Loading...
CCPC Agenda 01/16/2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 1/9/2020 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 January 16, 2020 9: 00 AM 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. January 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 1/9/2020 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes B. December 5, 2019 Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***This item has been continued from December 19, 2019 CCPC meeting.*** PL20190000821/CPSP-2019-2: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay, to allow additional uses for qualified target industry businesses, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located at the intersections of Collier Boulevard and Interstate 75, and Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard, in Sections 34, 35, and 36, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1,245± acres. [Coordinator: David C. Weeks, Growth Management Plan Manager] January 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 1/9/2020 2. PUDA-PL20190000259: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 82-49, as amended, the ShadowWood Planned Unit Development (PUD), to redesignate 4± acres of land from Tract C, private air park district, to Tract E, residential development; by adding the development standards for Tract E; by amending the master plan to add 3 access points to provide ingress and egress to Tract E including access to Polly Avenue, Atkins Road and Whitaker Road; by removing a requirement that all access roads to the PUD are private roads; and by revising developer commitments. The subject property consisting of 77.99± acres is part of the 168.1 acre PUD located at Wing South Air Park, east of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 3. PUDZ-PL20180002453: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as KASE MPUD, to allow for construction of a maximum of 76 residential dwelling units or 212 group housing units for seniors, on property located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one quarter mile south of Immokalee Road in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 7.58± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 4. PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to extend the availability of the early entry transfer of development rights bonus for property within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District-Sending Lands, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 01/16/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes Meeting Date: 01/16/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 12/13/2019 9:45 AM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 12/13/2019 9:45 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 12/13/2019 9:45 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 01/16/2020 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 1 of 21 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 3, 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL 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 Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joe Schmitt, Environmental ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Sally Ashkar, Assistant County Attorney 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 2 of 21 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. FRANTZ: You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the December 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is the 5:05 meeting. It's a special meeting for an LDC amendment. All those wishing to -- please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five -- six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Six, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, we've got -- Karl needs to be credited for two nights because he was here last night, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that's seven. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that mean I get two votes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes that were provided electronically. October 31, does anybody have any changes? If not, is there a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a change, okay. Will you hold on your motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 16, the second place that it says Commissioner Homiak, it should be 30 percent, not 3 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Mr. Fryer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 3 of 21 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. November 7th, same question, anybody have any changes? If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fryer, Mr. Schmitt. 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, both 6-0. ***That takes us to the only advertised public hearing tonight, and it is a legislative matter, so it will not be -- we will not need disclosures or swearing in. The advertised public hearing is PL20190002545. It's for the elimination -- eliminating seating limitations and extending hours of operations for restaurants within the golf course and recreational use district located within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. So with that, Jeremy, we're going to turn it over to you, and we'll go from there. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Jeremy Frantz with the Growth Management Department, LDC manager. I have a, hopefully, short presentation, and then we can go to any questions that you might have. So like you said, we just have the one LDC amendment to review tonight related to restaurant seating and hours of operation in that district. Just to take you back to where the Board is coming from, give a little bit of context about why we're making this change. Back in October, the Board was setting the goals for an invitation to negotiate related to a public/private partnership for the operation of this property. You can see several of the goals on the screen now, in particular the goal to develop a public/private partnership to provide golf and entertainment experience; that includes anywhere from 9 to 18 holes of golf, and the next goal, to include other complementary experiential opportunities, such as miniature golf, modern driving range, quality food and beverage services, and community space. Coming out of this discussion, the Board then directed staff to pursue this amendment to eliminate the seating limitations on restaurants in the golf course zoning district. This is intended to provide flexibility for those that are responding to that invitation to negotiate. The topic was brought up again on November 12th, which the Board reiterated that staff was directed to modify the restaurant seating limitation but also to extend the hours of operation. So this is -- the dashed line on the screen, this is the boundary of the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. This is an area created in 2018 and has been the impetus for a number of county initiatives related to the renewal and redevelopment of the area. This amendment is playing just a small part in the overall picture for this area. So looking at the existing language for the golf course and recreational use district, you can see that the permitted uses are pretty limited in the GC district. You can also see the silhouette there on the screen represents 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 4 of 21 the property that this change would apply to. And you can see there are also a number of accessory uses in the golf course -- in the GC district. These are uses that would be required to be accessory and incidental to uses that are permitted by right; those uses that were listed on the last screen. In particular, we're looking at No. 4 related to restaurants associated with a golf course. Additionally, there's a number of conditional uses in the GC district. You can see kind of a wide range of uses, but these would go through the conditional-use process. And here the conditional uses, No. 1, establishes that a restaurant that had a seating capacity of greater than 150 seats would be required to go through this conditional-use process. So our proposed changes are pretty straightforward -- they're in your packets and on the screen -- to eliminate the seating capacity that would typically apply when it's within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone and also to extend the hours of operation to 12 a.m. And in the conditional uses section as well identifying that the conditional-use process would only be required outside of the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone. Just to give a little bit of context or a comparison, we did look at several nearby restaurants, at the total seats that are approved. We didn't go and verify that this is how many seats that they do have, but it gives a picture of what 150 seats might look like. I just wanted to reiterate a couple of things about what this change does not do. It does not apply to the existing commercial properties that are in that area. I can point that out in just a second. It doesn't allow for a stand-alone restaurant that would not be associated with a golf course. As we're looking at those, that use -- excuse me -- the list of accessory uses, it specifically states that a restaurant associated with a golf course, so this wouldn't allow for one that stands alone without a golf course. It doesn't change or establish any standards for any of the other uses related to a golf course. We're talking strictly about restaurants. And it doesn't change any of the other development standards that would typically apply to this type of use. So what does that mean? The standards that are currently in place for amplified sound, your building dimensions, parking requirements, setbacks, required buffers or landscaping, any lighting standards or architectural standards, these are all remaining as they are today; no changes. You can see our public meeting schedule. When we came and talked about the timing for this meeting, you-all asked to make sure that we held some additional public outreach prior to this meeting. We did that on November 18th. And we are scheduled for our first Board of County Commissioners' meeting on Tuesday, December 10th, next week. I mentioned we held a public information meeting on November 18th. There were well in excess of 100 people in attendance, and we received quite a wide range of questions and concerns. I've laid them out here, kind of summarized what those concerns were to -- you know, folks wanted to see the continued operation of a golf course on the property. There were quite a lot of questions about what the ultimate plans for the golf course are. There were a lot of concerns about the potential for new commercial uses on the golf course and the compatibility with the established neighborhood. Specifically related to a restaurant, there was concerns about traffic, noise, lighting, and potential infrastructure impacts. There were also a lot of concerns brought up about the existing commercial businesses in that area. There was one suggestion to include a maximum number of seats for restaurants rather than just eliminating entirely. There was also the suggestion that the potential for a restaurant should be addressed at the time when there is a plan for the property, a more complete plan for the property. There were a number of questions about, you know, whether other uses would now also be allowed to be open until midnight, and then also potential for impact to some property values. We also had comment cards available for members of the public. We ran out of those comment cards, so not everyone had the opportunity to fill one out, but of those that did, they had the opportunity to indicate their support, opposition, or whether they were undecided about the potential change. You can see the majority of those responses were in opposition. There were a handful of cards that were in support of the change, but all of 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 5 of 21 them indicated that that was predicated upon there being golf on the property as well. So with that, I do have some other slides. I can go over some of those development centers that I mentioned that aren't changing. But other than that, I can open up questions to you all. And it looks like we do have a number of members of the public that probably want to speak. I have a couple of cards -- or sheets filled out, but that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And first of all, for the audience, normally we ask our questions first, and we'll do that tonight, and then we go to public speakers. Anybody that's here and everybody that's here will have an opportunity to speak. So whether you filled out a card or not, you'll be able to speak. We're here to hear you. So with that in mind, I'll turn to the Planning Commission first. Is there questions? I'll go to Stan, then Ned, and then Joe, and Karl. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not a question, just a comment. Your one slide that showed all the restaurants, I think you may want to make "Senior Tequila" "Señor Tequila." I more an old town, but, you know... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, on the unlimited seating, I can't comprehend why we would not propose some limit to the seating. Could you help me with that? MR. FRANTZ: We were just given very straightforward direction from the Board to eliminate that. That limitation -- really, there's no maximum on the number of seats that you could have at a restaurant that's accessory to a golf course. It would just be required to go through the conditional -use process to get there if you were over 150 seats. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question is, why didn't -- well, I already know the answer, but I don't think it completely answers the question, and that is, I realize that the Board of County Commissioners directed the preparation of an LDC amendment, but why -- I mean, logically, wouldn't this and shouldn't this, if it's anything at all, be a conditional use? MR. FRANTZ: It could go through the conditional-use process. There are other potential approval processes that something like this could go through. Staff was given direction to bring an LDC forward. I think a part of that consideration is the timing of this invitation to negotiate, wanting to make it clear that this type of a use is something that, you know, they would be favor -- that the Board would see as favorable. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. One of the points that the Chairman made showed up in the minutes -- one of the sets of minutes we approved related to, perhaps, an overreach as a result of using the LDC amendment process, which has broad application versus targeted or surgical approach, which the conditional-use permit for this area would have been. It seems to me logically that -- I understand that the Board of County Commissioners directed you to do something, but it was probably more of a general directive than telling you specifically how it should be accomplished, and I think that the Board of County Commissioners would welcome your expertise in responding in ways that in your judgment would make this more consistent with how things were done in the past. I see that the golf course borders three sides of residential properties. And so if we were to recommend going forward on this, I would certainly want to see some robust proposals having to do with buffering for noise, for light, and the like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Ned, I think that's part of the problem. Can we, as part of this LDCA, put site-specific criteria for protection of the public into the Land Development Code for this one golf course within this one area? I mean, have you done that before since you've been doing this or anything like that? That's -- MR. FRANTZ: We could probably include some limitations on -- I mean, it's feasible that something could be written that way. It would depend on what your suggestions are, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as we boil the evening down, we can -- okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. No problem. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 6 of 21 I guess my count showed 57 residents opposed and five in favor without qualification, and the ones who spoke favorably seem to presuppose that there's going to be some kind of a golf course there, and the ones who appeared to be against it, many of them, wanted a golf course of some kind, but did not want a situation that, in their perception, was overcommercialization, which would bring about, you know, all the negative things that overcommercialization brings. I have watched proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners to try to get a sense of where they want to be going on this, and it's my understanding that there appears to be a direction given that if this is to be a golf course, if it's to be kept that way, that it needs to be self-sufficient, financially self-sufficient. And so I gather that engaging a contractor who, of course, would need to make a profit and, therefore, would want wide opportunities to have large seating and other accessory uses and activities that may almost be independent of a golf course available to them and, in that way, if I understand correctly, the concept would be that the risk of success or failure would be on the contractor, not the county, and it would not be a cost item to the county if it was successful. And, I mean, I understand that rationale, and I can see that it needs to be thought about carefully, but I have a question that may or may not have been thought of before. When this was a golf course, was it -- demographically, did it draw mostly from Golden Gate City and nearby areas, or did it draw from the entire county, or do we know? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, I can't speak to that. I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My concern is is that if what is desired is a 12- or 18-hole golf course in the usual configuration without lots of commercial activity, that would involve potentially a cost to the county, and if it's a cost to the county, solely for the benefit of a small segment of the county, it's hard to justify. If there were numbers showing that people from Marco came up and, you know, people all over the county came to use a golf course like this, then, perhaps, an argument can be made that there should be a golf course without the excessive commercialization. But somehow the thing has to pay for itself, wouldn't you agree? MR. FRANTZ: The Board has made that clear that's a part of their, you know, guiding principle about this public/private partnership. They'd like to see this not be a cost to the county. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see here. So if the county went about this on its own without a contractor to assume the risk and the responsibility, am I correct that there would be a cost to the county? MR. FRANTZ: I am not a part of that analysis. That is probably more at the County Manager's Office level or maybe the individual commissioners' offices. It wasn't a part of my analysis for the amendment either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'm coming to the end here, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, so -- he writes the code, so some of these questions may not be as relevant to him as they would be to us. He's not like an applicant. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Okay. The comments -- I thought your review and your presentation was quite thorough, and I appreciated that. And, let's see. On Page 161 of 253 of the packet, the staff, probably you, Jeremy, pulled together the various comments. And there were, it looked like, maybe 10 or 12 bullet points here starting with the desire to see the golf course maintained, continue to operate for the community's benefit, understood. The third one, concerns about the addition of new commercial uses on the golf course property, I think we've -- I've already talked about that. Compatibility of the new experiential or modern golf experiences with the established neighborhood. Could you say a word about compatibility? MR. FRANTZ: The concerns that the people expressed were about issues like light, traffic, noise, those types of things. You know, trying to capture all of those comments in one thought. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The potential nuisance effect of the proposed uses. MR. FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then the suggestion about having a maximum number of seats for restaurants, I've already mentioned that. It just seems obvious to me that we would want to have that if we go forward. Chairman, that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe, then Karl. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 7 of 21 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll follow up in regards to the issue here. I'll be frank, quite honestly, we're taking a ball-peen hammer and a sledgehammer to solve a very small problem here that should be solved through the conditional-use process. Our LDC is voluminous, and you know that. And we are making -- we're bypassing all of the public notice and other criteria that would go about in regards to any type of use. And the conditional-use process, we're now just codifying it as a change to the LDC, and it makes it automatic. So I have some real problems with that, so I need to be convinced that this is the right way to go. But you've been directed by the Board, so I understand that. MR. FRANTZ: I mean, I might also add that I think in the Board's discussion of the potential for attracting some sort of, you know, what they're calling a modern golf experience, it might include something like a restaurant in their analysis of what restaurant sizes look like throughout the county, is that 150 seats is rather small. That's been some of their conversation at the Board meetings. And so I think, you know, they're -- they are considering the potential, you know, for the industry to be a little bit different than what the LDC currently limits it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's drill down into this term "modern golf experience," because you showed a picture of Topgolf, and you really understand what that is. Another term -- because it's a commercial term. It's Topgolf, but there's others -- Driveshaft. There's others that are very similar. Commercial-type environment, are you -- is the Board looking -- I don't know, but is the Board looking for that type of applicant to submit for a proposal to convert, quote, the golf course to a modern experience, which is, essentially, a stadium-type driving range with the restaurant and all the other amenities associated with it? Very popular. But, again, is that what they were looking for was that type of company to come in and submit for a proposal to use this property as a golf course? Because that really is not a golf course. That's a driving range. That's a restaurant. That's an entertainment center. MR. FRANTZ: The Board -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You showed a picture of it in here. That's what confuses me. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. The Board has talked about some interest in attracting a use like that at some of their board meetings. That's why I've put those examples in there. This is something that they're considering. The way that language is being changed, it would -- it's really just providing flexibility for whatever those businesses -- those firms that are going to be responding to the invitation to negotiate, it will be up to them to propose something. I'm not involved in that process. I'm not involved with those firms. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but, of course, you put it in the document, so now it leads me to believe that there's a vision that that type of entertainment center would be proposed. And if it were, why would they not go through a public process or the conditional-use process if they wanted to extend past the 10 p.m. hour? Because right now we're making it a broad change forever and ever applicable to anybody that wants to be in that area. And that's the intent you got from the Board? MR. FRANTZ: They've expressed interest in attracting those types of firms. Nothing about the invitation to negotiate suggests that that's the only type of proposal that they're going to, you know, possibly get. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. Have you looked at any other clubhouses? Because almost all of the other -- I can't think of another public golf course. Most of our private golf courses associated with clubhouses that are operated as part of the community certainly can extend beyond the 10 p.m. hour when they're doing events at a golf course, because they're part of the community, but this is essentially a public golf course, and any similarities with any of the other clubhouses out there? MR. FRANTZ: I did review a number of the PUDs that have golf courses and clubhouses and allow for restaurants associated with those golf courses. I did not find -- I didn't do an exhaustive search through them, but I did probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 -- looked at 10 to 15 PUDs. None of them had a limitation on the number of seats. They were all just limited to being restaurants that serve the members of the golf course. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 8 of 21 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But it is in the LDC that currently they limit, but it isn't applicable to other type of clubs associated with PUDs or communities right now. MR. FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, then Karen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeremy, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the proposition here. There was an article in the paper this morning about this, and it showed concepts like Topgolf, that Joe alluded to. I got the impression, right or wrong, that the goal was to create a self-sustaining partnership that would pay -- you know, basically pay for itself. Keep the golf course running but maybe reduce it from 18 holes down to 12 or so, and maybe with the land from the other six holes create this stadium-type experience or a Topgolf-type experience that created more of a destination; to keep the golf course open as a service to the residents of Collier County, but also create a destination to make sure that it's viable for somebody to come in and develop it. Is that -- is that a reasonable interpretation? MR. FRANTZ: That's my understanding, and that's what I tried to describe in the amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Can you define the term -- I noticed in a couple of places in the presentation -- "restaurant associated with the golf course." What is the definition of "associated with the golf course"? Does that mean on the golf course grounds, or does that mean adjacent to the golf course? I mean, I'm just trying to understand the geographic area that we're talking about here. MR. FRANTZ: Given that it's in the GC district, it would have to be a restaurant that would be in that district. So if you're looking at that particular golf course, it's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Within the yellow lines of the golf course. MR. FRANTZ: So it's all the golf course right now. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. You mentioned the amplified sound standards have not changed. One of the -- one of the two pieces of this was to expand the number of seats that were permitted but also to expand the hours from 10 p.m. to midnight. You said there's no change to the amplified sound standards. Do those standards involve and include hours, restrictive hours? If so, what are those? MR. FRANTZ: On the screen are -- is the table for the amplified sound, the sound level limits, for both residential and commercial uses. The sound level limits that are allowed drop down after 10 p.m., so that would still be in place. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you can still have amplified sound in a commercial -- like, a restaurant after 10 p.m., just at a reduced decibel level; is that what I'm reading? MR. FRANTZ: That's right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I -- at this point I look forward to hearing the public input on this to make sense of it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I really don't have a question. I just have comments that I'm uncomfortable with this not going through a conditional use, no limit on the seats and the hours. We go through great lengths in everything we do here to limit the hours of any type of business like this next to residential, and we're just -- it's like the opposite of everything we do here, to me, and I think we're going down the wrong path. If this is supposed to be a golf -- inside golf, it looks like a bowling alley kind of thing, you have a sports park. Why wouldn't that go there and stay open at night? It just doesn't make any sense to me. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please. Go ahead. Anybody else have any questions? I have -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My turn. COMMISSIONER FRY: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jeremy, this says, when located within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone, and that's that approximately one-square-mile block you've shown in there. Are there any 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 9 of 21 other golf courses in that area today? MR. FRANTZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this is really site specific to this golf course? MR. FRANTZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the literature that you provided from various golfing entities, I read it closely, and one of them -- and I think it's the one called Pop Stroke, it says, you can eat in our full-service restaurant and bar, or we can bring it right out to you on the course. And then a couple pictures down from that it says, under Big Shots Golf, each tee box comes completely equipped with seating for five to six people and is fully enabled with a state-of-the-art technology system, music, and TVs. And it says, each tee box is equipped with two screens, one devoted to gaming and the other tuned to a TV channel of the guest's choice. It shows a picture of groups of people, a couple of them out on the open-air golf course high-fiving each other. Is all this done in silence? I mean, it seems like it's going to be pretty active. And I'm leading to a concern that we're going to say this -- how big is the golf course that we have, that we bought? MR. FRANTZ: I don't have the acreage off the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's over 100 acres. I think it's 106 or something. Even if it was -- as long as it's over 10 acres, it can be a PUD. So a PUD, then, could enter into some of the things that I've heard talked about for this property that may or may not be something the residents want, but it has been discussed by various entities. There's -- talked about getting additional right-of-way to widen 951. That's practical. Talked about having an affordable housing piece of property that could be partnered with someone who will build affordable housing. Talked about having a veterans hospital. That would probably be a pretty sizeable experience. It talked about having it remain an eight-hole (sic) golf course, and now we're talking about a driving and restaurant range. What's important is we've got a series of ideas for this property, and it's big enough to do a lot of different ideas. If we start dicing this property up, cutting and slicing it and putting a little thing here and a little thing there, before we know it, the master plan is for the whole property that we could do as a PUD and then come in with the compatibility needed for the community, show them the whole program and how it fits, look at the economics of it, and do a complete package. Is there any -- has anybody suggested doing it that way? Because what you're suggesting here tonight under the golf course setting, just under GC, this restaurant can go anywhere in that GC zoning, and about 80 percent of it seems to be up against existing residential. And I'm sure that that wasn't the intent, but that's why we don't do site-specific applications in the LDC, because you can't narrow them down, you can't focus them, you can't make them fit, and you can't address the compatibility standards to the extent you can under a conditional use or a PUD. Now, if we look at the ordinance, No. 2018-56, that was signed in November of 2018, it forms the economic area that this Golden Gate City is now in. And it's supposed to have been -- there's supposed to have been an advisory board appointed with seven members, and they shall be representative of residential, business, and commercial interests in Golden Gate City. Who are the -- who are the members of this committee; do you know? MR. FRANTZ: I don't know if that has been created yet. I'm not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can fill you in. It hasn't been; it hasn't been. And it started to, and then it stopped for a long period of time, and now I guess maybe being resurrected now, but it says their positions or their responsibilities, functions, including, but not limited to, advising and assisting the Board of County Commissioners in establishment, review, and enhancement of policies and programs to attract businesses or industries to the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone, reviewing and making recommendations on applications for funding through the trust fund as well as handling any matters that may be assigned for the Board of County Commissioners. Now, that advisory group would be probably a perfect instrument in which to get an idea like this floated 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 10 of 21 and looking at the possibilities and options of which for it to go forward. And then if the course is going to be spliced up in different pieces which it, obviously, will have to be in order to make some kind of return on it, those pieces, then, can be looked at for their stand-alone compatibility and coordination of one another as well as the existing neighborhood. So I don't know why we aren't doing that, and I haven't heard a good reason here tonight. I know that if this was presented by a private party, they wouldn't get too far with this process here tonight. So I don't know why we can't take a step back and do this in a partnership with the community, getting the residents there involved in it instead of kind of a short-cycled process through the county that it's going through now. Right now, I'm a little concerned that this is heading in a direction this isn't going to have enough follow-through with the community involved. And I'm telling you that because you've -- you did a good job on laying it out, researching it, but since this is a site-specific amendment, I'm real concerned that this is not the right process for it. And that's all I've got. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One follow-up. I'm going to focus again on the -- I'll call it the Topgolf, or there's other names for other companies out there. Has there been any type of zoning verification letter or any other type of indication that if they were to propose something today, that it could be built there under the golf course zoning? Because it really is an entertainment center; it's not a golf course. So I question, even if you get a proposal today, it would even be allowed. Has anybody looked at that? MR. FRANTZ: I'm not aware of any zoning verification letters that have come in asking that question. I'm going to let Jeff take over. MR. WILLIG: For the record, Geoff Willig, County Manager's Office. With this item, the intent is to -- for the ITN to provide some flexibility for the proposals that are coming in. All of those proposals will go to the Board before they're awarded. And so when the Board hears those presentations, they can make those comments on how big, where it goes, and the location of that item through those presentations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't understand the flexibility issue. There is no flexibility. It is golf course zoned right now. In order to come in with that type of entertainment -- MR. WILLIG: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- it seems that it would have to go through some type of rezoning to -- or a conditional use or other type, because that is not -- that's an entertainment facility. It's not a golf course. MR. WILLIG: Right. And we have a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So when you just deal with the thing called a restaurant, it's just a small piece of the entire venue. MR. WILLIG: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I don't -- you're asking for flexibility that is irrelevant, I guess, is the word I'm going to use. MR. WILLIG: And we also have a planning and engineering firm that's going to be working with us on rezoning the entire site and working through that process for, as Commissioner Strain mentioned, the VA nursing home, the workforce housing, and those components as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Geoff, that's exactly how it should be done. Why don't we wait and see where this fits in the best? Because as you get into your design with the veterans hospital, they're very particular about how they locate. In fact, I helped with that experience we had previously when we tried to get them to locate here in Collier County before. So they may have a location or they may finally find a location to fit on here where we could have this facility sitting there right in the middle of it, and then we've got to do what we've had to do with the Pezeshkan property at the triangle is try to buy out the previous vendor to get them off the site so we can move forward with the site like we want it to be. Why don't we just do it right and go through a planned unit -- I would highly suggest a PUD, because then the flexibility and the compatibility and all those standards are there. Why wasn't this committee enacted? Why wasn't it put together? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 11 of 21 Do you know? I'm sorry. MR. WILLIG: I'm sorry. I don't know why that hasn't been done. I was just told that its advertised on our website for members of this committee. So the Board is actively seeking membership for this committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- one suggestion. Let it grow out a little bit; make it a little bushier. Last time I saw, you didn't have any hair on your face at all, so you're in the right direction. MR. WILLIG: I'm trying. COMMISSIONER FRY: Can I ask Geoff a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Geoff, may I ask you just a quick question. I'm just curious, Mark's suggestion of a PUD, I think you have a lot of residents that are here that may be concerned because they don't know what they're going to get. MR. WILLIG: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's an unknown commodity, and I'd be concerned as well. Is there -- it seems like the County Commissioners wanted to streamline the process and make it easier for somebody to come in and create an attraction that would draw people. Is there a problem? Is there a show stopper in some way about it coming through in the form of a PUD instead of this very limited -- MR. WILLIG: I'm not sure if there's a problem with that. I just know that their direction to us was to open it up to make it a little easier for vendors to want to bid on this ITN. COMMISSIONER FRY: With the idea that the BCC would then -- MR. WILLIG: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- have the final say and approve it? MR. WILLIG: Exactly, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for scale purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A Topgolf-type facility is 18 to 20 acres for that type of facility. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that would replace several of the 18 holes, then? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For the -- that indoor type of driving range that they showed, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's about one-fifth of the size of the land that's there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I guess maybe more if you're talking parking. But, basically, 18 to 28. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it would take three to six out of the 18 holes. MR. WILLIG: And, Commissioners, I might remind you, currently, there is currently space already on the property for a driving range that was previously existing. So it may take reorganizing of some of the holes or something like that, but there is space already existing for a driving range on this property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But understand again, you're talking, at Topgolf you've got 60-foot, 80-foot towers, and that's outdoor lighting. So it's -- again, it's a -- it's an attraction. It's not a driving range where you go out and practice. It's not a practice range. MR. WILLIG: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is everything; practice range plus entertainment center. MR. WILLIG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go to public -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It sounds like six out of six think this ain't ready for prime time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 12 of 21 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Should we keep going? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we should. We need to hear the public. That's why they came here tonight. It needs to be on record, because when this goes to the board, they'd like -- they need the package. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got to hear the whole thing. I'm not necessarily against this operation. I'm against the process it's going through, because it doesn't give us a comprehensive way of approaching this project as a whole. That's what we should be doing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you're saying this ain't ready for prime time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I don't want to cut the public off from speaking tonight. So, Jeremy, will you -- MR. FASSOLD: Can we take, like, a five-minute recess. We're having technical difficulty in the control room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tactical or technical? MR. FASSOLD: Technical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just take a break. We'll resume at five minutes -- well, five minutes to 6:00; 5:55. (A brief recess was had from 5:46 p.m. to 5:55 p.m.) MR. FRANTZ: You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, when we left off, we were going to go to public speakers, and we're going to start with the registered speakers, and after the registered speakers have their time, we'll turn to anybody else that wants to talk on this matter. So everybody that's here, if you do want to talk, you'll certainly be heard tonight. Jeremy, would you call the first speaker. And use either microphone; whatever's most convenient to you. And we do ask you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, although we're not going to cut you off. If it's redundant information or you just agree with the speaker before, you can say that, and that's just as effective. So go ahead, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: The first slip I have is Robert Sterman. MR. STERMAN: Hi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening. MR. STERMAN: Thank you for letting me speak. I've been a resident -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to identify yourself for the record with your name. MR. STERMAN: Robert Sterman, S-t-e-r-m-a-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. STERMAN: Yeah, I'm a resident here of Collier County almost over 16 years now and part time over 30. And I've always been golfing at the Golden Gate Golf Course for all those years I've been coming here and now that I'm a resident of the county for several years. And I think they ought to keep the course as a golf course and start with that as the biggest -- the number one issue here. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please. This -- we have to -- everything that's said here is picked up on a recording and, unfortunately, when you clap and make noises from the audience, it does interfere with the recording, and that means our transcriber, if she has to rely on that, can't make it any -- can't make it out clear enough. So we have to ask you to refrain from that. So go ahead, sir . MR. STERMAN: Yes. I think it should be maintained, priority, and first and foremost as a golf course. We start with that situation first and then work at the other situations they want to add into the golf course. But the public as far as the people, the residents that live around there and utilize the golf course, that is a big area that is a nice -- it's like a park. It's like any of the parks here in this county that people go and enjoy. But for the golf course, people go there, they pay to play. Most of the county parks you go to, the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 13 of 21 residents don't pay to get into the park. They just go there and utilize it, and the taxpayers pay for that. So why not utilize that golf course as the way it is as an 18-hole golf course and not a 12-hole golf course, like Commissioner Saunders stated? Who has ever heard of a 12-hole golf course? So my feelings, and a lot of my friends and neighbors, and everyone I golf with, they all feel the same way in this area. This is our area. This will utilize the sports complex you're going to build down there off of Alligator Alley that's been proposed and passed. Also, you're going to have a pickleball court over here in Golden Gate Park. The hotel will utilize the people that come in town for those events and the parents who come here to utilize the sporting complex down the road. They would have a chance to golf, swim, and to relax here in this county without going very far to utilize that. So -- and, I think -- and plus, my last thing I'd like to say is the density problem. Why do they have to keep building on every square inch of land in this county? If you recall, what happened in Houston with Harvey, when that hit, the planning commissioner told the county commissioners to quit building. And what happened? They had a tempest that landed right on top of them, and three foot of water inundated everybody's community, the multi-wealthy down to the average worker. Everyone was flooded. And he told them years in advance, stop the building. And this is a perfect place out here for water to drain, for the wildlife, and for the neighbors to enjoy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: The last slip that I have is Ron Jefferson. MR. JEFFERSON: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Ron Jefferson. I live in the four square of Golden Gate City. I'm the vice president of Golden Gate Area Civic Association. Speaking on behalf of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, we're opposed to changing the land management code. We don't want to increase from 150 -- over 150 or increase the hours. And I do have some notes -- a couple comments I'd like to share from Kady Tuff, the president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. And the opportunity zone overlay is required to have a local citizen board to develop the master plan. I believe that's what you were talking about, Mr. Strain. This hasn't been done. We shouldn't piecemeal an item without a master plan for Zone 3. There were noise problems in the past at the chickee hut, and this is closer than the existing chickee hut. I'm sorry. The Planning Commission said they would never want to create another Stevie Tomatoes that is on Immokalee Road and 951, and this would repeat the action. Apparently, there's been a problem in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. JEFFERSON: By county ordinance, a seven-member board is required to oversee the new Golden Gate economic opportunity zone, and that board has yet to be established. I believe that it is premature to be making changes to any uses within this zone, and that was your comment. In summary, the county staff states that -- uses sought to encourage a family-friendly facility, but what families will be using these services during the requested extended hours of 10 to midnight? It makes sense that uses chosen for the golf course property are consistent and create a campus that is compatible with the surrounding community, which includes the Pars, a 55-and-over community, single-family residences, and hopefully a veterans nursing facility. After viewing the nightclub atmosphere of those proposed golf-related facilities, I do not believe that they are compatible. And we do appreciate everything that the county has done with this. We're glad the county acquired the property. I don't even think that we need to make a decision on consuming all that property. I think if even possible, leave it for green space for future generations to have some type of development there, too. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, while you're up here -- and maybe our chairman knows the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 14 of 21 answer -- who makes the appointment of the seven-member advisory committee? MR. JEFFERSON: I believe they have to apply, and they're approved through the County Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JEFFERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Now, that's all the registered speakers, so one at a time, is there anybody here that would like to speak in addition to those that have already spoken? Sir, would you please come up to the microphone, identify yourself for the record. We'll be glad to hear you. And by the way, Ned, the County Commission has to vote for the members, but it has to be with a recommendation from the commissioner of the district if they're going to be outside of the Golden Gate City area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir? MR. McLEAN: Good evening. My name is Charlie McLean, M-c-L-e-a-n, and I live at what is commonly known to us who live there -- there's a number of people here now -- as The Pars. If you looked at it from an aerial view up above, it is the group of condominiums that is surrounded by the golf course currently. If you drove into the Pars, you would think we owned the golf course because, typically, as you went to the higher priced places, like -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me, sir. What is the word you're using again? MR. McLEAN: Boston accent. The Pars. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. MR. McLEAN: Remember that I drove here in my car, and it's parked right outside. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. McLEAN: Two things: One about the golf course itself, and I know that isn't the crux of tonight's thing, but just when you said it would get passed on from speaking here, I don't know if any of you are golfers, but if you're not, I'm sure you have friends that are. This golf course was designed back in the '70s for use as women's golf, and at least one of the women's championships was played there at that time. It is still -- if you cross out of your mind the anthills and all the other things that -- because it's been allowed to slip away -- it's a beautiful layout. It may not have the length today of what pros would want, the women's golf or even the men's, but it is more than adequate for the general public with the so-called duffers likes myself. And as to the affordability coming up with the vendor that might want it, yes, the vendors are shy enough because of the seed money that would be needed, I'm told, and that's understandable that it would be, but the county would have the ability to let them waive some money; in other words, not pay out anything on the county but not maybe return anything from them for X amount of period of time until they could build it up. The county right now is doing a fantastic job cutting it. If you look at it and you don't walk out onto it, it looks like it's ready to play. The only thing that looks missing is when you look at the greens, there's no flag. But other than that, it looks great until you walk out onto it. Getting away from that and into the part of the ordinance that you're seeking here approval of, the entertainment complex that you talk about is not enclosed. A lot of it is outside as the gentleman seemed to realize with these multilayer towers of people hitting golf balls. And it's target balls. They collect points by hitting the golf ball into a certain area. They've got to respond. Today, if you listen to the chickee bar, which is way smaller than what is proposed, if the wind's blowing in the right direction, you can sing along with the songs. That's not lying to you. I wouldn't do that; I'm a retired police officer. It is true, and what you're allowing is not only later at night -- try to put yourselves in our positions. You're surrounded by the golf course. Midnight to an over-55 community, property values would -- you'd have to take big-time restrictions. All of us appreciate -- I know I feel a lot better about things tonight after listening to this board speak. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 15 of 21 You seem to have our welfare as your concern, and it's much appreciated. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Does anybody else wish to speak? Sir, come on up. The man in the red shirt first. Then we'll go to the fellow in the back afterwards with the short beard back there. MR. KAZIMOUR: My name is Jim Kazimour, K-a-z-i-m-o-u-r. I live in The Pars also. I don't have a Boston accent, which reminded me of Cousin Vinny. Hey, youts. You know, the youts. But, anyway. I'm going to echo -- I know you didn't want us to echo what was already said, but you have an 18-hole golf course that was professionally designed, and it has irrigation. That's huge. I'm not a course superintendent, but I know that that's millions in infrastructure. Why not use it? We'd be on it today if the commissioners wanted us to. You wrote a guy a check for 23 or 29 million? Write a check for 500,000; get us back on the golf course. In the meantime, make some revenue. We drive -- I drive 30, 40 miles now to play golf reasonably. Come January 1, it won't be reasonable. Put a course there that the average guy can play, and you won't be able to beat people away from that course. I live in Lake County, Illinois. The county runs four 18-hole golf courses. Beautiful. I guarantee you they're making money. Look it up; Lake County, Illinois, forest preserve district. They're beautiful facilities. I want them to consider that. Topgolf isn't going to come here. They're going to do a feasibility study. Do you think Topgolf is going to put a million-dollar facility in Golden Gate? Let's be real. Come on. A golf course will go, because I'll drive 40 guys a week -- we played three times a week, 40 guys, at Golden Gate. Come January 1, you know, I'll spend 3-, $400 a week on golf, but not one time. And that's what happens after January 1. Consider that, please. And I know it's not you -- you guys are the planners, but I know the commissioners don't want a golf course. They're doing everything -- I mean, I went to two meetings. A blind man can see that they're opposed to a golf course. A 12-hole course. We're going to put this there. A VA home there. We're going to put affordable housing. Oh, but we're going to give you 12 holes. Be realistic. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The gentleman in the back, you know, it's all going to turn gray soon. MR. ECHEVERRI: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to identify yourself for the record, please. MR. ECHEVERRI: Thank you for the opportunity to let me speak. My name is Paulo Echeverri, E-c-h-e-v-e-r-r-i. Tough one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. ECHEVERRI: Okay. I've been living in 44th Street for -- since 2001. And everything at the beginning, the first few years were great. But it seems like the community has been growing and growing. And now the traffic on 44th Street is becoming terrible. Main reason why is they say all the people who live in the Par apartments, it's the only way of access for in and out for the guys who live there. Plus, the community has grown a lot. Let's say, some newer houses are built in the recent years, and the traffic is becoming worse and worse. Probably just another -- I don't know if this is right place to complain about that, but there are not a single speed limit sign, not a single speed bump. Kids walk through that street to go to Golden Terrace Elementary. And, I mean, it's becoming dangerous. In the last year and a half, I have lost my mailbox twice, been hit by car. First time, okay, I fix it. The second time, I call the police. They cannot do anything unless I have a camera recording all day long and all night. It usually happens over nights. And I mean, it just -- it was perfect living there before. And if this restaurant proposal passes or something, maybe the traffic's going to be worse. So things will be bad, and we're going to lose money on our 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 16 of 21 property and all that. So that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as these meetings evolve and this golf course is planned out, assuming it does get planned out, you may want to keep expressing your concerns, because if there's a way in a new plan to look at alternative entrances or multiple entrances for the Par area so that they're not always going out your street but they have another opportunity to go in another direction, that might be something that could come out of that. But that's all part of a master plan that we have not started yet. MR. ECHEVERRI: I would love to see 44th Street the way, let's say, St. Andrew's Boulevard is, that it have the signs and the speed bumps. 44th Street's tiny. I mean, it's just one lane each direction, and it's really narrow. It's a really narrow street, and cars drive by really fast there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm glad you told us your issues. Maybe we'll get somebody to take a look at it. MR. ECHEVERRI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do our best. After the meeting, if you'll hang out for a minute, I'll give you my card. MR. ECHEVERRI: Unfortunately, I have to leave because my daughter is having a concert right now. She plays the violin, and I'm about to miss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't miss that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're all going to go. Don't miss that. MR. ECHEVERRI: Okay. I come for next meeting. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else that wants to speak? Ma'am, you'll need to identify yourself for the record. MS. KUNGLE: Jean Kungle. I'm a resident of Collier County. I'm not a resident of the Golden Gate area up there, but I do have a concern with how fast this is kind of running through. It sort of sets a precedent with the county. We have a lot of other issues that are more important than emergency meetings to put more hours on a restaurant for something that we don't even know what it's going to be yet. Nobody's asked for anything. So I just think that we need to wait. And I think the idea of the PUD is a far better idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any comments they'd like to make? Okay. She's not allowed to speak. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I have to fight my way up there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you do. Commissioner, good evening. It's good to see you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a different position for you, isn't it, after all these years? COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I like this one better and don't feel quite as much of a target, you know. I've been listening to all of these things, and some of the things I wasn't quite sure -- they were talking about Topgolf, and they were saying something about we gave direction about that, but we never gave any direction about Topgolf. I don't even know what Topgolf is except, you know, Joe, you explained it a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was -- pictures were included in our packet. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, as examples of what was thought. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What was -- it just gave the impression that that was part of the -- one of the potential uses; that's all. So I was trying to clarify. I know it didn't come from the Board. It was just -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought somebody else said. And, you know, I feel I'm in the dark a lot about this because I don't really understand what's even going on. I don't understand -- there's been a big rush. We've been waiting almost two years to get the approval to start a management plan for the East Naples area. We still can't even get the approval, and this thing is already going before the Planning Commission, and next Tuesday it's going before us. I was really surprised at how quickly that went. I'm going to back up just a little bit. You were talking about a golf course and people playing on it and so forth. I moved here in '74, and in '76, I was taking my son in his stroller over to watch a golf course, and it was right there at Golden Gate Golf Course. And it was Bing Crosby playing and his wife playing, and it was all 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 17 of 21 the TV cameras and everything. Do you remember that? Yes. And that was -- and it was a beautiful golf course. It was very, very good; very, very popular. And even today somebody else was asking up here, they don't know who else plays on it but Golden Gate people. My goodness, there's a lot of vets going over there a lot of times. And it's a nice place because it isn't quite as expensive. They can go there, and they seem to like it -- well, you know, Ron Cummings, they go there golfing all the time and that group that he hangs around with. And so I think there's a lot of uses for this. And I just hate to see it lost, because we won't ever have an opportunity to have another municipal golf course here in Collier County. That's my feeling about it. I think -- I have all these notes, but I get nervous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Commissioner. Anybody else that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a clarification on something I heard, just as a point. Jeremy, there's a height limitation for any structures built on this golf course, isn't there? I say that looking for an affirmative, of course. MR. FRANTZ: That's right. The golf course zoning district has a maximum height limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it's 35 feet from what I can tell. MR. FRANTZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, was it -- I've never -- I'm not familiar with Topgolf or any -- in fact, I don't golf. But someone said they stack them? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, they're built two or three levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they could do -- yeah, 35 feet, they could do -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And they have an entertainment booth. They have some areas for two golfers who wanted to film themselves swinging, whatever, but you're hitting out into a driving range, but it's more of an entertainment center. But -- and the nets are held by almost 60-foot towers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because it's -- you're -- it's not for driving a 200-yard drive. You'll hit out into the nets, you know, probably 150 yards out maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it is a -- the balls have chips in them and you can -- you know where the ball lands, and you can score, and there's other ways you can -- it's sort of an -- it's an entertainment. It's like a glorified bowling alley, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just -- I didn't realize they were stacked. That just accommodates probably more ability for sound and light. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, absolutely. I mean, this -- that would be a very intrusive use if they were to use it there. You really have to find a place in the county that -- the sports park or something like that, or that venue. They're going to be building one up in Fort Myers, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on the panel have any questions? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A comment, I guess, Chairman. It seems to me that the direction that this should be taken as a result, primarily, of the public input/feedback that was received at the neighborhood information meeting where 57-5 were not -- did not find the current proposal appealing, that what should happen, I think -- unless there is a reason to proceed with greater speed -- I would respectfully urge the Board of County Commissioners to consider not moving quite as fast with this as it has apparently been docketed, but rather that the Board of County Commissioners appoint this seven-member Golden Gate City zoning advisory board to find out what it is really the people really want and ask them to confront the underlying issues, because there are some underlying difficult issues such as whether this should be better put forth as a PUD, how it would be financed, what the demographics would local government like to -- you know, how broad a segment of Collier County would be interested in this kind of a proposal. It seems to me that the Board of County Commissioners would want that information before they took definitive action, and so I guess I'm leaning toward possibly making a motion to that effect, but I want to hear 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 18 of 21 what others say first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one comment on the golf course. And I know the public really wants the golf course. I leave that up to the county commissioners to make that decision. It's sort of unfair to compare the golf course up in Illinois, because a lot of the property in Illinois was actually purchased probably during the '20s and '30s, during the Depression or that era, and long paid for. Of course, this -- the Board would have to determine whether it was going to be self-sustaining or not. But, on average, it costs, on the cheap, about 1.5 to $1.8 million a year to maintain a golf course. So -- I know it has nothing to do with this. But the other piece of this was the -- I would say the clubhouse activity. And I would agree that I would think this is best to turn it back over to the citizen committee. Let the citizen committee come up with a proposal, analyze whether it's cost effective to keep it as a golf course, and to make that recommendation to the Board, along with the use and any of the other intent that is being considered in regards to this PUD amendment but -- or, correction, this LDC amendment. But right now I cannot support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just reading between the lines, my suspicion is that the county commissioners that generated this request are seeing the potential of having to never open the golf course again because of the financial burden of running a golf course. Having said that, while I understand maybe why it's come to us, it just seems to me we've got a lot of people in the audience -- I put myself in their place as well. It makes sense to take a holistic view of this golf course and create a holistic plan for it and, as Mark said, if a PUD is the right way to do it, but something where it can be presented to go through the normal process whereby the residents that live near it -- within it, in the case of The Pars, really understand what they're getting rather than this very nebulous, open-ended seems to be just a gesture to try to bring in people to create an entertainment experience in the golf course. So I'd really like to see a holistic plan go through the normal process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comment is that I'm just going to reiterate, I'm not necessarily against this use. I'm against the process by which this use is being processed through our system. It isn't the right process for this community. It's not the right process for a piece of property of this size. And as I've just heard Karl say as well is it needs to be done as a master plan effort showing all the intended uses that the county wants to have on that property so that the public can weigh in on it and have their say. So that's the -- and as far as a motion to the Board, after Joe gets done speaking, we can entertain a motion to -- I think it's going to be recommendation not to proceed with this LDCA amendment and to consider a rezoning process to get the more holistic approach to the whole golf course package. But go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, just to -- so the public is aware, as you all know on this panel, we, over a year ago, amended the LDC to protect the community if there was going to be any conversion of a golf course to homes, and that has all been approved. It went to the Board. So there are significant protections in regards to any type of development taking place on an existing golf course, and that's already been approved and that exists. So any future plan would have to meet the requirements that currently exist right now for the conversion of a golf course to a residential community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you want to follow up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it goes through an LDC amendment, which is probably why this process may have been chosen is to expedite it all. And, honestly, I just don't think that's the right way to go myself. With that, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion? Ned. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 19 of 21 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make a motion to slow this process down in order to have a seven-member Golden Gate City zoning advisory board appointed by the Board of County Commissioners so that the residents themselves, of this area, can have meaningful input at the very beginning to identify what it is that the folks in that part of the county would like to see and that they address the difficult questions that would be -- would have to be addressed such as process of whether it would become a PUD kind of a process or something else. Also proposed financing and the demographics. And then whatever process is identified, if any, by the local community and the residents would be a beginning point to bring it back through one of the ordinary channels that we follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does everybody understand that motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion? And the motion -- let me make a clarification. The motion would recommend not going forward with this LDCA amendment as proposed tonight, to go back through a more comprehensive process, including the seven-member advisory board that was supposed to have been formed. And then after that, with its finding, move into another -- a process that we would normally go through like a CU or a PUD; is that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that in mind, no other comments. All those in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER FRY: Discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just not sure -- what if a fantastic idea came tomorrow without that seven-member board being made? I'm in favor of the board, but is that necessary to -- if it went through a PUD process or it went through a normal process, is that seven-member board absolutely necessary to ensure a positive outcome, a positive plan for the residents? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just reading the resolution that the Board signed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They signed a resolution saying they're going to do a seven-member board to handle exactly what we're discussing tonight. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we're really just saying execute -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do what your resolution says. COMMISSIONER FRY: What you resolved to do? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or rescind the resolution. COMMISSIONER FRY: Makes sense. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The thing that brought me to the point of making this resolution, in addition to the fact that the Board itself created this seven-member group, is that you've got 57-5, which shows a strong community interest that should be followed up on, and more should be learned about what the local residents want, what their concerns are, and I would add to that buffering noise and the potential nuisance effects that might come along with, call it overcommercialization, but something more than just a straightforward golf course. And, you know, have this seven-member group take a look at this and make recommendations because that's really where the grassroots is, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 20 of 21 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a request out there to form this seven-member group. It's being advertised in one of those parts of the paper nobody ever reads, if you even get a paper anymore, and it's -- to file for it, you've got to go online which is really a nightmare, but that's the way it's done. So you may want to take a look and figure out how to circumvent -- go through all that process, sign up for that committee. It needs seven members. I understand they don't even have seven applied yet, mostly because it's taken so along. It started in November or December of last year, and it still hasn't been decided on. But I think if you get your name in, that will help everybody move forward to pick seven people and get this thing started, and then it will go in a way that hopefully the community can be more involved. So it's important to find that ad, find that article in the paper, and go to the Internet, to the county's volunteer boards and see if it's there to sign up for. But try to do that. That would help. So with that, Jeremy, is that the last thing we have tonight? MR. FRANTZ: That is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From you, okay. And then -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark, may I just ask a question as what happens now just for the benefit of the folks of the audience for the particular resolution? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes to -- our recommendation to not proceed with this LDC amendment with the comments that we made will go to the Board of County Commissioners next Tuesday. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next Tuesday, and then they'll decide what to do at that point. They are the decision makers. We recommend. So -- okay. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, is there any other public comments tonight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. 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. ******* 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) December 3, 2019/Special LDC meeting Page 21 of 21 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:28 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. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 12-3-2019 CCPC Minutes (11110 : 5.A.-December 3, 2019 Special CCPC/LDC minutes) 01/16/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.B Item Summary: December 5, 2019 Minutes Meeting Date: 01/16/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 12/18/2019 2:17 PM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 12/18/2019 2:17 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 12/18/2019 2:17 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 01/16/2020 9:00 AM 5.B Packet Pg. 26 December 5, 2019 Page 1 of 55 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 5, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Mark Strain, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Edwin Fryer, Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joe Schmitt, Environmental Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 2 of 55 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, December 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, we have a quorum of seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda: I don't know of any. We'll just -- unless Ray has something. None. MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is December 19th. I found out a while ago we have a GMP -- language change for one of the activity centers. It looks like it might be the only thing on it. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I did check to see about the LDC amendments that are also scheduled. I haven't heard back from Jeremy yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I looked at the advertising for those, and it looked like it was a communication towers thing again that we just heard not too long ago. I don't know if we needed two meetings on it, but I didn't -- MR. BELLOWS: I put an email in to him to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So anyway, does anybody know if they can't make it on the 19th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the week before Christmas. We'll all be here. January 2nd, a reminder: We do not have a meeting on January 2nd. So the day after New Year's we're just going to have to stay home and be bored or whatever we normally do. COMMISSIONER FRY: How disappointing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disappointing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That means you, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you'll be here. Approval of minutes. The minutes were approved Tuesday night, so we don't have any for today. Ray, BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: The Board has not met since our last Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the Chairman's report, I have nothing new to talk about. There's 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 3 of 55 no consent items. We'll move right into the first public hearing. ***It's Item 9A1, PL20170002897/CPSS2018-3. This is a small -- or a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Oil Well Road community facility subdistrict, which is approximately six-tenths of a mile east of Everglades Boulevard along Oil Well Road. All of those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're here for the Oil Well Road one, just stand up and you'll be sworn. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures: We'll start over with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of those in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. The same thing, just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Materials from staff and discussions with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had all that, and last night -- or this morning, I think it was, I received -- it came in last night -- an email from the Estates group and another email from a resident of the Estates, and then I've had a meeting with the applicant -- applicant's team yesterday, and that's all. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No -- no other disclosures other than what was stated by the other side of the panel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, whoever's leading the presentation for the applicant, we're more than grateful to hear you. MR. NEALE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Patrick Neale. I'm here representing the applicants on this matter. What we're here for today, as was well stated, is a land-use amendment or Growth Management Plan amendment for -- to create a community facilities district in the Estates zoning district. The uses that are being sought here are a bit different than those that are in your original packet. We had originally requested a childcare center, a private school/charter school, and an equestri an riding academy. We have removed the second use as a requested use. So the charter school is no longer on the table. As the Board is well aware, any Growth Management Plan amendments, future land-use amendments, are subject to the test set out in Florida Statutes 163.3771, and those are that there has to be substantial evidence presented by the applicant as to these matters. And we have the professionals here both from Davidson Engineering, and we have evidence that's been brought in by Banks Engineering for the traffic study and also a market study that has been done as to the requirements for these, the demand for the uses that are there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. May I ask just for a clarification? I apologize for interrupting. But at the beginning you said that one of the requested uses has been withdrawn. You said charter schools. MR. NEALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the material it's referred to as private schools. MR. NEALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same thing. MR. NEALE: Same thing. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- proposed use. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 4 of 55 MR. NEALE: In Exhibit C where we referred to the Oil Well Road community facilities subdistrict, under the following permitted uses, A was the childcare center, SIC Code 8351. We have moved the educational services limited to private school, SIC 8211, and left in the equestrian riding academy, SIC 7991. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. MR. NEALE: So we are down to two uses that we're requesting with the caps on the number of students. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MR. NEALE: No problem at all. And what we have here is we have a situation where we believe these are valued uses. As you know, the facility -- and this will be spoken to more by the professionals. As you know, as an attorney, I can only give you opinion and argument. I can't give you professional support or facts other than on the law because I'm not an expert in any of these areas. So that's -- that's why we bring the experts along. But we are requesting these changes in the enactment of this community facilities subdistrict. The staff report supports the childcare use, the Use A. They have made a recommendation. They have not supported the equestrian use; however, we believe that that's certainly a compatible use with the community, particularly as we would get into the -- should you approve this Growth Management Plan amendment, as we got into the further planning process, there would be restrictions put on there that would make it -- ensure that it was compatible with the surrounding areas. You're aware this is located on Oil Well Road, and it's not a truly -- in the heart of the residential area. So we believe that these uses are compatible and that the creation of this community facilities subdistrict would be beneficial to the community and would meet all of the requirements set out in Florida Statutes and in the Collier County ordinances and code. So what we're now going to do is proceed. And we have a presentation for you, if we may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's got a question. MR. NEALE: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A legal question for you. The operators -- the owners and operators of these proposed uses, would they both be for-profit or one not-for-profit, and if not-for-profit, is it 501(c)? MR. NEALE: Okay. The riding academy would be a not-for-profit, and the childcare center would be a for-profit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The not-for-profit, is it tax deductible; is it 501(c)? MR. NEALE: It would be, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. HAROLDSON: Good morning. I am Jessica Haroldson, a certified planner with Davidson Engineering here representing the applicants in this GMPA request, and I have prepared a slide show that I'll run through quickly and then answer any questions you may have. There are two separate parcels involved in this GMP request -- GMPA request, sorry, collectively, 20.16 acres in size and are both zoned Estates. The subject site is located on the south side of Oil Well Road about two miles east of Immokalee Road and less than a mile west of Everglades Boulevard. The request is to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan by amending the Estates Mixed Use District by creating the Oil Well Road community facilities subdistrict. It will permit two uses: A childcare center and an equestrian riding academy, both limited to 150 students. Like -- as Pat noted, we have moved the educational services from the list of allowable uses. The Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map will also be amended by adding the subdistrict. The site is surround by the Estates zoning district, and just about 600 feet east of the proposed site is the Mission subdistrict which permits a 1,000-seat church. About a mile east are two public schools: Palmetto Ridge High and Corkscrew Elementary. We also have the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, which is located close to the site. It permits 1,600 dwelling units and 44 acres of commercial and office development. This is just a draft of our conceptual site plan that has been prepared showing that the developable area of 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 5 of 55 the site is just over 12 acres in size. There will be a single access point along Oil Well Road. A market study was prepared to examine the need for the proposed uses being requested, and the report does conclude that there is a demand for the uses being requested in this area. Based on the Traffic Impact Statement, the project will not adversely impact the surrounding roadway network or cause any of the roadways to operate below their adopted levels of service. The TIS that was reviewed by staff and presented in your packets was prepared using a previous AUIR. The traffic engineer is here today to discuss any impacts of the changes of the report when using the current AUIR. But there are several funded roadway improvements projects within the surrounding area within the current AUIR that actually improve the levels of service within the surrounding area. And, lastly, this is the Naples Therapeutic Riding Center. It's located along Goodlette Road just north of Pine Ridge Road. It is surrounded by the Pine Ridge Estates. I just wanted to show this because it demonstrates that this use can be compatible with single-family residential zoning. And that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Tom. MR. EASTMAN: I think charter schools are not private schools. I think charter schools are public schools. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're not doing them anyway, though, right? MR. EASTMAN: Yep. But just for clarification. And then the notice that's provided today, I think, has east and west in error. It says it's approximately -- the property's six-tenths of a mile east of Everglades Boulevard. Isn't it west? And the schools are also located west, I believe. MS. HAROLDSON: What notice are you referring to? MR. EASTMAN: Our agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone better check the advertisement then; see if it was advertised for the right location. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe it was corrected. I don't have a copy of the notice here, so I will have to follow up by email, and I will have an answer for you shortly. But I know that that was an issue raised during our review of the title. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because the notice of public hearing in our packet says east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The notice of public hearing does? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, the one in the packet. If it was correct, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic's not close enough to you, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It wasn't important anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Go ahead. Karl, and then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. There was reference to the Lutheran Church that's about 600 feet to the east on 22 acres. That has a mission subdistrict, including a private school, child and adult daycare and job training. My question is, I don't -- tell me the status of their child and adult care. I do not believe it said that that has been developed yet. And I'm curious, that would be two childcare, potentially, facilities within 600 feet of each other on the same road. Could you please speak to that? And is that part of the -- did the market study take into account there might be another facility that's only 600 feet away? MS. HAROLDSON: Yes, the market study did take that into account, all of the approved uses in the area. And the market-study consultant is here today if you have any specific questions. But to date the childcare center at that particular location has not been developed. And any -- it allows for the 1,000-seat church, and then the non-for-profit uses have to be operated with that church; the daycare center, all of those listed uses. MR. NEALE: And one other point about the mission subdistrict is also that it's got a limitation on the total number of square footage of uses such -- it shows a lot of different uses, but which one of those of that 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 6 of 55 bundle are going to be developed is unknown at this time as far as I know of. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Personally, I find those -- you know, those details relevant to the conversation, so I'm hoping that we do get to hear from the market-study consultant. MR. NEALE: We certainly can do that if you wish. MR. KLATZKOW: To get back to the notice issue, there is a technical defect. It does say east, not west. I'll note that the picture in the advertisement is correct. At the end of the day, this impacts the applicant more than it impacts the county. Your choice is either to proceed with this, and we'll proceed with it. Your downside on that is should you be challenged on this issue, you're challenged on this issue. So I'll put it to you: Do you want to continue this, or do you want to readvertise it and come back? MR. NEALE: If we may have a moment. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to take a five-minute break? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I didn't think it would take this long. Let's resume at 9:23. (A brief recess was had from 9:16 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mics are on. MR. NEALE: I'm back on again. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I am waiting for Wanda to send me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic's not picking you up, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm waiting for Wanda to send me the paper copy of the ad, because the ad ran on -- for the October 17th hearing and then was continued to this meeting. So I just want to see what the paper copy said, then we can confirm. MR. NEALE: But we would -- based upon the discussion earlier, I think we would like to request a continuance on this matter, particularly -- for both this reason and the fact that we did -- we just found out now that there may be some opposition, and so we'd like to have the opportunity to address that opposition if possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Especially with the dropping of that major element that you had. That was kind of an eye opener. MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that might be a smart idea. And we have no problems with the continuance issue, so -- we do have to -- if there's anybody here who wanted to speak on this that cannot speak when this comes back, they're more than welcome to still speak today -- because we have two registered speakers. But we wouldn't have any problem continuing it. The rest of -- anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem with the request for a continuance? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It seems to make sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I agree. I think a flawed process might cause you problems. MR. NEALE: We would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, before we vote on the continuance, let's hear the public speakers, then by then Heidi may have a response to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It does have east on it instead of west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that makes it even worse. Okay. Let's hear public speakers, then we'll continue it if anybody wants -- after anybody wants to speak. Ray, there's two registered public speakers. If you have registered to public speak and you cannot be here when this does come back, you still -- we'd be glad to hear you today, but it would be better if you could wait till it comes back. Ray, you want to call the speakers up so we'll see if they want to speak or not. MS. BURTON: What is the date? MR. BELLOWS: Rae Ann Burton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Burton, you'll need to use the mic. And you didn't rise earlier to be sworn in. So you -- I don't know why you didn't. MS. BURTON: I didn't know I had to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said it twice. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 7 of 55 MS. BURTON: I thought it was just for the ones that were petitioning. When is this going to be moved to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't know. We're going to discuss that next as soon as I find out if they've got -- if they've got to readvertise, it could be January before they come back. MS. BURTON: Okay. Because this has been going on since April. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Tony Viglioz (phonetic)? MR. VIGLIOZ: I'll refrain until -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Much appreciated, sir. So with that, I guess we'll try to -- now, Heidi, will this have to be readvertised then; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means, they probably won't -- it can't be heard in December because we can't get the advertisement done again. They wouldn't be able to be heard -- and since they're readvertising, we don't need to do a date-certain continuance. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, my thought to the applicant is negotiate first, and then you can conform the ad to what you actually have agreed to as the -- as to the proposed development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for today's matter, instead of a continuance, you're just going to withdraw the application for today and then have it readvertised and come back when the readvertisement comes in. Is that okay with you? MR. NEALE: That would be fine. So we'll -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's probably a cleaner way to do it. MR. NEALE: -- indefinite continuance until we can negotiate a future time at the earliest possible time after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll just make sure, from the Planning Commission perspective, anybody have a problem with the request for withdrawal, then, at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I don't think we need a formal vote on that. Jeff, does that work for legislative? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I mean, it's going to have to be readvertised. And you'll get with the community, and hopefully it will be a better project when it comes back. MR. NEALE: We hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you might want to check to see if you need another NIM. I don't know how the NIM was advertised. Ned just suggested that. All those things could pile up to be a -- MR. NEALE: The NIM was correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's good. That makes it a little bit easier. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just so you know, though, nobody identified themselves on the NIM, which we require. MR. NEALE: Really? Okay. We'll make sure that that's corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, thank you, and we'll see you next time you come back. MR. NEALE: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ***That takes us to Item 9A2 on the agenda. This item's been continued from the November 7th meeting. It's PL20180002368. It's a parking exemption located on the east side of Tamiami Trail North, south of River Court. 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: We'll start with Tom. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 8 of 55 MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than what's already in the public record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Same. COMMISSIONER FRY: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And mine is -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I'm sorry. I spoke with staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mine is the same as all of them, including speaking with staff, but I also met with the applicant's representatives, their attorney. Is he -- Richard Yovanovich is not here today. I think this was one of Rich's. COMMISSIONER FRY: He was in the hallway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, anyway, I did meet with him. I thought he was part of this -- he is -- he is the attorney for this one, is he not? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten River Court. I met with you on two, so it's got to be the last two. COMMISSIONER FRYER: He's not on this one. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it is, this is a bad day for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just met with staff then. So with that, we'll go to Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No additional since last time, public record. MR. KLATZKOW: Do we have an applicant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask that next, because we are coming to that point where the applicant can speak. Sir, you'll need to come up and grab one of the mics and identify yourself for the record, and I'll need to know -- well, we've got to swear everybody in. THE COURT REPORTER: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? Okay. Did you -- you stood for swearing in? DR. HOLTON: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's your project, right? DR. HOLTON: It's my project, yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you prepared to explain it all to us? DR. HOLTON: I was not. I thought the attorney and the engineer was going to be here today, to be honest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your attorney and your engineer? DR. HOLTON: Yeah, Cronin Engineering is doing the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. DR. HOLTON: And then Jeffrey, I think, Lawhorn (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think they're coming? DR. HOLTON: Well, we got the email from them this week. I was under the impression they were coming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what we can do. We can hold off and put yours -- we have two others we can discuss now. DR. HOLTON: If they're not here now, I can't imagine they're going to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Okay. Well, that hasn't happened before. So we'll go from there. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not -- you have to continue this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if he's the applicant -- 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 9 of 55 MR. KLATZKOW: But he doesn't have any -- his experts aren't here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you may need them. I don't mind, if you want, we can move you to the last position and then see what happens at that point. If you haven't got your people here, we can continue then, or if you think you're sure they're not coming, and you want to now, we can do that as well. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not going to have expert testimony on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We've got opposition, if I'm not mistaken. That's one reason it ended up here. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you, if you don't have an expert, just continue this because -- DR. HOLTON: Okay. We'll continue it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wait a second. Don't you have a cell phone? Can't you call them? DR. HOLTON: Sure. We'll do that. Wait till the end of the meeting. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to move this one to the last item on the agenda. ***And now we'll move to Item 9A3, which is PL20180002194. It's the Tree Farm Mixed Use Planned Unit Development CPUD. It's located at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. It's the Tree Farm PUD. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures: We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of the materials in the public record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. Nothing else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Public record, things that came through staff, perhaps an email or two from the public, and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same, plus conversations with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same as all those. I did meet with -- this one is right, I did meet with Richard, and Charlie was there, too, Charlie Thomas, and I did receive some phone calls when this project first came about, and I have referred those folks to the planner in charge to get the information they were looking for. Other than that, I think that's everything. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I had a phone call scheduled with Mr. Yovanovich, and I had my phone faithfully in my hand for the entire half hour waiting for him to call but, obviously, he called me minutes before I had the phone. So I missed the call, Rich; sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But other than that, no other disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: For the record, I didn't miss any phone calls, but nothing else to add. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I had no questions for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, what a group. Okay. Whoever's making the presentation, we'll move to that. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates and here representing the owners of the Tree Farm PUD. Charlie Thomas, one of the representatives, is here in the audience with us. I also have Rich Yovanovich, obviously the land-use counsel; Dan Waters from Peninsula Engineering is here; as well as Norm Trebilcock, who 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 10 of 55 did our transportation consulting on the project. So for some of you, you've been involved and seen this project in the past. The Tree Farm Mixed-Use PUD is located in the northwest quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. It is, obviously, an existing mixed-use planned development that allows a variety of commercial and residential uses. Fifty-four dwelling units were constructed within this PUD to date, and you can see those on the visualizer in that location, and those were actually -- some of you may remember when Addie's Corner project came through, which is the project immediately west. We made provisions for there to be no buffer and no setbacks between the two boundaries. So they've pushed some of the Addie's project into the activity center portion of this project. So what's highlighted here from the future land use standpoint, this is in Activity Center No. 3, or at least a portion of it, so the square box represents of the activity center boundary, there's also a density band around this activity center, and the project is wholly within that density band. There were some prior commitments that were made with regard to intersection improvements and some prepayment of fees related to that. There's going to be a future flyover at this intersection, as most of you are aware, and some of the right-of-way provisions and relocation of the canal and part of Collier Boulevard rights-of-way were dealt with to accommodate the development for this project. The approved master plan also -- and continues to previously highlighted commercial mixed-use area as well as a residential component to the north, and the approved master plan looks like this. Because of the length of the project, it was broken up into two sections, the north and south. So the residential was a separate tract. But it identified two distinct residential tracts as well as the mixed-use area, and highlighted on that, which will continue to remain, is a frontage road that will connect through Addie's Corner and provide the project access to Immokalee Road. There is no direct access for the Tree Farm project to Immokalee Road. The proposed master plan we now have as sort of one image that you can see north/south, and this one also depicts the Addie's Corner project to the west, which we thought was important just so you can see the continuation of the frontage road and how they relate to each other. There are some mutual commitments in the PUD that relate to that. But, again, it has two distinct residential tracts. We've also highlighted those areas that are in the activity center boundary and those that are within the one-third mile of the activity center boundary in which we can spread some of that density out under the Comprehensive Plan. This version of the master plan, it's on an aerial. It just gives you a sense of where the residential tracts lie in reference to the neighboring property owners. And I think there are probably some representatives from Esplanade that are here today. But, in essence, what we're requesting is an increase in the residential allocation from 281 units to 460 units. That is within the density provisions of the allowable density under your Comprehensive Plan. It qualifies for up to 580 units under the allocation between the density band and the activity center boundary. We're asking for 460, which is well within that number. We are keeping the same trip cap that was previously adopted for the project, and we are making some simultaneous increases and decreases to the commercial. We're adding reference to indoor self -storage with a separate allocation for that, and I think -- a question came up from staff whether or not that was an indoor air-conditioned self-storage, and the answer to that is yes, it is proposed to be an indoor air-conditioned self-storage facility. We also have made changes to the hotel and motels that were previously approved. It had previously a reference to the FAR. We've asked for, and I think staff supports, that that's going to be a maximum of 250 units that would be located until the mixed-use component of the project. We had our neighborhood information meeting, of course, and there were a few attendees; the minutes were there. There were some references to building heights that came up, and I don't know, Mr. Strain, if you'd like to walk through the various changes on each page of the proposed ordinance or if you'd like to just discuss generally those and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My assumption is everybody up here has read the changes, and we would focus our questions on what we have based on that reading instead of having to reread them all at the public meeting. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 11 of 55 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, that's generally our proposed changes. And I'm happy to answer questions if you'd like. I know that there probably are specific questions on some of the development standards, et cetera, which I'm happy to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions from the Planning Commission? And I know, Nancy, there's some clarifications on your part that you and I talked about, and we'll get into those probably at staff report; is that okay? MS. GUNDLACH: That would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless they come up earlier. So, Ned, do you want to lead off? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sure. I had an informative conversation with Mr. Yovanovich; some things that I think need to be fleshed out a little further, though. First off, having to do with the request to relinquish or to be free of the obligation to provide affordable housing. That strikes -- struck me in connection with the request for an increase in density to be certainly worthy of a frank discussion. And Rich and I had such a thing yesterday, but I would like to hear more about that and have -- and just be enlightened, if I may. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Mr. Fryer, I'll try to answer that. I wasn't a party to your conversation with Rich, but the County Commission several years ago allowed developers to relinquish their requirements where PUDs had commitments for affordable housing, whether they had actually paid money or not. I'll give you an example. Mercato was one who did pay money toward this affordable housing trust fund that doesn't really exist, but they had a PUD obligation to do so. We did a separate process whereby we notified property owners that we were going to remove that commitment, and we did so, and they were refunded their monies that they previously paid. In this particular commitment, no monies have been paid toward that, but we could have invoked the separate process to go through and remove it, or a PUD amendment is another vehicle in which you can remove that prior commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did remove it on July 1st, 2013. MR. ARNOLD: It came out as part of, I thought, the HEX -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the letter in front of me. It was sent to Bob Mulhere who was, apparently, the representative at the time. It's signed by Kay Deselem, saying, in response to your application, so... MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. And the clarification is this is a recodification of all those prior Hearing Examiner and staff codifications. So what we've tried to do is capture -- the strikethroughs don't capture the things that were previously approved under the Hearing Examiner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to get -- the point, though, for Ned's issue, it's moot. It's done. So it's not something we're putting back in or taking out. It's just cleaning up the document. So if that helps. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That helps immensely. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Let's see. The 281 units will be north of the activity center. Oh, before I get to that, the 54 units that have been constructed, am I correct -- tell me, are they in or outside of the activity center? MR. ARNOLD: They are entirely within the activity center boundary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Entirely within. Okay. And they're multifamily? MR. ARNOLD: They are multifamily. They are technically part of the Addison Place development, but they are located within the Tree Farm PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are they completed or almost completed? MR. ARNOLD: I believe they are completed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Completed. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. They have CO on that building. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 12 of 55 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question -- again, we had a discussion, but I'd like to try to make a record -- having to do with the -- going from the FAR standard to a "number of hotel rooms" standard. Would you say a word about that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, our thought was, it's easier for everybody to understand a fixed number of units, because an FAR of .6 means not a lot to the general public or to many people. Is the FAR -- if you tried to apply an FAR to a one-acre outparcel for a hotel facility, you may not be able to achieve a number that makes economic sense. So asking for a total number of 250 is a reasonable number. And, again, we haven't asked for any increase in the trip cap, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My concern, I didn't express it well, has to do with lot coverage. And when you move away from floor area ratio and go to number of rooms, it's technically possible that you could build a motel two stories and have much more impervious lot coverage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. ARNOLD: We talked about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did. And, for the record, Rich Yovanovich. Yes, and we're not changing -- the Land Development Code prescribes a required open space, and we're not changing that. So going from an FAR to a number of units doesn't change the requirement that we meet the open-space requirements in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: May I? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the problem -- or the concern may be is that there's no limitation on the size of the building, really. You've basically said 250 units. You can make them any size you want, fit them in as big of a footprint you want. You've still got your open space, which is minimal. You have originally, I believe, 175,000 square feet in this PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've dropping down to 80- with a storage facility you're not including in that 80-. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could we still say that you wouldn't have -- the hotel would be included in square footage but would never exceed 175,000 square feet total for all the commercial square footage on that property? MR. YOVANOVICH: Except for the indoor self-storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except for the indoor self-storage. Because that keeps you within the cap that you originally had. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we think about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I have to ask Charlie what's the typical square footage for a 250-room hotel. So I don't know if that would work. I just need to check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I didn't think of it sooner, because the way Ned phrased his question made me think of it; otherwise, I would have let you know ahead of time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. So you'll let us think about that. And maybe it's a slightly different number. I just will come back to you on that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would solve my concerns, because otherwise the 30 percent open spaces requirement really, I think, is pretty low. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But everything counts practically as open space. It's pretty flexible, too, so -- I mean, it doesn't give you a lack of impervious. It just is open space. Tennis courts are open space. It goes on and on and on, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. And the code is the code. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 13 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you know where we're coming from. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. So if you'll give us some time to do that calculation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can continue if you want. That seems to be the habit today. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We'd like to continue forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to read from some language that the applicant put in the materials that we had. It says, the commercial land uses within the activity center portion of the property are those typically associated with major intersections including, but not limited to, convenience stores with gas pumps, restaurants, banks, and shopping centers anchored by a major grocery or retail store. The way that's worded, it sounds to me like you're committing to -- when you say included without limitation, I assume that all those are going to be in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: They don't have to be in there, but they could be in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm not sure that your wording captures that intent. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Fryer, what page are you reading from? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I found this on Page 624. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I just want to get to the same language that you're reading from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 624? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, but I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Under project description? COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- don't know if that's the November 7th or the current one. If you can't find it, I can -- I'll find another way to get at it. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm with you. I'm just -- I'm looking at the strikethrough and underlines, and we didn't touch that language. That's language that's been in this PUD from -- I don't want to say the beginning of time, because I wasn't there for the beginning of time, but it's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: The way I read it, these uses are required. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't read it as required. I read it as we can have those uses, and it's a description of the types of uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if this language was carried over, then -- well, I'll let somebody else fight that battle if they want to. This is not your new language? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is not. It's right here; I'm reading it. And that's the -- those are the typical uses you would find at a major intersection -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- shopping center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- what your point of what this language means. My point is is I think it means something else. I know what -- how you interpret it, but I see it arguably as a commitment to include those uses; including but not limited to those uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. If we need to wordsmith that to say you're not absolutely required to provide each and every one of those uses, we'll wordsmith it, but that's never been the application of that type of language in PUDs in the past. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm not going to ask for you to wordsmith it down. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So -- but I would be willing to leave it alone for now. Let's see. Then there's a reference and -- Rich, this is something else we talked about -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- but I want to just establish it. Additionally, this project has provided adequate land to accommodate the widening of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. Could you please elaborate on that? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 14 of 55 MR. YOVANOVICH: I can. And if you go to Page 28 of the PUD document and 644 of the agenda package, you'll see that there was a transportation commitment, and I'll put it on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't that on the visualizer already in the hatched area? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm going to show you where the hatched area is and why that came about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're already there. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the PUD language I was going to refer to, Mr. Fryer. Item No. C is where we committed to providing additional right-of-way for the -- what is now the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. Now, when I take this away, you'll see on the master plan exactly where those right-of-way commitments have occurred, and they're -- it's highlighted on the right side. It's easier for me to do it this way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The language you had up said at no cost to the county, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: The portions were at no cost, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I need to know. That's good. MR. YOVANOVICH: Likewise, if I can go back real quick, just because it's related to the intersection. Letter F, it should be, responsible for a fair-share cost of those improvements. And the developer has paid a little over $1.8 million already. So we've given land, and we've paid for intersection improvements that exist today as related to the traffic impacts of this project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Then under the maximum project density and intensity, Point No. 2.3(B), the intensity -- the commercial intensity is proposed to be decreased from 105- to 80-. And my concern -- and we discussed this as well, but I'd like to continue that discussion. My concern is when you reduce the commercial, arguably, you're going to lose some internal trip capture that could result in more cars being on the county roads. MR. YOVANOVICH: So this is where I'm hoping I've learned from Norm Trebilcock over the years. Our trip cap that exists today assumed a certain internal capture rate. So that would have brought the trips on the road down. So the existing trip cap number is based upon a certain internal capture. If we don't achieve, we do a project that's less internal capture, we do another transportation study as part of this Site Development Plan or plat, et cetera, there will be a lower -- am I correct, Norm? -- internal trip capture used because of that. So what will end up happening is we'll use up more of the trip cap by not having as much retail. So we'll never get out of sync with what was previously anticipated to be the trip impact for this project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then my last question, I guess, has to do with the increase in density that's proposed. Could you give me a sense of what benefit would inure to the county in exchange for this increase in density? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a couple of things: One, the Comprehensive Plan talks about having mixed-use activity centers which includes residential. You're going to achieve that standard. Plus, the Comprehensive Plan has a residential density band. You're intending for higher concentrations of residential where we're putting it. So, one, we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; we're not asking for any Growth Management Plan amendments. Unlike other petitions, this one's 100 percent consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Right now it's anticipated that you'll have a multifamily developer on one of the residential projects and possibly single-family on the other. You'll be providing for the ability to have people closer to the urban area. We've already -- I'll use the word "assessed" for traffic impacts through our additional commitments of right-of-way and payment of monies towards that intersection plus through our payment of impact fees. So, one, we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, we're putting people closer to the urban area; and, two, we've essentially prepaid for some of those impacts. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My final question -- I thought I was finished, but I had one more. How far of a walk is it going to be for the northern, perhaps, single-family dwelling occupants to the activity center? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, you said you had one more question, and I forgot to check that. So if I can have someone scale that real quick. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 15 of 55 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think more than one of you asked me that question. I'm not sure how long a walk it is, but we'll get that to you as we're also looking at the square footage for Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Will this be -- part of it be developed as rental apartments? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is certainly an option. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And if it is, will there be a percentage of them offered first to essential service personnel? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can talk to the client and the interested party to see if -- as long as -- again, if it's -- if it's a first option without income restrictions, if that's what you're asking -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- then I'll put that on the list of -- now I'll have three things to discuss with my client. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Rich. A couple questions. The middle section is multifamily, possibly rental units. You've requested increasing the residential density quite a bit, adding a lot more residential units and reducing the commercial. You have some residents of Esplanade that butt pretty close up to that, I'll call it the eastern border of the PUD, but yet there's only a Type A buffer offered, which I believe is the most minimal buffer. And I just wondered why are you -- why is there not more of a buffer offered to protect those residents? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, you said the eastern boundary of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Would be the western. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The western boundary of the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of our project. The eastern boundary of Esplanade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just following the theme of having -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to follow what you're saying, and I can't get there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, the western boundary. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought I'm the only one who's directionally challenged. That's typically me who gets the map, but I feel better now. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hopefully the side that's between the PUD and Esplanade. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- I hope you'll be able to see this on the visualizer. The wall and trees, that's Esplanade. So that's their already existing buffer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh. So the homes from Esplanade shown in the aerial are behind that wall? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So we're here. They're there on the other side. They already have a wall and trees. COMMISSIONER FRY: When you say you're here, there looks to be a swale and there's a fence, then there's some grass, then there's a swale leading up to that wall. So where is "We are here"? Is it adjacent to the wall? Is it at the fence? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're on this side north of the fence and this side of the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you point to that location on the master plan. That may help. No, the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: The master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That way Karl can see where it is specifically you're talking about, because that's got a notch going east/west where the wall is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want the picture back up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just where was the picture taken on this plan that's in front of us? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 16 of 55 MR. WATERS: For the record, Dan Waters with Peninsula Engineering. So the picture you're looking at is along the west side -- where am I looking here? Yeah, so this is the new Delillo parcel of Esplanade. The berm you're looking at is right here on the west side of Esplanade. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm not sure if I was interpreting the photo right, but it appeared to have a swale, a U-shaped swale on the side of the wall. Does your property start on this side of that swale, or am I interpreting that photo incorrectly, or is it level ground and it just looks like it's a swale? MR. WATERS: So the property line, Mr. Fry, is at the toe of slope of the berm there, and so the swale you're seeing there is an old farm swale, because this is called Tree Farm. It was a tree nursery prior, and there was an agricultural ditch on the western property line. So the swale that you're seeing is basically the western edge of the Tree Farm property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Can you just clarify for us what a Type A buffer is, what that includes. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. A Type A buffer is a 10-foot-wide buffer that requires one canopy tree every 30 feet. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's it. Just a tree every 30 feet? MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. All right. My next question is about the indoor mini-storage use. And, Rich, you and I spoke about this a little bit yesterday. I'd just like to clarify. Across -- catty corner across the intersection is the Baumgarten part of the activity center, and within that use there was approved 100,000 square feet, I believe, of indoor mini-storage. Do we really need another mini-storage unit catty corner across the same intersection? So please speak to that need and the justification for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the answer is, the market will decide whether or not there is a need at either or both of those locations based upon the rooftops that are there. We're asking for that use. It's a low-intensity use from a traffic generation standpoint. The way -- as you look -- and depending on how you feel, they look like office buildings, so they're not your typical industrial-type use. So the answer to your question is if there's a need at both corners, both will get built. If there's a need that satisfies the market of just one, then one will get built. So we've asked for that use, because there's a lot of rooftops in that area, and we think that there is demand for self-storage. But I can't tell you today whether both of them will be built or not. COMMISSIONER FRY: We've had comments, I think, through various meetings about the proliferation of mini-storage units, and I think some people think there may be more than -- more than we need, but I agree that the market would decide. What about restrictions on the location of such facility within the PUD so that it's obstructed from view from the roads, the main roads? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they look like office buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: They look like office buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would that gain? I mean, you can't tell them from an office building with the exception that a storage facility of 100,000 square feet takes 12 parking spaces; an office building would take 200. So, honestly, I'm not sure that that's a negative impact from a roadway when they look no different than an office building, if that's what your goal is. COMMISSIONER FRY: I am. I think the question is whether it's neutral, positive, or negative that a mini-storage is abutting the road, and, you know, right beside the road, or if it makes more sense aesthetically for the nearby residents and passengers along the roadway to have it behind other commercial uses and not quite as obvious there. In my opinion, you could see mini-storage unit -- you can identify it pretty easily as to what it is. It doesn't appear like an office building to me. MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Mr. Chairman. Wayne Arnold again, for the record. If you look on the aerial photograph, and because of the set-aside for the right-of-way and the relocation of the canal, any of the commercial development that's going to be constructed as part of Tree Farm is going to be set back from the travel lane, and in the future, obviously, there's going to be a flyover at some point in the future east/west on Immokalee Road with transitions down that have been accommodated in that design. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 17 of 55 But I agree with Mr. Strain, we -- Rich and I, I think, worked on all of the Lock Up facilities with the exception of the one on the East Trail that was just completed, and those were well received by nearby reside nces and, as Mr. Strain said, they're not only very low traffic generators but very low parking generators so you don't end up with these large fields of parking that many people object to, and they are subject to architectural standards and have special architectural standards in the code for them. COMMISSIONER FRY: I appreciate that. I guess I'm interested if there are any residents that weigh in on the issue, if it's something that is of concern. And if not, I understand it's a rather innocuous use in terms of traffic so -- but I do believe there is an issue -- a concern thematically through these meetings that there is a great proliferation -- if I try that again -- of these units almost on every corner now. That is all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I have a few. And part of it will need some of Nancy's participation. There was a discrepancy in the staff writeup that I found yesterday, but I'm not sure that -- Nancy, you had said, I think, Page 5 is the right page. I think that's wrong. I think it's page -- because Page 5 says they're going to go from 120,000 square feet down to 80-, but I think they're going to go from 175- to 80-, or has there been some change from the 175-? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, they're going from 120,000 square feet to 80,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the PUD that was approved for 175- was amended from its original? MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. I believe that was a HEX decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember offhand. As long as it was amended. So we're starting at 120- which then brings up a different question in relationship to the hotel. That's what made me think of it today, so... Okay. So the staff narrative on Page 5 is the one to use for the square footage reduction, not the one on Page 10. And I'm going to have a few questions of your traffic guy, too. I think -- Mike Sawyer, would you mind -- I'm going to hit traffic so I'd like to ask you while we're asking Norm. MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Transportation writeup in the staff report, it said -- and this involves the way Norm laid out his TIS. And I'm probably going to -- I've got a lot of questions about Norm's TIS when we get to it. It says, while the scenario does not fully represent the highest, best possible use with the PUD, the scenario does result in potentially lower traffic generation than currently approved for the development. Now, if they put -- if we keep the trip cap at the 520 that they're asking for which, by the way, is what we have to -- that's not, I believe, the number that's used in the PUD. It's used 580. But the basis of today's meeting and part of their request for approval is the fact they're reducing the amount of trips on the road from 580 to 520. So I think the trip cap needs to be changed in the PUD to reflect what they're selling us today. But at the same time, when this doesn't represent the best possible scenario of the PUD, what did you mean by that? Best possible economically? Best possible traffic-wise? What were you getting at? MR. SAWYER: I understand the question. It's one of -- it's basically a caution that if the trip limit weren't part of the PUD itself, there could possibly be an inherent conflict between what was shown in the TIS and what is included in the PUD. For instance, if you took the highest possible most traffic-generating use in the list of uses that's been allowed with the PUD, if we didn't have the trip limit, you just had the uses, and the square footage, you could potentially exceed what's in the TIS. The safety factor that we've got is that the trip limit pulls them back down so that it would be consistent with the scenario that they're doing. And the scenario that they're proposing is a reasonable one. We have found other PUDs coming in with a similar type of scenario, and it actually is pulling down the number of trips that are possible for the development itself. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 18 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what I was trying to figure out the context of your statement. Basically, by saying it fully -- does not fully represent the highest and best possible use of the PUD, that also would mean it only could show that if the trip cap was higher. So the trip cap actually limits the PUD's -- and that's what I was trying to get at. It's beneficial from what you're saying in that statement. It's just I didn't -- it took me a minute to figure out how you were getting there, so... MR. SAWYER: Correct. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only thing I needed to ask at this time, Mike. I'll probably have some more after I get done talking -- having my fun conversation with Norm. MR. SAWYER: Always available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Wayne, when you said -- and I know you're accommodating the right-of-way. That is the right-of-way needed for the flyover, because I noticed you include the relocation of the canal there, too. So the flyover doesn't need any more than that, right? MR. ARNOLD: That's my understanding. It's 100 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And because of that, your trip -- your contributions to the intersection improvements and all these other things, is that considered part of the vesting process, or you're considered vested for your traffic? MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to let our attorney reference that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Subject to being out-lawyered by Mr. Klatzkow, I think that certainly goes towards meeting our impacts for this project. I don't want to get into a vested-rights argument at this point, but I think that there's capacity on the road. We're still going to pay our impact fees, but we have certainly at least met our impacts to the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a DCA? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. This was through the PUD itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's not a separate DCA on this one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm looking for the rest of my questions. Oh, you heard me comment on the 520 trip cap. You didn't change that in the paragraph. It says -- there's twice -- there's two references there of 580, but since you're putting forth the 520 today, I'd like to see that paragraph corrected to the 520. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since we paid for 580 trips through our fair share to the intersection, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just told me you can't say they're vested, though, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: But I certainly can say I paid for it, and I should be entitled to that benefit for what I paid for. So if we tinker with some of the numbers, as long as I don't exceed the 580, we don't see why the county would object to keeping the same trip cap that I have today as it exists today under the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only twist to that is that part of the selling point of today's change to add all the residential is that you're going to drop -- your trips will be lower. But they really won't be lower because now you're not -- because you're not lowering your trip cap, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- for instance, I don't believe I ever said that you should approve this because we've agreed to come in and reduce the overall trip. We've said we've added this as a use, and we've agreed to stay within the existing trip cap. Maybe staff is saying, hey, the scenario they analyzed actually shows -- a likely scenario actually shows a reduction, but we've said that's a likely scenario. Your worst -case scenario is the existing trip cap, and that's what we're asking to keep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the TIS you produced shows a reduction, if you go to this use, down to 520. But that just shows that because it felt like making us feel good, because you don't have a reduction of 520 because you're going to leave it at 580. So why didn't the TIS put enough square footage and other elements in there to hit the 580 cap so we're not kind of thinking this is a betterment to the project by having a reduction in trip caps? MR. YOVANOVICH: Your staff meets with transportation consultants and says, give us a likely 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 19 of 55 scenario compared to what you have today. We've done the likely scenario compared to what's there today. So I don't understand the harm to the community if we do exactly what we could do today as far as transportation impacts and for which we paid for intersection improvements based upon that number of trips going through the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, it's just the -- the documents that were given to us to review made it believe that we were going to have a project that actually reduced trips on the road, which is a real positive, and I thought that was your selling point to come in and ask for this change. Now you're saying, well, no, we just wanted to show you that, that it could be that, but really it could be, what? It could be 400 if we wanted to -- you wanted to drop it that hard -- that low. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four hundred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But none of that we're supposed to count on. We're supposed to say, no, it's 580. It doesn't matter what you're showing us today. MR. YOVANOVICH: If staff wanted us to come up with another scenario to show you 580 trips, happy to do another scenario to show you 580 trips. At the end of the day, they asked for a likely scenario that could happen. And if that likely scenario is, in fact, built, you will have less trips, but you will never be worse than what you are today from a trip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you want to change the mix of the commercial uses than the 80,000 square feet allowed and want to put the -- for example, a convenience store with a gas station in, then that kicks the trips back up over 520 back to 580, and we still have that then, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Possibly. Yeah, you'll never be worse than 580. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I asked you yesterday, since you don't seem to be -- I thought yesterday -- you may not be using some of the more intense uses in your commercial section, if you'd be willing to drop some of those that were more intense, and I thought you were going to look at that. So hopefully we'll hear about some of that before this meeting is over. But one of them would certainly be -- is a gas station and a convenience store. I mean, they are one of the big traffic generators. I don't even know if you could fit one in if you put all that residential in. But without lowering the cap, you've got some latitude there that I didn't expect when I spoke with you yesterday. MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't talk yesterday. We talked two days ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here we go again. Okay. A couple days ago. All these days kind of meld together right now. So, anyway, Ned had a -- wanted to ask a question on that, and I'll go back into it as soon as he's finished. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. One of things that has happened since some time ago when the 580 trip cap was assigned, is we've got a new AUIR. And there continues to be trouble on section -- Segment 43.2, which is Immokalee. Now, I realize that this project is not entered directly and indirectly on Immokalee but through Collier. I want to know how many of the 580 or 520 trips are going to be traversing this segment of Immokalee that is going to be deficient in 2024, and there are only 224 trips left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably a Norm question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the attorney ahead of you said that attorneys don't do expert testimony; that we have to leave that to the experts. I thought that was an interesting statement but -- for your case, at least, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I like Pat Neale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll have to use that more often. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't always agree with him. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. For the record, Norm Trebilcock, certified engineer -- I mean, professional engineer and certified planner. We prepared the traffic impact analysis for the project. We did not do a specific link analysis because it was really comparative to identify that we're under what was existing out there. So at the time of Site 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 20 of 55 Development Plan or platting, what we'd do is do the specific link analysis you're talking about using the current AUIR to determine that we don't have an issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're saying that this is subject to a future look? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir; yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well -- it seems to me, I'm uncomfortable letting this go to the next step without having some indication as to how many of these 284 trips are going to be expended as a result of 520 or 580 new trips coming down the pike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Norm, if this was part of a commitment in a PUD, would it have been included in the AUIR because it was a prior commitment locked into the PUD so that that may help respond to the question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It should have been. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, there's a large trip bank. Are you saying that some of this is in the trip bank? MR. TREBILCOCK: It probably is best for staff to maybe address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not rushing up, so I'm assuming they're mystified by the question, so... MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't a trip-bank issue. They've got 580 now. They're not increasing it. Whether or not this results in a reduction, we'll find out when the development is complete. But this has not hing to do with bank trips or anything else, because they are not changing their trip count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. That's not -- that's not, I think, where Ned's trying to find out. A segment of Immokalee Road only has 284 trips left on it. Does that include this project being factored in already or not? Because this project was in the PUD of having been established and more or less allocated. MR. KLATZKOW: But you're not changing trip count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here she is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It should have been. It should have been in the AUIR. But go ahead. MS. SCOTT: I'm sorry. I wasn't sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCOTT: The only trip -- for the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. The only trips that would be included in the trip bank would be anything that this particular PUD has an approved plat or Site Development Plan for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 284 does not include the trip counts that are being asked about today because with -- MS. SCOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than 54 units, that's the only plat that's on this property -- or SDP. MS. SCOTT: Correct. And the other item is, is that the 254 trips that we're talking about, remember, are p.m. peak hour, peak direction only. So when you're talking about the trip cap, the trip cap is the two-way trip cap as well, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I logically follow you, of course, but it just seems to me that some study or -- you know, something should have been done to satisfy a concern like this. Maybe it's quite easy to be done, but right now I'm left without knowing how many of these peak direction, peak p.m. trips are going to wind up against the 284. MR. KLATZKOW: The road's going to fail. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry? MR. KLATZKOW: This road is going to fail. I mean, you're going to have more and more development over more and more years. Eventually we'll have to build a flyover, you know, to help alleviate that. But to think that this is going to be an A quality road or a B quality road, no, during rush hour this road's going to be bad. But this road was bad when I moved here 15 years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It already is. MR. KLATZKOW: And then we six-laned it, and it was great for a couple of years. Now it's back to where I was when I moved here. It's -- and Trinity's doing as much as she can but, you know, we keep getting 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 21 of 55 these requests for additional density, and they keep getting approved, and this is what has happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity? MS. SCOTT: If I may also add, we do have Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, which is coming online, which we anticipate would be a reliever to Immokalee Road as well as a corridor congestion study that we're in the midst of doing and getting ready to go out to public involvement to look at operational improvements from Logan Boulevard to Livingston. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I have to go in order, so I'll to need bring you back up, if you don't mind. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have 260 pages, and I lose track if I keep skipping around. The self-storage, it currently reads, self-storage, indoor self-storage. Our suggestion, I think, and staff agrees, that it should read, indoor self-storage -- indoor air-conditioned self-storage only. So the first two words, self-storage and comma go away. The way that's written, you could have self-storage being not necessarily indoor and not necessarily air conditioned the way it's written. So is that -- do you guys have any objection to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: My answer is: I don't think I do. My only -- the only thing I don't know, Mr. Strain, and I need to find out, is you don't know -- on the ground floor they do have some garage units, and I don't know if those are also air conditioned, but they're within the building, so can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Take some time. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Otherwise, I'd say yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We won't get this completed by the break. So after the break, we'll look at the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's my only hesitation is that part of the building. I don't know if these individual units are also climate controlled or not. I just need to make a quick call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get that straightened out and the hotel during the break, then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The amenity area, you know we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I have asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have asked that you locate the amenity areas on the master plan, and that's because those are the -- if there is any noise, generally it's from the amenity areas: Pools and tennis courts and things like that, so the neighbors ought to know where they're going. You didn't do that in this one. Can you tell me where the amenity area's going to go? MR. YOVANOVICH: What we did do, Mr. Strain, is we did include a requirement from the western boundary that they have to be at least 100 feet away. So the reason we haven't identified them is we don't know for sure where the residential development for, I'll call it, the south residential piece and the north residential piece want their amenities to be at this time. So we went with what we've done in other PUDs is the development standard route of making sure we don't have negative impacts to our neighbors by moving it 100 feet from the west. And then if there's internal -- people next door to where we're required to do a wall -- I think we've done this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've done that on Brandon. That's where that started. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it also was not only Brandon. I think maybe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We added it to a few before that. Brandon was the one I think -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if that was the first one or not. There was one, I think, on Collier Boulevard. I think Wayne was involved in that one. It was the old Bonness piece of property. I think that's 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 22 of 55 where it started. And I know we used that -- I think we used that language in Brandon. I think I'm kind of right. Am I close? Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we did. I was there when that happened years ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: I remember watching it from the cheap seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You say that the amenity area needs to be two stories not to exceed 50 feet in height. Why do you need 50 feet for storage? MR. YOVANOVICH: And we thought about that, Mr. Strain. I think the number we came with was two stories, 35 feet zoned, 42 feet actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That brings it a lot better. Let me just move on down my list. We already talked to you about the 580; we're going to get that resolved. Affordable workforce housing. This may get us down to Norm. We might actually get to Norm's stuff. Yeah, we are. So I have mostly transportation cleanup issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Before you get to that, two of the issues that were raised -- or questions that were raised I can talk to you now before the break and before you get into Norm, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: The first issue was what's the distance between the activity center to the very northern tip of the PUD, and it's approximately a half a mile. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the other question was providing first option for essential service personnel. I think the numbers that have been going around has been a 30 percent number for initially market to essential service personnel for, if I want to say, 60 days at the initial outset of the project. If you can't -- if there's not people who want -- that meet those qualifications, then we can go to nonessential service personnel. And then as each unit comes up, we would again do that for a 30-day period. And we would agree to that similar condition in the PUD, to initially market 30 percent of those units, and then as they come open, the same 30 percent to essential service personnel first. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you say a word about what -- of your marketing effort would consist? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's some easy -- easy outreach would be to the hospitals, to Collier County, to the Sheriff's Department, to the various police departments, school board. We would, obviously, initially market to them, because we'd like to have those people living in the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fire and EMS, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: All of the -- that's what everybody is basically doing is contacting the right person at Mr. Eastman's organization, and same thing at the county; we would reach out to them and let them know that these units are here, and we'd love to have their employees live there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Time frame that you would hold that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 60 days for the initial lease-up, and then 30 days as each -- most people will give us 30 days' notice, so we would have that 30-day period to try first. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Would it be 60 days when the sale center opens, or 60 days when the building is available to be occupied? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be as part of the pre-leasing because, obviously -- and I don't run these things, but I'm sure as you're in the middle of construction you've got an idea of when people would start moving in. So it would be during that period of time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Of the time period that you're marketing the building for rent? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it may be preconstruction, but you're marketing it. It's 60 days, and then it's open again to market rate? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 23 of 55 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll -- yeah. It's for the rental community that we're talking about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's always market rate, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, but the rental -- I'm talking about -- the question was essential service personnel, and I want to make sure it's for the apartment complex or rental. If it's a rental project, that's where the essential service personnel would be. But, Mr. Strain -- I mean, Mr. Schmitt -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know we look like, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's the old guy. MR. YOVANOVICH: You do, you do, you know. There's no right answer to that. I will confirm during the break -- I can't imagine that we pre-lease before we start construction. I think it's a little bit different in a market -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, from the Planning Commission's standpoint, it's simply nothing more than offering first right of refusal, basically. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the important part is the outreach and letting people know -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that these options are there for them when -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have noticed that as these projects work through the system, this idea of some kind of affordable housing crops up quite often now. And we're doing a lot of it on the fly. And we have a program for affordable housing, but we're doing a lot of it by re-languaging PUDs as we're suggesting here. Just out of curiosity, I know that in -- I've read articles about New York City -- I've never been there -- that they had this problem with rent control, and landlords would get somebody in at a rent, and then they would drastically raise the rent so they can't afford it anymore. How do we control that if you're trying to get essential service personnel? They sign a 12- or 14-month lease, whatever it is. Do they get -- do they go back to standard rates after that? Is that how it works? Just out of curiosity. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no -- there's no income restriction we're proposing, so it doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're just going to have a market-rate unit that you're going to offer to essential service personnel as a beginning opportunity? I mean, you're going to -- explain why this is beneficial to affordable housing of any kind. I don't understand. If it's market rate -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not addressing affordable housing. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not. It's not. This has nothing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we care if -- MR. KLATZKOW: I've never understood this conversation because the best -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me neither. MR. KLATZKOW: The best we get is, well, we'll advertise this for essential personnel and give them first choice, but it's market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're not getting the break, they can just go out into the real estate market and pick it up themselves. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my point, Jeff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are we doing this? MR. KLATZKOW: This is a tempest in a teapot, this discussion. It doesn't amount to anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to -- I can't figure out how it works. Okay. So it doesn't work? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not even sure why we put the obligation on the developer because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. MR. KLATZKOW: -- at the end of the day -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a nonissue. MR. KLATZKOW: -- it's a nonissue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, if you were doing something with affordable, and you're 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 24 of 55 locking in certain rates for over periods of time, yes, but you're not doing any of that. And I'm not saying you should. I'm just trying to figure out what it is you're being asked and what's given. MR. KLATZKOW: They're not offering it, but this is something that we've been talking about because I think it makes us feel good, but it doesn't do anything. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All it is is a gesture of good will saying, Tom, let the schoolteachers know there's new units available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which if -- they could find out themselves if they looked for apartments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Just go to apartments.com, and it's right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But it would be better if they were offered at lower income rate. MR. KLATZKOW: But they're not offering that. It's market rate. I agree with you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I realize that, but it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: I fully agree with you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It would be better. And I know that Stock's rental company does a good job with trying to give them some kind of break to get in -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all I was looking for is full transparency and disclosure. This is really not doing something for affordable housing if that was the intent. And I don't care if it was or not. I'm just suggesting that all it does is say these are on the market to a special group of people who could simply see it by looking on the internet for all apartments they need to rent. So, I mean -- okay. I don't have a problem with it. I just want to make sure we understand what it does and doesn't do. Now, you know what, before I start my conversation with Norm, we're close enough to a break. Let's take a 17-minute break and come back at 10:45. (A brief recess was had from 10:28 a.m. to 10:44 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'd please take your seats. We're going to resume the meeting where we left off. And next item up is entertainment by Norm Trebilcock. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I finish up the pending questions before we go to Mr. Trebilcock? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can. Everybody, would you please take your seats. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: On the air conditioned, my only hesitation -- and I hope it won't be an issue -- is if we can say everything will be air conditioned except for those portions of the building where you have outdoor roll-up or garage doors, because some of those are air conditioned, some don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But why don't we do it simpler than that. No outside storage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fine. That's fine. But -- okay. And the other issue was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hotel. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the hotel. There's a hesitance to address square footage because one thing, I'm a little concerned about what was advertised on the square foot -- we didn't advertise for above the 80,000 square feet and 250 hotels (sic). We'd rather -- we believe that the more likely size of a hotel in this location would be about 140 units. So we'd like to reduce that to the 140 which would, obviously, reduce the size of the hotel building. So to address the -- we'd rather address the concern that way than change the square footage numbers, if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will keep it in a much more reasonable square footage, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I think those were the two pending questions, and now I'll let you have Mr. Trebilcock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The un-pending questions, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hello, Norm. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 25 of 55 MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. Norm Trebilcock, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we look at Table 1 on Page 5 of your TIS to start with. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Table 1, the first -- top part of it says, the PUD existing approved trip cap, and then the bottom says proposed. A couple different things. First of all, I noticed in the one that was approved, you're showing a gasoline service station, and the one that's proposed you're not showing that. You're saying a shopping center, which is nicer than a gasoline service station. That would -- one would tend to believe that's what your intent was. But I also noticed there's no commercial hotel -- there's no hotel there. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you not know they're planning on a hotel? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, again, this is a land-use scenario, so -- and everything's really governed under the trip cap. So if we had a hotel, that would just be an alternative use. So it would reduce square footage or some other use in turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to know what it would do, because we're just now -- you heard it's not going to be part of the square footage. It's like the self-storage facility. It's separated out, but -- you did put that here, but you didn't put the hotel here. So that kind of -- I'm wondering why they're asking for it, why they're asking for it to be separated out from the square footage and not count that way. It won't be counted as a mini warehouse. It's not going to be counted as residential. So it's a stand-alone. Why wouldn't you put that in your TIS? MR. TREBILCOCK: Again, because the mix of different uses -- alternatively, you would do one versus another. You know, the -- say originally the trip characteristics of, say, 250 hotel rooms that we were originally looking at, its p.m. peak is about 180 trips two-way. So what that would cause you to do is reduce one of these other uses, you know, just -- you know, in the case of the shopping center, you'd reduce the size of the shopping center by a number of square feet. So you stay under the overall trip cap you need to. So there's so much you can fit in, and we just provided a -- kind of a likely scenario that we would have there. You know, similar to what we do with, like, with assisted living facilities. Oftentimes we won't show those, but we know that's an allowed use on a piece of property. And so that's all, just -- because that's the nature of the PUD is to allow alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 7 of your TIS, Table 2B, here we go with the listed uses again. And so now you're saying that if you were to add a hotel, some of those other three uses would have to be reduced enough to keep the hotel at the cap of 520. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what his table says. That's the problem I've had with the way you approached this today. MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- the PUD says 580. That's what we have today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So the bottom line is there's 60 trips that are left over in this table from the PUD that are not accounted for. So you could put -- in addition to what this table shows, the equivalent of 60 trips. If the hotel is more than 60 trips, we would then have to subtract out from these other uses to stay within the 580. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, but I don't know why we're presented with a table that shows 520 when obviously you're missing a use you're now asking to be added to the PUD, and you're saying you always intended to keep to the 580. So why didn't we show those uses going -- getting to the 580 one way or another so that we're not being -- I guess, thinking something different than you are intending. MR. YOVANOVICH: From now on I will make sure I tell all my transportation consultants, when we have an existing PUD, come up with a scenario, whether it's realistic or not, to chew up the existing 580 trips. I'll do that. I will not -- I will make sure that this doesn't happen again, because this was -- we were asked to do a likely scenario on the project. I will now do something that will be likely plus so it doesn't appear as if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be likely equal, not plus. You're going to go at 580. It's not plus. It's 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 26 of 55 equal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, but I will -- I'm just saying to you, the likely scenario we proposed was what you have. We will make sure that the likely scenario from this point forward is equal to the 580 so you won't be in a situation that you're in right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, for the trip -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- counts, you're using the ITE 10th edition, right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how accurate is the ITE overall? I mean, do we generally think that's the right document to use for -- that's all we use; is that correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: That's the standard we rely on by code and ordinances, yes. ITE does allow alternative site-specific analysis. But you're correct, the ITE is a standard of not only our county, but really statewide industry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Turn to Page 28 of your TIS. Very bottom in the very, very small No. 8 font, under ITE deviation, external trips, let's start with 820, shopping center. ITE did not recommend a particular pass-by percentage for this case. Multifamily housing, ITE does not recommend a particular pass-by percentage for this case, yet on the page that we just started with, we've got a pass-by number, and it's substantial. It gives you a lot of credit: 767 on your 24-hour two-way volume of pass-by trips for multifamily housing and shopping centers. So if ITE is the correct document to use, why would we want to use -- put the pass-by trips in for this particular use? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay, good question. So, in the case of daily, ITE does not identify a daily reduction percentage for pass-by use, yet they do for p.m. peak hour. And, again, the analysis -- everything we do in here is based on p.m. peak hour. So there is not a pass-by anyways for the residential uses, so that's out of there. But in the case of a shopping center, if you're going to have a pass-by use in the p.m. peak hour, okay, the logic would be that there's going to be a pass-by over the course of the entire day. ITE, all they're stating is they don't have a specific standard that they're saying to use. As a standard, what we do in transportation with the county in agreement is we'll use the p.m. peak hour and we subtract 10 percent of that, and then that will be the value. So it's just to help give you an idea of overall on a daily basis what we would estimate the pass-by to be. But in the specific analysis we're conducting, concurrency or anything, daily does not enter into the analysis. It's just a figure to kind of give you an idea, magnitude of what this is going to generate over the course of a day. But, you know, this is a valid way to do that. Again, ITE provides a p.m. peak hour pass-by rate. The county standards typically reduce whatever ITE suggests. So we'll also get a similar footnote when we use the county-imposed pass-by rates, which are less than what ITE recommends, we'll get a similar note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show me their pass-by rates for the shopping center, since they said there's none recommended? How do you -- what do you -- what -- where do you find that? I couldn't find it. MR. TREBILCOCK: For -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take the shopping center. It says it is -- it has -- it says it doesn't recommend a pass-by rate yet you have one in your document. MR. TREBILCOCK: For a daily basis. ITE does not have a daily recommendation for a pass-by rate. They just don't have it. They haven't run their analysis that way, but they do on a p.m. peak hour basis. And our analysis, especially for concurrency, is all p.m. peak hour. And, in fact, we use a lesser rate than what ITE recommends. Theirs is 56 percent. I think the county's is 50 percent, but I'll double-check that here, looking that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The page I had referred you to says, ITE does not recommend a particular pass-by percentage for this case. MR. TREBILCOCK: For daily, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where does it -- how do you -- okay. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 27 of 55 MR. TREBILCOCK: Weekday, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does it say -- how do you get to the daily? MR. TREBILCOCK: Weekday; weekday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, external trips, pass-by percentage, pass-by trips, non-pass-by trips. Where does it say they're recommending it only -- not to be used for daily? I mean, I'm trying to follow your reasoning, and I can't seem to get there. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying you're wrong. I need to understand how you got there. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Norm, maybe -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. If you look on Page 32, okay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm on Page 32. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- that's where you get, in reference to the ITE, the number differences in the case of our pass-by. The 25 percent is not provided by ITE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. TREBILCOCK: And then the 50 percent is not provided by ITE. ITE rates will be higher than that, their recommended rates, in their -- in their technical data. What we do in the methodology is agree up front what the pass-by rates will be, and that's in our methodology that we have and gets identified, so we use those. And Collier County has established methodology pass-by rates to use, and so we use those pass-by rates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why wouldn't ITE suggest pass-by rates? MR. TREBILCOCK: They do for the p.m. peak hours. They do for the p.m. peak hours for the shopping center. Yes, there you go. Like, you can see -- thank you -- on the shopping center that's on the visualizer is we chose 25 percent, ITE recommends 34 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does ITE recommend for internal capture? Is there a difference there? MR. TREBILCOCK: ITE will follow. They have different processes and procedures we do, and we do follow those. But Collier County staff will put a cap on it, which is typically lower than what ITE will allow. So we're conservative in that; that in fact, we'll have more internal capture if you follow the ITE methodology completely. But we'll override that based on what staff has agreed to. That's why we have these methodologies, and we provide them these details that show the results accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, ITE uses data and statistics for each one of their land uses, and I guess that's what helps them factor in the trip count. And that's -- under multifamily housing, which is on Page 29 of your thing, the last paragraph -- or second-to-the-last paragraph says, for the site -- for the three sites for which data was provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents, there was an average of 2.72 residents per occupied dwelling units. Now, how does that factor into the ITE trip count that you utilize? Is it based on that many residents per unit then? Your trip count would be higher in that case because Collier County has a lower residents per unit than 2.72. MR. TREBILCOCK: Again, what -- what everything boils down to are the units and the trips per unit, and that's what we use and rely on for the trip generation that we conduct, and we're not really necessarily getting into how many folks per unit are there, but we use the per-unit basis as the trip generation for our analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I figured you were going to say something like that, Norm. Thank you. I think that's going to be all I'm going to be able to clarify that I need from you. So, Richard, did you have something you want to add to the conversation? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. If you will recall, when we were dealing with the Baumgarten PUD and the Allura PUD, there was some skepticism as to whether ITE for multifamily apartments was accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there still is, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we did local studies on local Collier County apartments with trip counts and all that stuff, provided that information, and we can resubmit that if you'd like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 28 of 55 MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and it showed that ITE, frankly, for the low-rise product overstates Collier County's actual experience and slightly understates it for the high-rise. And Norm used the more conservative low rise for his transportation analysis. So we did do a Collier County study for apartments to groundtruth, if you will, the ITE. So I do -- I think it's been accurate for the multifamily product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question about your residential development standards. Your height for your buildings is -- and it's for multifamily, 20 feet or -- well, this is your separation. Maximum zoned height, three stories NTE, 50 feet. You crossed out three stories NTE, and you just left 50 feet, but yet you told the folks at the NIM you wouldn't exceed -- you'd be up to four stories. Do you have any problem with putting in four stories NTE, 50 feet? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. We have no objection. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got. Anybody else have anything of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I've worn everybody out. Nancy, do you have a staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning Department. And staff is recommending approval of the Tree Farm PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll go to public speakers. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public here to discuss this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If -- you'll have to be sworn in first, so if you didn't -- were you sworn in earlier? Just nod your -- MR. SOLOMON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you were. Okay. Please come up -- one of you come up to the mic. Identify yourself for the record, probably have to spell your last name if it's not obvious, and then we'll be glad to hear you. Oh, you submitted speaker slips to the court reporter? MR. SOLOMON: Yeah. It's right there. Jerry Solomon. It's right on top, I see there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SOLOMON: Okay. It's somewhat clarification as well. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were sworn in. They said they were sworn in. MR. SOLOMON: I was sworn in. In the initial comments, I forget which gentleman spoke, I think it's the gentleman at the end, he made reference to the future flyover, and he said it's to accommodate this development. I just wanted to know how those two are linked, if you would, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't ask questions directly to them. You have to ask them of us. MR. SOLOMON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the flyover is going to accommodate the entire area, not just the development. The development has accommodated the flyover by providing a lot of land and right-of-way to which that canal has already moved into part of it. That was probably what they were alluding to. MR. SOLOMON: Okay. So it's nothing about the flyover is justifying the trip count or anything like that; because we've heard in the past that this flyover, while it's Collier County's wish, Lee County doesn't even have it in their 25-year plan. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 29 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Lee County wouldn't. It's in our plan. That's the -- our -- it would be our plan because it's paid for with impact fees from Collier County. They're about $45 million apiece, and we've got 3 of them scheduled for the county that we'll be paying for. So they're different parts. But as impact fees are collected from the residential and commercial in that area, that flyover will eventually happen some day, but I think it's about a decade off. MR. SOLOMON: At least. Okay. Thank you. Another question if you could help clarify. And I know you asked a lot of questions, Mr. Strain, about trip counts, and we really appreciate you diving into the detail for that. It's wonderful. It's also an education. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wish I could understand it, though. MR. SOLOMON: Well, think about what kind of education it is for us, because we're starting here and you're up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SOLOMON: But when we were here on the Baumgarten PUD, at that point there was a lot of discussion about -- that we had room for, I think, we were within 11 of the trip count capacity. I don't know -- I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was some capacity. The difference would be on what segments of the road they're hitting when they make their left and right turns. Baumgarten would have a little bit different road segments than this particular one. But that's what I believe Ned was alluding to when he said the segment that is most likely going to have problems is the one that has 284 trips left. And what happens is the details of the application when they actually come down to the wire and say, we're going to add these uses to our Site Development Plan, that's when the trip count gets checked against the AUIR. And if the AUIR -- MR. SOLOMON: What is AUIR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Annual Update and Inventory Report. It's a really important document that nobody pays any attention to, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do, but it's -- over the years it's been not -- it drives everything, and unfortunately -- MR. SOLOMON: Is it accessible by the public? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's hundreds -- it's a couple hundred pages or so, but it's a big document, a lot of numbers. But it tells you how things are laid out for the future five years, or even more in some cases. And for transportation, it tells you when they think the trips are going -- what's left in capacity. And that's what Ned was referring to. He watches that pretty carefully. There's a segment of Immokalee Road whose capacity's not going to be able to take as much trips that are being generated if this project's built to full at the time maybe when it actually comes on line. And what would happen is during the SDP stage they would discover that there's not enough trips left on the road, and they'd have to find a way to mitigate it. That's what it would boil down to. MR. SOLOMON: Okay. So that leads into another question, because there was discussion about storage facilities, and they're minimal in terms of trip counts, and I think we all welcome them. However, what we hear is that the ultimate decision whether that's a storage unit will depend on market demand, both Baumgarten and this PUD that we're talking about. So what if Baumgarten says, well, we decided not to do a storage unit and, therefore, we're not going to use it in this one, and something else gets substituted which will, by definition, have a higher trip count than a storage unit. Is that part of the ongoing process to constantly update the trip count? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes, it is, and what happens is the most important part the PUD for trips is the cap. That's why we talked back and forth on the cap. It doesn't matter if they do a storage unit or not. If they don't do one, their cap is still 580. If they do one, it's still 580. You just see a different mix there. The trip cap -- the intensity that you'll experience is going to be the same whether the storage facility's there or not. With 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 30 of 55 a storage facility, they'll have more building because it has a lower trip cap, so they still have room to build more. So with a -- like a gas station, they'd have immediately a higher trip cap, so they'd be building less. That's what -- the cap is what the key element is. MR. SOLOMON: Okay. And the cap is 580 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SOLOMON: -- as long as they stay under that. One last question: In the visualizer you had this picture up, future land use where it had a square and a concentric circle around it. What is the difference between what's allowed within the square and what's in the larger circle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the square it's usually C1 through C4, I believe, which is your various commercial uses up to -- C4 is your more intense stuff. I think it might be even C5 in some -- yes, it is, C5. So all your commercial can go in that square. And you can have some limited residential. But in that circle that goes around it, you can only do residential, but it's a higher density residential. It's up to 16 units per acre with certain allowances. MR. SOLOMON: Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. SOLOMON: Thanks for the ongoing education. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- we're all learning, so thank you. Good morning. MS. TATRO: Good morning. My name is Jodi Tatro, T-a-t-r-o. And I just have a real quick question regarding the hotel. Nobody spoke to the height of the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height of the hotel will be -- Wayne, do you know that quickly offhand? Or I can look it up. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I can look that up, too. But it's subject to the same standards as all the other commercial development -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I was looking it. MR. ARNOLD: -- which is retail buildings are 50 feet zoned, 62 feet actual. Office buildings are 65 feet zoned, 77 feet actual. I don't know which we're going to classify the self-storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. She's talking about hotel. If you've only got -- you've got retail and office, that means you don't have -- you don't have hotel. Where are you reading from? What page are you on? MR. ARNOLD: That is on Table 3, Mr. Strain. It's on Page 18 of the ordinance and Packet Page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. That's what I'm on, too. Retail and office are the only ones listed, Ray. What would the hotel fall under? MR. BELLOWS: Retail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, ma'am, to answer your question, the zoned height will be 50 feet, but they can have architectural embellishments to make it look prettier up to 62 feet. MS. TATRO: And would they be located in the square or the circle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd be located in the square, in the activity center, Ray? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Square. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: They're allowed only in the mixed-use area, which is the activity center portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be -- hotels are one of those things that sometimes they're considered residential and some -- like an ALF, sometimes it's commercial. In this case it's a commercial application, so... MS. TATRO: Okay. And just one comment: I applaud all of what you are doing related to the traffic, and I applaud the methodologies that people use. It's the best that we have out there. But the reality of it is, as I was heading east on Immokalee Road at that Collier/Immokalee intersection the other morning at about quarter to 8:00, the traffic was already backed up to just between the gates of Addison's Place and Collier Boulevard. I mean, it's that backed up already. And I just can't imagine what it's going to be like once we add another 480 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 31 of 55 residences as well as hotel rooms. So I just wanted that noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And just so you know, this project for its trip cap was originally -- I've been using the word "vested," but grandfathered since 2000, I think, 7. So it's just something we have to live with. We're trying to make the best of it. MS. TATRO: I understand. And I also think it's important to make sure people think about reality versus just analyses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. You're right. Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: On the development standards chart, could we include a hotel in there just so that down the road there's no misunderstanding? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problems with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So make a note as an asterisk that on the retail buildings it will be inclusive of hotels for height. Okay. Anybody have any other -- any other speakers -- anybody else want to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do any of the Planning Commission have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the benefit of the commission, Ray, at this point, is there any rebuttal by the applicant? Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I don't have a rebuttal. I just have a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since we're going to do a footnote for the hotel that it's treated as retail, I think we probably ought to do under that same footnote that the indoor self-storage will also be treated as retail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That the what? MR. YOVANOVICH: Indoor self-storage will also be treated at the retail height, not the office height, so there's no confusion. We just wanted to make it clear. Those two uses don't have specific heights, and there might be some question as to whether to use the office standard for indoor self -storage or the retail standard. So that's the only clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions? MR. YOVANOVICH: And then we'll answer any further questions you may have regarding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Office was higher than retail, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Office is taller, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Taller, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're saying retail, though, for those two uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read to you the notes I made so we know if we're on the same page or not. Cap of the hotel at 104 units. Trip cap of 320 units. MR. YOVANOVICH: What? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to see if you were paying -- Boy, I was just pulling a Richard Yovanovich there. Sorry about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's like my kids. They don't think I'm listening. Then, whoa. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not doing CPR next time you do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: By the way, I have a DNR. Let me go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The self-storage -- for the line item -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It will stop Mr. Strain from preventing people from helping me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the principal uses, the indoor self-storage will be read, indoor A/C 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 32 of 55 self-storage only. No outside storage. That covers your roll-up doors. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm concerned that the roll-up door area doesn't actually have A/C. That's my concern. The rest of -- there's no question the rest of the building does. And we agree no outdoor storage. It's just the roll-up door area. And some providers do A/C those units; some don't. That's all I'm concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Indoor A/C self-storage only, no outside storage, and there will be no A/C needed for roll-up door areas. MR. YOVANOVICH: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So however you guys want to make that grammatically right, that's what your intention is. The amenity height will be 35 feet zoned, 45 feet actual. The multifamily will be not to exceed -- four stories not to exceed 50 feet. And the -- there will be a note added to the standards table under the commercial so that the hotel and indoor self-storage fall under the retail section for height dimensioning. Well, it would be for all of it. All of it except for square footage, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Say that one more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your retail -- the hotel and indoor self-storage, that's going to have a footnote indicating that -- well, I'm sorry, the commercial district's going to have a footnote indicating a hotel and self-storage falls on -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're just -- it would probably be easier just to add them to the table. We'll add them to the table instead of a footnote; does that work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that brings up a question, though, that wasn't asked. I'm assuming, then, that all the setbacks that are on here would be for indoor self-storage and hotels as well since they're separated out now from the retail and commercial component in the -- by square footage. You understand what I'm saying? You've got to have setbacks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all your setbacks that are -- the commercial district setbacks would apply equally to hotel and indoor self-storage. All of it will. MR. YOVANOVICH: The way I understand this table, the setbacks apply to all the uses, and then you have a separate portion of the table that's addressing the height of those uses. So under that height portion, we would add -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hotel and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- hotel and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- self-storage, but the rest of it applies to all the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. That was the intent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with those, I don't know if there's anything else that you guys want to mention. I think we've got everything. Is that in agreement? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm looking back at the corrections I made to the document as we were just talking. I think that's all of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. I suggest if the motion maker is for a recommendation of approval, it include the notes that we just went over and see with the second. Anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move for approval with the notes we just went over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 33 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by -- seconded by Joe. The motion made by Stan. Discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're leaving out the rental? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't put them in because it was a moot point, but if you want to add it, the motion maker and the second during discussion, we can add it. What is it you want to add? What did you want to specifically add? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just what was discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which was? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had said 30 percent of the units would be initially marketed to essential service personnel. For the initial lease-up period that would be the 60 days, and then for each -- as each unit became available, it would be for 30 days. That's what we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind adding it. It just it does nothing because it means nothing. But it's a market-rate unit. And we're going to tell the people at the hospital they can rent a market-rate unit that the whole world can rent. So that -- I don't know what good that does to anybody. But if that's what we want -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think it does two things, in fairness to -- one, it gets the word out to the different agencies, that employee, essential service personnel and, two, it gives them a first priority over someone who is not an essential service personnel. So if everything's leased up and it comes down to an essential service personnel worker or a nonessential service personnel worker, the essential service personnel worker has first access to that unit. So it's not nothing. And I think that marketing to Mr. Eastman's group and other groups, the county, to let them know that those units are available to their employees is a benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any other questions on the motion? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've decided to vote in favor of it, but with some misgivings, and I want to express those. It would -- I would have liked to know what the actual impact of this would be on the constrained -- or that's the wrong word -- but the soon to be deficient Segment 43.2. And I think that's just important information for us as planners and for the Board of County Commissioners to know when they vote on these things is what the impact is going to be. There's only 284 peak p.m. peak direction slots left. And I understand there are arguments, perhaps, about vesting or what's been paid for in the 580 and all that, but I still think it's an important bit of information for us and for the legislators to consider when they are confronted with these projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Off the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Off the record? COMMISSIONER FRY: Off the record, I would like to just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do anything off the record. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I would hate to admit on the record that I agreed with Rich's explanation about the essential services, that there is some benefit to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll highlight that in the record. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's okay that that's on the record. I'd like to pose a question, I guess, calling upon the insight and experience of more experienced commissioners on this board. I've seen a trend, or I believe I've seen a trend where the applications come through, and there is a reduction of the commercial and an increase in the residential. Hammock Park did that. Obviously, the transition from Rural Lands West to Rivergrass and the villages is a significant reduction in the commercial but still a lot of residential. This one. There was another one as well. It's not coming to me at the moment. But is that a plus, a minus, or a neutral to Collier County as a whole? And I'm wondering, my potential concern is that as we have less commercial services for people, now they have to travel farther to get co mmercial services. And is there an optimum mix of residential and commercial that we are skewing from because we 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 34 of 55 are -- we seem to be adjusting every PUD more toward the residential. So I'm looking for some feedback from the Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, just to remind everybody, this is a discussion on the motion. So you've -- COMMISSIONER FRY: No, I'm asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Working this towards the motion? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, I am, in terms of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand the motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- how I vote on the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the motion maker was Stan. So you feel like answering his -- do you have any input that Karl could use? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not really. I mean, I'm not sure really what you're getting at, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we losing something by, as a trend, reducing the commercial in each of these PUDs and having more residential? So we're reducing the pool of commercial services that are available for more people that are moving into these residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, this is an activity center, and you've got three corners massively built out with commercial already. The activity centers do allow mixed use, and they have purposelessly dense density bands around them at a higher -- much, much higher density than allowed anywhere else in Collier County. It's encouraged to be in those locations. To take away the commercial here when there's so much on the other corners I'm not sure that is a problematic issue. If it was farther out east where we had a little bit of commercial and we took it away and we forced more people to drive into town, that would be a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in this intersection, the only thing I wish they had is a Home Depot, but other than that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or Lowe's. We can't be specific here, now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Lowe's or Home Depot. Okay. Either one. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karl, just to -- but it's cyclical based on the market. If there's overabundance of commercial, it tends -- the market will drive converting commercial to residential and vice versa. If there's a shortage of commercial, the market will demand, and there will be a conversion of residential to commercial. It's happened in this county for the last 20 years. Probably the preponderance, though -- we get a lot of commercial activity centers, as Mark said, that we're tending to put some residential because re sidential was what the market demanded. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I share Commissioner Fry's concerns in the broader sense. I think it's adequately addressed in this matter, but I worry about that as well. I think it's important for us to keep in mind the need for smart planning. Right now residential is a better investment for the developers than commercial, but it is cyclical. But from our perspective, when we look at these applications, I think we need to think about how we can reduce the amount of traffic going on the streets by keeping it within a mixed-use area, because that's what smart planning is all about. And so I'm not necessarily concerned about that with this one, but I think about it all the time, and I think we all should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the motion maker accept the addition of the essential service language that was discussed? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the second accept it, too? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 35 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all very much for your attendance today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will excitedly move on to the next item. ***The next item is Item 9A4, PL20180002693, a private school and pre-school with childcare services located on the south side of Wilcox (sic) Street approximately a half a mile west of Carson Road in Immokalee. 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. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of the materials in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich, but nothing else outside the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Public record, emails, and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same as Commissioner Fry plus conversations with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've had the same as Karl, and looks like Richard got around a lot on this one. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No disclosures on this. I did not have a chance to speak with Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your phone wasn't working. Patrick? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was in the garage. I knew he was going to call. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Wayne, it's yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And with us today, we have Dawn Montecalvo from the Guadalupe Center; John English from Peninsula Engineering; Norm Trebilcock from Trebilcock Consulting Engineers; and Rich Yovanovich, our land-use counsel. I'm going to switch from the visualizer we have and put an aerial up. I'll show you the location of this property in Immokalee. The property in question is about a nine-acre parcel that's located on the south side of Westclox Street. This is west of State Road 29 and west of Carson Road in Immokalee. It is an infill parcel that is immediately across from the Eden Park Elementary School, and we are proposing a pre-school center, in essence, for Guadalupe for them to expand their services. And before I get too far into that, if I could -- if the Planning Commission would indulge us, I'd like to have Dawn Montecalvo come forward and just give you a 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 36 of 55 couple minutes of who Guadalupe Center is and what they do and why this is a needed facility for the Immokalee community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wayne, before she comes up, where's the existing center at now; do you know? MR. ARNOLD: The existing center is south of Main Street and Immokalee. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I know -- just on the map. I can't remember where it is on the map. Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: It is -- it's much farther south on the south side of town. Not too far from the Development Services Center, and you're familiar with that location. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. MS. MONTECALVO: Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to share what Guadalupe Center does and what this project will do for the community. Guadalupe Center has been part of the Immokalee community since 1984. It started out as the soup kitchen, and over the years we have focused on education. Our mission is to break the cycle of poverty through education for the children of Immokalee. We have three programs: Our early learning program, our after-school program, and our high school college preparatory program called Tutor Corps. We are currently on -- have our main campus at 509 Hope Circle on the other side of town. Our early learning program, we serve 307 children under the age of five, and we have a wait list of more than 500 children, and most of those children are under the age of three. So our board has committed to expanding those services so we could reach more children. We did a study in 2015 identifying the pockets in Immokalee that needed quality childcare, and the Eden Park in Lake Trafford area is an area that lacks those services, so that's why we focused on that area. We currently -- the quality of the early learning is also important. We are nationally accredited. Our after-school program, we are located in the high schools, in the elementary schools, all five of them, so we do run a program at Eden Park. Those services will not be on the campus, but our administrative offices will be, as well as meeting and learning labs for our high school students to come to there. And we will expand that program hopefully to reach 125 high school students. We right now currently serve more than 1,300 children and their families, and we also -- our goal is to make sure all the students know they have what it takes inside to overcome living in an impoverished community and get that education to be economically independent. Any questions? I tried to do that really quickly for you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Everyone except the court reporter appreciated that. MS. MONTECALVO: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of her or Wayne? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, either one. I think either one could answer the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This is a charitable undertaking by the ownership, by Barron Collier? MS. MONTECALVO: Yes. Barron Collier is donating the land to us, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so it's going to be run as a not-for-profit 501(c)3? MS. MONTECALVO: Yes. We are a non-profit 501(c)3; have been since 1982, and they will be -- once this is approved, they will officially donate it to us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. MONTECALVO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 37 of 55 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. So, obviously, there's the location. You just heard a little bit about it from Dawn, about the need for this. And just to explain, there are two activities that we've requested. One is for the pre-school of the 350 children, and that would be for daily use, and those hours are generally going to be 7:00 to probably 6:00 p.m. for parent pickup after hours. And then the other part of this that's the private school component, which it's probably not technically a private school in the sense that there are going to be high school instructional kids there. They have a Tutor Corps, and Dawn can speak to that in a little bit more detail. But that's where kids are coming in and doing tutoring college preparatory, things of that nature, and that's my understanding. It's not a daily activity, but it is something that will occur mostly after school from a high school setting and carry on into the evening when they're there until approximately 8:00 p.m. on those evenings that they are there. The conceptual site plan that we depict in your packet shows two access points to Westclox Street. And, obviously, there's a parking area. And with school security issues what they are, there's a separation here between the building area, which is where the school buildings are going to be allowed, and then your parking areas, and then there's also a secured area with the fencing and gates. We've depicted largely where our water management areas are supposed to be on the eastern portion of the site. We've labeled a building area. And John English with Peninsula is helping the Guadalupe Center currently trying to figure out what that is. And, Mr. Strain, I understand you had a question for us about potential areas for outdoor play areas for children. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had quite a few questions, but that's one of them. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. And we'll try to answer that. We haven't depicted those on this exhibit, and I'll do my best to describe how that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of your discussions in the paperwork said, as shown on the master plan. It's not, so that's why I'm asking the question. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. So just to depict, we have our parking areas, we have a building envelope area and, you know, that's really the highlights. We haven't provided a lot of detail because they are still working through what that ultimate building configuration will look like, because there's going to be a separation between the preschool component, admin areas, and then the tutors after-school program. One of the things I wanted to talk about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think what you just said answered my question? MR. ARNOLD: No. I thought you were going to have other questions, and I just thought I would answer all those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure you knew it didn't. MR. ARNOLD: Understood. So one of the things that did come up -- and Norm Trebilcock and Mr. English met with Tom Eastman's group at the school district to talk about access and, I guess, Collier County Transportation staff as well, access on Westclox, because we had depicted an access directly across from the elementary school access point. And it was suggested that if we could eliminate the easternmost access point that is adjacent to the school, that would help alleviate any potential congestion with pick-up time and dropoff. So we have adjusted our plan slightly to eliminate the access point that was originally shown that would access Westclox in that location immediately across from the school. This has been discussed with your Transportation staff, and I think they're in support of that. Nancy hasn't seen this plan, but I did discuss this change with her, and I think subject to Transportation's concurrence, there were no objections, at least at the staff level, to eliminate one of the two access points on Westclox in favor of the single access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get to your parking lot? Just out of curiosity. MR. ARNOLD: The parking lot access, we'll have to make a modification here for a connection, Mr. Strain. It's -- we'll have a single access point to the road. Again, we are requesting the two uses. And we had a few attendees at the neighborhood information 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 38 of 55 meeting. I don't think they brought up substantive issues with regard to our proposed use. There were questions of drainage in the area. There were also some comments made that, to me, were less germane to the substance of the project and more political in nature, so I'm probably not going to address those. But I don't believe any of those neighbors are present today that attended the neighborhood meeting. So if we can answer any questions, our team is here to try to do the best we can to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The TIS that I guess Norm did on Westclox, part of it is a county road, Segment 116; the other part is not and so is not covered in the AUIR. I'd like to know more about what appears to be the actual traffic count that Norm conducted. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. For the record, Norm Trebilcock, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. So the traffic count we did was at the request of staff to look at the intersection with the school to take a look at any conflicts in there. And so those were the -- that was the trip generation or trip analysis that we ran, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it was an intersection that was looked at, not a road segment? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, exactly. It was -- specifically, there were concerns, and staff was concerned with that intersection as well. As Wayne had mentioned, we had a follow-up meeting with Commissioner (sic) Eastman and the principal of the school to talk about potential conflicts. And so the analysis bore out that, you know, it would be preferable to maybe move our access point down and away so we could eliminate those left-out conflicts from the school and our left-in. So that was that trip-generation analysis you're talking about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My concern, then -- maybe it can be explained -- but you've got this segment of Westclox that's not part of the AUIR; 100 percent of the project traffic is going to go on it. Can you give me a higher level of comfort that the road can sustain that additional capacity? I had thought or hoped that you had done a traffic count on the segment. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. So when you look at the volumes on Westclox that is looked at in terms of the amount of traffic on there, it's not -- the peak volume that they're showing is it's under 300 peak-hour trips with a road with a capacity of 800 peak-hour trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How did you get that peak capacity number? MR. TREBILCOCK: That would be the capacity that Collier County already has for Westclox, a portion that they do monitor. And so you would -- it's a very similar segment of road. It just so happens they don't monitor it because it goes into a dead-end scenario, so they don't bother to monitor the road, but it would have similar capacity characteristics in terms of 800 vehicles per hour, would be a reasonable assumption. So looking at those numbers and then, you know, looking at 100 percent of our traffic, we would still be well within and under the capacity of that road segment. So that's why your staff didn't take that any further either. It is a significant -- you know, significant to the road, but it's not a capacity issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think I had any more for Norm, unless you wanted to jump in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to take mine in order, so no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all that I had for you, Mr. Trebilcock. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. The issues that were raised at the NIM, even though people aren't there, is still of concern. The flooding and traffic congestion that is currently being experienced, flooding the neighbors were concerned about, that by elevating the project, you will throw off more water onto their property. And I'd like to know some more about what you're doing to mitigate the impact of that development. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 39 of 55 MR. ARNOLD: Certainly. John English from Peninsula Engineering is the design engineer and can walk you through what the proposed water management system will be. MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English, professional engineer with Peninsula Engineering. My understanding from -- I was at the NIM. I listened to the concerns of the residents that attended. And my understanding of the area they were describing was to the east of us. This project is right here, as it is shown with the box around it. There is a significant county ditch that is immediately on our east property line that separates us from those areas to the east of us. So as I trie d to explain in our meeting, our water will not -- any runoff our site generates will not go to the east, the areas they were describing and were concerned with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that a canal or is it not? MR. ENGLISH: It's definitely not a small -- a small roadside ditch. It's pretty significant in size. It's probably 25 feet wide. Now, I wouldn't characterize it as the Airport Road canal. It's certainly not that big, but it's significant. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was it your understanding the people who raised this were people who had dwelling units to the east of your property? MR. ENGLISH: Yes, that was my understanding. Now, we -- that was a neighborhood information meeting, and we didn't have a lot of visual documents there for them to explain to us. But it was all described as being east of us, and they were describing how properties -- as part of their concern, they were explaining that they felt that developments to the south of them had blocked the flow of drainage from their properties . Now, I know exactly where they were, but that's clearly not us. The property to the south and west of us is a residential neighborhood that has a modern planned water management system, and there's no one north of them other than us. So it clearly is to the east of us and clearly east of that county ditch. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So when you -- when you elevate this site to the east, the water will run off through the ditch? MR. ENGLISH: Well, I'm not entirely sure what -- the drainage patterns to the property to the east. I do anticipate that they're doing -- they're either flowing south or they're flowing into the Westclox right-of-way. And if it gets high enough, it will flow west over to this ditch and then go south. So I think generally it's moving south by some means. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But if it got on Westclox, why wouldn't it move east? MR. ENGLISH: Because -- well, I haven't done a regional study of the area, but my anticipation is that generally everything is moving west and south for drainage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Stan, does that sound right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Many years ago I was involved with a project that was in that area, and the ditch comes out of the school property and heads south and, as far as I know, all the drainage in that area heads south. If you're right about all the people that complained being on the other side of the ditch, there's no way the water would cross the ditch and get on your property. Just not possible. MR. ENGLISH: I would agree. We're separated by a hydraulic barrier with that ditch. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then I think that answers that question. There was a comment made about with the present school that's there, people are parking on other people's property. Do you remember that? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir, I do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there anything that this development could do to discourage that sort of a practice? MR. ARNOLD: I doubt it seriously. But, you know, I think what's experienced at elementary school traffic, which is what we have to the north, is pretty comparable throughout Collier County. Dropoff and pickup times, traffic stages there, especially in pickup time for parents to wait for their kids to pick them up, and sometimes there are adequate lines so they can pull into the property; sometimes parents decide to wait outside 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 40 of 55 the property boundaries. I'm not sure that's something we can directly control. MR. ENGLISH: My perception of it matter -- and maybe Norm would be the better person to speak to it. But the school is located here. We're directly south of them. I believe the areas that are experiencing such problems are east of us, so I don't know how we could really address that in a -- yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I had, Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I wanted to make sure that Ned understand that the details on the drainage and other aspects are usually reviewed pretty thoroughly by the county. I say "usually." And Stan can highlight on that. As part of the engineering review, they'll look at the stormwater flow, all the other type of requirements. There's no type of district permit involved in this from what I understand. MR. ENGLISH: We have an application for an ERP -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, you did. MR. ENGLISH: -- permit into the Water Management District, and we are -- our discharge rates are per the county ordinance for the Immokalee urban area, so it's all prescribed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. MR. ENGLISH: So it's demonstrating compliance with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Did you -- nodding your head you do? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard it rattle. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a couple clarifications. So are you saying, is this subject property going to generate water into the canal that's adjacent to you? MR. ENGLISH: The county ditch on the east property line will be our location of discharge, yes; that will be our receiving. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we know the state of maintenance of that ditch? Is it -- MR. ENGLISH: Recently has been -- the county did a major cleaning of it. COMMISSIONER FRY: They did? MR. ENGLISH: In the last two months. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I had heard that it was not -- a while back it was not maintained as well and the flow was not what it should be. So that's been corrected since then? MR. ENGLISH: Yeah. We observed them. We have pictures in our file. They had significant equipment out there cleaning that ditch all the way from Westclox down Lake Trafford Road. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's one of the reasons I was involved so long ago, because that ditch was also heavily maintained back a decade ago. So I guess they do have to clean it out every now and then. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't know if this question is for Wayne or for Dawn, perhaps, but I'm just curious, you have early-morning dropoff of the pre-school kids and the school kids -- it's a pre-school but not a -- it says private school in the summary. Private school and pre-school with childcare service. MS. MONTECALVO: It's not a private school. It is a pre-school for children zero to five, and then we'll have a building for our administration and after-school program, but it won't be a private school. High school kids will come in for lectures. We'll have a learning lab for them to do homework and meet with mentors on that part. But the early learning, the dropoff is usually -- we open up at 7:00. So between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. is dropoff. It's different than school dropoff where you can just pull up your car and drop off your child. You have to actually stop and bring your child in. And all our students need to be in by 9:00. And then pickup is usually between 4:00 and 5:30. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Dawn, I guess where I was going with this, kind of a follow-up to Ned's concerns raised in the NIM about people parking. Schools often, with the car lines, have a huge logistical mess. But you're saying in this case you don't have, really, car lines. People have to park in the parking lot. There's 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 41 of 55 plenty of parking designed into this project. MS. MONTECALVO: A lot of parking. COMMISSIONER FRY: And so there will be no people that cannot find a place to park when they're dropping off or picking up their kids? MS. MONTECALVO: Right. And because it's a couple-hour window, everyone's not there at the same time. It's not like a public school where everybody has to be there at an exact time, so they do have to park, and because they're little children, they need to go in and pick them up and sign them out and then bring them out. So we do have plenty of parking for this. That was our number-one priority was parking. COMMISSIONER FRY: Great, thank you. MS. MONTECALVO: Thanks, Karl. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A comment after what happened with Mr. English. I'm thinking, Ray, would it be possible from now on for somebody from the graphics department to run up a LiDAR and send it to all the Planning Commission members so they can see where the water flows on every project we look at? It could save a lot of questions. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. And we are preparing one for you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I know. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I don't see a problem with emailing that similar. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Jeff, no problem with that? Could you make sure it happens for every project from now on? You can see a lot of this flow a lot better when you look at the LiDAR. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, you're about the only one that's going to understand it, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, no. The way they do it -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- that's why you're up here. No, it's good. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. The way they do it, it's easily understood by the average person. MR. BELLOWS: If that's the direction of the Planning Commission, we'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to send it to me, but if everybody else wants it. I mean, we're regulated by South Florida Water Management District. It makes no difference to me. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can send it to everybody else. I don't need it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, send it -- you send it to Stan, send to me as well. But I understand it, and I know that this goes through the review process and that staff is reviewing any Site Development Plan. And in actuality, if any water does encroach on a neighboring property, it's up to that developer to mitigate that impact. COMMISSIONER FRY: If it's already being developed for Stan and it's no additional work just to send it to all of us, we can decide, you know, whether we look at it or not. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. It shouldn't be problematic. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I get a lot of stuff I don't look at. So this way they get stuff they wouldn't look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For the record? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Wayne, could you just repeat for me what your expert said about that ditch. It runs all the way from Westclox down to Lake Trafford Road; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? I do. Ray -- or could somebody put the master plan back on. Ray, this is a conditional use. And I know that 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 42 of 55 we've had a history of dealing with master plans on conditional uses. MR. BELLOWS: Parking exemption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I jumped one; sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get you focused on a conditional use, because I need an accurate answer. This is a conditional use. I know we've been pretty strict on what conditional uses can and cannot do once they -- based on the master plan that's approved through the conditional-use process. So see that area that says building area? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could they move that 150 feet to the east, or would that be a violation of the conditional-use master plan that's been approved by this panel? MR. BELLOWS: One hundred fifty feet, I think, would be exceeding what we would allow administratively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see those dotted lines around the outside that says 30-foot minimum building setbacks? Why would we want to have a minimum building setback at 30 feet when they can't move the building? And that's, by the way, 240 feet away. Why would they want a building setback of 30 feet and they can -- I mean, how can they use it if they haven't got to come in for another conditional-use modification? So what I'm suggesting is we put the real building setbacks in there to lock them into the master plan they're producing; otherwise, it's a -- we might run into a problem down the road. Wayne, do you have anything? You kind of -- MR. ARNOLD: I would just weigh in and simply say your code requires we put the minimum building setbacks on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but I want to suggest that -- you -- because those are made up by you? You put those -- MR. ARNOLD: Those are right out of the agricultural zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But they're in your master plan for the conditional use. So why don't we put the real ones in there so we know that the building's going to be where you say it is, and the neighborhood's going to be protected to those points where they know the building's going to be? MR. ARNOLD: So, Mr. English was scribbling while you were asking and talking earlier, and we've got a conceptual building footprint, and it might show you a little bit more of just how we fit in the envelope. And he's written some handwritten notes for setbacks that would be applicable to the actual footprint we're dealing with today, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I would like is -- see this plan here? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show the setbacks to the building that you want to live with. I don't care if you put a few feet tolerance in them; that's not what I'm trying to say. Give us something that's acceptable so that the public understands what they're getting and where it's generally located. MR. ARNOLD: I'll show you this exhibit. If we can show you this; I'm going to have John maybe just walk you through this. But he's written in here what some of the setbacks truly are based on the footnotes they're dealing with. So I think we're comfortable if we can establish these setbacks that he's going to go through as part of the code requirement for our building area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't see where all those -- I see where the ones on top are, so that's fine. The ones on the left side, you're saying you're -- MR. ENGLISH: I can walk through them if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, please do. Someone's got to help here. MR. ENGLISH: Again, John English -- for the record, John English, Peninsula Engineering. I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Strain, about you not minding leaving a little room for tolerance. The master plan -- we started this process a while ago, and where we were in the project, you 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 43 of 55 know -- when you start a project, the architecture's not all complete. You're working with a team developing the plan. The concept has stayed amazingly consistent; however, what you see on this was at the time a planning tool we gave to the architect. We developed a site plan concept. The architect came on board and said, okay, what can I or can I not do to mess up the site? We generally said, well, try to stay in this box. Now, we're well interior to the property. Just giving you a quick run-through on how this plan came about. We're used to dealing with setbacks. We knew we would be well within setbacks, but we used this as a tool to work with the architect. So as time has gone on and the architect has gotten much more detailed with the design -- I've got to make sure I'm putting this on where I can see it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is. MR. ENGLISH: So the plan, as you can see, is extremely consistent. But now, instead of a big blob, this is taking form into what will really be built. So does this fit -- if we put that original box that's on the CU master plan over this, this thing probably sits 90, 95 percent within it. There may be little areas that extend out of it. So we do need to introduce -- either remove from the master plan the big square that says building area, because that's -- you don't necessarily see that on every master plan. It just happened to be on here because we had it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On conditional uses, we do see the detail. That's why they're conditional uses. That's why I'm trying to be more specific and get you locked into a detail that -- it isn't like a conceptual PUD master plan. A conditional use is specifically more specific to know we've reached the compatibility standards needed, so -- and I'm not saying you're not compatible. I just want to make sure you continue to be so. MR. ENGLISH: We just need a slightly bigger box to accommodate those places we've -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you were to substitute -- well, if you take the setbacks you show here 100 feet to the south and, what is it, 200 feet to the east, and then 75 and 60 to the west, that would get us there. So build a box around that, and that would be the box that would end up being the master plan for this project so you've got the flexibility you need. Does that work? Because it's bigger than what you've got now. The box you've got now is 100 feet on one end on the west side and 65 feet on the other, according to the notes that you -- that are supplied with the staff report, so... MR. ENGLISH: It would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. John, is this -- the dashed lines on each of those wings, does that show for a potential expansion? MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So we need to make sure the setbacks are identified to that. MR. ENGLISH: That's correct. They were always intended to be within that original box. It's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not now. MR. ENGLISH: -- shifted and adjusted a little. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And is that the 200 feet from, quote, the potential expansion to the property line? Is that 200 feet? MR. ENGLISH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And why don't we go with that, just as you mentioned? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get to, yeah. That's what I was hoping we were going to go to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can we just modify the box, then, to meet those -- these -- MR. ENGLISH: Yeah, I don't think I -- I can work with Wayne, and we can clearly update the master plan. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 44 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just create a new conditional-use master plan consistent with what you're showing us here. The only other thing I'd like to add, and I think if you go to -- let me -- well, there's a few other things, but let's go to Page 33, I think -- yeah, 33 of -- it's under -- you guys submitted what was called evaluation criteria. And it's Page 3 of your evaluation criteria, Item C, it said, describe the effect the conditional use will have on the neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact, and odor. You did a fine job filling it all in, but you said one thing I can't find. Third sentence down: The outdoor play area is shown on the conceptual site plan and is orientated toward the center of the site and will be separated from the nearby residences with landscape buffers. Where is that? Because the plan we got doesn't have it. MR. ARNOLD: You're correct, it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's put it where it's supposed to be based on that -- MR. ARNOLD: I'll let John, on the exhibit that's before you, point out where those are, because I think they're interior because they're meant to be more courtyard oriented, so there's views of those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping you'd say that, yeah. MR. ENGLISH: That's correct. So I will point to them on the map. So this is a play area -- so the building has an orientation with a main hallway, if you will, corridor, and then there's wings, if you will. And the play areas were intended to be within those wings. Why? That allows windows and things for the class -- teachers and classrooms, and what have you to keep eyes on the children. So it wasn't -- it was never intended there be a play area, let's say, over here or over here. They are generally within the envelope of the building area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you note those potential -- even if you put four and there's only three or something like that, could you note them so that we have a plan that shows where the noisier areas will be, and they're basically going to be buffered because the school walls are surrounding them? MR. ENGLISH: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go back to your master plan, the second page of the master plan is your standards. Those are the standards that we would -- I would suggest you modify to show that even though the required is 50, you're going to provide X, and you whatever number that is on the plan you just showed us, okay. But towards the bottom of that -- well, two things. Your notes: All on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjoining properties. The lights that are on that eastern parking area and eastern access point, what are those heights going to be? Because those are the closest to the residential, and if there were going to be any objections from lighting, it would be in that location. Is there something you can do about lighting there to make it more compatible with the neighbors next door? Instead of 150 feet high, maybe 12? Eighty-seven? MR. ENGLISH: Norm Trebilcock, transportation engineer's, also a lighting expert, and that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're all transportation (unintelligible) and they're expert in something else. MR. ARNOLD: Norm just suggested that a 15-foot height maximum for those easternmost areas of the parking areas but still having the shielded light. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could amend that language to note that, that would be helpful. Also, your parking requirements, it talks about the -- it says, required 115, provided 115. That includes -- all the employees, you're going to have 80 -- you're going to have 80 employees? That's a lot of -- so you've got 80? MR. ARNOLD: We're estimating these. And, frankly, I would prefer not to have to place parking standards on my master plan and leave that subject to the subject site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you put it there then? MR. ARNOLD: Staff requires that we identify parking. And I think the question is often, is it just identifying where the parking areas are, or do we have to identify the parking standard? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd prefer you just identify the parking lot location and you not put that on here unless it's required, Ray, because if they make an adjustment, now they've got to come in and amend the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 45 of 55 conditional use because it's on the plan. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The idea of showing these parking areas is to -- staff better evaluate the number of spaces going to be required and whether it should be additional mitigation to offset adverse impacts for that. But I don't have a problem with not locking them to a specific number. But, generally speaking, they should be providing enough parking for the space or the number of employees provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They've got to meet what the LDC requires because they can't -- they're not asking for a variance or a deviation from that. But what I'm suggesting, if -- when they get all said and done, the building might change a little bit, they might end up finding they've got less employees or a few more students. I don't want them -- I hate to see people have to come back in for an amendment just because the number's on this document. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The reason we wanted it, like I said, is for -- to ensure compatibility -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you get that in RFIs. You can get that information through your RFI process back and forth, can't you? MR. BELLOWS: Possible. But if a plan like this was submitted, we'd have a better idea where the playground areas -- those things could have been addressed a little bit better. They came in with a very conceptual bubble plan, and it's much harder to address impacts that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLOWS: -- more specific plan so we can -- we've even locked in setbacks better now. That's why we want these conceptual plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection if they don't put the parking language on this plan and that they'll just be -- whatever the LDC is required, they'll have to provide it? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think if they're showing the parking lot as depicted on the original submittal, which is just a gray area with no spaces, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That way they've got -- they can work out to make sure they've always got the LDC required amount. Okay. Let me go to my next -- I think we've gotten some of those. We've gotten that. Oh, boy, we're getting into Norm's stuff again. And, Norm, you took care of most of it. Don't go running away. Norm, I have a question on Page 11 of your TIS. It's Table 6. I cannot figure out -- and I normally have -- you're crystal clear to me most of the time -- that's facetious. See where the -- under Table 6, you have a volume capacity impact by project. It's a substantial impact because it's over 2 percent. It's 4 percent on Lake Trafford Road. How did -- why -- how does Lake Trafford Road factor into this place? MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, okay. Well, when you look at the distribution, our traffic does make its way down to Lake Trafford Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it makes it out to 29, too. I mean, it goes everywhere. Why did you pick Lake Trafford Road? And you have a 4 percent -- don't you have a substantial threshold you're not supposed to meet? And if you do, you've got mitigation? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, no, only if there's a capacity issue, you become adverse -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- to it. But there isn't. And it's really within the radius of influence. We kind of, again, typically look at that in the methodology with staff. We'll kind of, you know, let's go out. And there is a kind of a limited grid, so that's why we used that road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- I couldn't figure out why it was there. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, see, I did look at the plan you put on Page 38, and it didn't show anything going down to Lake Trafford, so I couldn't figure out why it got there. But I understand your -- I understand your answer. And in your NIM, you repeatedly told the people you're not going to have another road connecting to 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 46 of 55 Lake Trafford Road, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: I wouldn't have done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't think I was at the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but speaker -- Wayne Arnold was. We're not proposing to have any road going south to Lake Trafford Road. Wayne Arnold: I don't think there's any long-term plan for the county to create a road, and it's all about connection to Lake Trafford. So you've clarified it; I understand that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right, but cars in, like, existing -- the existing grid takes you there. That's all. That's what -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. We've cleaned up my issues. Anybody else have any questions? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is for Mr. English. If you wouldn't mind putting up your site plan exhibit one more time. Quick question. Now, this is assuming that on this diagram left is west. MR. ENGLISH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that correct? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not -- it is west. COMMISSIONER FRY: It is west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't got to assume it. We can guarantee it. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you triggered this question, Mark, with your question about playgrounds and the noise within. It looks like the lowest, on the left, playground extends out beyond the envelope of the building somewhat. How are the playgrounds lined; fences, walls, anything like that? The closest neighbors seem to be the ones that would be to the west. I'm just curious about mitigating the noise for the folks to the west from the playgrounds, especially the one to the -- that one there, yes. MR. ENGLISH: Yes. So all the playgrounds are -- as you can imagine with the age of the children, they're all fenced. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fenced. MR. ENGLISH: So they're definitely fenced. As you can see, this is play area. This concept shows a little -- a certain amount of it does extend beyond the face of this part of the building. It is still consistent with, let's say, this side of the building. But, yes, that was an intended -- that is an intended playground area. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's fenced but not walled, there's no serious noise mitigation lining the playgrounds, which is the standard way to do it, correct? MR. ENGLISH: We could -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ENGLISH: -- for a wall to provide sound mitigation's questionable. But, yes, we're using -- there will be -- we're -- in this plan, 75 feet away from the property line, there would be fence around here. There's an enclosed dumpster here. There will be a fence and landscape here. So there's separation. There's landscape. There's other things. COMMISSIONER FRY: That satisfies my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Don't over-answer it. COMMISSIONER FRY: That satisfies my concern, John. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's satisfied. Just take your -- take your -- yeah. Walk with that real quick. Okay. Does anybody else, before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, do we have a staff report? Stan has to leave. We're going to probably work through lunch and finish up the dentist's facility since they've had the patience to wait all day. So, Nancy? (Commissioner Chrzanowski left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. We do have a staff report. And on Page 9 of the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 47 of 55 staff report we are recommending approval subject to three conditions. Would you like for me to read them? They're about a half a page long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any objection to their conditions? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir, but we would need to modify the conditions relative to the date of our drawing, because we'll be supplying a new one, presumably, and redating that. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I don't think you need to read them. We should have read them. They don't object to them, so... Anything else, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, are there any public speakers on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, you certainly have no rebuttal. So do you have anything you want to add? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read the stipulations. We're going to be moving the access points as indicated on the new plan. We're going to use a new plan with the setback shown on it. We're going to have a 15-foot height maximum for the lights along that eastern asphalt area. MR. ARNOLD: Could I clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Western, I'm sorry. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ARNOLD: -- question. It is the eastern parking lot area. I think that was your concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, western. MR. ARNOLD: It's the western, okay. I think Norm's suggestion was that the limitation on height is for within 50 feet of that property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as it covers up to the parking spaces. Yeah, I meant the access way in the parking spaces is what should be covered by the lower lighting. That's all going to be -- that's pretty close to that. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I say 50 feet only because I don't know what somebody's going to interpret as how close to the western property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but see the dotted line that you have there that shows 50 feet? It's -- it -- let me get to the page. You have a 50-foot minimum setback line. It doesn't even touch the asphalt. So your lights will be on the parking areas around the asphalt. So how does that help us? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we obviously have to light travel ways. Maybe I'm not understanding your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to do -- I asked you to limit the height along the western property line. You guys said you'd limit it to 15 feet along that western asphalted area. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you're questioning where that is. It's not within 50 feet, because if you look at the master plan and you blow that one up, you look at it, the 50-foot line that is shown -- oh, that's in the front. Where's your -- that's a 30-foot line in the back. So, no, that won't take you to the parking spaces. It takes you to the beginning of the parking spaces, not to the back. So you probably need 70 feet. Do you see where that -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I do. I understand what you're saying now, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So would you just get it so that the parking spaces that are in that strip on the west along with the accessway have the lower lighting? Yeah, that's fine. That's all. MR. ARNOLD: Can we just put a line on here to make it easier? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 48 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. That's all the intent. I think everybody was on the same page, so... Okay. Then you're going to remove the parking calculation, you're going to show the play areas, and you're going to accept -- you accept the staff conditions -- staff conditions as modified with that one date. Okay. Is there anything else? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there moved -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karl. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Record show Stan had to leave. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, guys. And now, we will go back -- Terri, do we have time to run through this? THE COURT REPORTER: If you go slower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try, I'm sorry. I've been trying to move fast to get everybody accommodated. Okay, Patrick. (Commissioner Dearborn left the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***9A1 was moved to the end of the agenda. It's PL2017000 -- I'm sorry -- it's 982, 982. It's PL20180002368. It's a parking exemption located on the east side of Tamiami Trail North, south of River Court. I think we swore you in before, but I know you've got new people. So all 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; we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just materials from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And me, yeah, most -- materials from staff, and I talked to the applicant during break to make sure they were going to be here for this afternoon. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. I also spoke with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No disclosures on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll go to the applicant. Hi. MS. RICHARDS: Hi. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 49 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good to see you. MS. RICHARDS: Thank you. It's good to see you, too. It's hard to find this building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's the smallest building in the county. MS. RICHARDS: It was really -- it was an adventure to get here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Where'd you come from? MS. RICHARDS: Well, I live up in Estero, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. RICHARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just driving here from there is a real pain in the neck. MS. RICHARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pull the microphone down a little bit. MS. RICHARDS: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You introduce yourself -- state your name for the record and all that good stuff. MS. RICHARDS: Courtney Richards with Cronin Engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. RICHARDS: So, basically, what we're doing is we have an existing dental office that's going to be having an addition added on to it. Dr. Holton owns the residential lot right behind this office and then, of course, the adjacent commercial lot. So on that residential lot we are going to be putting a parking lot for this office. Because FDOT standards -- the current parking lot and entrance to this dental office cannot be used any longer, so the access point will be on River Court which is a residential road. So -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. RICHARDS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- MS. RICHARDS: Yeah. And so we're going to be putting the parking lot on this residential lot. We're going to be doing the addition on the commercial lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you -- the purpose you have the access off River Court is because the FDOT wanted you to close the access on 41. MS. RICHARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you did that, you weren't able to put parking out there because you needed water management somewhere, so you moved the water management out there, and your parking now is in the back. And because it's in the back, there's only room for 16 spaces, and you needed a parking exemption which you've gone through and gotten from staff. And it was issued today, and I have a copy of it. MS. RICHARDS: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that help? MS. RICHARDS: Yes; yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Ned, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. First of all, what exactly happened with the NIM recording? MS. RICHARDS: So that was with a former employee, Robert Grusbowski (phonetic), who's no longer with Cronin Engineering. He got a phone call in the middle of it, and it interrupted his recording of the entire NIM meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's why he's a former employee. MS. RICHARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was a teachable moment, then, I guess -- MS. RICHARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- using cell phones. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 50 of 55 MS. RICHARDS: Yeah. You know, two cell phones. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, good. All right. Let's see. So the staff is going to park in the parking lot behind the establishment to the south of the dentist's facility? MS. RICHARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to identify yourself for the record first, sir. DR. HOLTON: Hi. I'm Matthew Holton. So the establishment just to the south there, the imagined property, he's got like 20 spots, and it's not a busy business at all. He's actually a patient of mine. And so if you have seen what the property looks like now, there's basically six spots in front of the building. And so before I bought the property, we developed a relationship. This had been renovated by someone else, another dentist before me, and he had agreed that his lot is empty, and he actually would like some extra automobiles because it looks like there's people shopping in his store. So right now, my staff and I, we park there, and it works out well for him. He's happy. He says people come in and are always a little shocked to see there's less people in there than it looks like, but it works for him. And so I think the idea here is that we have that space available if we need to. I wouldn't burden him with that long-term if I didn't have to. The type of practice I run is a very low-volume type of scenario. It's not a high-volume, you know, in and out dentistry. It's a specialist implant practice. So there's, you know, just a few people every afternoon, and the mornings are just a little busier. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So would it be exclusively your staff parking in that southerly -- DR. HOLTON: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They'll enter and exit off Shores? DR. HOLTON: Yes. That's the only entrance to that parking lot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My next question has to do with buffering, and I had a conversation with staff about this, and it was suggested there are obvious constraints to what you're able to do in order to accomplish your parking objective. But would you consider an enhanced Type B buffer, double row of hedges that are offsetting so as to create more opacity? DR. HOLTON: Absolutely. I'll do whatever they need to. The gentleman that lives in that first house there is a former Collier County Sheriff's Office deputy who's actually also a patient of mine. He was just in last week. And we talked about this meeting. And he told me that anything you guys thought was acceptable would be acceptable to him. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that buffer you're talking about going? Is this the one on the east -- DR. HOLTON: On the east. COMMISSIONER FRYER: East. Yeah, east -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you're worried about it for opacity? I mean, it's got -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Primarily for noise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's got a 6-foot-high masonry wall. Plants not going to help the noise. I mean, we can require them to do it if they want to, but I just was wondering if -- I couldn't understand what the -- I thought you said opacity to begin with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you're not going to see through the wall. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you still think it's necessary? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm having a mental block right now as to why I raised that. And if I can't resolve my own mental block, I'll withdraw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I worded it right if it's going to be a stipulation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, understood, understood. Well, let me come back to that, see if it -- Another concern that was raised was the possibility of some kind of subcontracting on the parking to 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 51 of 55 attract traffic or to result in traffic being there during other than ordinary dentist business hours. And you would, I assume, agree not to do that. DR. HOLTON: Yeah. I don't even understand what that would be, but sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You would have unused parking capacity during time when you're not open as a dentist, and we just would want that not to be leased out or sublet or -- DR. HOLTON: Oh, yeah, absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- allowing, you know, other people to park. I see now that my concern about the buffering resulted from a comment that was made at the NIM. And so I was trying to address a concern that the neighbors raised, and I -- I don't think that the -- I shouldn't have used the word "opacity" because, clearly, that's dealt with, but maybe it's -- maybe it results in some greater separation if you have two rows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they'd have to fit them in the separation that's already there, because they couldn't fit their parking spaces in if they even moved them a couple feet. So they have a 24-foot right-of-way and two 18-foot depth spaces. I don't know if another -- I mean, Ned, I mean, I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. And the fact that there are no neighbors here to raise the concern -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is a neighbor here but, I mean, the neighbor -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll reserve this until after we heard the public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The most affected party would be the neighbor immediately next door, in fact, the only affected party from a locational viewpoint. And he's the sheriff's deputy you've talked to? DR. HOLTON: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll suspend my concern on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I know. In the Cronin Engineering material, it says, the new entrance from River Court will eliminate vehicle accidents. I get all that. He expressed how the site landscaping and building appearance will create curb appeal. Are you proposing to do more than the Land Development Code requires? MS. RICHARDS: No. We're going to be within the Land Development Code for architectural elements. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. RICHARDS: So we'll be meeting all of the Land Development Code requirements. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And it says Dr. Holton offered his complete cooperation to resolve local resident concerns. And since we do have somebody here, we can hear from them. And you committed to clean out the canal abutting the property; is that correct? DR. HOLTON: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you say a word or two about the problem and what your solution is? DR. HOLTON: Well, as you know, at the end of all those canals, it usually gets real shallow. All the stuff is built up there, and it's basically become almost overgrown with stuff. And so my understanding was that the sheriff's deputy next door had just had basically that riprap kind of cleaned up. And my understanding was, until something happened with the grading of the landscape here, no one was allowed to do that. So the end of the canal had basically become completely obstructed with debris and so, you know -- basically, not looking the way it was intended. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So you'll clean that out at your cost? DR. HOLTON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Then it says Dr. Holton committed to installing better landscaping for the residence as well. Better than 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 52 of 55 code requires? DR. HOLTON: Well, I don't know -- MS. RICHARDS: At a bare minimum, code requirement. If not, above that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no. If you say "if not, above that," then we have to specify what it is above that you're doing. MS. RICHARDS: So we're going to be hitting -- we're going to be doing all of your landscape buffers that you were requiring and making sure that we have, you know, all the trees, all the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's better than what's there today? MS. RICHARDS: Yes. It will be better than what exists there. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a better way to state it. MS. RICHARDS: Okay. There we go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's there today is one palm tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I'm just saying. So they're bettering the landscaping by making the code required improvements to the landscape buffers and landscaping on the side? MS. RICHARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. It was the word "better" that caught my attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I'm just trying to clarify. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And Dr. Holton explained that his employees will not park on the lot, and there is an agreement with the business owner to the south. I wonder if that's something that we could put into the parking exclusion; make that a condition that your employees will not park on your lot. MS. RICHARDS: We already had that as part of our package, but James, the reviewer, the plan reviewer that I've been speaking with, had me remove that from our package, from the conditions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, James can speak to that then. MR. SABO: I would be happy to. For the record, James Sabo, planner for the county. After discussions with the County Attorney's Office, we determined that moving forward, if that property to the south, imagine, changes hands, that agreement would no longer be valid. So to condition their employee parking on the imagined site would eventually possibly become invalid anyway, so we removed it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The -- okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a couple, and I always have a couple. The minutes that were -- first of all, we don't have a recording. Under project description from Cronin Engineering that was submitted to the county as a result of a NIM, your neighborhood information meeting, it says the following. The project proposes the addition of a single-story 2,329-square-foot office building. The elevations you've provided show two stories. MS. RICHARDS: It is only going to be one story; however, the ceiling height will be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, have you seen the architectural elevations? MS. RICHARDS: Yes. It is -- it's only one story, but it is a high elevation for one story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. RICHARDS: I would have to look at my architecturals to get an exact number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to find them right now, too. There's 114 pages, but it's here somewhere. MR. SABO: I have it, Mr. Chairman, if you want me to put it on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, would you mind? That would be great. That's the one that's in our packet, yeah; that's why I questioned it. It shows two stories. You're telling me those two stories aren't two stories? MS. RICHARDS: It is not two stories. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 53 of 55 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do we word this so that -- what are you -- because we have a height limitation, but it's a C -- what is it, C3 or C4, Ray? Or, James? MR. SABO: Oh, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The underlying property, do you remember what it is? MR. SABO: C4, general commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you could go up to 75 feet. So height's not the issue. But I was trying to understand how you -- how your NIM said it was one story yet you're showing the elevation of a two-story building. That's what I'm trying to understand. MS. RICHARDS: Yes. Well, it's just a matter of it's going to have a high ceiling height. It's not going to be a two-story. It is going to be a one-story with high elevations, high ceiling elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not going to look like what's in our -- it's not going to look like that? MS. RICHARDS: No. I have updated architecturals that will be submitted, you know, once we go -- get to that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it's a -- your height's -- you can go to a higher height. That wasn't the concern. MS. RICHARDS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just couldn't correlate the two. So you kind of explained it. It doesn't make sense doing it this way, but I understand what you've done. MS. RICHARDS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the lighting that's attached to the back of our packet, Page 102, it's almost, what, 12 pages from the back, does not show bollard lighting. It shows pole lighting. You've agreed to go to bollard lighting in the stipulations -- MS. RICHARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so you're not doing the pole lighting either -- MS. RICHARDS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right? MS. RICHARDS: Okay. It will be bollard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the height of the building, which is -- well, that's on the -- okay. I guess that's irrelevant for this because of the parking exemption, but now I understand it better. It's just that you said that at the NIM, so I had to clarify. Okay. I don't have anything else at this point pending any comments from the public, and we'll get back. Anything else from the Planning Commission for the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff report? Thank you. MR. SABO: Yes, thank you. James Sabo, for the record. The Zoning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the petition, 2368, 10 River Court, subject to the conditions in Attachment C and forwarding the recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll ask for -- do you have a registered public speaker or not? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ma'am, if you'd like to come up and speak, please come to the microphone, identify yourself. And if your last name is very complicated, please spell it so we get it right. MS. FISHER: My name is Ruth Fisher, and I'm a resident on River Court. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What did you have to say? MS. FISHER: Well, all the residents are not happy with the thought of having a parking lot there. Now, 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 54 of 55 I'm actually concerned that that building is tall. Forty-one is tall -- higher level than River Court. So when we go to get out, we're going uphill, and we have to look way around to see the traffic coming down 41. And I thought the building was going to be equal level, the addition to what -- the original one. But, like you said, it looks like it's two-story. It's just kind of blocking the view. And it's also 10 feet -- or approximately 10 feet closer to 41 than the original building. And I really need to go drive down my street again and see how bad is that 10 feet going to be? That one palm tree you talked about, when the last owner had it, I had to call him because he had shrubs all around the bottom. I couldn't get out onto 41 because I couldn't -- and I have an SUV, but I couldn't see over the shrubs, so now they're being cut down. Forty-one is just dangerous. I don't want a light. I don't want to lower the speed limit, but just let us see where we're going. Now, one concern all the neighbors had, if for some reason he wants to close his practice, the residential plot, which is now going to be a parking lot, can it go back to residential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. This is a -- this is a parking exemption that's -- that allows them to park on that lot. MS. FISHER: Only for his? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down the road it could be sold, and a residential house could be put there, but they couldn't then operate the business because they wouldn't have a parking lot anymore. MS. FISHER: Well, the two properties were sold separately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MS. FISHER: Well, not -- they were sold together, but they were separate. It was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing you should know, this is -- has nothing to do with the height or the setbacks or the standards of the lot where the building is. That was zoned decades and decades ago. The only question in front of us today is is this parking lot -- can it go there and have a minimal impact on the neighborhood by the way it's designed and buffered, and that's all we're looking at today. MS. FISHER: As long as the environmental people find that the runoff -- water runoff will remain the same, it will go into the river that goes behind it, the canal, because right now it's a non-flooding street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. FISHER: And even during Irma, everything just went -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the new standards that they'll have to abide by are by South Florida Water Management District, and they're probably better standards than what it's at today, because today it doesn't have anything on it. So they probably are just runoff. The new standards will require them to have water quality on site before it runs off, so that will actually improve the water quality. MS. FISHER: As long as it keeps running off. I mean, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will. MS. FISHER: -- I don't want this to be blocking the runoff, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it shouldn't -- they're not allowed to -- they're not allowed to discharge off their site. So it's not going to -- it shouldn't happen, so... MS. FISHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FISHER: I guess that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. MS. FISHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are no other public speakers. There's no rebuttal issues needed. I guess we'll go into quick discussion. I have three items noted. There'll be bollard lighting only, they'll be utilizing -- they'll include the conditions that were written into Exhibit C by staff, which included a 6-foot masonry wall along that eastern property line, and all the other conditions that are in the staff report under Exhibit C. Does anybody have anything they'd like to comment? Add? Any further discussion? Is there a 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) December 5, 2019 Page 55 of 55 motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move subject to those conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you all. Appreciate your waiting. I'm glad we got through it today. And that takes us to the new business, which there's none listed. Old business, there's none listed. Any -- there's no members of the public left. (Commissioner Dearborn returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is there a motion to adjourn? Patrick's just in time. Patrick, will you make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I was outside. I would have voted for it, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to adjourn, anybody? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. We are out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:29 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. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 12-5-2019 CCPC Minutes (11160 : 5.B-December 5, 2019 Minutes) 01/16/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: ***This item has been continued from December 19, 2019 CCPC meeting.*** PL20190000821/CPSP-2019-2: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay, to allow additional uses for qualified target industry businesses, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located at the intersections of Collier Boulevard and Interstate 75, and Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard, in Sections 34, 35, and 36, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1,245± acres. [Coordinator: David C. Weeks, Growth Management Plan Manager] Meeting Date: 01/16/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 12/19/2019 9:24 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 12/19/2019 9:24 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 12/19/2019 11:31 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 12/19/2019 4:19 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 12/30/2019 11:40 AM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 12/30/2019 5:00 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 01/06/2020 11:20 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 01/16/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 82 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PL20190000821/CPSP-2019-2 (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) COLLIER BLVD./INTERSTATE-75 INNOVATION ZONE OVERLAY CCPC: JANUARY 16, 2019 [Continued From December 19, 2019] BCC: FEBRUARY 25, 2020 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: CCPC COVER (11166 : 9.A.1_Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay) TABLE OF CONTENTS COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GMP TRANSMITTAL AMENDMENT COLLIER BLVD./INTERSTATE-75 INNOVATION ZONE OVERLAY CCPC January 16, 2020 [continued from December 19, 2019] 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report w/Overlay Zoning & Uses attachment: PL20190000821/CPSP-2019-2 2) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps): PL20190000821/CPSP-2019-2 3) TAB: Project PL20190000821/ DOCUMENT: Support Documents, including Petition CPSP-2019-2 1 letter of objection to CCPC 4) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Table of Contents_CCPC (11166 : 9.A.1_Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay) 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre, Third Floor Naples, FL 34103 Direct Dial 239.649.2714 PHONE 239.649.6200 FAX 239.261.3659 rpritt@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 18, 2019 Via e-mail to: Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov; judy.puig@colliercountyfl.gov; james.french@colliercountyfl.gov sean.callahan@colliercountyfl.gov Jeff.Klatzkow@colliercountyfl.gov Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 Attn: Mark Strain, Chair Re: PL20190000821/CPSP-2019-2: GMPA Innovation Zone 9 Amendments Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club Dear Mr. Strain, Planning Commission Members and Staff: This firm represents Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club, Inc. immediately to the south of this proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment. Cedar Hammock is a 20 + year-old existing residential neighborhood, consisting of 799 units, and a Golf and Country Club. It has provided a location for its residents to enjoy a quiet suburban lifestyle in the Florida sun. I have been authorized and directed to convey the concerns of the Cedar Hammock Board on behalf of its residents, to the County proposal for further intensification of commercial/industrial uses next to this developed neighborhood. The essence of land use planning and zoning is a reasonable and logical separation of incompatible land uses and structures. It is for this reason alone that local governments have even been authorized by the judicial system to exercise planning and zoning as a lawful exercise of the local government’s police power. The proposed GMPA suffers several shortcomings (and perhaps more): 1. It allows and encourages the intensification of development in and beyond this activity center above that which is otherwise allowed. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Cedar Hammock-Letter of Objection to CCPC (11166 : 9.A.1_Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay) Page 2 2. It allows the intensification of types of uses that are already incompatible with the established neighborhoods. 3. It allows the change of uses to uses that may be even mor e incompatible with the established neighborhoods 4. It will lead to even more traffic problems in an already overloaded roadway system. The development in the surrounding area is intensifying also. 5. It will allow potentially noisy and/or untenable uses next to a golf club/country club/residential area. 6. It is questionable as to whether this area is needed for an Innovation Zone or expansion of one. 7. It allows the state and local governments and private developers, to act under a veil of non- disclosure to the potential detriment of the nearby property owners and residents. (Ch. 288 F.S.). 8. It allows the administrative staff to approve development without public hearings and neighbor input; therefore, it will lack transparency. 9. It does not adequately take into account the effect on the land use development patterns in the area. In summary, this proposal paves the way for businesses and non-residents to benefit at the expense of the local residents who have invested heavily in a quiet and non-hustle-bustle environment. Collier County has historically been one of the bastions of a relaxed life-style in the beauty and sunshine of Southwest Florida. Unfortunately, this makes it vulnerable to the desires to over- develop it, which leads to its ruination. We respectfully request that this proposal be rejected at transmittal. Alternatively, we request that the requirement of public hearings before implementation of more intensified uses be retained prior to implementation of new uses. Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA s/Robert D. Pritt Robert D. Pritt RDP 14520349 _1 141133.0001 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Cedar Hammock-Letter of Objection to CCPC (11166 : 9.A.1_Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay) 32308 All other items were delivered prior to CCPC 12/19/19 meeting Page 1 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: All other items were delivered prior to CCPC 12/19/19 meeting (11166 : 9.A.1_Collier Boulevard/Interstate 75 Innovation Zone 01/16/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PUDA-PL20190000259: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 82-49, as amended, the ShadowWood Planned Unit Development (PUD), to redesignate 4± acres of land from Tract C, private air park district, to Tract E, residential development; by adding the development standards for Tract E; by amending the master plan to add 3 access points to provide ingress and egress to Tract E including access to Polly Avenue, Atkins Road and Whitaker Road; by removing a requirement that all access roads to the PUD are private roads; and by revising developer commitments. The subject property consisting of 77.99± acres is part of the 168.1 acre PUD located at Wing South Air Park, east of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 01/16/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 12/30/2019 2:32 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 12/30/2019 2:32 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 01/06/2020 5:05 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 01/07/2020 10:22 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 10:45 AM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 12:26 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 2:45 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 4:20 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 01/16/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 88 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.2 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.aPacket Pg. 90Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division Date: December 12, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20190000259 - REV 6 PETITION NAME: Shadowwood PUD PUDA REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) to the Shadowwood PUD (approved by Ordinance #82-49 – and as amended via Ordinance #08-43). The petitioner is proposing to modify the Shadowwood Exhibit ‘B’ Master Plan to provide for ingress and egress to the last remaining development parcel in the PUD. This amendment is to address access for the northern portion of the PUD (Tract E). Submittal 2 included several additional documents requested by the County Attorney and other reviewing staff. Submittal 3 included revisions to Sections IV and V, as well as the PUD Master Plan. Submittal 4 includes an Amendment Narrative, a modified Master Plan, acreage adjustments to Section 4.2 of PUD and adjustments in maximum number of units to be consistent, text amendment of Section 4.3 and Table I, Tract E, Development Standards. Submittal 5 included revisions to the Master Plan, the TIS, the Environmental Data, and the PUD document – including adding a deviation for a buffer. Submittal 6 includes a new landscape buffer deviation, preservation calculations, and additional minor corrections in PUD and Master Plan. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the north side of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (CR 864) at Skyway Drive, approximately one mile west of Collier Blvd. (CR951), in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The ±168.1-acre Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved via Ord. #82-49 and subsequently amended with Ordinance #08-43. As amended, Shadowwood allows a total maximum of 574 residential units at a maximum density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) – (574 DUs ÷ 168.1 Acres = 3.415 DU/A = 3.4 DU/A). According to the FLUE, “within the Urban designated areas a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though is not an entitlement.” 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 Although Tract ‘E’ was always intended for residential uses (multi-family), it remains undeveloped to date. In preparation for developing this tract, the petitioner is requesting to modify the Master Plan to indicate three new ingress/egress points for Tract ‘E’, all three connecting to local roads: one to connect with Polly Avenue, one to connect with Whitaker Road, and one to connect with Atkins Ave. Select FLUE Policies are shown below (in italics), followed by staff analysis in [bracketed bold text]. FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.] FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies: Given the nature of this petition and the minor changes proposed (no changes in permitted uses, densities, or intensities), staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of most of the FLUE policies under Objective 7 (pertaining to access to arterial & collector roads, walkability, etc.) is not necessary, with the exception of Policy 7.3 as it pertains to interconnections and is addressed below. FLUE Policy 7.3: “All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element.” [The proposed ingress/egress points will connect the PUD’s local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type and is consistent with FLUE Policy 7.3.] CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed changes to the Shadowwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL2019-0259 Shadowwood R6.docx 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Single Family Detached Single Family Attached & Single Family Zero Lot Line Townhomes Multi Family Dwelling Recreation Areas Principal Structures Minimum Lot Area ShadowWood – Tract E 1,600 s.f. 1,600 s.f. 1,100 s.f. 1 acre n/a Naples Lakes Country Club 5,500 s.f. 5,500 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 1 acre n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 9,000 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 4,000 n/a RSF-4 Agriculture 7,500 s.f. 5 acres n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Lot Width ShadowWood – Tract E 32 feet 32 feet 18 feet 150 ft n/a. Naples Lakes Country Club 70 50 50 150 n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 80 ft 30 ft – single story 25 ft – two story 50 ft – zero lot line 30 ft – single story 25 ft – two story 30 ft – single story 25 ft – two story n/a RSF-4 Agriculture 70 ft 165 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Floor Area ShadowWood – Tract E 1,000 sf 1,000 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. n/a Naples Lakes Country Club 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 1,500 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 1,000 s.f. n/a RSF-4 Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Front Yard ShadowWood – Tract E 12 feet1- Principal and Accessory 12 feet1 - Principal and Accessory 12 feet1 - Principal and Accessory 20 ft, or one- half building height, whichever is greater - Principal and Accessory 15 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club 25 ft – Principal and Accessory 20 ft – Principal and Accessory 20 ft – Principal and Accessory 20 ft – Principal and Accessory 50 ft – Principal 20 ft - Accessory LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 25 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 50 ft from residential parcels – Principal 10 ft Accessory RSF-4 Agriculture 25 ft 50 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Side Yard ShadowWood – Tract E 5 feet2 - Principal and Accessory 0 feet or 10 feet2 - Principal and Accessory 0 feet or 10 feet24 - Principal and Accessory One-half building height - Principal and 5 feet or one-half building height, whichever is greater - Principal 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Accessory and Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club 7.5 ft– Principal and Accessory 0 ft or 5 ft– Principal and Accessory 0 ft or 5 ft– Principal and Accessory 15 feet, or where adjacent to a golf course: 0 feet; or lake:0 feet from the lake control elevation– Principal and Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 7.5 ft 5 feet – one story 7.5 – two-story 0 on one side and 10 feet on the other side for zero lot line 5 feet – one story 7.5 – two story 20 feet 25 ft from residential parcels – Principal 10 ft Accessory RSF-4 Agriculture 7.5 feet 30 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Rear Yard ShadowWood – Tract E 5 feet or 20 feet from alley3 - Principal 5 feet - Accessory 5 feet or 20 feet from alley3 - Principal and Accessory 5 feet or 20 feet from alley3 - Principal and Accessory 15 feet or one- half building height, whichever is greater – Principal 5 feet - Accessory 5 feet or one-half building height, whichever is greater – Principal and Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club 20 feet – Principal and Accessory 0 feet or 5 feet – Principal 15 ft detached and 10 feet attached for Accessory 0 feet or 5 feet - Principal 15 ft detached and 10 feet attached for Accessory 15 feet, or where adjacent to a golf course: 0 feet; or lake:0 feet from the lake control elevation for Principal 20 ft detached and 10 feet attached for Accessory n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 20 ft 15 ft 15 ft 20 ft n/a RSF-4 Agriculture 25 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Preserve Setback ShadowWood – Tract E 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a RSF-4 Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum distance 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) between structures ShadowWood – Tract E 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet One-half sum of building heights One-half sum of building heights Naples Lakes Country Club n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 feet LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 15 feet or one- half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater 15 feet or one-half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater 15 feet or one- half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater 15 feet or one- half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater n/a RSF-4 Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Height Zoned Actual ShadowWood – Tract E Zoned Actual 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club Two stories Two stories Two stories Four stories 60 feet – Principal 40 feet - Accessory LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club Two stories Two stories Two stories Four stories n/a RS4 35 ft – Principal 20 ft - Accessory n/a n/a n/a n/a Agriculture 35 ft – Principal n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Front yard setbacks shall be measured from Right-of-Way line and shall allow a 2-foot separation from the structure to the Public Utility Easement 2 If side yard is 0 feet on one side, the other side yard shall be 10 feet for a total building separation of 10 feet 3 Alley setbacks shall be measured from the easement line. Parking may be accessed from alleys at the rear of the property provided there is a 5-foot clearance from the vehicle to the edge of pavement 4 Multi-family structures may have terraced setbacks. Terraced setbacks shall be measured from the ground floor exterior wall, as long as a minimum 15 -foot building wall setback is provided 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment D - Acreage aggregation into Tract E (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tom LeRoy < 2tomleroy@gmail.com > Sunday, May 5, 201 9 3:18 PM FinnTimothy Neil Fogle; Anne Daley "Clyde Quinby letter."..... Mr Fin n... I am the secretary of the Wing South Condominium Association and live at 3965 Skyway Drive some 25 or so yards from the end ofAdkins Road....Adkins is one ofthe proposed access roads being considered in the Clyde Quinby letter and due to be included in the consideration and discussion at a public meeting on May 7, 2019... This Clyde Quinby notice was given to me by a home owner who lives closer to Rattlesnake Hammock and his address is much farther away than our community or our home location....th is is to let you know that to my knowledge not one owner on Skyway Drive inside Wing South received this notice....certa in ly we did not.... The back yards of 3965 and 3963 Skyway Drive are roughly 25 yards from the proposed Adkins access to the subject property and we want the record to show that we oppose the Adkins access being granted to that subject property.... While I am the secretary of the Wing South Condominium Association this email and our objection is that of a home owner and as an individual..... Thank you for your attention Mr Finn.... Tom and Virginia LeRoy 3965 Skyway Drive Naples, Florida 34112 239-775-5886 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Clark Reid < clark.reid@gmail.com > Thursday, May 16,2019 5:12 PM BosiMichael; FinnTimothf StrainMark SD Corp PUD Amendment Petition P120190000259 SD Corporation's PUD Amendment Petition, PL20190000259, to the Shadowwood Planned Unit Development Ordinance 08-43 should be denied. There is no benefit of allowing access to Santa Barbara Blvd via Whitaker Rd - or Adkins Ave or Polly Ave - for future residents of tract E. Tract E already has access to a six lane road, Rattlesnake Hammock, through the existing Shadowwood PUD property. This was approved in the original 1982 PUD and its update in 2008. There are several costs associated with an approval of this request. lt would cost the county money to improve Whitaker Rd to handle the hundreds of cars per day extra if this proposed change is approved. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks may have to be added. And, it might require a stop light at Whitaker Rd and Santa Barbara with a large cost to change that intersection. The costs can only be calculated with a full transportation review of this request. There's also a cost to the residents of Sunset Estates. The private/public roads in this area serve residences and agricultural operations. They were never intended to be feeder roads for neighboring developments. Naples Heritage is not asking for a western ingress/egress to their property. Why SD Corp? SD Corporation has no interest in developing tract E of the PUD. They have offered all of the PUD's undeveloped property to Conservation Collier. Conservation Collier has entered into an agreement to purchase 37 acres of SD Corp's property, and has accepted the Tract E77 acres as a secondary purchase priority. By virtue of the 37 acre commitment to sell to Conservation Collier, SD Corp is left with marketing the last 77 acre tract E. Having a western access to this tract increases its marketability. The petition is not an insubstantial PUD change because of LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 that defines the criteria to determine if a proposed modification to an approved PUD is "substantial": Section e of the above mentioned LDC states, "A substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation, changes in traffic circulation, or impacts on other public facilities". lt is obvious this petition request of adding Whitaker Rd as an access to Tract E causes an increase in traffic generation for Whitaker Rd, changes in traffic circulation, and impacts other public facilities - the intersection of Whitaker Rd and Santa Barbara Blvd. Section h of the above mentioned LDC states, "A change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use." Whitaker Rd is a feeder road for all other roads in Sunset Estates for access to Santa Barbara Blvd. Sunset Estates is an Agriculture Zoned area of 2.5 and 5 acre plots of residences and agricultural operations. Using Whitaker Rd - or Polly or Adkins - as ingress and egress to tract E is incompatible with Sunset Estates land use. 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) The applicant's Pre-App Notes mentions GMP policies to justify their request. They are mistaken on at least two accounts Future Land Use Element Policy 7.2 states, "The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals." This application does the opposite. lt removes access to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd for the tract E development and replaces it with access to an arterial road that has no existing traffic light on santa Barbara Blvd. The current approved access on Ratflesnake Hammock already has a light. Rattlesnake Hammock is a six lane road at the southern end of Shadowwood PUO. Whitaker Road is a narrow 2 lane road and with this petition would force a quantity of traffic onto Whitaker Rd that it could not accommodate. Transportation Element Policy 9.3 states, "...The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments, and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection ofsuch local streets...." This cannot be done without a substantial change to the PUD requiring a full Transportation study of the proposed ingress/egress change to the Shadowwood PUD and its compliance with current LDC transportation requirements. The applicant states thal they are not requesting a change of the 3.4 residential units per acre approved in the original PUD. Butweall knowthat itcould be changed by a future development rezoning request. Since Russell Square was granted 7 units per acre atthe North end ofSunset Blvd, the county would be obligated to grant the 7 units to the acre for tract E. This density would drastically change the transportation impact on surrounding roads. The on ly time the county should consider a change to ingress/egress to Shadowwood's tract E is when a rezoning request is made and a substantial change to the PUD is submitted. Lastly a very similar issue was herd by Collier County Planning Commission last fall. The Taormina Reserve PUD showed access to its development via Sunset Blvd - part of Sunset Estates private/public road network. Russell Square PUD wanted to terminate Sunset Blvd at its southern property line and not extend it through its development to Taormina Reserve. ln an emailto Chief Hearing Examiner Mark Strain I supported the termination of Sunset Blvd at the southern end of Russell Square so that NO access to either PUD is granted via Sunset Blvd for many of the same reasons to not allow Whitaker to service Shadowwood. The Planning Commission ruled in favor of Neal Communities Russell Square request and ordered Sunset Blvd to dead end and not connect to Russell Square. I mentioned the possibility of the Whitaker Rd request of SD Corp in my email to Strain. He concurred that the Sunset Estates roads were never meant to be feeder roads to adjacent development. SD Corporation's PUD Amendment Petition P120190000259 is premature and doesn't consider relevant current land use codes, transportation policies and impacts, and potential impacts on the residents and roadways of Sunset Estates. Please deny this request Clark Reid 6'184 Whitaker Rd Naples, FL 34112 cell: 239-285-0561 2 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Anne Daley <adaleyO1 @gmail.com > Monday, May 27, 2019 4:37 PM FinnTimothy Wing South Letter of Objection - PU DA-pL-20190000259, Shadowwood pUD Wing South Letter of Objection_Adkins Access.pdf Mr. Finn, Enclosed is a letter of objection from the Wing South Board of Directors. We object to the Adkins access point sought out in PU DA-PL-20190000259, Shadowwood PUD. Thank you for the opportunity to communicate our views. Regards, Anne Daley President, Wing South 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) in 5oa*A May 27 , 20L9 Mr. Tim Finn, AICP and Prlnciple Planner Growth Management Department, Planning & Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: PUDA-PL-20190000259, Shadowwood PUD Dear Mr. Finn, On behalf of Wing South, the Board of Directors is writing to communicate our objection to access to the Shadowwood PUD via Adkins Road. Our objection is based upon the following: There is insufficient space to provide for Wing South homeowner privacy / privacy screening where Adkins would be extended to access Tract E. lf the intended access is to run directly east, there are privacy issues for multiple owners' homes and this access would infringe on the maintenance easement for the LASIp drainage that exists along that path. Wing South is a private airport and public access via Adkins would pose a security issue for our aircraft and pilots. We appreciate the opportunity to register our objection. Regards, Wing South Board of Directors Anne Daley, President Neil Fogle, Vice President Rich Lytle, Treasurer Tom LeRoy, Secretary Robert Ross, Board Member Scott Harrison, Board Member 1 WAq SouifuAbfrrk, 4a3o Skgu,zg Drire,, NaplaFL 347.72 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTim From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom LeRoy < 2tomleroy@gmail.com > Monday, December 30,2019 1:24 PM FinnTi mothy; tomothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov Proposed Tract E Access EXTERNAL EMAIt: This email is from an external source. Confirm thls is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mr Finn.... As a potentially impacted home owner regarding the proposed multiple access points to the Tract E property l'd like to offer an alternative option to consider... I can't imagine a full blown development the size of Tract E and located where it is that the developer or potential home owners would consider any ofthe options as attractive access roads to their new home properties.......it would serve everyone concerned ....from the developer and potential home owners to all the properties along the proposed roads to use a minimal impact access off of Collier Boulevard along side Serenity Park....perhaps the developer could work with the county to provide an access easement along the perimeter of the Serenity recreation area and the developer provide like kind property or compensation to the county for such an access.... There is no doubt in my mind that no one will want what is being proposed so it will be a government decision in the end to do what government will approve ...access off of Collier like all other Collier road side developments have a road and gate entrance for the most part...the subject property could do much the same with a small bridge over the canal on the very north end accessing the subject property.... Just a suggestion.. Tom and Virginia LeRoy 3965 Skyway Drive 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Anne Daley <adaleyO1@gmail.com > Friday, January 3, 2020 9:47 AM FinnTimothy Wing South Objection Letter 8{ Exhibits - Petition Number P120190000259 Wing South Letter of Objection_Adkins Access 1.1.2020.pdf; Wing South Letter of Objection 1.1.20 Exhibit 2.pdf; Wing South Letter of Objection 1.1.20 Exhibit 1.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good morning Mr. Finn, Enclosed is a letter of objection from Wing South, along with 2 exhibits I would like time to speak on behalf of Wing South at the meeting on January L6,2020. Accordingly, please include the enclosed documents in the CCPC agenda packet. Thank you Anne Daley President, Wing South 516-455-2782 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) /n 5oc<*A January L,2O2O Mr. Timothy Finn, Principle Planner Growth Management Department, Planning & Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Petition Number P120190000259 to Amend Shadowwood PUD Dear Mr. Finn, On behalf of Wing South, the Board of Directors is writing to express our objection to allowing access to the Shadowwood PUD via Adkins Avenue and, depending on design, via Polly Avenue. Our objections are based upon the following: Access to the PUD from the north west corner of Wing South would remove any possibility of privacy for the homes along the north side ofthe community. (The home on the northwest corner are approximately 70 feet from where Adkins currently ends.) Ext€nding Adkins Avenue east would also infringe on the maintenance road easement and allow traffic to pass within 30 feet of the homes along the north side of Wing South. Wing South is a private airport and public access via Adkins would pose a security risk to our hangar homes and aircraft. Access via Polly Avenue, if extended east, would also infringe on the maintenance road along the north side of the PUD. lf that access were to extend farenough eastto where the maintenance road turns south, it would create a security risk to flight operations and pilots. Exhibit 1, included with this letter, provides an annotated image of the area in question We appreciate the opportunity to register our objection Regards, Wing South Board of Directors Anne Daley, President Neil Fogle, Vice President Rich Lytle, Treasurer Tom LeRoy, Secretary Robert Ross, Board Member Scott Harrison, Board Member WAg So14/- A trfa.rk., 4730 Skg wag Drlro, Na.rztz-t, FL 54772 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Exhibit 2 This image demonstrates the close proximity to existing homes if the access via Adkins were to be selected. ln addition, this access point, if extended directly east would remove the LASIP maintenance road and remove all privacy from the homes along that path. \',\ T ..-.,'l I,,f' \ oo*,.sii,nq 'j I ,lI [ {riiseve ] r r + I I EIII ^t rilI -t ,.lr 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Exhibit 1 This satellite view shows the close proximity of the Adkins access point to existing hangar homes and the potential risk of the Polly Avenue access point to safety area at the north end of the runway. a: .( t , whil.rn Rd -I ,i.;. .,) 1 g H'. "i'i- rl'''-' ':-f1 1 ti ? I ! 3 ifHt q:I t I iAdln! Av. Tt ,? /)f wing south lirparr ffi 1n\,['.r liifrf\{I,LtlIh 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 144Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 145Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 146Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 147Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 148Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 149Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 150Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 151Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 152Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 153Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 155Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 156Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 157Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 158Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 159Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 160Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 161Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 162Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 163Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 164Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 165Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 166Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 167Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 168Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 169Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 170Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 171Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 172Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 173Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 174Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 175Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 176Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 177Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 178Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 179Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 180Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 181Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 182Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 183Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 184Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 185Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 186Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 187Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 188Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 189Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 190Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 191Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 192Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 193Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 194Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 195Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 196Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 197Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 198Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 199Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 200Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 201Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 202Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 203Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 204Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 205Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 206Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 207Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 208Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 209Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 210Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 211Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 212Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 213Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 214Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 215Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 216Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 217Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 218Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 219Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 220Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 221Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 222Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 223Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 224Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 225Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 226Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 227Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 228Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 229Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 230Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 231Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 232Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 233Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 234Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 235Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 236Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 237Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 238Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 239Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 240Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 241Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 242Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 243Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 244Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 245Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 246Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 247Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 248Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 249Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 250Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 251Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 252Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 253Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 254Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 255Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 256Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 257Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 258Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 259Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 260Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 261Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 262Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 263Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 264Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 265Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 266Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 267Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 268Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 269Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 270Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 271Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 272Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 273Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 274Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 275Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 276Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 277Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 278Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 279Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 280Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 281Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 282Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 283Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 284Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 285Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 286Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 287Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 288Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 289Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 290Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 291Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 292Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 293Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 294Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 295Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 296Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11193 : 9.A.2-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 01/16/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: PUDZ-PL20180002453: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as KASE MPUD, to allow for construction of a maximum of 76 residential dwelling units or 212 group housing units for seniors, on property located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one quarter mile south of Immokalee Road in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 7.58± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 01/16/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 12/30/2019 4:26 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 12/30/2019 4:26 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 01/06/2020 5:04 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 01/07/2020 10:21 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 10:50 AM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 12:18 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 2:34 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 01/08/2020 4:20 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 01/16/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 300 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Staff Report KASE MPUD (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 5 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division Date: November 8, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ – PL20180002453 - REV 3 PETITION NAME: Kase Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to rezone approximately ±7.58 acres, from A, Rural Agricultural District to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District to allow for a maximum of 76 residential dwelling units (single-family, townhouse, or multi-family) or 212 group housing units for seniors (assisted living, continuing care retirement communities, skilled nursing, memory care and independent living facilities) with FAR up to 0.45 with accessory uses, an amenity area and essential services will also be permitted as principal uses. No combination of residential and group housing will be permitted, and development will be limited to 78 unadjusted two-way PM peak hour trips. No deviations are requested with this petition. Submittal 2 changed the request to increase density from using Residential Infill Density Bonus to a request to use Transportation Concurrency Management Area Density Bonus. Submittal 3 revises the development standards table, setbacks, and revisions requested by the County Attorney’s office. LOCATION: The subject site, comprising ±7.58 acres, is located approximately 1,300 feet south of Immokalee Road (CR846) and lies on the east side of Livingston Road, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and within one-mile of Interchange Activity Center #4 (in the residential density band) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Map TR-5 of the Transportation Element of the GMP shows that the subject site lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). This area is bounded by the Collier ‒ Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the I-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. Policy 5.3 in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states, in part, “All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan.” 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 5 The FLUE states that Urban designated areas will accommodate residential uses that include single-family and multi-family housing. These areas will also accommodate non-residential uses that include community facilities including group housing uses. The proposed uses in the petition are consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. According to the Density Rating System of the FLUE, the Urban Designation allows up to a maximum base density of 4 residential dwelling units per acre (DU/A). According to the FLUE, “Proximity to Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center: If the project is within one mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center and located within a residential density band, 3 residential units per gross acre may be added. The density band around a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center is situated.” The project site is located within a one-mile radial distance from Activity Center #4, and therefore according to the Density Bonus provision in the FLUE, is in a residential density band and could qualify for up to 3 additional dwelling units for a total of 7 dwelling units. The petitioner is also requesting 3 additional DU/A using the Transportation Concurrency Management Area Density Bonus provision (see explanation of TCMA Density Bonus below). By adding 3 additional dwelling units for TCMA, this project could potentially qualify for a maximum total of 10 DU/A (see below). The applicant is requesting a maximum of 76 residential dwelling units on this 7.58 -acre site (10 DU/A). Base Density 4 DU/A (7.58 ac. X 4 DU/A = 30.32 DUs) Residential Density Band 3 DU/A (7.58 ac. X 3 DU/A = 22.74 DUs) TCMA Density Bonus 3 DU/A (7.58 ac. X 3 DU/A = 22.74 DUs) Total Sum: 10DU/A x 7.58 acres = 75.8 DUs 76 DUs (30.32DUs + 22.74DUs+ 22.74DUs) The FLUE describes the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) density bonus criteria as shown below: Select FLUE Policies are shown below (in italics), followed [staff analysis in bracketed bold text]. B. Density Rating System 2. Density Bonuses g. Transportation Concurrency Management Area Bonus Residential redevelopment or infill development that meets the criteria established in Policies 6.1 through 6.7 of this Element, and which occurs within a designated Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) may add three (3) residential units per gross acre. This density bonus shall not be available if the proposed development is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Additionally, in no instance shall the total project density exceed sixteen (16) units per gross acre: [The project is considered infill development and meets the applicable criteria in policies 6.1 – 6.7; and the project site is not located in the Coastal High Hazard Area and is requesting a maximum total of 10 DU/A - well below 16 DU/A.] FLUE Policy 6.1: New development within a TCMA shall occur in a manner that will ensure an adequate level of mobility (as defined in Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element) and further the achievement of the following identified important state planning goals and policies: discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl, 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 5 protecting natural resources, protecting historic resources, maximizing the efficient use of existing public facilities, and promoting public transit, bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile. [Project site is currently vacant and surrounded by existing developments. The Master Plan proposes an area of native vegetation preserve. There are no historic resources on site. The development plan will include a connection to the existing sidewalk on Livingston Road and interconnections within the PUD. Staff concurs the applicant’s response would meet the criteria of Policy 6.1.] FLUE Policy 6.2: Transportation Concurrency Management Areas have been established and shall be supported in the specific geographic areas described in Policy 2.6 of this Element. [The project is located within the Northwest TCMA, as shown in Map TR-5, meeting the criteria of Policy 6.2.] FLUE Policy 6.3: Collier County’s designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl by promoting residential and commercial infill development and by promoting redevelopment of areas wherein current zoning was approved prior to the establishment of this Growth Management Plan (January 10, 1989). Infill development and redevelopment within the TCMAs shall be consistent with Objective 5, and relevant subsequent policies, of this Element. [This is an infill project that meets the criteria of Policy 6.3.] FLUE Policy 6.4: Not applicable to residential projects. FLUE Policy 6.5: In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County’s designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. [Staff finds the criteria of Policy 6.5 is not applicable since the applicant is not requesting an exemption from link specific concurrency. However, the applicant offers several developer commitments (TDM strategies) in Exhibit F to help alleviate transportation concerns.] FLUE Policy 6.6: All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non-PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. [This is a rezone request to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) and native vegetation is shown on the MPUD Master Plan to be preserved as required. Staff concurs the applicant’s response would meet the criteria of Policy 6.6.] FLUE Policy 6.7: All new development, infill development or redevelopment within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area is subject to the historical and archaeological preservation criteria, as contained in Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 5 [The applicant stated that the Kase PUD will meet Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Although no historic or archaeological resources have been found on site, there have been resources logged within the April Circle PUD to the north; therefore, the subject site lies within the quarter mile buffer and special precaution will be taken during construction. If any historic resources are ever found on this site, required conservation techniques will be applied. The applicant’s responses meet the criteria of Policy 6.7. FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.] FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The Conceptual Site Plan, Exhibit ‘C’, shows one ingress/egress point on Livingston Road, a minor arterial as identified in the Transportation Element of the GMP.] FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The PUD Master Plan shows only a large area labeled ‘Development Area’ without any roads. One Conceptual Site Plan in the TIS shows Multi-family building outlines and a loop drive around a large portion of the entire project, providing internal circulation within the project. Another Conceptual Site Plan in the TIS shows an ALF building and a loop drive around much of the project area. There are secondary areas shown on the two Conceptual Site Plans to the east of the loop road and labeled ‘Preserve’ and ‘Detention #1 and #2’.] FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Neither the Master Plan nor the Conceptual Site Plans show any interconnections with adjoining neighborhoods or developments; Livingston Road abuts the subject site to the west. Submittal 3 included an Exhibit A from the Eboli PUD that shows a potential interconnection as well on a revised Kase PUD Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit C-1. The properties to the east (Livingston Lakes - fully developed residential), south (entrance and grounds to Livingston Lakes) and north (April Circle PUD is fully developed residential) offers no opportunity for interconnections, therefore staff believes interconnections not feasible to other locations.] FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The petition lists a variety of housing in Exhibit ‘A’ Permitted Uses with either single-family, multi-family housing or an ALF. The Conceptual Site Plan for Multi-family indicates a clubhouse location, which are frequently used for civic facilities. Both Conceptual Site Plans show a pathway around the detention areas. No deviation has been proposed from providing sidewalks as required by the Land Development Code. The “Usable Open Space Requirement” on the Master Plan states the required open space (7.58 acres X 30% = 2.27 acres) with the footnote that usable open space locations will be determined at time of Site Development Plan (SDP) permitting.] 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 5 NOTE: Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 12.1.14 reads: “All new nursing homes and assisted living facilities that are licensed shall have a core area to shelter residents and staff on site. The core area will be constructed to meet the Public Shelter Design Criteria that are required for new public schools and public community colleges and universities (“State Requirements for Educational Facilities,” (2014). Additionally, this area shall be capable of ventilation or air conditioning provided by back-up generator for a period of no less than seventy-two (72) hours.” (2017). Following Hurricane Irma in 2017, Florida’s Governor set new emergency requirements mandating that this capability be extended to ninety-six (96) hours depending the size and type of facility and include an appropriate amount of fuel to operate the generator. Staff recognizes that at the time of the project’s Site Development Plan process, the applicant will need to address this sheltering requirement. CONCLUSION: This MPUD rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PUDZ-PL2018-2453 Kase MPUD R3.docx 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) Detached Single Family Attached Single Family & Townhouse Two-Family & Zero Lot Line Multi Family Group Housing Amenity Area Principal Structures Minimum Lot Area KASE 6,000 s.f. 5,500 s.f. per unit 1,200 s.f. per unit n/a n/a 10,000 s.f. April Circle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Eboli n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a 1 acre n/a n/a Pelican Marsh 7,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 2 3,500 s.f. – Two family 5,000 s.f. – Zero Lot Line 1 acre 1 acre n/a Minimum Lot Width KASE 50 feet 100 feet 80 feet n/a n/a. n/a. April Circle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Eboli n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a 150 feet n/a n/a Pelican Marsh 75 30 35 – Two family 50 – Zero Lot Line 150 150 n/a Minimum Floor Area KASE 1,200 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 750 s.f. n/a n/a April Circle n/a n/a n/a Efficiency: 450 to 600 s.f. One bedroom: 450 to 900 s.f. Two bedroom: 650 to 1,100 s.f. Three bedroom: 900 to 1,250 s.f. n/a n/a Eboli n/a One bedroom: 765 s.f. Two bedroom: 1,000 s.f. Three bedroom: 1,150 s.f. One bedroom: 765 s.f. Two bedroom: 1,000 s.f. Three bedroom: 1,150 s.f. One bedroom: 765 s.f. Two bedroom: 1,000 s.f. Three bedroom: 1,150 s.f. n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a 750 s.f. n/a n/a Pelican Marsh 1,800 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 1,600 s.f. 1000 s.f. 4 n/a5 n/a Minimum Front Yard KASE 20 feet for Principal and Accessory 20 feet for Principal and Accessory 20 feet for Principal and Accessory 30 feet for Principal and Accessory 30 feet for Principal and Accessory 20 feet for Principal and Accessory April Circle n/a n/a n/a 30 feet n/a n/a Eboli n/a 90 feet from Immokalee Road right-of- way 90 feet from Immokalee Road right-of- way 90 feet from Immokalee Road right-of- way n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a 35 feet for Principal and Accessory n/a n/a Pelican Marsh 25 feet 20 3 20 3 25 feet 25 feet n/a 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 15 feet for side entry garage 10 feet for side entry garage 10 feet for side entry garage 15 feet for side entry garage 15 feet for side entry garage Minimum Side Yard KASE 5 feet for Principal and Accessory 0 feet for Principal and Accessory 0/5 feet1 for Principal and Accessory 15 feet – Principal 10 feet – Accessory 15 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 10 feet for Principal and Accessory April Circle n/a n/a n/a 30 feet n/a n/a Eboli n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a 15 feet for Principal and Accessory n/a n/a Pelican Marsh 7.5 feet 0 or .5 building height 0 or 7.5 .5 building height 20 feet or .5 building height n/a Minimum Rear Yard KASE 20 feet for Principal and Accessory 20 feet for Principal and Accessory 20 feet for Principal and Accessory 30 feet – Principal 20 feet - Accessory 30 feet – Principal 20 feet - Accessory 20 feet for Principal and Accessory April Circle n/a n/a n/a 30 feet n/a n/a Eboli n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a 30 feet for Principal 20 feet for detached and 10 feet for attached for Accessory n/a n/a Pelican Marsh 20 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 20 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 10 feet – Principal 5 feet - Accessory Same as Building height for Principal 15 feet for Accessory Same as Building height for Principal 15 feet for Accessory n/a Minimum Preserve Setback KASE 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory April Circle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Eboli n/a 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pelican Marsh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum PUD Setback KASE 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 35 feet April Circle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Eboli n/a Yards from the Eastern and Western PUD Boundaries – 20 feet for 1 story structures and 30 feet for two story structures Yards from the Southern PUD Yards from the Eastern and Western PUD Boundaries – 20 feet for 1 story structures and 30 feet for two story structures Yards from the Yards from the Eastern and Western PUD Boundaries – 20 feet for 1 story structures and 30 feet for two story structures Yards from the n/a n/a 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) Boundary – 70 feet Southern PUD Boundary – 70 feet Southern PUD Boundary – 70 feet Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pelican Marsh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum distance between structures KASE 30 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet April Circle n/a n/a n/a 15 feet n/a n/a Eboli n/a Between one story and one- story strictures – 10 feet Between one story and two- story structures – 15 feet Between two story and two- story structures – 20 feet Between one story and one- story strictures – 10 feet Between one story and two- story structures – 15 feet Between two story and two- story structures – 20 feet Between one story and one- story strictures – 10 feet Between one story and two- story structures – 15 feet Between two story and two- story structures – 20 feet n/a n/a Livingston Lakes n/a n/a n/a 15 feet, or one- half of the sum of the heights of adjacent buildings, whichever is greater for Principal 10 feet for Accessory n/a n/a Pelican Marsh 15 feet .5 Sum of Building Heights 10 feet .5 Sum of Building Heights .5 Sum of Building Heights n/a Minimum Height Zoned Actual KASE Zoned Actual 30 feet 35 feet for Principal and Accessory 30 feet 35 feet for Principal and Accessory 30 feet 35 feet for Principal and Accessory 40 feet 47 feet for Principal and 35 feet 40 feet for Accessory 40 feet 47 feet for Principal and 35 feet 40 feet for Accessory 30 feet 35 feet for Principal and Accessory April Circle Zoned Actual n/a n/a n/a Two stories n/a n/a Eboli Zoned Actual 35 feet not to exceed 2 stories over parking for Principal 15 feet for Accessory 35 feet not to exceed 2 stories over parking for Principal 15 feet for Accessory 35 feet not to exceed 2 stories over parking for Principal 15 feet for Accessory 25 feet Livingston Lakes Zoned Actual n/a n/a n/a 3 habitable floors for Principal 35 feet or two stories whichever is n/a n/a 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) greater for Accessory Pelican Marsh Zoned Actual 35 35 35 50 50 n/a 1 Must be at least 10 feet between structures 2 Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. 3 Single-family dwellings which provide for 2 parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirements to 5 feet for the garage and 15 feet for the remaining structures 4 Structures east of Airport Road have a minimum floor area of 750 s.f. 5 For density comparison, each residential unit shall equal 4.0 ALF units 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 337Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 338Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 339Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 340Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 341Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 342Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 343Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 344Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 345Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 346Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 347Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 348Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 349Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 350Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 351Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 352Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 353Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 354Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 355Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 356Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 357Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 358Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 359Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 360Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 361Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 362Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 363Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 364Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 365Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 366Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 367Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 368Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 369Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 370Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 371Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 372Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 373Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 374Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 375Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 376Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 377Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 378Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 379Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 380Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 381Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 382Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 383Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 384Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 385Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 386Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 387Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 388Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 389Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 390Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 391Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 392Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 393Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 394Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 395Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 396Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 397Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 398Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 399Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 400Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 401Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 402Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 403Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 404Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 405Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 406Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 407Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 408Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 409Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 410Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 411Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 412Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 413Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 414Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 415Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 416Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 417Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 418Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 420Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 421Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 422Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 423Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 425Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 428Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 429Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 430Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 431Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 432Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 433Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 434Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 435Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 436Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 440Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 441Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 442Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 443Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 444Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 445Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 446Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 447Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 448Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 449Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 450Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 451Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 452Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 453Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 454Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 455Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 456Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 457Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 458Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 459Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 460Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 461Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 462Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 463Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 464Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 465Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 466Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 467Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 468Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 469Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 470Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 471Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 472Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 473Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 474Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 475Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 476Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 477Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 478Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 479Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 480Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 481Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 482Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 483Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 484Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 485Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 486Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 487Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 488Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 489Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 490Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 491Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 492Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 493Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 494Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 495Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 496Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 497Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 498Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 499Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 500Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 501Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 502Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 503Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 504Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 505Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 506Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 507Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 508Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 509Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 510Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 511Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 512Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 513Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 514Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 515Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 516Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 517Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 518Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 519Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 520Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 521Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 522Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 523Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 524Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 525Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 526Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 527Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 528Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 529Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 530Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 531Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 532Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 533Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 534Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 535Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 536Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 539Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 540Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 541Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 542Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 543Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 544Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 545Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 546Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 547Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 548Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 549Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 550Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 551Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 552Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 553Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 554Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 555Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 556Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 557Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 558Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 559Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 560Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 561Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 562Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 563Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 564Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 565Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 566Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 567Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 568Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 569Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 570Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 571Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 572Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 573Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 574Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 575Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 576Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 577Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 578Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 579Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 580Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 581Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 582Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 583Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 584Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 585Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 586Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 587Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 588Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 589Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 590Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 591Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 592Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 593Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 594Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 595Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 596Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 597Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 598Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 599Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 600Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 601Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 602Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 604Attachment: Attachment D - Application - Back up materials - Copy (11191 : 9.A.3-KASE MPUD) 01/16/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to extend the availability of the early entry transfer of development rights bonus for property within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - Sending Lands, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager] Meeting Date: 01/16/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 12/17/2019 9:56 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 12/17/2019 9:56 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 12/17/2019 10:26 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 12/17/2019 1:53 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 12/18/2019 2:38 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 12/23/2019 12:46 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 12/27/2019 6:36 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 01/16/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 605 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS PL20190002635-CPSP-2019-4 (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) CCPC: JANUARY 16, 2020 BCC: FEBRUARY 25, 2020 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: CCPC COVER (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC – 2019 GMP Transmittal Amendment PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4 CCPC January 16, 2020 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: 2) TAB: Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit “A” text: 3) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Table of Contents_CCPC (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4 1 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: January 16, 2019 RE: PETITION PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS EARLY ENTRY BONUS EXTENSION [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT/APPLICANT Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, Collier County Government 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is a text amendment only and is applicable to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands (depicted in orange color on the excerpt from the countywide Future Land Use Map on the next page). REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a large-scale GMP amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to extend the date of applicability of the RFMUD Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Early Entry bonus until September 27, 2022. The proposed amended text is depicted on Resolution Exhibit A. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting this change to facilitate participation in the RFMUD TDR program. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted GMP amendments in June of 2002 to establish the RFMUD, including the TDR program (those amendments did not become effective until July 2003 due to a “challenge” to their statutory compliance). At that time, the TDR program only included the base TDR Credit (1 TDR Credit per 5 acres). In 2005, the GMP was amended to add three density bonuses to further incentivize owners of Sending Lands to participate in the TDR program, one of which is the Early Entry bonus. In particular, the Early Entry bonus was intended as an inducement for landowners to participate in the TDR program sooner than later – similar to the “early entry participation provision” in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay which was adopted in October 2002. The original Early Entry bonus was for a period of three years (from the date of the implementing Land Development Code amendment) out to 2008 and has been extended multiple times. The subject amendment is to extend the Early Entry bonus 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: CCPC StaffRpt CPSP-2019-4 _FNL (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4 2 from September 27, 2018, until September 27, 2022 (as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on November 12, 2019). Prior to that time, the RFMUD Restudy -based GMP amendments should be completed, which may or may not include changes to this Early Entry bonus provision. [Note: Two letters of support were received for the staff request to the Board in November 2019 seeking direction to initiate the subject GMP amendment.] Assuming this GMP amendment is approved for transmittal to the statutorily required review agencies, it will return to the CCPC and BCC for Adoption hearings. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: As this is not a site-specific GMP amendment, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is not required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on December 16, 2019. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: CCPC StaffRpt CPSP-2019-4 _FNL (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4 3 CCPC StaffRpt CPSP-2019-4 G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2019 GMPAs Outside of Cycles\PL20190002635_CPSP-2019- 4 EE TDR Bonus\CCPC & BCC Transmittal dw/12-5-19 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: CCPC StaffRpt CPSP-2019-4 _FNL (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution_12.9.19 (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution_12.9.19 (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution_12.9.19 (11028 : 9.A.4-TDR Early Entry Bonus Extension) Napits BJaiLij w PARI OF 1 HE USA TODAY NE 1 WORK \.. Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 COLLIER CO CLERK ATTN MARTHA VERGARA 3329 TAMIAMI TRAIL E, STE 401 NAPLES, FL 34112 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Joe Heynen Who on oath says that he serves as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida ,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. DECEMBER 27,2019 Subscribed and sworn to before on DECEMBER 19,2019: Notary,State of WI,County of Brown TARA MONDLOCH Notary Public State of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6,2021 Publication Cost:$945.00 Ad No GCI0335619 Customer No:505868 PO#: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on January 16, 2020, commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor, County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO EXTEND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EARLY ENTRY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BONUS FOR PROPERTY WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT-SENDING LANDS, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL20190002635] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to January 16, 2020, will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission 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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P. Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on January 16, 2020, commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third-Floor, County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail •—• East, Naples, FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO EXTEND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EARLY ENTRY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BONUS FOR PROPERTY WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT-SENDING LANDS, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL20190002635] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail �... East, Suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to January 16, 2020, will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission 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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239)252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P. Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission ND-DC10335659d1 20D 1 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2019 1 NAPLES DAILY NEWS