maximum fence height in LDC section 5.03.02 SPS 10 feet SPS None Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet Utility buildings SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit C – Development Standards in GC Zoning 15 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx Location Accessory Building/Structure Setbacks Front Rear Side Structure to Structure (If Detached) Waterfront Lots and Golf Course Lots 3 Attached porch where floor or deck of porch are: • In Isles of Capri: Seven feet in height or less above the top of seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure • In all other areas: Four feet in height or less above top of seawall or top of bank SPS 10 feet SPS SPS Attached porch where floor or deck of porch are: • In Isles of Capri: More than seven feet in height above the top of seawall or with more than four feet of stem wall exposure • In all other areas: More than four feet in height above top of seawall or top of bank SPS 20 feet SPS SPS Boat slips and ramps (private) N/A N/A 7.5 feet N/A Boathouses and boat shelters (private) SPS N/A See LDC sections 5.03.06 E and F 10 feet Carports (commercial, industrial, and multi-family) 1 SPS SPS SPS 10 feet Carports (one- and two-family) SPS SPS SPS 10 feet Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet Davits, hoists, and lifts N/A N/A See LDC sections 5.03.06 E and F None Docks, decks, and mooring pilings N/A N/A See LDC sections 5.03.06 E and F N/A Golf clubhouse and maintenance buildings 4 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet N/A One-story and multi-story parking structures SPS SPS SPS 1/1 2 with a minimum of 10 feet Parking garage (one- and two-family) SPS SPS SPS 10 feet 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit C – Development Standards in GC Zoning 16 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx Location Accessory Building/Structure Setbacks Front Rear Side Structure to Structure (If Detached) Permanent emergency generators 1 Not permitted in front of building 10 feet SPS N/A Satellite dish antennas Not permitted in front of building 15 feet SPS 10 feet Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one- and two-family) where swimming pool decks are: • In Isles of Capri: Seven feet in height or less above the top of seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure • In all other areas: Four feet in height or less above top of seawall or top of bank SPS 10 feet SPS None Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one- and two-family) where swimming pool decks are: • In Isles of Capri: More than seven feet in height above the top of seawall or with more than four feet of stem wall exposure • In all other areas: More than four feet in height above top of seawall or top of bank SPS 20 feet SPS None Swimming pool (multi-family and commercial) SPS 20 feet 15 feet None Tennis courts (private) (one- and two- family) SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet Tennis courts (multi-family and commercial) SPS 35 feet SPS 20 feet Trellises, arbors, and similar structures that do not exceed the maximum fence height in LDC section 5.03.02 None None None None Trellises, arbors, and similar structures that exceed the maximum fence height in LDC section 5.03.02 SPS 10 feet SPS None Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet Utility buildings SPS SPS 10 feet 10 feet Notes: SPS = Calculated same as principal structure for the zoning district. 1 See LDC section 4.02.01 D for exemptions and exclusions from required yards. 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit C – Development Standards in GC Zoning 17 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx 2 1 foot of accessory height = 1 foot of building separation. 3 In those cases where the coastal construction control line is involved, the coastal construction control line will apply. 4 The setback shall apply to external boundaries of the golf course district, and shall be inclusive of separately platted buffer tracts. # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4.02.08 – Outside Lighting Requirements A. Lights on golf courses shall be located and designed so that no light is aimed directly toward property designated residential, which is located within 200 feet of the source of the light. B. Specific height requirements in zoning districts. 1. GC—Twenty-five (25) feet 2. C-1—Twenty-five (25) feet 3. CF—Twenty-five (25) feet # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5.05.15 – Conversion of Golf Courses * * * * * * * * * * * * * H. Design standards for lands converted from a golf course or for a permitted use within the GC zoning district shall be subject to the following design standards. 1. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed to reduce excessive glare, light trespass and sky glow. At a minimum, lighting shall be directed away from neighboring properties and all light fixtures shall be full cutoff with flat lenses. Lighting for the conversion project shall be vetted with stakeholders during the SOMs and the public hearings, as applicable. 2. Setbacks. All non-golf course uses, except for the greenway, shall provide a minimum average50-foot setback from lands zoned residential or with residential uses, however the setback shall be no less than 35 feet at any one location. 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit D – Public Information Meeting Summary 18 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx Public Information Meeting Date & Time: Monday, November 18, 2019 - 5:30 p.m. Location: Golden Gate Community Center. The County provided notice of the public meeting through the placement of Variable Message Signs on Golden Gate Boulevard and mailed notice to property owners within 1,000 feet of the GC zoning district within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. A copy of the letter is attached. County staff counted more than 125 members of the public in attendance, however, not all signed the attendance sheet. Sign-in sheets are attached. At the meeting, County Staff provided a summary of the proposed LDC amendment, distributed comment cards, responded to questions and comments, and provided a schedule of the upcoming public meeting dates. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached. The following comments, concerns, or suggestions were made by those in attendance: • The desire to see the golf course maintained and continue to operate the community’s benefit. • Requests to have a more complete understanding of the County’s ultimate plans for the golf course. • Concerns about the addition of new commercial uses on the Golf Course property. • Concerns about the compatibility of new experiential or modern golf experiences with the established neighborhood. • Concerns about increases in traffic, noise, and lights, and the impact on infrastructure and surrounding property values. • Concerns about existing commercial businesses in the area. • The suggestion to include a maximum number of seats for restaurants. • The suggestion that the amendment is premature and should be addressed at the time when there is a complete plan for the property. • Questions regarding impacts to water and sewer systems. • Questions about whether other uses would not be open until midnight. • Objections to potential noise and lighting from new uses. Comment cards were passed out during the meeting to allow for additional written comments and the ability to indicate support, opposition, or no opinion about the proposed amendment to eliminate seating limitations and expand hours of operation for restaurants that are accessory to a golf course. Copies of the comment cards that were returned are provided by separate attachment. Of 100 comment cards that were passed out, 65 were returned. The written comments were as follows: • 57 indicated opposition to the amendment (when additional comments were provided, the following comments were registered): o Vendors would have the ability to request changes later (through the conditional use process), making this change unnecessary. o The golf course should remain as green space. o Increased congestion and noise. o Impacts to privacy and safety. o Impacts from lights or noise from music outside the building. o The desire to see the golf course continue to operate. o Impacts to water quality. o The need for more information about future plans for the golf course. 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Exhibit D – Public Information Meeting Summary 19 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Restaurant Seating in GC District (PL20190002545)\Drafts\2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22- 19.docx o Incompatibility with the surrounding development and way of life. o Misunderstandings about the reason for the meeting. o The proposed change would be incompatible with surrounding senior living. o Concerns about density and the compatibility of adding a bar or restaurant to the area. o Concerns about impacts to property values. o Concerns about impacts to infrastructure such as water, roads, schools, and traffic. o The desire for a maximum number of seats. o Expectations for the golf course when homeowners purchased their homes. o The absence of a need for this type of development. o The need for more information to make a decision. o The suggestion to refurbish the course, and manage it as a golf course. • Five comment cards indicated support for the amendment: o All of which indicate that support was predicated on continuing to use the property for a golf course. • Three comment cards indicated no opinion: o Two indicated there was insufficient information about what is planned for the property. o One indicated the desire to see golf first. The meeting concluded with a review of the upcoming public hearing dates. Attachments: Letter to Property Owners Sign-in Sheets Staff presentation Comment Cards 4.A.1.a Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning District 11-22-19 (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) November 4, 2019 Jeremy Frantz Collier County Zoning Division (239) 252-2305 Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Public Information Meeting and Public Hearings for Proposed LDC Amendment PL20190002545 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Collier County proposes an amendment to the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) that would remove the seating limitations and to extend the hours of operation for restaurants that are accessory to a golf course. This amendment is proposed to apply to properties in the Golf Course and Recreational Use (GC) Zoning District located within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. The purpose and intent of the amendment is to support the continued operation of the Golden Gate City Golf Course and to implement the economic development and redevelopment goals in the community. The boundaries of the areas to be discussed are shown on the following page. The public is invited to attend and provide feedback at the Public Information Meeting held by Collier County on: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples FL 34116 Several other public hearings will also be held by Collier County as shown below, during which the public may provide additional feedback on the proposed LDC amendment. Meeting Date Location Collier County Planning Commission Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 5:05 p.m. Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 Collier County Board of Commissioners Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Collier County Board of Commissioners Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. 4.A.1.b Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Property Owner Letter (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) The proposed LDC amendment is applicable to the area depicted below: 4.A.1.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Property Owner Letter (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 165Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 166Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 167Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 168Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 169Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 170Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 171Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 172Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) 4.A.1.cPacket Pg. 173Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheets (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC district) Public Information Meeting County initiated amendment to LDC Section 2.03.09 Golf Course and Recreational Use District (GC) 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Meeting Purpose Introduce a proposed LDC amendment regarding restaurants that are accessory to a golf course 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone Adopted in 2018 (Ordinance 2018-56) 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Board Direction October 22, 2019 1) Goals and objectives for future of the golf course 2) Eliminate the seating limitations on restaurants in the Golf Course Zoning District within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Golf Course and Recreational Use District (GC) Permitted Uses: 1.Golf courses. 2.Hiking trails, walkways, multi-use paths and observation decks. 3.Passive recreation areas. 4.Disc golf. 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant GC District –Accessory Uses 1.Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as of right in the GC district. 2.Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms. 3.Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet, associated with a golf course. 4.Restaurants, associated with a golf course, with a seating capacity of 150 seats or less provided that the hours of operation are no later than 10:00 p.m. 5.A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf course employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf course. 6.Maintenance buildings. 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant GC District –Conditional Uses 1.Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats; cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of the golf course 2.Cemeteries and memorial gardens. 3.Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to residential uses. 4.Museums. 5.Water related activities, including non-motorized boating, boat ramps, docks, and fishing piers. 6.Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis, and racquetball. 7.Neighborhood fitness and community centers. 8.Parks and playgrounds. 9.Pools, indoor or outdoor. 10.Botanical gardens. 11.Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, as applicable. 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Proposed Changes –Accessory Uses Restaurants,associated with a golf course,with a seating capacity of 150 seats or less,provided that the hours of operation are no later than 10:00 p.m. However, the seating capacity shall not apply, and the hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m., within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Proposed Changes –Conditional Uses Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone; cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of the golf course. 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant No Change to Golf Course Development Standards Amplified Sound Building Dimensions Parking Setbacks Buffers Landscaping Lighting 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant LDC Amendment Process – Next Steps Tuesday, December 3 5:05 p.m. Planning Commission (CCPC) Wednesday, December 4 3:00 p.m. Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) Tuesday, December 10 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners (1st Hearing) Tuesday, January 14, 2020 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners (Final Hearing) 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Housekeeping Comment cards Draft amendment Sign-in sheet 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant Questions/Comments? Jeremy Frantz, AICP Collier County Growth Management Department -Zoning Division (239) 252-2305 Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov 4.A.1.d Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Staff Presentation (10747 : Restaurant 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 187Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 188Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 189Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 190Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 191Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 192Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 193Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 194Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 195Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 196Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 197Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 198Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 199Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 200Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 201Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 202Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 203Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 204Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 205Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 206Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 207Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 208Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 209Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 210Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 211Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 212Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 213Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 214Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 215Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 216Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 217Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 218Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 219Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 220Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 221Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 222Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 223Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 224Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 225Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 226Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 227Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 228Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 229Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 230Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 231Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 232Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 233Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 234Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 235Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 236Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 237Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 238Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 239Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 240Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 241Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 242Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 243Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 244Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 245Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 246Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 247Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 248Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 249Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 250Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 251Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 252Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC 4.A.1.ePacket Pg. 253Attachment: 11-18-19 Public Information Meeting Comment Cards (10747 : Restaurant seating in GC