The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 09/09/2020 S Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 9/2/2020 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 September 9, 2020 5: 05 PM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry- Secretary Patrick Dearborn Paul Shea, 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. September 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 9/2/2020 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call By Secretary 3. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL2020000359- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, As Amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to allow enclosed, indoor, air-conditioned self-storage as a permitted use in the General Commercial District (C-4) when such use is combined in the same building with another permitted commercial use, and to provide additional design standards for such buildings, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.03 – Commercial Zoning Districts; and Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards for Specific Uses, including Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner] 2. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to extend the availability of the Transfer of Development Rights Early Entry bonus credit for Sending Lands in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay, to revise the procedures and approval process for Comparable Use Determinations, to modify the timeframes and process for review of applications for development orders in the Stewardship Receiving Area, to establish an approval process and development standards for events which take place in County rights-of-way, to address minimum lot area for single family, two family and duplex dwelling units on non-conforming lots in the RMF-6 zoning district, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter One – General Provisions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses; Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards; Chapter Five –Supplemental Standards; Chapter Nine – Variations from Code Requirements; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, and Decision- Making Procedures; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Richard Henderlong, MPA, Principal Planner] 4. Public Comment 5. Adjourn September 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 9/2/2020 6. Approval of Minutes 1. August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes 09/09/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 3.A.1 Item Summary: PL2020000359- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, As Amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to allow enclosed, indoor, air-conditioned self-storage as a permitted use in the General Commercial District (C-4) when such use is combined in the same building with another permitted commercial use, and to provide additional design standards for such buildings, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.03 – Commercial Zoning Districts; and Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards for Specific Uses, including Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/09/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Eric Johnson 08/20/2020 10:29 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/20/2020 10:29 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 08/20/2020 6:01 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/20/2020 6:04 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/25/2020 8:53 AM Zoning Jeremy Frantz Additional Reviewer Completed 08/26/2020 9:00 AM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 08/31/2020 7:58 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 09/01/2020 4:21 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/01/2020 5:21 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/09/2020 5:05 PM 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 4 1 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\Self Storage\Proposed Text (08-13- 2020).docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20200000359 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This Land Development Code Amendment (LDCA) proposes to allow enclosed, indoor, air-conditioned self-storage use as a Permitted Use when combined in the same building with other uses that are permitted in the C- 4 Commercial Zoning District. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners (Board) HEARING DATES Board CCPC DSAC DSAC-LDR TBD 09/09/2020 08/05/2020 07/28/2020 2.03.03 5.05.08 Commercial Zoning Districts Architectural and Site Design Standards ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval (4-0) DSAC Approval CCPC TBD BACKGROUND: This LDCA follows a previous proposal (LDCA-PL20180003473) to establish separation standards between self- storage facilities within the U.S. 41 corridor area that was not approved by the Board (See Exhibit A). On December 10, 2019, the Board directed staff to address their concerns regarding self-storage buildings within the U.S. 41 corridor area, through incentives for mixed-use developments rather than requiring separation standards. This amendment changes self-storage facilities from a Conditional Use to a Permitted Use in the C-4 zoning district, but only if the self-storage use is combined in the same building as with other permitted uses in the C-4 zoning district and occupies less than 50 percent of the total area of the first floor . Examples of buildings containing self-storage combined with other uses are shown in Exhibit B. This LDCA applies to all C-4 districts throughout the County and does not apply only to properties within the U.S. 41 Corridor that was previously identified. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation: On July 28, 2020, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended approval contingent upon the following: • Revise LDC section 5.05.08 E.2.f.ii. to indicate “The architectural design for the entire building shall be a consistent theme, in order to avoid having contrasting styles for each use.” DSAC Recommendation: On August 5, 2020, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended approval. Despite the DSAC recommending approval without conditions, the proposed text has been updated to comply with the Subcommittee’s recommendation. 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Proposed Text_Exhibits A & B (13238 : 1. Self-Storage Buildings in C-4) 2 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\Self Storage\Proposed Text (08-13- 2020).docx FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this LDCA. By designing a self-storage facility combined with other uses in the same building, developers will not need to obtain Conditional Use approval and can immediately go through the Site Development Plan process, thereby reducing cost, time, and risk. GMP CONSISTENCY This LDCA does not introduce a new use in C-4 district, rather it changes how an existing use is permitted under certain conditions. Only a few subdistricts within the Future Land Use Element, Immokalee Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Sub-Elements allow C-4 zoning, e.g. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. Those few subdistricts do not restrict how the C-4 uses are allowed – by right or by conditional use. Therefore, this LDCA may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A – Amendment History; and B – Examples of Self Storage Combined with Other Uses 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Proposed Text_Exhibits A & B (13238 : 1. Self-Storage Buildings in C-4) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\Self Storage\Proposed Text (08-13-2020).docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2.03.03 – Commercial Districts 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 D. General Commercial District (C-4). The general commercial district (C-4) is intended to 6 provide for those types of land uses that attract large segments of the population at the 7 same time by virtue of scale, coupled with the type of activity. The purpose and intent of 8 the C-4 district is to provide the opportunity for the most diverse types of commercial 9 activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational 10 attractions, at a larger scale than the C-1 through C-3 districts. As such, all of the uses 11 permitted in the C-1 through C-3 districts are also permitted in the C-4 district. The outside 12 storage of merchandise and equipment is prohibited, except to the extent that it is 13 associated with the commercial activity conducted on-site such as, but not limited to, 14 automobile sales, marine vessels, and the renting and leasing of equipment. Activity 15 centers are suitable locations for the uses permitted by the C-4 district because most 16 activity centers are located at the intersection of arterial roads. Therefore the uses in the 17 C-4 district can most be sustained by the transportation network of major roads. The C-4 18 district is permitted in accordance with the locational criteria for uses and the goals, 19 objectives, and policies as identified in the future land use element of the Collier County 20 GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in a district shall not exceed the 21 density permissible under the density rating system. 22 23 1. The following uses, as defined with a number from the Standard Industrial 24 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are 25 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the general 26 commercial district (C-4). 27 28 a. Permitted uses. 29 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 32 90. Motorcycle dealers (5571). 33 34 91. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, limited to 35 enclosed, indoor air-conditioned self-storage) when located with at 36 least one other permitted commercial use in the same building, and 37 subject to the following: 38 39 a. The enclosed, indoor air-conditioned self-storage shall 40 occupy less than 50 percent of the total floor area of the first 41 floor. 42 43 b. Any accessory office or retail component incidental to the 44 enclosed, indoor air-conditioned self-storage use will not 45 count toward the calculation of the floor area of the other 46 permitted use(s). The accessory office or retail component 47 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Proposed Text_Exhibits A & B (13238 : 1. Self-Storage Buildings in C-4) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\Self Storage\Proposed Text (08-13-2020).docx of an enclosed, indoor air-conditioned self-storage use will 1 count toward the calculation of the floor area of the self-2 storage use. 3 4 912. Museums and art galleries (8412). 5 6 [renumber remaining uses] 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional 11 uses in the general commercial district (C-4), subject to the standards and 12 procedures established in LDC section 10.08.00. 13 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 16 24. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, enclosed, 17 indoor air-conditioned and mini-and self-storage warehousing only). 18 19 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 20 21 5.05.08 – Architectural and Site Design Standards. 22 23 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 24 25 E. Design standards for specific building uses. 26 27 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 28 29 2. Self-storage buildings. Self-storage buildings are subject to all of the applicable 30 provisions of this section with the following exceptions and additions: 31 32 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 33 34 f. Combined with another use or uses in the same building. 35 36 i. When an enclosed, indoor self-storage use is located in the same 37 building with another permitted commercial use or uses and the 38 square footage of the other use or uses exceeds 50 percent of the 39 ground floor area of the building, then the primary façade design 40 features of LDC section 5.05.08 D.2.b. shall apply. 41 42 ii. The architectural design for the entire building shall be a consistent 43 theme, in order to avoid having contrasting styles for each use. 44 45 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 46 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Proposed Text_Exhibits A & B (13238 : 1. Self-Storage Buildings in C-4) Exhibit A – Amendment History 5 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\Self Storage\Proposed Text (08-13-2020).docx In April of 2010, the East Naples Foundation completed Vision for the East Trail, which was a privately-initiated planning effort that resulted in the completion of a strategic plan for an approximately 14-mile stretch of the U.S. 41 corridor. On February 14, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to begin the process of developing a corridor study with the goal of obtaining community input and creating incentives for the desired development types. After getting input from the community, in April of 2018, Johnson Engineering, Inc. completed the U.S. 41 Corridor Study-Summary of Findings and Recommendations to the Board (“Corridor Study”) on behalf of the County. The Corridor Study was presented to and accepted by the Board on April 24, 2018. One recommendation of the Corridor Study suggested having a minimum distance separation between new self-storage facilities. In response to the Corridor Study, staff drafted a Land Development Code amendment (LDCA) (PL20180003473) containing a 1,320-foot minimum separation requirement between new and existing self-storage buildings on properties zoned C-4 for lots fronting on U.S. 41, between the intersection of Palm Street/Commercial Drive and Price Street/Triangle Boulevard. The proposed LDCA included a relief process (i.e., distance waiver) if an applicant could demonstrate that an adequate supply of neighborhood goods and services are available within a quarter-mile radius of the new building. On September 10, 2019, staff brought a request to the Board to advertise a new ordinance containing separation requirements between self-storage buildings. The Board discussed the item and voted 4-1 against advertising the ordinance in its current form and unanimously voted to bring back the item later so that staff could provide incentives, locational requirements, or alternatives. 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Proposed Text_Exhibits A & B (13238 : 1. Self-Storage Buildings in C-4) Exhibit B – Examples of Self Storage Combined with Other Uses 6 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\Self Storage\Proposed Text (08-13-2020).docx 16638 Sheridan Street in Pembroke Pines, FL 401 34th Street North in St. Petersburg, FL 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Proposed Text_Exhibits A & B (13238 : 1. Self-Storage Buildings in C-4) Exhibit B – Examples of Self Storage Combined with Other Uses 7 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\Self Storage\Proposed Text (08-13-2020).docx 107 Hillcrest Street in Orlando, FL 1500 Gateway Blvd, Suite 190 in Boynton Beach, FL Source: Google Maps 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Proposed Text_Exhibits A & B (13238 : 1. Self-Storage Buildings in C-4) 09/09/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 3.A.2 Item Summary: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to extend the availability of the Transfer of Development Rights Early Entry bonus credit for Sending Lands in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay, to revise the procedures and approval process for Comparable Use Determinations, to modify the timeframes and process for review of applications for development orders in the Stewardship Receiving Area, to establish an approval process and development standards for events which take place in County rights-of-way, to address minimum lot area for single family, two family and duplex dwelling units on non-conforming lots in the RMF-6 zoning district, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter One – General Provisions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses; Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards; Chapter Five –Supplemental Standards; Chapter Nine – Variations from Code Requirements; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Richard Henderlong, MPA, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/09/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Growth Management Development Review Name: Richard Henderlong 08/20/2020 10:29 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/20/2020 10:29 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 08/20/2020 6:00 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/20/2020 6:07 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/25/2020 8:53 AM Zoning Jeremy Frantz Additional Reviewer Completed 08/27/2020 4:27 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 08/31/2020 8:00 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 09/01/2020 4:21 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/01/2020 5:21 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/09/2020 5:05 PM 3.A.2 Packet Pg. 12 1 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26-2020).docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20190000389 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment is intended to revise and clarify the procedures and approval process for Comparable Use Determinations. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED 2.03.00 Zoning Districts; Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses, and Conditional Uses 10.02.06 Requirements for Permits 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC CCPC DSAC DSAC-LDR TBD 09/09/2020 08/07/2019 03/19/2019 06/18/2019 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC Approval CCPC TBD BACKGROUND Currently, when an applicant submits an application for a Zoning Verification Letter - Comparable Use Determination, staff reviews the application, makes a determination on the compatibility of the proposed use and drafts the Zoning Verification Letter (ZVL). Once the ZVL has been completed, the ZVL and all necessary backup materials are brought before the Hearing Examiner or the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for affirmation. This current process of generating a ZVL and then going before the Hearing Examiner or BZA for affirmation has proven to be confusing for customers. Additionally, staff has requested that there be standards to determine if a proposed use is comparable to the list of permitted uses within that district, which has been added to LDC section 10.02.06 K.2. This proposed LDC amendment removes the Comparable Use Determination process from the Zoning Verification Letter process and provides criteria to make a comparable use determination. This will change the process of providing the determination through a ZVL to now providing a recommendation through a Staff Report. The Staff Report will then be reviewed for approval by the Hearing Examiner or the BZA. Additionally, the industrial and commercial zoning districts’ list of conditional uses, allows for a comparable use determination for permitted uses to follow the conditional use review process. This conflicts with the other sections of the LDC and the comparable use determination process that is utilized today. Therefore, the language that reflects a conditional use process for a permitted use has been removed. 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) 2 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26-2020).docx DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended approval of the proposed LDC amendment, subject to the following: • The process of the Comparable Use Determination affirmation with the Office of the Hearing Examiner remains in place; • Information regarding the ability to appeal the Comparable Use Determination is provided for; and • Provide flexibilty in the application of the criteria within LDC section 10.02.06 K.2. DSAC Recommendation The DSAC recommended approval of the proposed LDC amendment, subject to the addition of “as applicable” to the end of LDC section 10.02.06 K.2. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Amendment History and Existing PUD Standards; and B) Administrative Code 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2.03.00 – ZONING DISTRICTS; PERMITTED USES, ACCESSORY USES, AND CONDITIONAL 2 USES 3 In order to carry out and implement the Collier County GMP and the purposes of this LDC, the 4 following zoning districts, district purposes, and applicable symbols are hereby established: 5 A. Rules for Interpretation of Uses. In any zoning district, where the list of permitted and 6 conditional uses contains the phrase "any other use which is comparable in nature with 7 the foregoing uses and is consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent 8 statement of the district" or any similar phrase which provides for a use which is not 9 clearly defined or described in the list of permitted and conditional uses , which requires 10 the discretion of the County Manager or designee as to whether or not it is permitted in 11 the district, then the determination of whether or not that use is permitted in the district 12 shall be made through the process outlined in LDC section 1.06.0010.02.06 K., 13 interpretations, of this LDC. 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 16 17 2.03.03 – Commercial Zoning Districts 18 19 A. Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1). The purpose and intent of the 20 commercial professional and general office district C-1 is to allow a concentration of office 21 type buildings and land uses that are most compatible with, and located near, residential 22 areas. Most C-1 commercial, professional, and general office districts are contiguous to, 23 or when within a PUD, will be placed in close proximity to residential areas, and, therefore, 24 serve as a transitional zoning district between residential areas and higher intensity 25 commercial zoning districts. The types of office uses permitted are those that do not have 26 high traffic volumes throughout the day, which extend into the evening hours. They will 27 have morning and evening short-term peak conditions. The market support for these office 28 uses should be those with a localized basis of market support as opposed to office 29 functions requiring inter-jurisdictional and regional market support. Because office 30 functions have significant employment characteristics, which are compounded when 31 aggregations occur, certain personal service uses shall be permitted, to provide a 32 convenience to office-based employment. Such convenience commercial uses shall be 33 made an integral part of an office building as opposed to the singular use of a building. 34 Housing may also be a component of this district as provided for through conditional use 35 approval. 36 37 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial 38 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are 39 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the C-1 commercial 40 professional and general office district. 41 a. Permitted uses. 42 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 45 41. Any other commercial use or professional service which is 46 comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including those that 47 exclusively serve the administrative as opposed to the operational 48 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx functions of a business and are associated purely with activities 1 conducted in an office, as determined by the Hearing Examiner or 2 Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K. 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses 7 in the (C-1) commercial professional and general office district, subject to 8 the standards and procedures established in LDC section 10.08.00. 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 16. Any other convenience commercial use which is comparable in 13 nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with 14 the purpose and intent statement of the district, as determined by 15 the board of zoning appeals, pursuant to section 10.08.00. 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 18 B. Commercial Convenience District (C-2). The purpose and intent of the commercial 19 convenience district (C-2) is to provide lands where commercial establishments may be 20 located to provide the small-scale shopping and personal needs of the surrounding 21 residential land uses within convenient travel distance except to the extent that office uses 22 carried forward from the C-1 district will expand the traditional neighborhood size. 23 However, the intent of this district is that retail and service uses be of a nature that can be 24 economically supported by the immediate residential environs. Therefore, the uses should 25 allow for goods and services that households require on a daily basis, as opposed to those 26 goods and services that households seek for the most favorable economic price and, 27 therefore, require much larger trade areas. It is intended that the C-2 district implements 28 the Collier County GMP within those areas designated agricultural/rural; estates 29 neighborhood center district of the Golden Gate Master Plan; the neighborhood center 30 district of the Immokalee Master Plan; and the urban mixed use district of the future land 31 use element permitted in accordance with the locational criteria for commercial and the 32 goals, objectives, and policies as identified in the future land use element of the Collier 33 County GMP. The maximum density permissible in the C-2 district and the urban mixed 34 use land use designation shall be guided, in part, by the density rating system contained 35 in the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density 36 permissible or permitted in a district shall not exceed the density permissible under the 37 density rating system. 38 39 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial 40 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are 41 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the C-2 commercial 42 convenience district. 43 44 a. Permitted uses. 45 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 48 74. Any other commercial convenience or professional use which is 49 comparable in nature with the (C-1) list of permitted uses and 50 consistent with the purpose and intent statement of the district, as 51 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, 1 pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K. the board of zoning appeals, 2 pursuant to section 10.08.00. 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses 6 in the commercial convenience district (C-2), subject to the standards and 7 procedures established in section 10.08.00. 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 12. Any other convenience commercial use which is comparable in 12 nature with the foregoing (C-2) list of permitted uses and consistent 13 with the purpose and intent statement of the district, as determined 14 by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to section 10.08.00. 15 16 C. Commercial Intermediate District (C-3). The purpose and intent of the commercial 17 intermediate district (C-3) is to provide for a wider variety of goods and services intended 18 for areas expected to receive a higher degree of automobile traffic. The type and variety 19 of goods and services are those that provide an opportunity for comparison shopping, 20 have a trade area consisting of several neighborhoods, and are preferably located at the 21 intersection of two-arterial level streets. Most activity centers meet this standard. This 22 district is also intended to allow all of the uses permitted in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts 23 typically aggregated in planned shopping centers. This district is not intended to permit 24 wholesaling type of uses, or land uses that have associated with them the need for outdoor 25 storage of equipment and merchandise. A mixed-use project containing a residential 26 component is permitted in this district subject to the criteria established herein. The C-3 27 district is permitted in accordance with the locational criteria for commercial and the goals, 28 objectives, and policies as identified in the future land use element of the Collier County 29 GMP. The maximum density permissible in the C-3 district and the urban mixed use land 30 use designation shall be guided, in part, by the density rating system contained in the 31 future land use element of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density permissible or 32 permitted in the C-3 district shall not exceed the density permissible under the density 33 rating system. 34 35 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial 36 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are 37 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial 38 intermediate district (C-3). 39 40 a. Permitted uses. 41 42 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 43 44 93. Any use which was permissible under the prior General Retail 45 Commercial (GRC) zoning district, as identified by Zoning 46 Ordinance adopted October 8, 1974, and which was lawfully 47 existing prior to the adoption of this Code. 48 49 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 51 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 6 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx 96. Any other intermediate commercial or professional use which is 1 comparable in nature with the (C-1) list of permitted uses and 2 consistent with the purpose and intent statement of the district, as 3 determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, 4 pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K. board of zoning appeals, 5 pursuant to section 10.08.00. 6 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 9 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses 10 in the commercial intermediate district (C-3), subject to the standards and 11 procedures established in sections 4.02.02 and 10.08.00. 12 13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14 15 27. Any other intermediate commercial use which is comparable in 16 nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with 17 the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district, 18 as determined by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to section 19 10.08.00. 20 21 D. General Commercial District (C-4). The general commercial district (C-4) is intended to 22 provide for those types of land uses that attract large segments of the population at the 23 same time by virtue of scale, coupled with the type of activity. The purpose and intent of 24 the C-4 district is to provide the opportunity for the most diverse types of c ommercial 25 activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational 26 attractions, at a larger scale than the C-1 through C-3 districts. As such, all of the uses 27 permitted in the C-1 through C-3 districts are also permitted in the C-4 district. The outside 28 storage of merchandise and equipment is prohibited, except to the extent that it is 29 associated with the commercial activity conducted on-site such as, but not limited to, 30 automobile sales, marine vessels, and the renting and leasing of equipment. Activity 31 centers are suitable locations for the uses permitted by the C-4 district because most 32 activity centers are located at the intersection of arterial roads. Therefore the uses in the 33 C-4 district can most be sustained by the transportation network of major roads. The C-4 34 district is permitted in accordance with the locational criteria for uses and the goals, 35 objectives, and policies as identified in the future land use element of the Collier County 36 GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in a district shall not exceed the 37 density permissible under the density rating system. 38 39 1. The following uses, as defined with a number from the Standard Industrial 40 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are 41 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the general 42 commercial district (C-4). 43 44 a. Permitted uses. 45 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 48 142. Any other general commercial or professional use which is 49 comparable in nature with the (C-1) list of permitted uses and 50 consistent with the purpose and intent statement of the district, as 51 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 7 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, 1 pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K.board of zoning appeals, 2 pursuant to section 10.08.00. 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in 7 the general commercial district (C-4), subject to the standards and 8 procedures established in section 10.08.00. 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 26. Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature 13 with the foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the 14 permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district, as 15 determined by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to section 16 10.08.00. 17 18 E. Heavy Commercial District (C-5). In addition to the uses provided in the C-4 zoning district, 19 the heavy commercial district (C-5) allows a range of more intensive commercial uses and 20 services which are generally those uses that tend to utilize outdoor space in the conduct 21 of the business. The C-5 district permits heavy commercial services such as full-service 22 automotive repair, and establishments primarily engaged in construction and specialized 23 trade activities such as contractor offices, plumbing, heating and air conditioning services, 24 and similar uses that typically have a need to store construction associated equipment 25 and supplies within an enclosed structure or have showrooms displaying the building 26 material for which they specialize. Outdoor storage yards are permitted with the 27 requirement that such yards are completely enclosed or opaquely screened. The C-5 28 district is permitted in accordance with the locational criteria for uses and the goals, 29 objectives, and policies as identified in the future land use element of the Collier County 30 GMP. 31 32 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial 33 Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are 34 permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the heavy 35 commercial district (C-5). 36 37 a. Permitted uses. 38 39 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 40 41 183. Any other heavy commercial or professional use which is 42 comparable in nature with the (C-1) list of permitted uses and 43 consistent with the purpose and intent statement of the district, as 44 determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K.board of zoning appeals, 46 pursuant to section 10.08.00. 47 48 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 49 50 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 8 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional 1 uses in the heavy commercial district (C-5), subject to the standards and 2 procedures established in section 10.08.00. 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 19. Any other heavy commercial use which is comparable in nature with 7 the foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the purpose 8 and intent statement of the district, as determined by the board of 9 zoning appeals pursuant to section 10.08.00. 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 12 13 2.03.04 – Industrial Zoning Districts 14 15 A. Industrial District (I). The purpose and intent of the industrial district (I) is to provide lands 16 for manufacturing, processing, storage and warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution. 17 Service and commercial activities that are related to manufacturing, processing, storage 18 and warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution activities, as well as commercial uses 19 relating to automotive repair and heavy equipment sales and repair are also permissible 20 in the I district. The I district corresponds to and implements the industrial land use 21 designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP. 22 1. The following uses, as identified within the Standard Industrial Classification 23 Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section, are permitted as 24 a right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the industrial district (I). 25 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses 28 in the industrial district (I), subject to the standards and procedures 29 established in section 10.08.00. 30 31 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 32 26. Any other industrial use which is comparable in nature with the 33 foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the purpose 34 and intent statement of the district, as determined by the board of 35 zoning appeals pursuant to section 10.08.00. 36 37 B. Business Park District (BP). The purpose and intent of the business park district (BP) is to 38 provide a mix of industrial uses, corporate headquarters offices and business/professional 39 offices which complement each other and provide convenience services for the employees 40 within the district; and to attract businesses that create high value added jobs. It is intended 41 that the BP district be designed in an attractive park-like environment, with low structural 42 density and large landscaped areas for both the functional use of buffering and enjoyment 43 by the employees of the BP district. The BP district is permitted by the urban mixed use, 44 urban commercial, and urban-industrial districts of the future land use element of the 45 Collier County GMP. 46 47 1. The following uses, as identified within the latest edition of the Standard Industrial 48 Classification Manual, or as otherwise provided for within this section, are 49 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 9 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx permitted as of right, or as uses accessory to permitted primary or secondary uses 1 or are conditional uses within the business park district. 2 3 a. Permitted primary uses. One hundred percent of the total business park 4 district acreage is allowed to be developed with the following uses: 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 34. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the list of 9 permittedforgoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the 10 intent and purpose and intent statement of the district, as 11 determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, 12 pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K. 13 14 15 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 16 17 2.03.05 - Civic and Institutional Zoning Districts 18 19 A. Public Use District (P). The purpose and intent of public use district (P) is to accommodate 20 only local, state and federally owned or leased and operated government facilities that 21 provide essential public services. The P district is intended to facilitate the coordination of 22 urban services and land uses while minimizing the potential disruption of the uses of 23 nearby properties. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 4. The following uses are permitted as of right, or as accessory or conditional uses, 28 in the public use district (P). 29 30 a. Permitted uses. 31 32 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 33 34 14. Any other public structures and uses which are comparable in 35 nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, and consistent with 36 the purpose and intent statement of the district, as determined by 37 the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to LDC 38 section 10.02.06 K. 39 40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 42 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses 43 in the public use district (P), subject to the standards and procedures 44 established in section 10.08.00: 45 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 48 13. Any other public uses which are comparable in nature with the 49 foregoing uses. 50 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 51 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 10 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx # # # # # # # # # # # # # 1 2 2.03.07 – Overlay Zoning Districts 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 F. Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay (GGPPOCO). 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 2. These regulations apply to properties north and south of Golden Gate Parkway, 11 starting at Santa Barbara Boulevard and extending eastward to 52nd Terrace S.W. 12 in Golden Gate City as measured perpendicularly from the abutting right-of-way 13 for a distance of approximately 3,600 feet more or less and consisting of 14 approximately 20.84 acres. These properties are identified on Map two (2) of the 15 Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Except as provided in this regulation, all other use, 16 dimensional, and development requirements shall be as required in the underlying 17 zoning categories. 18 19 a. Permitted Uses. 20 21 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 23 42. Any other commercial use or professional service which is 24 comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, and 25 consistent with the purpose and intent statement of the overlay, as 26 determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, 27 pursuant to LDC section 10.02.06 K. 28 29 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 32 G. Immokalee Urban Overlay District. To create the Immokalee Urban Overlay District with 33 distinct subdistricts for the purpose of establishing development criteria suitable for the 34 unique land use needs of the Immokalee Community. The boundaries of the Immokalee 35 Urban Overlay District are delineated on the maps below. 36 37 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 38 39 5. Main Street Overlay Subdistrict. Special conditions for the properties identified in 40 the Immokalee Area Master Plan; referenced on Map 7; and further identified by 41 the designation "MSOSD" on the applicable official Collier County Zoning Atlas 42 Maps. The purpose of this designation is to encourage development and 43 redevelopment by enhancing and beautifying the downtown Main Street area 44 through flexible design and development standards. 45 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 48 e. Conditional uses. 49 50 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 11 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx 1. Conditional uses of the underlying zoning districts contained within 1 the subdistrict, subject to the standards and procedures 2 established in section 10.08.00 and as set forth below: 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 iii. The following conditional uses may be permitted only on 7 properties with frontage on North First Street, South First 8 Street, and North Ninth Street within the Main Street 9 Overlay Subdistrict: 10 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 13 j. Any other heavy commercial use which is 14 comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and 15 is deemed consistent with the intent of this 16 Subdistrict. 17 18 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 19 20 10.02.06 – Requirements for Permits 21 22 A. Generally. Any permit submitted to the County must meet the requirements for that 23 particular permit, as more specifically stated below. 24 25 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 26 27 J. Zoning Verification Letter. 28 1. A zoning verification letter may be used to verify the zoning of a property according 29 to the Collier County Zoning Map, the Future Land Use Map, and the Growth 30 Management Plan and establish the following determinations. 31 a. Generally. The County Manager or designee may issue a zoning 32 verification letter that verifies the zoning of a property. Additional 33 information may be requested about the subject property, including but not 34 limited to the following: 35 i. Allowable uses and development standards applicable to the 36 property under the LDC; 37 ii. Zoning of adjacent properties; 38 iii. Confirmation of any site development plan, conditional use, or 39 variance approved for the property; and 40 iv. The nonconforming status of the property. 41 b. Comparable Use Determination. The County Manager or designee may 42 issue a zoning verification letter to determine whether a use within a PUD 43 is consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses within the PUD. To 44 be effective, the zoning verification letter shall be approved by the BCC by 45 resolution at an advertised public hearing. 46 c. b. Non-residential Farm Building Exemption. The County Manager or 47 designee, in coordination with the Collier County Building Official, may 48 issue a zoning verification letter to establish that a non-residential farm 49 building and/or fence is exempt from the Florida Building Code. However, 50 the exemption applies to the structure and does not exempt the applicant 51 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 12 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx from obtaining the necessary electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or gas 1 permits for the structure. 2 d. c. Administrative Fence Waiver. The County Manager or designee may issue 3 a zoning verification letter to approve an administrative fence waiver under 4 LDC section 5.03.02 F.5.a. 5 2. The Administrative Code shall establish the process and application submittal 6 requirements to obtain a zoning verification letter. 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 K. Comparable Use Determination. 11 1. A Comparable Use Determination may be used to determine whether a use is 12 comparable in nature with the list of permitted uses, and the purpose and intent 13 statement of the zoning district, overlay, or PUD. 14 15 2. To be effective, the Comparable Use Determination shall be approved by the 16 Hearing Examiner by decision, or Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution, at an 17 advertised public hearing based on the following standards, as applicable: 18 19 a. The proposed use possesses similar characteristics to other permitted 20 uses in the zoning district, overlay, or PUD, including but not limited to the 21 following: 22 i. Operating hours; 23 ii. Traffic volume generated/attracted; 24 iii. Type of vehicles associated with the use; 25 iv. Number and type of required parking spaces; and 26 v. Business practices and activities. 27 28 b. The effect of the proposed use would have on neighboring properties in 29 relation to the noise, glare, or odor effects shall be comparable to other 30 permitted uses in the zoning district, overlay, or PUD. 31 32 c. The proposed use is consistent with the GMP, meaning the applicable 33 future land use designation does not specifically prohibit the proposed use, 34 and, where the future land use designation contains a specific list of 35 allowable uses, the proposed use is not omitted. 36 37 d. Any additional relevant information as may be required by County Manager 38 or Designee. 39 40 3. The Administrative Code shall establish the process and application submittal 41 requirements to obtain a Comparable Use Determination. 42 43 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 44 45 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions 46 47 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 48 49 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 13 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx O. Affirmation or aApproval of a Comparable Use Determination pursuant to LDC section 1 10.02.06 K. Zoning Verification Letter that allows a new use that is comparable, 2 compatible, and consistent within a PUD. 3 1. The following advertised public hearings are required: 4 a. One BCC or Hearing Examiner hearing. 5 2. The following notice procedures are required: 6 a. Newspaper Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in 7 accordance with F.S. § 125.66. 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 # # # # # # # # # # # # #11 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Attachment A – Amendment History and PUD Language 14 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx Amendment History • Ordinance 91-102 states within each commercial zoning district’s list of permitted uses: o C-1/T “Any other commercial use of professional services which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses” o C-2 “Any other convenience commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.” o C-3 “Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses” o C-4 “Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.” o C-5 “Any other heavy commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.” • Ordinance 93-89 modified the following language: o C-1/T “Any other commercial use or professional services which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including those that exclusively serve the administrative as opposed to the operational functions of a business, and are purely associated with activities conducted in an office. o C-2 “Any other convenience commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district.” o C-3 “Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including buildings for retail, and service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district.” o C-4 “Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including buildings for retail, and service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district.” o C-5 “Any other heavy commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and intent and purpose statement of the district.” • Ordinance 2002-03 introduced language included in current LDC section 2.03.00 • Ordinance 2002-31 removed the comparable use language under the permitted uses sections and relocated to conditional uses while also adding a reference that the determination is made by the BZA and removed language that was introduced in the 2002- 03 ordinance, as described above. o No clear explanation on amendment staff report as to why the change was needed • Ordinance 2003-01 added back to the C-1 district: “Any other commercial use or professional services which is comparable in the nature with the foregoing uses including 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Attachment A – Amendment History and PUD Language 15 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx those that exclusively serve the administrative as opposed to the operational functions of a business and are purely associated with activities conducted in an office.” o No clear explanation on amendment staff report as to why the change was needed Existing Standards Existing PUDs Mini-Triangle PUD (Ord. 18-25): Creekside Commerce Park (Ord. 18-19) Ford Test Center (Ord. 84-4) Immokalee Regional Airport (Ord. 10-07) Kings Lake (Ord. 08-67) Olde Cypress PUD (00-37) Orange Tree PUD (12-09) 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Attachment B – Administrative Code 16 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx G.6 L . Zoning Verification Letter – PUD Comparable Use Determination Reference LDC subsections 2.03.00 A, 10.02.06 JK, LDC Public Notice subsection 10.03.06 O, LDC section 8.10.00 and F.S. §125.66. Applicability A Zoning Verification LetterComparable Use Determination may be used to make a determination that a new use is comparable, compatible, and consistent with the list of identified permitted and conditional uses in a standard zoning district, overlay, or a PUD ordinance. Depending on PUD ordinance language, one of the following methods of consent by the Hearing Examiner will occur: 1. If the PUD ordinance language identifies the BZA as the authority to determine a use is comparable, compatible, and consistent, the Zoning Verification Letter will be brought to Hearing Examiner for approval of the determination. 2. If the PUD ordinance language identifies the Planning Director (or other similar County staff) as the authority to determine a use is comparable, compatible, and consistent, the Zoning Verification Letter will be brought to Hearing Examiner for affirmation of the determination. Pre-Application A pre-application meeting is not required. Initiation The applicant files a “Zoning Verification LetterComparable Use Determination Application” with the Planning & Zoning Division. Application Contents The application must include the following: 1. Applicant contact information. 2. Property information, including: • Site folio number; • Site Address; • Property owner’s name; and • Verification being requested. 3. A narrative statement that describes tThe determination request,and the justification for the use by a certified land use planner or a land use attorney, and addresses the standards within LDC section 10.02.06 K.2. 4. Additional materials may be requested by staff depending on the use and justification provided. 5. PUD Ordinance and Development Commitment information, if applicable. 6. Electronic copies of all documents. 7. Addressing checklist. Completeness and Processing of Application The Planning & Zoning Division will review the application for completeness. After submission of the completed application packet accompanied with the required fee, the applicant will receive a mailed or electronic response notifying the applicant that the petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment and the tracking number (i.e., XXPL201200000) assigned to the petition. This 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Attachment B – Administrative Code 17 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2020\Sep 09\Meeting Materials\Backup\CUD\Proposed Text (08-26- 2020).docx petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition. Notice Notification requirements are as follows.  See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information. 1. Newspaper Advertisement: At least 15 days before the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The legal advertisement shall include: • Date, time, and location of the hearing; • Application number and project name; • PUD name and ordinance number; • Proposed permitted use; and • Whether the use will be approved or affirmed by the Hearing Examiner; and • Description of location. Public Hearing 1. The Hearing Examiner or the BZA shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing. See Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code for the Office of the Hearing Examiner procedures. Decision maker The Hearing Examiner or the BZA. If the PUD ordinance language identifies the BZA or the Planning Director (or other similar County staff) as the authority to determine a use is comparable, compati ble, and consistent, a Staff Report will be presented to the Hearing Examiner or the BZA for approval of the Comparable Use Determination. Review Process The Planning & Zoning Division will review the application and identify whether additional materials are needed. Staff will prepare a Staff Report to present to the Office of the Hearing Examiner for a decision. Appeal Appeal of a Comparable Use Determination shall be pursuant to Code of Laws and Ordinances section 250-58. Updated 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: A) Comparable Use Determination (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) 1 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\39110.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20190002647 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT In accordance with F.S. Chapter 125.022, this amendment modifies the timeframes and procedural review requirements to processing an application for the approval of a development permit or development order for Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) Designations. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED 4.08.07 SRA Designation ORIGIN Growth Management Department Staff HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 09-09-20 DSAC 08-05-20 DSAC-LDR 12-17-19 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC Approval CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On June 28, 2019, Chapter 2019-165 Laws of Florida was adopted and amended F.S. 125.022 “Development Permits and Orders”. The legislative change established new time limitations and review requirements for an application for approval of a development permit or development order issued by local governments. As stipulated in the statue, the terms “development permit” and “development order” have the same meaning under the Community Planning, F.S.163.3164 (15) and (16), however, building permits are specifically excluded from the new limitations and requirements. See Exhibit A below. Currently, the application review process for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Designation is set forth in LDC section 4.08.07 E. The SRA application requires a master plan that identifies land uses, number of dwelling units, and leasable retail and/or office square footage. It includes a development document, reports on public facilities impact and economic assessment, provision for school concurrency when there are residential uses, and any SSA Designated Credits. Therefore, an SRA Designation meets the state’s definition of a development permit. The new statutory process requires, within 30 days after receiving an application for approval, the County to issue a letter indicating all required information has been submitted and the application is deemed complete or advise the applicant additional information is required and cite any particular areas that are deficient. If the application is deficient, the applicant has up to 30 days to address and submit the required information. Within 180 days, after the County has deemed the application complete, the County must act to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development permit for applications that require final action through a quasi-judicial hearing or public hearing. The County may request, and the applicant can agree or not agree to waive the time limitation. In addition, when reviewing the application, the County may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writing. Further, before the third request for additional information is made, the County must offer a meeting with the applicant to resolve any outstanding issues. Because the SRA application review process must be in accordance with the requirements of F.S.125.022, this amendment removes LDC sections 4.08.07 E.3,4,5 and 6. The proposed amendment adds text to comply with the time limitations and procedural review requirements of F.S.125.022. This is the only LDC section to review 3.A.2.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: B) SRA Designation-Staff Review Timeframes (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) 2 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\39110.docx timeframes in accordance with F.S.125.022. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal impacts associated with this amendment. Operational changes will be as required per F.S. 125.022. GMP CONSISTENCY This LDCA may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. DW EXHIBITS: A) F.S. Chapters 125.022 and 163.3164 (15) and (16). 3.A.2.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: B) SRA Designation-Staff Review Timeframes (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 10.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 4.08.07-SRA Designation 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 E. SRA Application Review Process 6 7 1. Pre-Application Conference with County Staff: Prior to the submission of a formal 8 application for SRA designation, the applicant shall attend a pre-application 9 conference with the County Manager or his designee and other county staff, 10 agencies, and officials involved in the review and processing of such applications 11 and related materials. If an SRA designation application will be filed concurrent 12 with an SSA application, only one pre-application conference shall be required. 13 This pre-application conference should address, but not be limited to, such 14 matters as: 15 16 a. Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies 17 of the GMP; 18 19 b. Consideration of suitability criteria described in LDC sSection 4.08.07 20 A.1. and other standards of this Section; 21 22 c. SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA 23 District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are 24 directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands; 25 26 d. Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient 27 Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses, and; 28 29 e. Consideration of impacts, including environmental and public 30 infrastructure impacts. 31 32 2. Application Package Submittal, and Processing Fees, and Review. The required 33 number of SRA Applications and the associated processing fee shall be 34 submitted to the County Manager or his designee. The contents of said 35 application package shall be in accordance with LDC sSection 4.08.07 D. The 36 review and approval of the application shall be in accordance with section 37 125.022, Florida Statutes. 38 39 3. Application Deemed Sufficient for Review. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the 40 SRA Application, the County manager or his designee shall notify the applicant 41 in writing that the application is deemed sufficient for agency review or advise 42 what additional information is needed to find the application sufficient. If required, 43 the applicant shall submit additional information. Within twenty (20) days of 44 receipt of the additional information, the County Manager or his designee shall 45 notify the applicant in writing that the application is deemed sufficient, or, what 46 additional or revised information is required. If necessary, the County Manager 47 shall again inform the applicant in writing of information needed, and the 48 timeframe outlined herein shall occur until the application is found sufficient for 49 review. 50 3.A.2.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: B) SRA Designation-Staff Review Timeframes (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 10.docx 1 4. Review by County Reviewing Agencies: Once the SRA application is deemed 2 sufficient, the County Manager or his designee will distribute it to specific County 3 review staff. 4 5 5. Staff Review. With in sixty (60) days of receipt of a sufficient application, County 6 staff shall review the submittal documents and provide comments, questions, and 7 clarification items to the applicant. If deemed necessary by County staff or the 8 applicant, a meeting shall be held to address outstanding issues and confirm 9 public hearing dates. 10 11 6. Staff Report. Within ninety (90) days from the receipt of a sufficient application, 12 County staff shall prepare a written report containing their review findings and a 13 recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial. This timeframe 14 may be extended upon agreement of County staff and the applicant. 15 16 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 17 3.A.2.b Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: B) SRA Designation-Staff Review Timeframes (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – F.S. Chapters 125.022 and 163.3164 (15) and (16) 5 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 10.docx F.S. Chapter 125.022 Development permits and orders. (1) Within 30 days after receiving an application for approval of a development permit or development order, a county must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information is submitted or specifying with particularity any areas that are deficient. If the application is deficient, the applicant has 30 days to address the deficiencies by submitting the required additional information. Within 120 days after the county has deemed the application complete, or 180 da ys for applications that require final action through a quasi-judicial hearing or a public hearing, the county must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for a development permit or development order. Both parties may agree to a reasonable request for an extension of time, particularly in the event of a force majeure or other extraordinary circumstance. An approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application for a development permit or development order must include written findings supporting the county’s decision. The timeframes contained in this subsection do not apply in an area of critical state concern, as designated in s. 380.0552. (2) When reviewing an application for a development permit or development order that is certified by a professional listed in s. 403.0877, a county may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writing. Before a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. Except as provided in subsection (5), if the applicant believes the request for additional information is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the county, at the applicant’s request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial. (3) When a county denies an application for a development permit or development order, the county shall give written notice to the applicant. The notice must include a citation to the applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial of the permit or order. (4) As used in this section, the terms “development permit” and “development order” have the same meaning as in s. 163.3164, but do not include building permits. (5) For any development permit application filed with the county after July 1, 2012, a county may not require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit or development order that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit before the county action on the local development permit. (6) Issuance of a development permit or development order by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or un dertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. A county shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of a development permit and shall include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. (7) This section does not prohibit a county from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits may apply. F.S. 163.3164 Community Planning Act; definitions. As used in this act: * * * * * * * * * * * * * (15) “Development order” means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit. (16) “Development permit” includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3.A.2.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: B) SRA Designation-Staff Review Timeframes (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) 1 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\39107.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20190002818 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment clarifies the calculation of density for single-family, two- family or duplex dwelling units and multi-family units, on legal non- conforming lots of record in the RMF-6 District. It further clarifies the definition for non-conforming lots of record and lot of record. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 1.08.00 Definitions 9.03.03 Types of Nonconformities ORIGIN Growth Management Department HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC TBD DSAC 09-06-20 DSAC-LDR 06-18-20 12-17-19 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC Approval CCPC TBD BACKGROUND This amendment seeks to clarify how to resolve the calculation of the number of dwelling units, for legally platted non-conforming lots of record in the RMF-6 zoning district. Since the adoption of Ordinances 74-12 and 13 (Coastal Area) and 74-14 and 15 (Immokalee Area), the interior minimum lot area standards for single-family, two-family or duplex, and multi-family dwelling units has changed over time. The provision to allow an additional unit when the calculation of allowable density results in a fractional unit of .50 or greater has also changed over time and has been problematic for staff to resolve given prior administrative staff memorandums (See Exhibit A). This amendment shall reduce staff time in the determination of the non-conforming lots of record that may be entitled for an additional unit based on the density calculation of a fractional unit of 0.50 or greater for single family, two-family or duplex dwelling units. It clarifies that the minimum lot area required to support a two-family or duplex dwelling unit is 9,750 square feet or greater for non-conforming lots, provided an agreement for deed was executed prior to the adoption of Ordinance 74-42. Additionally, staff recognized single family dwelling units could be constructed on legal non-conforming lots smaller than 6,500 square feet provided an agreement for deed was executed prior to July 1, 1998. This is the effective date of Ordinance 98-63 which had increased the minimum lot size from 6,000 square feet to 6,500 square feet. The amendment does not alter the minimum setback requirements which still have to be met. The definitions for “Lot of Record” and “Nonconforming Lots of Record” are also changed to clarify that the agreement for deeds are relative only to the “former” Coastal Area Planning District and Immokalee Area Planning District which had been established respectively by Ordinances 76-30 and 74-15. On January 5, 1982 these zoning regulations and Planning Districts where repealed when the Board adopted Ordinance 82 -02, the unified zoning ordinance for the unincorporated area of the County. Further, the reference date of “prior to May 1, 1979” is deleted as it was an incorrect reference which referenced Ordinance 79-29. Lastly, a cross reference to LDC section 9.03.03 A has been added to the definition of nonconforming lots of record. 3.A.2.c Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: C) RMF-6 Density Calculations and Definition for Non-Conforming Lots of Record (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 2 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\39107.docx FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The subject LDC amendment pertains to permitted density for non-conforming lots in the RMF-6 zoning district. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) all contain provisions for determining eligible density for rezoning property; that is, they regulate zoning density in context of density allowed by the Future Land Use Map designation when a zoning change is sought. However, they do not regulate density permitted by existing zoning districts; this LDCA will not increase density beyond the present 6 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, staff concludes this petition may be found consistent with the FLUE, IAMP and GGAMP. EXHIBITS: A) Ordinance Historical Table 3.A.2.c Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: C) RMF-6 Density Calculations and Definition for Non-Conforming Lots of Record (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 07.docx Amend the LDC as follows: LDC 1.08.00 Definitions 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 Lot of record: A lot of record is (1) a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the public 3 records of Collier County, Florida; or (2) a lot, parcel, or the least fractional unit of land or water 4 under common ownership which has limited fixed boundaries, described by metes and bounds 5 or other specific legal description, the description of which has been so recorded in the public 6 records of Collier County, Florida, on or before the effective date of this LDC; or (3) a lot, parcel, 7 or the least fractional unit of land or water under common ownership which has limited fixed 8 boundaries, for which an agreement for deed was executed prior to October 14, 1974, if within 9 the former Coastal Area p Planning d District, and January 5, 1982, if presently within or 10 previously within the former Immokalee Area p Planning d District prior to May 1, 1979. 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 Nonconforming lots of record: Any lawful lot or parcel which was recorded, or for which an 13 agreement for deed was executed prior to October 14, 1974, if within the former Coastal Area 14 Planning District, and January 5, 1982, if within the former Immokalee Area Planning District, 15 which lot or parcel does not meet the minimum width or lot area requirements as a result of the 16 passage of this Code shall be considered as a legal nonconforming lot and shall be eligible for 17 the issuance of a building permit provided all the other requirements of this Code and the 18 Florida Statues are met. This definition also includes any lot or parcel made nonconforming by a 19 rezoning initiated by Collier County to implement the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance Number 20 90-23 (1990). For nonconforming lots of record within the RMF-6 zoning district, see LDC 21 section 9.03.03 A. 22 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 23 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 24 9.03.03 - Types of Nonconformities 25 A. Nonconforming lots of record. In any district, any permitted or permissible structure may 26 be erected, expanded, or altered on any lot of record at the effective date of adoption or 27 relevant amendment to the LDC. 28 1. Except as provided herein, the minimum yard requirements in any residential 29 district except RMF-6 shall be as for the most similar district to which such lot of 30 record most closely conforms in area, width and permitted use, except that when 31 possible the greater of any yard requirement in either district shall apply, and 32 except when specifically provided for in the district regulations. 33 a. Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district: 34 i. Front Yard: 40 feet. 35 ii. Side Yard: 10 percent of lot width, not to exceed 20 feet on each 36 side. 37 iii. Rear Yard: 30 feet. 38 b. Estates (E) zoning district: See LDC section 2.03.01 for setbacks. 39 c. RMF-12: 40 i. Single-family dwellings revert to RSF-6 standards. 41 ii. Duplex and multi-family dwellings revert to RMF-6 standards. 42 3.A.2.c Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: C) RMF-6 Density Calculations and Definition for Non-Conforming Lots of Record (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 07.docx d. Mobile Home (MH) zoning district: 1 i. Front Yard: 10 feet. 2 ii. Side Yard: 5 feet or zero (0) foot. Where zero is used, the opposite 3 yard must maintain a minimum of 10 feet. 4 iii. Rear Yard: 8 feet. 5 iv. Waterfront Yard (Side or Rear): 10 feet. 6 2. The minimum side yard requirement in any commercial or industrial district shall 7 be equal to the height of the proposed principal structure, or the minimum side 8 yard requirement in the district, whichever is lesser. 9 3. Nonconforming through lots, which are nonconforming due to inadequate lot depth, 10 may have a reduced front yard along the local road frontage. The reduction shall 11 be computed at the rate of fifteen (15) percent of the depth of the lot, as measured 12 from edge of the right-of-way. Front yards along the local road shall be developed 13 with structures having an average front yard of not less than six (6) feet; no building 14 thereafter erected shall project beyond the average line. The reduced front yard 15 setback shall be prohibited along a collector or arterial roadway. 16 4. When two or more adjacent legal nonconforming lots of record are either combined 17 under a single folio or parcel number for taxing purposes by the property 18 appraiser's office, or combined as a single parcel by recording the previously 19 separate non-conforming lots into one legal description, neither or both of these 20 actions will prohibit the owner or future owners from subsequently splitting the 21 parcel into two or more folio or parcel numbers for tax purposes, or severing the 22 parcels into their former legal descriptions as legal nonconforming lots of record 23 according to the original legal description(s) at the time the property was 24 recognized as legal nonconforming. Prior to any two or more adjacent legal non-25 conforming lots being combined for development, a legally binding document must 26 be recorded to reflect a single parcel with a unified legal description. Once such a 27 document has been recorded to amend the legal description and a development 28 permit has been approved by the County for development as that unified parcel, 29 the property cannot be split or subdivided except as may then be allowed by this 30 Code. 31 5. Nonconforming Corner Lots. Corner lots of record which existed prior to the date 32 of adoption of Collier County Ordinance No. 82-2 [January 5, 1982] and which do 33 not meet minimum lot width or area requirements established in the LDC, shall be 34 required to provide only one full depth front yard. The full depth front yard 35 requirement shall apply to the front yard which has the shorter or shortest street 36 frontage. The setback requirement for the remaining front yard(s) may be reduced 37 to 50 percent of the full front yard setback requirement for that district, exclusive of 38 any road right-of-way or road right-of-way easement. For setbacks for Estates (E) 39 zoning district, see LDC section 2.03.01. 40 6. RMF-6 Districts. A two family or duplex dwelling unit may be constructed on any 41 legal non-conforming lot of record provided the minimum lot area is 9,750 square 42 feet or greater and an agreement for deed was executed prior to October 14, 1974 43 to establish the lot. 44 45 3.A.2.c Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: C) RMF-6 Density Calculations and Definition for Non-Conforming Lots of Record (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 07.docx A single family dwelling unit may be constructed on any legal non-conforming lot 1 of record provided the lot area is less than 6,500 square feet and an agreement 2 for deed was executed prior to July 1, 1998 to establish the lot. 3 4 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3.A.2.c Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: C) RMF-6 Density Calculations and Definition for Non-Conforming Lots of Record (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Exhibit A – Ordinance Historical Table 6 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 07.docx INTERIOR MINIMUM LOT AREA Ordinance Number Zoning District Dwelling Type Fractional Unit Entitled Single-Family Two-Family Multi-Family 74-12 and 13 (Coastal Area) MF-1 (SF and 2F) 6,600 N/A MF-2 (SF,2F, MF) 8,400 MF-3 (2F and MF) N/A 12,000 RSF-4 8,500 Not Applicable (N/A) RSF-5 7,500 RSF-6 6,000 74-14 and 15 (Immokalee Area) MF-1 6,600 N/A MF-1A MF-2 6,600 MF-2A 6,000 RSF-4 6,000 N/A 74-42 (Effective Date 10- 14-74) RM-1 (2F and MF) N/A 7,000 RM-1A 7,500 RSF-4 RM-2 N/A 1 net acre (4,500 s.f. /unit) 75-36 (Effective Date 9-2- 75) RM-1 (2F and MF) N/A 7,000 RM-1A 7,500 Non-Conforming LOR (6,500 s.f.) MF RM-2 N/A 1 net acre (4,500 s.f. /unit) 76-30 (Effective Date 7-2- 76) RM-1 (2F and MF) N/A 7,000 RM-1A 7,500 Non-Conforming LOR (6,500 s.f.) MF RM-2 N/A Non-Conforming lots within platted subdivisions prior to 10-14-74: lot area in accordance with recorded plat. 1 net acre (4,500 s.f./unit) 82-02 (Effective Date 1-11-82) (Adoption Date 1-05-82) RMF-6 7,260 s.f. each dwelling unit RSF-5 Non-Conforming LOR Yes 6,000 s.f. 6,500 s.f. 91-102 (Effective Date 11- 13-91) RMF-6 7,260 s.f. each dwelling unit Yes RSF-6 Non-Conforming LOR 6,000 s.f. 6,500 s.f. 92-73 (Effective Date 10- 12-92) RMF-6 7,260 s.f. each dwelling unit MF and Townhomes 1 acre-not to exceed 6 per gross acre RSF-6 6,000 N/A Non-Conforming LOR Yes 6,000 s.f. 6,500 s.f. 98-63 (Effective Date 7-1-98) RMF-6 6,500 12,000 5,500 s.f. per unit Deleted 99-06 (Effective Date 2-1-99) RMF-6 6,500 12,000 5,500 s.f. per unit Non-Conforming LOR (6,500 s.f.) Yes 04-41 (Effective Date 7-28- 2004) RMF-6 6,500 12,000 5,500 s.f. per unit Yes, can round up 3.A.2.c Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: C) RMF-6 Density Calculations and Definition for Non-Conforming Lots of Record (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20190002819 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment establishes submittal requirements, criteria for review, and an approval process for temporary special events that take place in or use County owned or maintained rights-of-way. It further allows for the temporary placement of signage within rights-of-way. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED 5.04.05 Temporary Events 5.04.06 Temporary Signs 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions ORIGIN Growth Management Department HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 09-09-20 DSAC 08-05-20 DSAC-LDR 06-18-20 12-17-19 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval with Recommendation DSAC Approval CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On October 22, 2019 the Board directed staff to amend the LDC to establish a temporary use permit and approval process for special events that require the use and temporary road closure of County owned or maintained rights- of-way and allow applications for such events to be processed until the LDC new standards are adopted. See exhibit “A”, the executive summary and initial proposed LDC text. Since the Board’s directive, staff has identified the following changes and clarifications: • In LDC section 5.04.05 A.5.c.i, the words “development standards” are replaced with applicable “requirements”. • In LDC section 5.04.05 A.5.i, the word “deputies” is replaced with “law enforcement officers”. • In LDC section 5.04.06 B.1.e, the word “directional” is replaced with “temporary” and “to promote tourism” is added as another benefit to the Community. • In LDC section 5.04.06 A.3.a, temporary signs are currently prohibited for placement within any public right-of-way. This standard is amended to allow for an exception when temporary signs are permitted in accordance with the new provisions of the proposed amendment. • In LDC section 5.04.05 A.5, a new subsection is added to assure compliance with the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and FDOT’s Roadway and Traffic Design standard plans for the location, placement and maintenance of traffic signs associated with the event. • Lastly, in LDC section 10.03.06, the mail notification requirement is changed so the mailed notice to be sent is determined by the right-of-way being impacted rather than from the radius of the event. The proposed standards are designed to provide uniform requirements for temporary special events requiring the use of rights-of-way. Rights-of-way permit forms shall be updated accordingly. 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation on 12-17-19: • Eliminate the first sentence that states “Any event which necessitates the use of the public rights-of-way of an arterial or collector roadway….” or reword, since any event can capture everything such as a group of bicycle riders, high school long distance foot race and yard sales which could use the right-of-way. • Regulate only those events that would cause excessive congestion, maintenance of vehicular traffic and necessitate a lane or road closure or cause odor, noise, or lighting impacts. • Clarify what the difference is for an event, directional, and entrance sign for the event. • The term “neighborhood”, as applied to the mailed notification area is overreaching and creates an unnecessary expense to include all properties within one-quarter mile radius. The notification should be limited to only those property owners and homeowner associations abutting the right-of-way being impacted for the event. Additional DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendations on 06-18-20: • Consistently capitalize or use a lower case for the word “County”. o “County” is capitalized throughout the text. • Consider changing the reference from “Fire District” to “Fire Marshall”. o No change to the text, since “Fire District” is consistent with other provisions within the LDC. • Consider increasing the temporary sign area from 24 inches by 32 inches to 2’ x 3’ since it is the standard size for sign vendors and the sign board would not be cut by 6 inches. o The right of way permit application for the placement of temporary directional signs limits the sign dimension to 24 inches by 32 inches. This standard has been applied since 1997. Staff has no objection to the change since LDC section 5.06.04 F.9 allows on premise directional signs to be no greater than 6 square feet. • Clarify mailed notices will be sent out 15 days in advance of first advertised public hearing. o No change to the text, since the administrative code requires all mailed notices for advertised public hearings to be sent out 15 days in advance. • Make the FDOT application requirements more user friendly by narrowing the applicable FDOT maps and provide an informational check list sheet for local and collector roadways. o Staff is currently in the process of revising the Application for Special Events form. The pertinent FDOT Standard Plan Index sheet for state roadways, marked maps and checklist for the placement of appropriate signage shall be included. • The recommendations of the DSAC subcommittee members have been considered and the yellow highlighted text represent the changes since the Board’s direction. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There shall be an added expense for the applicant to comply with the mailed notice requirement and for any special event reviewed by the HEX or Board. GMP CONSISTENCY The various Elements of the Growth Management Plan do not regulate the use of rights-of-way. Therefore, this LDCA may be found consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Executive Summary 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 5.04.05 – Temporary Events 1 2 A. Special Events. This section establishes the location and development standards for 3 special events, including temporary market events, sales and promotional events, and sports, 4 religious, and community events, and events in County rights-of-way. 5 6 1. Standards applicable to all special events. 7 8 a. Sanitary facilities shall be provided for the duration of the event. Proof 9 of consent by business management shall be provided if permanent 10 business restrooms are to be used. 11 12 b. Safe ingress and egress shall be provided to the site, including 13 emergency access measures. 14 15 c. A maximum of 25 percent of the vehicular use area may be occupied or 16 otherwise rendered unusable by the placement of temporary structures, 17 equipment, and merchandise associated with the special event, unless 18 equivalent additional off -site parking is provided. 19 20 d. The minimum required number of handicapped parking spaces for the 21 site pursuant to LDC section 4.05.07 shall not be used for the special 22 event. 23 24 e. In support of the special event, temporary structures, equipment, 25 merchandise, and signage may be placed on the site subject to the 26 approval of a site diagram depicting the locations of principal structures, 27 parking, temporary structures, and signage. 28 29 i. Temporary signage shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in 30 LDC section 5.04.06. 31 32 ii. All temporary structures, equipment, merchandise, or placement 33 and parking of vehicles in conjunction with the special event shall 34 be located in a parking lot or open space at least 10 fee t from the 35 property line, except events in County rights-of-way that are 36 approved in accordance with LDC section 5.04.05 A.5. All 37 temporary structures, equipment, merchandise, or placement 38 and parking of vehicles in conjunction with the special event and 39 shall be removed at the conclusion of each event. 40 41 iii. A building permit may be required for the erection of temporary 42 tents or structures. 43 44 f. See Collier County Code of Laws Sections 118 -102 and 118-131 to 118-45 155, or successor sections, for addit ional standards related to solid 46 waste and recycling collection. 47 48 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx g. No sales, advertising, or other activity related to the special event shall 1 be permitted in the public right -of-way in accordance with Collier County 2 Code of Laws Section 26-1, or successor sections, unless approved in 3 accordance with LDC section 5.04.05 A.5 . 4 5 h. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedural 6 requirements for special events . 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 5. Events in County Rights-of-Way. 11 12 a. A temporary use permit shall be required for events which take place in any 13 County owned or maintained rights-of-way. 14 15 b. The temporary use permit application shall be submitted at least 120 days 16 prior to an event that requires Hearing Examiner or Board approval or 60 17 days prior to an event that requires administrative approval. 18 19 c. At a minimum, temporary use permit applications for events shall be 20 reviewed by the following Collier County departments, divisions, and 21 outside agencies: 22 23 i. Collier County Growth Management Department shall determine 24 compliance with all applicable requirements. 25 26 ii. Collier County Sherriff’s Office shall determine whether any 27 additional security or police service is necessary. 28 29 iii. The applicable Fire District shall determine whether any additional 30 fire service is required. 31 32 iv. Emergency Medical Services shall determine whether any 33 additional medical services are required. 34 35 v. Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall determine 36 whether additional crowd control is required. 37 38 vi. Collier County Risk Management shall determine whether 39 additional insurance or bonds are required for the event. 40 41 d. Any event that necessitates the use of the right-of-way of any arterial or 42 collector roadway, or any event which necessitates closing all or part of any 43 County owned or maintained right-of-way between the hours of 7:00 AM 44 through 9:00 AM or 3:30 PM through 6:30 PM shall require review and 45 approval at a public hearing of the Hearing Examiner or Board of County 46 Commissioners. Public notice shall be in accordance with LDC section 47 10.03.06 Z. Any appeal from a Hearing Examiner decision shall be to the 48 Board of Zoning Appeals. 49 50 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx e. Events that do not require a public hearing as set forth in LDC section 1 5.04.05 A.5.d above, shall be reviewed by the County Manager or 2 designee. Any appeal from an administrative determination shall be to the 3 Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, as applicable. 4 5 f. Criteria for review: 6 7 i. The applicant has complied with all required criteria on the permit 8 application form. 9 10 ii. Sufficient support personnel, including certified crowd managers 11 are available to assist in the conduct of the event. 12 13 iii. Adequate support facilities are available for the event including, but 14 not being limited to, parking, refuse collection, sanitation, and 15 lighting. 16 17 iv. No conflict exists with the requested event and other approved and 18 previously scheduled events. 19 20 v. Crowd size has been determined to be a manageable size for the 21 proposed event and site. 22 23 vi. The event is generally compatible with the character of the 24 surrounding area. 25 26 vii. The applicant complied with the terms and conditions of any 27 previously approved permits. 28 29 g. Applications shall include a site plan and route map that shows the 30 proposed route of the event, areas of assembly or dispersal, parking areas, 31 location of temporary signs, maintenance of traffic signs (such as detour 32 signs, barricades, or cones), stationing of any crowd managers, officers, or 33 flag persons, temporary detours to be utilized by the public, and all 34 temporary construction or structures (stages, booths, water and toilet 35 facilities, etc.). 36 37 h. The placement and location of maintenance of traffic signs shall be in 38 accordance with the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 39 as amended, and FDOT’s Roadway and Traffic Design standard plans. 40 41 i. Certified crowd control managers shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 42 one per 250 participants or attendees. Hiring of off-duty law enforcement 43 officers shall satisfy the requirement for certified crowd control managers. 44 45 j. The County Manager or designee may revoke a temporary use permit if it 46 is determined that any condition or stipulation has been violated, that the 47 approval was in error or based on inaccurate information, or that the use 48 negatively impacts the surrounding uses or poses a safety hazard, or 49 otherwise is negatively impacting the safety, health or welfare of the 50 general public. 51 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 3 5.04.06 - Temporary Signs 4 5 A. A temporary use permit is required for the placement of any temporary ground sign, snipe 6 sign, or banner that is not otherwise lawfully permitted. Temporary signs shall be allowed 7 subject to the restrictions imposed by this section. 8 9 1. The County Manager or designee may issue temporary sign permits, classified by 10 use, as necessary to adequately address each of the temporary signs described 11 within this section. For each permit type the nonrefundable fee shall be as 12 established in the fee schedule for the services performed by the Growth 13 Management Division. 14 15 2. Temporary signs and banners shall not be erected prior to obtaining the 16 appropriate temporary use permit and shall be removed on or before the expiration 17 date of the temporary use permit authorizing said sign. 18 19 3. Standards applicable to all temporary signs. 20 21 a. Temporary signs and banners permitted by authority of this section shall 22 not be placed within any public right-of-way, except when an event in the 23 right-of-way is approved and a temporary use permit is issued in 24 accordance with LDC sections 5.04.05 A.5 and 5.04.06 B.1. 25 26 i. Sign placement shall not obstruct or impair the safe visibility, 27 ingress, or egress of pedestrians and motorists. 28 29 b. The occupant of a lot, parcel, multi-tenant parcel or mixed use building, 30 may display 1 on-site temporary sign; a second such sign may be displayed 31 on a property having a second street frontage. 32 33 c. Absent specific standards to the contrary, temporary signs shall be located 34 onsite and no closer than 10 feet to any property line. 35 36 d. Temporary signs and banners used on nonresidential or mixed use 37 properties shall not exceed 32 square feet in sign area or 8 feet in height. 38 39 e. Temporary signs used on residentially zoned properties shall not exceed 4 40 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. 41 42 B. Temporary Sign Permit Types and Standards. 43 44 1. Temporary Events. A temporary use permit for a temporary event, issued per LDC 45 section 5.04.05., shall allow for the placement of temporary signage as classified 46 and regulated herein. 47 48 a. A "sign only" temporary use permit may be issued for temporary ground 49 signs and banners used to promote a sale, event, or activity not requiring 50 a temporary event temporary use permit per LDC section 5.04.05 of this 51 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx Code. Such uses include, however are not limited to, study or course 1 offerings, vacation camp, non-public indoor events, and sales events 2 occurring within the confines of an established business. 3 4 i. "Sign only" temporary use permits will be allowed, regulated, and 5 enforced as special event signs. 6 7 ii. Time limits for "sign only" temporary use permits shall be the same 8 as those for special events, see LDC subsection 5.04.05 A.3. 9 10 b. Special event signs. 11 12 i. Special event signs shall be erected not more than 15 calendar 13 days prior to the supporting event and shall be removed within 7 14 calendar days after the event has taken place. 15 16 c. Seasonal sales signs. 17 18 d. Garage sales signs. Two temporary signs may be placed on the property 19 where the sale is being conducted. 20 21 e. Temporary signs for events in rights-of-way. 22 23 i. Signs may display the event, name, date, location and a directional 24 arrow pointing to the direction of the event only. 25 26 ii. No sales, advertisement, or commercial message is allowed on 27 signs. 28 29 iii. Maximum dimension of 2 feet by 3 feet. 30 31 iv. No signs shall be erected more than seven days prior to a 32 scheduled event, and all signs must be removed within three 33 business days after the event completion. 34 35 v. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way medians. 36 37 vi. No signs shall be attached to traffic control signs or other authorized 38 highway signs and impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 39 40 vii. Limited to six signs within a five-mile radius of the event boundaries. 41 However, events recognized at a regular meeting of the Board of 42 County Commissioners to benefit the Community and promote 43 tourism are limited to up to 40 signs. 44 45 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 46 47 10.03.06 – Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions 48 49 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 51 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx Z. Events in Rights-of-Way, pursuant to LDC section 5.04.05 A.5. 1 2 1. The following advertised public hearing is required: 3 4 a. One Hearing Examiner or BCC hearing. 5 6 2. The following notice procedures are required: 7 8 a. Newspaper advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in 9 accordance with F.S. 125.66. 10 11 b. Mailed notice prior to the first advertised public hearing. For the purposes 12 of this application, all mailed notices shall be sent to property owners, 13 neighborhoods and business associations within one-quarter mile of the 14 County right-of-way impacted by the event. 15 16 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 17 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 11 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 12 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 13 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 14 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 15 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 16 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) Exhibit A – Executive Summary 17 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Special Events in ROW (PL20190002819)\Drafts\LDCA 5.04.05 5.04.06 10.03.06 Special Events in ROW 08-05-20 CCPC.docx 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: D) Special Events in Rights-of-Way (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) 1 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\39106.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20200000268 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment shall extend the effective time period for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) early entry bonus credits from sending lands in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts ORIGIN Growth Management Department HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 09-06-20 DSAC 08-05-20 DSAC-LDR 06-18-20 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC Approval CCPC TBD BACKGROUND This amendment is a companion amendment to the Growth Management Plan Amendment for the Transfer of Development Rights Early Entry Bonus Extension PL 20190002635. On February 25, 2020 (the Transmittal Hearing), the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity an amendment to the Growth Management Plan (GMP) that will extend the effective date of the TDR early entry bonus credits from March 5, 2004 to September 27, 2022. Final action by the Board (the adoption hearing) is anticipated to occur within the next four months and b y ordinance the Future Land Use Element will be amended and extend the availability of early entry TDR bonus credits for properties within the RFMU District. The purpose of this LDC amendment is to be consistent with the GMP amendment and extend the time period to September 27, 2022 for early entry TDR bonus credits. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY To be provided by Comprehensive Planning Staff. EXHIBITS: None 3.A.2.e Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: E) TDR Early Entry Bonus Credits (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT 2 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 06.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2.03.07 – Overlay Zoning Districts 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 D. Special Treatment Overlay (ST). 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 4. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 c. TDR credits from RFMU sending lands: General Provisions 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 ii. Creation of TDR Bonus credits. TDR Bonus credits shall only be 11 generated from RFMU sending land property from which TDR 12 credits have been severed. The three types of TDR Bonus credits 13 are as follows: Early Entry Bonus credits 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 c) Early Entry Bonus credits. Early Entry Bonus credits shall 16 be generated at a rate of 1 additional credit for each TDR 17 credit that is severed from RFMU sending land for the period 18 from March 5, 2004, until March September 27, 2012 2022, 19 unless further extended by resolution by the Board of 20 County Commissioners. Early Entry Bonus credits shall 21 cease to be generated after the termination of this early 22 entry bonus period. However, Early Entry Bonus credits may 23 continue to be used to increase density in RFMU and non- 24 RFMU Receiving Lands after the termination of the Early 25 Entry Bonus period. 26 27 * * * * * * * * * * * * 28 f. Procedures applicable to the severance and redemption of TDR credits 29 and the generation of TDR Bonus credits from RFMU sending lands. 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 ii. In order to facilitate the County's monitoring and regulation of the 32 TDR Program, the County shall serve as the central registry for 33 all TDR severances, transfers (sales) and redemptions, as well 34 as maintain a public listing of TDR credits available for sale 35 along with a listing of purchasers seeking TDR c redits. No TDR 36 credit generated from RFMU sending lands may be utilized to 37 increase density in any area unless the following procedures are 38 complied with in full. 39 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 40 b) TDR Bonus credits shall not be used to increase density in 41 either non-RFMU receiving areas or RFMU receiving lands 42 until a TDR credit certificate reflecting the TDR Bonus 43 credits is obtained from the County and recorded. 44 45 1) Early Entry Bonus credits. All TDR credit 46 certificates issued by the County for the period from 47 3.A.2.e Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: E) TDR Early Entry Bonus Credits (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) DRAFT 3 C:\Users\RichardHenderlong\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\391 06.docx the effective date of this provision until March 27, 1 2015 September 27, 2022, unless further extended 2 by resolution by the Board of County 3 Commissioners, shall include one Early Entry 4 Bonus credit or fractional Early Entry Bonus credit 5 for each TDR credit or fractional TDR credit 6 reflected on the TDR credit certificate. Where TDR 7 credits were severed from March 5, 2004, until the 8 effective date of this provision, the County shall, 9 upon receipt of a copy of the TDR credit certificate 10 reflecting those previously severed TDR credits, 11 issue a TDR credit certificate entitling Early Entry 12 Bonus credits equal in number to the previously 13 severed TDR credits. 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 16 3.A.2.e Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: E) TDR Early Entry Bonus Credits (13228 : 2. LDC Amendments Ordinance 04-41 Item 9.A.2) 09/09/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 6.1 Item Summary: August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 09/09/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Patricia Mill 08/27/2020 11:54 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/27/2020 11:54 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 08/27/2020 1:26 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/27/2020 1:44 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/27/2020 5:06 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 08/27/2020 10:16 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/31/2020 5:21 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/09/2020 5:05 PM 6.1 Packet Pg. 61 August 20, 2020 Page 1 of 40 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 20, 2020 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: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea 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 6.1.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 2 of 40 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the August 20, 2020, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm way over here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Joe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those in command of the electronics this morning. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Secretary. All right. Addenda to the agenda. Ray, would you lead us through that, because we've got some continuances. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. There are three items on today's agenda that are being continued to the September 17th Planning Commission. Those are Agenda Items 9A5, 9A6, and 9A7, and that's the only changes I have for today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So we can do that with one motion? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to continue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Move to continue those three items to the 17th; is that your motion? COMMISSIONER FRY: Three items, yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ray. Any other addenda? 6.1.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 3 of 40 MR. BELLOWS: Nope. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We come to up and coming meetings and the potential for Planning Commission absences. And we've got potentially four meetings set up for the month of September starting with September 3rd. That's going to be a short meeting. The morning of September 3rd we'll talk about the RLSA amendments. Does anyone know if they cannot be in attendance for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Since we've got a full house today, then barring any unforeseen circumstances, we'll have everyone there for that. The next one is September 9, and that's Wednesday evening at 5:05 p.m. to discuss RL -- excuse me -- LDC amendments. Anyone know that they cannot be -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, yes, prior engagements for coaching youth sports. I will not be able to be here in the evening time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then we will have a quorum for that as well. Then September 17, we will have a regular agenda. Anybody know that they cannot be here on that date? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Excellent. Then there's some question about September 18. Is Anita in the room? Ms. Jenkins, I'm going to ask you to sort of give a status report on your efforts to poll the group and what you recommend that we do. MS. JENKINS: Good, good. Anita Jenkins, interim zoning director, for the record. What we're looking at is the RLSA beginning on September 3rd, and we have a full agenda on September 17th. So we wanted to provide you options. So you could have an option to have another meeting on September 18th to continue the RLSA, or we can have the option to continue the RLSA, if needed, on your regular agenda day on September 17th. But we wanted to provide those options to you. The boardroom is available on September 18th if you would like to have another meeting for the purpose of the RLSA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. What is the pleasure of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be available on the 18th. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I will not be available on the 18th. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm iffy for the 18th just because it's two days in a row, and business might not permit that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So I guess the quorum would be questionable then, and we should probably proceed, Anita, as you had suggested earlier this morning. We will continue with the RLSA amendment on the 17th, and to the extent that we can, we'll take up other items after that and just move things back into October. Okay. So it looks like there will be three meetings in the month of September. Thank you very much. All right. Minutes. We have one set of minutes. They are those of July 2, 2020. Are there any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 4 of 40 No further discussion. All those in favor -- all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Any opposition? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: The minutes are approved. Chairman's report. I wasn't going to have anything, but something has occurred to me that maybe is worth saying, so I will, and that has to do with the very important undertaking that we have coming up with the RLSA amendments. Staff's been working on this for a long time; really measured in years. And what's coming to us, to my personal way of thinking, represents a very good work product. But there are some issues -- policy issues, broad planning policy issues, that are really within the purview of this commission. And I won't ask everybody to be well prepared, because you're always well prepared, but please be especially well prepared and give considerable thought to the policy issues that you will discover when you go through the materials on the RLSA. So that's all I have under the Chairman's report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have just a question on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And maybe just for edification with staff, and maybe they can answer. Will that be the staff presentation, or is there a separate consultant that was hired to present some of the changes? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. I'll ask Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Again, Anita Jenkins, interim zoning director. Staff will be presenting, Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So this was not in consultation with anybody that had done the work in the past under contract, then? MS. JENKINS: There was no one under contract for this work. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. JENKINS: But we did have a lot of stakeholder meetings, so they were definitely involved going through the process of the restudy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then from a standpoint -- because I want to make sure that if staff presents, we hear from the property owners and other people impacted as well. Have they been notified? MS. JENKINS: Yes, everyone -- all the stakeholders that have been involved in the process have been notified. So the idea on the 3rd is that staff would make a presentation, and then I'm engaging the others that would like to make a presentation. Some of the environmental groups would like to make a presentation. Some of the landowners would, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, that was my concern with the environmental groups that raised issues about the methods for calculating the impacts, both for sending lands, receiving lands, and all the other issues associated with it. They've been notified, and they're going to be giving their presentations? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. JENKINS: So we hope to have a good schedule for you on that -- on the 3rd for presentations, and then we'll take public comment then as much as we can on that day as well. But 6.1.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 5 of 40 we would like to get through everyone that wants to make a presentation specifically on that day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And we've got a hard stop at noon because the Board of County Commissioners is going to meet, I think, with respect to face masks. Is that -- MS. JENKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we've got to be finished and out of here by noon. Just by way of a heads-up, I will probably have 30 minutes or so of a commentary to offer. I'd like to get it done on that day so as to tee up the thoughts that then we can come back on the 17th and give consideration to everything that's been heard. So we'll try to move it along with as much dispatch as we can, but at noon we're going to have to then continue it to the 17th. Okay. Thank you. Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chairman, just so you know on schedule today -- and I don't know how long we're going to go -- but I need to take a hard break at 2:00 p.m., because I have a phone call I have to make. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm involved in a conference call. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Schmitt. All right. Anything else on that subject? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Consent agenda; we don't have any at this point. ***So then we go to the first two companion items on our agenda this morning. The first one is PL20190000850. This is a proposed small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment seeking to create the Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict, and it is matched up with Companion Item PL20190000154, which is a proposed commercial PUD amendment seeking to increase the intensity of uses of that site and for other purposes. Without objection, we will hear the two companion items together and, of course, vote on them separately. All persons wishing to testify in this matter please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures -- ex parte closures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Mr. Eastman and then just come around clockwise, please. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Conference call with the attorney and applicant, and public materials. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've received materials from staff, I've had meetings with staff, and I had a communication with the representatives of the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich about this item. COMMISSIONER FRY: I need to add communication with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm sorry. Commissioner Schmitt, I didn't hear yours. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. We're ready to proceed. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the applicant can't tell if you can see the PowerPoint. And I'm going by the dark screens as an indicator that, no. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 6 of 40 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I can't see it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Bob and I need help to make sure this is and up running, because I need to see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We need Troy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, good. It's time for a break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there anything that you could start on, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I could probably start on -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Meantime, second call for Troy, please. MR. MULHERE: Bob, he's working on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, he's working on it. Perfect. Never mind, Troy. Five, okay. We're needing a recess. We'll take a five-minute recess for equipment. (A brief recess was had from 9:10 a.m. to 9:21 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to return in session. And we've got significant technical problems, so we're reverting to 20th century technology: overhead projector, known affectionately as the visualizer. And so we'll proceed on that basis. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we good? I don't even know if I introduced myself yet. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. We're here on the two companion items that were discussed or introduced by staff. It's a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a PUD amendment relating to the Bay House PUD. And the team is me -- can you hear me okay? Bob Mulhere is the planner on the project; Norm Trebilcock is our transportation planner; Jim Carr from Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage is our engineer; Tim Turrell is -- I mean, Tim Hall from Turrell Hall is our environmental consultant; Karen Bishop is the project manager; and Russ Weyer did our fiscal analysis. I'm going to basically do the entire presentation. Staff is here -- I mean, my team is here to answer any questions you may have. I have a little additional pressure on this because my -- the person who lives across the street is Pete Tierney, and it's his application. So I need to come out of here with a victory, if at all possible, to make my life go a little bit easier when I get home. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Either that or you're going to need a realtor. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to need a realtor and sell the house. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I'm not sure if you just helped or hurt your odds. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's good to know. I'll never use that line again. But, anyway, the property is up here on the visualizer. It's in orange. It is a currently approved PUD that was approved originally in 1988. When it was approved in 1988, it had the restaurant use and hotel use. At that time the hotel use was 160 units. The Comprehensive Plan that we're now working under and amending, since basically 1989, went to the activity center designations for where commercial activity was supposed to be. And this property was deemed consistent by policy, and the commercial uses were essentially grandfathered in and allowed to remain under that Comprehensive Plan policy. When you look at what are the surrounding uses for the property, you can see that there's commercial basically totally surrounding this property. The property to the left -- where am I? Right here. Hold on a second. I'm upside down. There we go -- is the maintenance for the golf course that's on the south side of the property. But, basically, we have C-4 use immediately to our east. We have the river to the north. Across the street we have the Doubletree Hotel, which is obviously commercial uses. To our south we have the golf course, and then we have the Cooper's Hawk restaurant. So we're consistent as far as the type of uses around us being commercial uses. We are -- and this is the existing Comp Plan designation on the property and what we're asking to change to. As you can see there's an existing activity center at Immokalee Road and U.S. 41 slightly to the south, and you have our property where it's currently located. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 7 of 40 And we are creating a subdistrict because we came back -- I'll give you some more history. When the property was originally approved at 160 hotel rooms, Pete and Bud Negley bought the undeveloped commercial piece of remaining property where the hotel would go. They own the Bay House Restaurant. They had a vision of doing a unique type of a hotel: 50 rooms catering to get-away weddings, larger rooms. That would be the market they would -- they were planning to market to. So we came through and amended the PUD to reduce the density from 160 hotel rooms down to 50 hotel rooms. Pete also has a passion for cooking, and we added a culinary school. He was trained in that. That's why he owns a few restaurants. So we added a 4,500-square-foot cooking room or cooking school for part of the proposed change that -- the vision they had. Fast forward a few years later, life events occur, and the desire to own and operate the boutique hotel that they initially had planned is no longer their desire, so they wanted to go back to the original 160 rooms. Because we were deemed consistent by policy originally and we went down to 50 hotel rooms under your Comprehensive Plan, you're not allowed to rezone the property that's deemed consistent by policy to a more intense use. So clearly to go -- we were going from 50 rooms to 160 rooms. We were now inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because 160 rooms is more than 50, and we had to do a concurrent Growth Management Plan amendment. So that's why you have that subdistrict tagging along with the PUD amendment, to essentially go back to, essentially, what we originally had. So you have -- the current request is for the 160 rooms, to add an assisted living as a potential use if the hotel does not go forward, and to increase the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and then the actual height from 75 feet to 90 feet. The PUD will also include a couple of conditions that don't exist in the existing PUD. One, we're going to go ahead and introduce the trip cap of 173 two-way p.m. peak-hour net trips. We were asked by your utility staff to eliminate a private pump station and force main and connect it to new sewer facilities and to have a requirement that should an assisted living facility be constructed or a facility that would be licensed to fall under rules by the Agency for Healthcare Administration, it shall be -- it shall be noted that the facility went under a mandatory evacuation order and shall be responsible for its own evacuation, transportation, sheltering, re-entry, staff recovery, and restoration without burden to the county for services and sheltering. Dan Summers, who's your emergency services -- or Emergency Management director, asked us to add this language in red and submit its AHCA-required Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan to the Emergency Management Division for approval before occupancy. So Dan wants to make sure he can review and approve and make sure that our plan is sufficient for Collier County's needs. So we've run that change by the County Attorney, and she's comfortable with it. We received this requested change idea from Dan. With regard to consistency -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Rich, pardon me for interrupting. Do you want to also report on what Dan -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Sure. The Chairman asked me to also confirm with Dan Summers with the hotel option, because we're in the coastal high hazard area, would that create any additional concerns for Dan Summers with regard to evacuation, you know, should a storm come. And he mailed back to us that he does not have any concerns with regard to the 160-room hotel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't understand the need to have this language, because it's part of the review anyway. Why are we -- why is this so unique to have to add this language? 6.1.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 8 of 40 MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the reason we're including this language in the PUD -- and I don't disagree with you, Mr. Schmitt. But I think there's a higher level of concern based upon events that have occurred on the East Coast when people weren't properly evacuated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, any plan -- any project that's within the coastal high hazard area through Comprehensive Planning will seek -- they should, or they did at one time, always seek input from the Emergency Management. Is that not the case now? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I think we do. We were asked to put this language in. We didn't object to including in that language, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I don't object to it. I just think it's unnecessary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It probably is. It may start finding its way into these as a result -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, are we going to hear another thing from Dan saying that we need cots and other types of things that he asked for in the past with no justification for making those requests? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Somehow I don't think so. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But Mr. Yovanovich and I had had a discussion on Tuesday afternoon about this being in a coastal high hazard area, and my focus was on the ALF -- well, not really only on the ALF but also on the hotels, and I just wanted to know that Dan Summers had specifically looked at this and he was not uncomfortable about the extent, if any, to which county resources would be stressed in either case, having people who are potentially physically disabled or just having a full hotel at 160 units. MR. KLATZKOW: But this clause isn't unique for this particular application. If Mr. Summers wants that, he can go to the Board of County Commissioners and put it into the code as a requirement for all assisted living facilities and be done with it. He's sort of skirting the issue by throwing it into PUDs one at a time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's sort of my point. We get these -- staff input with no -- no justification in the LDC or otherwise to put this kind of language in. But it's part of the review, is it not? Somebody from Comprehensive Planning, isn't it a routine? I guess -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- why don't we do this in order. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. I'll wait till staff, then. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. But I just -- just so that everyone knows, the reason that Dan Summers was reintroduced into this process, it was my request of Mr. Yovanovich, but it was more focused on the hotel. And I just wanted some assurances that he was comfortable that this wouldn't put an undue stress on county resources, and then he came back with the ALF language. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, just the red. The previous ALF language was already in our draft PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But it was at the request of staff. But the red was the slight addition that Dan had to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the PUD. I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I stand corrected. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure. Are we okay? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please continue. Sorry I interrupted. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you're good. I just wanted to point out that the text changes that we're making have no change to the already approved PUD master plan. The development area is going to be in this same area. I was asked a question about height and why we're asking for the increased height. And as I mentioned, we were going from -- I don't know if I mentioned we were going from 50 feet 6.1.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 9 of 40 currently approved for zoned to 75 feet. A couple of reasons: One, we wanted to add another floor to the hotel, and we wanted to have -- in 1988 when these development standards were originally introduced, I think hotels were a little bit different in their construction. Now the entry area and the lobby areas are taller in height, and the ceiling heights and rooms are higher than they used to be. So between adding the one floor together with the increased lobby area height and floor heights or rooms, that got us to our request at 75 feet, which is consistent with the C-4 zoning around us that is also authorized to be at 75 feet in height. We really don't have any residences around us, so I don't think there's a negative impact on any residential development. It's pertaining to commercial uses around us that are pretty much already allowed to go to that 75 feet height. So we thought that that request was consistent and compatible with what is around us. Since I'm upside down, I'm trying to make sure I got to every slide. So with that, that's a general overview of what we're requesting. We're available to answer any specific questions. I do know -- and, Mr. Klatzkow, I guess I should bring that up, because in the subdistrict language -- which I'll put up there -- we were -- we were asked this morning to eliminate No. 4, which is any other principal and related uses that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, which is the Board, pursuant to the process outlined in the LDC. That's in the PUD already. I just need to make sure that by deleting that from the Growth Management Plan language I'm not creating an inconsistency by having that same language in the PUD. MR. KLATZKOW: No, that request was -- actually came from me. To my -- darn this mask. To -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's hard. MR. KLATZKOW: To my knowledge, we haven't used that type of language in any of the Growth Management Plan amendments before. It's often been in PUDs. I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate for this PUD, but I'll leave that for staff. Generally, the idea behind this clause is that over the course of time uses that were not considered start creeping in. The example would be you have a 30-year-old PUD that had certain listed commercial uses, and Verizon wants to put a phone store in there, and there's nothing in the PUD that allows a phone store because they didn't exist back then. So staff might make the determination that it's no different than a Radio Shack type operation and approve it. That's really the intent behind this language. I think it's fine for a PUD. It eliminates the need to amend the PUD for a very minor use. There's no need in the Comp Plan, though, for it. I'm just trying to stop a precedent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. I've always been concerned with the use of the word "comparable" anyway, but I guess that's so steep in precedent that we're stuck with it, because everything in the universe is comparable to everything else. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I'm not entirely happy with that language either, but it's risk/reward. The language gives staff the opportunity to work with the owner of a shopping center to allow a use that wasn't previously contemplated, but it also opens up the ability for somebody to challenge it and say, wait a second, this use really is comparable, and you're being unreasonable. So it's a risk/reward type of clause to begin with. But it doesn't belong in the Comp Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine, but it is in my PUD, so I'll just address it briefly. In the old days, it was a staff-level decision. It's no longer a staff-level decision. It goes through a Hearing Examiner public hearing process, because the concern was staff was making a decision as to what was a comparable or compatible use, and the public didn't have an ability to understand the change. So the LDC was reviewed and revised to no longer have that be a staff-level determination. I think that even happened under Mr. Schmitt's watch that that 6.1.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 10 of 40 change -- that change was made. So it was a public hearing process to make those changes. It's not something that you go to staff and staff says, we're okay, and the public has no input. So I just bring that up for discussion with regard to the PUD, because I melded both presentations together. And with that, we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding our application. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commission, any questions, comments? Commissioner Fry. Don't forget this is working. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're on. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Hi, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So what goes above the zoned height up to the actual height? That's a 15-foot difference. Is it air conditioning equipment on the roof? Is it -- 15 feet is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple of things. Remember -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: You start the measurement of zoned height at, basically, FEMA, okay. You do your measurement of actual height at, basically, ground level. COMMISSIONER FRY: I see. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what ends up happening, since we're going to have to raise the building to meet FEMA, that's going to -- that's the deferential -- difference in height. And then the actual height is the tippy top versus how they measure the roof, usually at the midpoint or, if it's a flat roof, at the flat room. But it's the tippy top of the structure versus how you measure zoned height. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. When we were speaking, we talked about -- as I read the language, it looked like you could have both, a 160-room hotel and an assisted living facility. The language seems to allow the potential of both. I understand it isn't feasible to have both. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But please explain how -- you know, what we can expect and why the language doesn't say one or the other. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it can. We should make that revision. Typically, when we do PUDs, we list all of the allowed uses. Most times in the PUD they don't all fit. You know, the size of the property will self-regulate whether or not you can put all of it on there. But if there's a concern about, it needs to be an either/or and not a combination of a hotel and assisted living -- which I don't think you'd ever see a combined hotel/assisted living -- we'd be happy to make it an "or" in that situation, because it will be one or the other together with the existing restaurant, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: That would be my preference. Of course, you know, yield to the input from other commissioners on that. But for my sake in approving this on behalf of the county, I think it would be nice to know that it's not both; it's one or the other. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to see "or" in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: One last question, Rich, and it has to do with traffic. So this has -- the genesis was 1988, and then it got, I guess, scaled back or transformed in 2013 based on a 6.1.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 11 of 40 vision of a culinary school. The hotel was scaled back to make room for the culinary school. Traffic levels were estimated at that time. The staff report, as I read it, seemed to indicate that there was a trip cap that would be placed on this. And I read it initially, I think, incorrectly that that was the same trip cap or the same level of trips that were in the 2013 approved version, but you clarified that there are -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- more trips now with this current project than there were in the 2013 approved version. We're actually asked to approve more traffic for this site. So explain the evolution of this and why -- what is the justification that we should approve the additional traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, first of all, Norm Trebilcock can get into the details of there being plenty of capacity. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The whole reason I'm doing the Growth Management Plan amendment is because more trips were being generated from the 50-room hotel option with the culinary school versus going back to the 160 hotel rooms. So that was the intensification that put me through this Growth Management Plan amendment process. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is intensity -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Intensity is measured in a lot of different ways but, typically, you get -- you usually get caught up in -- traffic is the most watched, if you will, intensity. Another is if you go from, like, a C-2 zoning district and you want to add some C-4 uses for that, that would be an intensification. Those are the two that typically cause us to go through this amendment process for properties that are consistent by policy. So that's kind of where we got to. We're trying to go back to where we were, because 50 is less than 160. We were more intense from a traffic standpoint. We had to do another TIS based upon the higher uses we're requesting. There is sufficient capacity on the road. We're now introducing the actual trip cap, because back in 2013 we weren't doing those things in the PUD. And Norm can come up here and give you a much more detailed explanation of how we are consistent with the traffic impacts, but your staff has also agreed that we are. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to follow up on traffic. And, perhaps, if we could have the consultant come up, I'd appreciate it. And, Norm, we can use the other mic, too, so that the housekeeper can... Good morning. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. For the record, Norman Trebilcock, certified planner and professional engineer. We prepared the traffic study for the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The concern I have has to do with the trip cap, which has been calculated based upon a hotel use, would be considerably less, would it not, if we went to an ALF use? MR. TREBILCOCK: It would depend on the number of ALF beds, would be the function. So depending on that number. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it's fair to say that it would be less than that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Most likely. I would tend to agree with you in terms of the number of beds. I didn't look at a specific number of beds, but I think you're correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I infer from your response that you cannot, at this time, give me a calculated expert opinion on what an ALF would cause as a result of the fact that we don't know 6.1.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 12 of 40 how many rooms; is that what you're saying? MR. TREBILCOCK: How many beds. I mean, we can -- I have -- like, a certain number of beds would be needed to equal the trip cap if that's the question, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Where I'm coming from on this -- and Mr. Yovanovich knows because we talked about it two days ago. I'm not comfortable using the 173 two-way peak p.m. trips if we are moving away from a hotel use. And, personally, I would like to see an alternative trip cap calculated based upon assumptions that can be made about what kind of an ALF you'd put in there so that if you go with an ALF and then down the road you want to go to a more intense use, you're not -- you're going to have to come back and make the case again. And if you have -- if you have 173 warehoused, if you will, for a more intensive use, frankly, it gives you a leg up than you would if you had to come back and do the study and justify what the number is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I can take this off because he's not next to me. I understand that concern. As you know, we have not historically differentiated in PUDs a different trip cap if you had Development Scenario A versus Development Scenario B. The focus has always been on what's the most intense realistic development scenario for evaluating the project for consistency with the Growth Management Plan and your LDC for levels-of-service analysis. I would -- I would -- I think the number was -- Norm, you did the -- I think it was 300 and how many beds would you have to do? MR. TREBILCOCK: It would be -- 365 beds with the restaurant would be 173 trips. So that's a lot of beds. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're not going to get there, but I don't want to artificially pick 150 as the basis for the trip cap to establish a trip cap at -- what would that be, approximately, Norm? I don't know. You ran a bunch of different scenarios? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Go ahead. Tell them what you ran. MR. TREBILCOCK: Which one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whichever one -- the different option you ran for -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Let's see. Sorry. Okay. So as I mentioned, the 365 beds plus the 400-seat restaurant, that's the 173, okay. And then I just looked at some other things with, like, say, 300, it's 154; 250 is 139; 200 ALF is 125, okay. And so the 365 would be a pretty large assisted living facility, typically. Like, a Carlisle is along that magnitude, just to envision it, and much more acreage, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: Self-governance is what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to go -- I'm not going to fall on my sword on this one. But at the same time, I do think that we're going to have to do another traffic analysis when the Site Development Plan comes in, and there will be another detailed review to make sure there's sufficient capacity. Plus, the approval of the PUD doesn't lock up trips on the road for purposes of another applicant coming in is going to be denied their application because you approved this PUD. The locking up of the trips on the road really happens when you come in with your plat or your Site Development Plan. So it's not a negative to other properties if you think you're over allocating based upon the fact that we can convert to an assisted living facility that may, in fact, have less traffic impact than the analysis we did for the hotel and restaurant scenario. So I would like to see if we can continue with the typical analysis. I will note, Commissioner Fry, for future applications we'll do a review of a likely -- if that's going to be the pleasure of the Planning Commission that we do a likely scenario for an ALF, we can then come up 6.1.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 13 of 40 with this multi -- multiple options for trip caps, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let me ask if other Planning Commissioners had the same concern I do. Am I out there by myself on this? COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a concern about traffic in general, which I plan to ask more of staff regarding. This is more trips than the past approved use in 2013. I'm not sure how it compared to when it was initially approved for 160 hotel rooms, and if it was -- should have -- you know, if we're really just returning to what it was originally approved for, then I have less of an issue than if it's now more intense and a more traffic-intense purpose. But to Mr. Yovanovich's point, yes, if we approve 173 trips, then other applicants are not -- don't lose the road capacity until you get something approved; however, you have the capacity to take up that many trips, which does reduce, you know -- if you take up that many trips, then other applicants do have less capacity left to work with. So I think, you know, that's part of what I'm thinking about is how do we -- how do we manage traffic and make a reasonable assessment of how much traffic is reasonable for this project? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we can go one two of ways. I could just drop the ALF. If I drop the ALF, you're -- you know your worst-case scenario. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would certainly solve my concerns. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know why you would want to do that, but if the concern is that we leave the -- we take the ALF out of the equation and it will be a 160-room hotel with a 400-seat restaurant. That's really what we think's going to be there. We put the ALF in in case the market for hotels changes. And who knows with COVID if there is going to be a change in the market for hotels. We don't think there is but, you know, the fallback -- I don't really want to go through -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You could move all those occupants from the hotel right over to the assisted living facility on account of COVID. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I don't have the -- I can't have the assisted living facility because Karl just told me -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was kidding. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. But my point was it will be less traffic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seriously, though, rather than eliminating this permitted use, would there be a way of establishing a conditional trip cap? I guess we probably don't have sufficient information in front of us to do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if we use -- Norm, what's -- Is 250 a realistic number, Karen; 250 beds? If we use that -- it's probably high, higher than what -- but it gives me some room. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: So if we use that number, what's that trip cap? MR. TREBILCOCK: I was going to say that's one number I didn't run. I did run that. It's 139; 139. But what we could do -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- was 139? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. What we could do is just establish it at up to 250 ALF and just leave it that way and, you know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Would that -- would that work? Instead of changing the trip cap number, we'll just go up to a maximum of 250 -- MR. TREBILCOCK: ALF. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- ALF beds. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 14 of 40 MR. TREBILCOCK: That way you know that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Norm, what is the -- what's the status of 41 in that area? MR. TREBILCOCK: There's not a level-of-service issue or anything. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that's what I thought. I mean, there's not a level-of-service issue up in that area of 41. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's be precise. They've got a remaining capacity of 346. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So, I mean, we're not up against that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but that's an area that's going to continue to experience development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. What it was is just a few years ago there was a bit more pressure there because, as you may recall, Vanderbilt Road Drive had been closed with some bridge construction, so it put a lot more traffic on 41. So that's why you may have been thinking about stressor or 41. But that's now been relieved with it back up and running again. So it helped out a lot, and that's what shows up in the AUIR numbers. So good point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was going to yell at you for using the 2018, but I'm not going to because the numbers were actually better for you in 2019. MR. YOVANOVICH: He was prepared to say orally -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the study was done in October when you had adopted it, yes. So thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I clarify? My concern, really -- I like the idea of the ALF, if that's a -- if that's what you decide to do. I have no problem at all with that, especially if it reduces traffic. My issue really is, overall, the trip cap, the maximum trip cap, whether it's reasonable to increase that intensity as part of this. Returning the uses, to me, is the prerogative of the owner. I mean, I have no issue with that as long as it doesn't detrimentally affect others. And taking up additional trip cap, in my opinion, is my main question with this project. And nothing else, really, is an issue to me. So I want to ask staff just really -- I mean, we've got 340 trips left on that road. So if we give half of that to this project, you know, how many other projects -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not giving half -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- because I've already got a restaurant on that site. So that restaurant is already taking up capacity of that 176. So it's not 176 new. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seventy-three. MR. YOVANOVICH: Seventy-three. I don't know I have 76 on the -- 173. So part of that's already -- Mr. Fry, I just wanted to remind you of that fact, because that's an important fact. COMMISSIONER FRY: I appreciate that. Okay. Norm, I guess, what is the incremental increase from the current use up to the new? How many trips are generated by the restaurant now, I guess, is the question, and then what is the delta between that and what's been requested? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So the delta of the request is 49 peak-hour trips from the prior development, and then -- COMMISSIONER FRY: From what was approved, not from the actual traffic to the current restaurant, correct. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I see -- yes. So currently the -- okay. So the quality restaurant today, unadjusted, is 112 peak-hour trips, okay. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 15 of 40 COMMISSIONER FRY: The current restaurant could be generating 112? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And adding a 400 -- or a 160-room hotel or an ALF would only add another 61 trips? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, what happens is you get what we call internal capture and pass-by, so there's a pass-by. So I would say -- I'm doing this on the fly a little bit here. The current, say, existing external trips, when I take out pass-by, we're probably in the neighborhood of about 70, in that neighborhood, of the current restaurant, to help you there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So we're only -- we're only adding 50 percent more traffic to what is already there, even though we're adding -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Right, and that does get distributed, too, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's very helpful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've been helped by this conversation as well. I still want to hear what staff has to say on some of these points, but thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else have questions for Mr. Trebilcock? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. For the applicant? MR. TREBILCOCK: I'll put a muzzle on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did want to make one other point on the master plan. As you can see, currently the access to the restaurant is limited to Walkerbilt, but as you can see on the master plan, there's a second access that's actually already in place, when you look at an aerial, that will connect the hotel and the restaurant back to U.S. 41. So there will be multiple access points. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But Walkerbilt -- you've got to go on 41 before you can get to Walkerbilt. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But I'm saying that when you leave, not all the traffic is going to go on Walkerbilt like it does today. There will be an ability to go directly onto 41 and go north/south. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll now hear from staff, please. Ms. Faulkner, do you maybe want to start over there -- MS. FAULKNER: Sure, I'll be happy to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- so that we can do cleaning at the same time. Thank you. Good morning. MS. FAULKNER: Good morning. Sue Faulkner, Comprehensive Planning principal planner. I wanted to let you know about the question concerning the ALF and the coastal high hazard area. In our Conservation and Coastal Management Element, there's a goal, No. 12, that says, "To make every reasonable effort to ensure public safety, health, and welfare of people and property from the effects of hurricane storm damage." Under that, Policy 12.1.14 actually addresses specifically assisted living, and it says, "All new nursing homes and assisted living facilities that are licensed shall have a core area to shelter residents and staff on site." Then it goes on to talk about the specifics of that area. So I wanted you to know we do address that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. FAULKNER: Okay. And a second thing, there's a language discussion you just heard concerning No. 4 in the -- in the actual proposed language of the GMPA that was for any other uses that are compatible, and we support the County Attorney's opinion on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I wish they really were compatible rather than 6.1.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 16 of 40 comparable. MS. FAULKNER: Comparable, sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But "comparable" has found its way into the long-term -- well, I like compatible. I think comparable is really meaningless. But that word's been around so long, I've quit fighting that battle. MS. FAULKNER: Yes, it has. And the last thing is, I would like to let you know that staff recommends the approval of this project for you to move this to the BCC with the recommendation to forward this and approve at that time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there any EAC action needed? MS. FAULKNER: Any what? CHAIRMAN FRYER: EAC. MS. FAULKNER: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission of Ms. Faulkner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you going to have a PUD presentation as well, someone else? MS. FAULKNER: Yes, Nancy -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: GMPA. MS. FAULKNER: Yeah. Nancy Gundlach is the PUD person. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, Sue. MS. FAULKNER: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: So just to kind of help me complete my assessment of the traffic issue, so this was originally produced in 1988 -- and it was reviewed by staff, in terms of traffic, for a 160-room hotel. MS. FAULKNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm assuming some traffic counts were at least estimated then. Then it was more or less reduced because of the culinary school, and they cut back to 50 in 2013. That reduced the overall traffic, and now we're back up to the 160 hotel rooms. Can I assume that the traffic -- really, we're just going back to what the traffic level would have been if they had gone forward with what was approved in 1988? MS. FAULKNER: Yes, that was my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sue, are you the person to whom we should be asking traffic questions? MS. FAULKNER: Mike Sawyer is the most prominent, and I didn't see him in the house. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's here. MS. FAULKNER: He is here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's hiding way in the back. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to hear from Mike if we can -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's hiding behind the chair back there. He doesn't want to come up and talk. MS. FAULKNER: Would you like him to come up -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would. MS. FAULKNER: -- and talk? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would, please. Wait a minute. Is this a stickup? COMMISSIONER FRY: No. It's just very cold in here. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 17 of 40 MR. SAWYER: No, this isn't a stickup. I apologize. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We have heard a reference from Mr. Yovanovich to the revisitation on traffic issues that would happen at the time of site plan. Has the trip cap ever been reduced as a result of the revisitation, other matters? MR. SAWYER: No. The trip cap is the maximum number of trips that any development can come in with for the entire PUD. If you wind up having a number of SDPs, staff keeps track each time the SDPs come in and makes sure that one SDP comes in, it has a certain number of trips. That's taken off the total. And those are -- every time an SDP comes in, it's always compared to what the maximum allowed trips are provided with the PUD. But we always keep -- the PUD is the PUD. When you do an SDP, you can't change the PUD itself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So would it be fair to say that a trip cap can be viewed as a vested right of some sort? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. MR. SAWYER: I would have our lawyer -- our county attorneys look at that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It wouldn't be vested until they put down impact fees to hold that -- if they paid an impact fee to cover that level, but I don't see how it would be vested. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, Mr. Yovanovich, we'll let you speak. I'll ask -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not an attorney, I won't -- I won't -- and I didn't -- I won't pretend to be one, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: It's a Comp Plan amendment. This is legislative. I'll just leave it at that. This is legislative. He's asking you for certain actions to legislative. It's up to you to recommend or not recommend it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. But on the next vote, it might be different. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: PUD, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Okay. Mike. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just state for the record? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is not a vested right. It's a right to ask for that number. I have not locked in that number. I still have to meet your concurrency management system in the review process. So it's not -- the right to ask for 176 is there, but the entitlement to 176 p.m. peak-hour trips does not happen until I come in with an SDP and lock it up at that time through the payment of impact fees. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think I'm satisfied with that. I just -- the only additional comment I would make is that if you come in with an entirely different use, I think I would expect you to argue to us that 173 is what you may reasonably expect to be the floor and that if you needed more, you'd have to ask for it but that it would somehow be unreasonable for the Board of County Commissioners to -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that I -- I think you know me -- you know me well, and I would argue that one of my points, as you know, would be, you're right, I'm asking for a different change, but my traffic impacts are similar to what was previously considered by you-all, and I would hope you could go along with that change if I were staying at that same cap. So you're right, I would argue that, but I would not argue I'm vested -- I'm vested to those trips. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I wasn't using that really in a legal sense as much as what would be reasonably presumed. And, of course, you'd have a smaller increment that you'd have to argue for. If your new use was, like, 190, you would only have to argue for, well, a smaller delta 6.1.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 18 of 40 because you've gotten a larger amount up front. MR. YOVANOVICH: Like what I'm doing today. That's exactly what I'm doing today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I have one question for Mr. Sawyer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, this is possibly mostly for my own enlightenment. You look at a road that has a little bit of remaining capacity, like 41; 340 trips. This -- we're allocating potentially half of it to this. It may not be used. It's not vested until they apply and get their SDP approved. Are we in a -- is it a race situation then? There's a little bit of capacity left, and there might 10 properties out there that are vacant, should be developed as commercial and yet there are only 100 and -- you know, only a few trips left, and is it really more, then, becoming a race of who gets an SDP approved to snatch up that remaining capacity? I guess -- I think part of our responsibility is to allocate the remaining trips in a judicious manner so the county grows in a practical and beneficial way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mike, before you answer, I'm just going to say I agree completely with Commissioner Fry, and I've always felt that way; that it really is a race, and there should be some sense on our part of equity when we -- when we make recommendations for allocation of limited remaining capacity. But you go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: And what else is out there? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Under what -- under what authority would we have to do that? I know it's a nice gesture, but I would ask under what authority? CHAIRMAN FRYER: If they're coming in -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, that's subjective. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, in my personal view, when an applicant comes in asking for something, it really puts everything on the table. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's -- I won't argue with that, but that's your personal view, but there's no basis in the LDC or the Comp Plan to apply that kind of criteria. I'm going to play the devil's advocate in this, because it's just -- that's a subjective opinion of you as a board member, and there's no basis to support that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm mostly trying to understand the system and how to evaluate these things and just the bigger picture, I guess, so... MR. SAWYER: If I could. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. SAWYER: By way of explanation, we've got -- we've got two things that we look at. The first is at zoning, which is consistency. The second is when you actually come in with an SDP or a plat, actually proposing to build something, and that's when we actually look at concurrency. Consistency is simply looking at what the capacity of the roadway systems are currently and determining is there capacity on those road links to support what's being proposed. We look at the maximum amount of trips possible or a reasonable built scenario that gives us a trip cap. As long as that trip cap shows that there is adequate capacity on the adjacent roadway links, that is our criteria for saying yes or no. When the project actually gets to the point of coming in with an SDP or a plat, we look then to find out, okay, what's changed. What are the current conditions on the roadways? And then look at what the trips are actually going to be generated by the actual use. And at that point, those trips -- once the SDP is ready to be approved, those trips are put onto the system. That's when we look at concurrency. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 19 of 40 COMMISSIONER FRY: The $64 question, the 64,000 with inflation: So what if they come with a GMPA for the entire remaining capacity of 41 of 340-some trips; how would staff have evaluated that and how would that have impacted your findings of approval or denial? MR. SAWYER: At that point the AUIR would show that there is capacity for that number of trips. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if they had come in for a 320-room hotel, 340 extra, you know, p.m. peak-hour trips, and they were moving from a 50-room hotel and a culinary school, it still might have had the same chance of being approved by staff? MR. SAWYER: According to our GMP, that is our criteria, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me sharpen that, if I may. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It is a race. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's 346 remaining capacity. What if the request was for a trip cap of 400? MR. SAWYER: Then we would not be able to approve it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I think I wanted to hear. COMMISSIONER FRY: But up until the capacity is used up, you are inclined to approve if it meets the other criteria? MR. SAWYER: It's not whether we're inclined to approve it or not. That's what the GMP requires us to do. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That was very enlightening. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question, then. Mike, it doesn't impact the GMP. It will impact the PUD. But the GMP could still process and go through and be approved under the GMP; isn't that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. SAWYER: No. We actually review both the GMP amendment as well as the PUD, and we use the same criteria for both. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in this case if there was no PUD and they were just coming in to amend the GMP and if the traffic count exceeded the allowable, they could still get the GMP approved, but they could never proceed with an SDP approval without the capacity. Rich is waving his head no. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Remember, I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to let you finish. But you're going to have rebuttal, and ordinarily we'd wait for this. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want it to be rebuttal, because I don't think it's appropriate. Remember in the Growth Management Plan review process -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you also reviewed for internal consistency with the Growth Management Plan. So I can't come in and ask for 1,000 trips when there's 100 trips available because that's internally inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. So there's that internal review as well to make sure I can't ask for something that I could never get through the PUD process. It's -- this is -- it's a complicated process, and traffic review is one of several staff disciplines that review the PUD for -- I'm sorry -- the Growth Management Plan for determination whether to recommend approval of what we're asking for. You have Planning, who looks at the compatibility; is it consistent with what's around it? So I don't want it to be that just because Traffic may say there's capacity, I automatically get an approval, because there are a lot of other disciplines. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Point taken. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 20 of 40 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else for Mike? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think -- so it is a race -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- and it gets -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what does the county do -- question for Mike -- when you hit that limit? MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a race. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You just top all development along that highway? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Issue a moratorium and stop all development. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a race. It's not a race. And, Commissioner Schmitt's right, in the old days we could do a moratorium. We had room to build more roads. So once upon a time the county had predominantly two-lane arterials. Collier Boulevard was two lanes, VBR was two lanes, et cetera. We've six-laned everything. There's no more room to do anything, and you're not going to -- and the state had to be involved in this. You're not going to be expanding 41, all right. So what's going to happen is, yes, we're going to exceed our trip count, in which case the Board will have to lower its level of service, all right, and, you know, we'll have to figure out what we're going to do as far as mass transit and everything else goes. But you cannot stop development because we did not plan properly. And that's what -- that's what the Comp Plan is supposed to be about. It's a long-range planning tool, you know, that the staff utilizes to make recommendations to the Board as far as capital expenditures go, as far as transportation, schools, and everything else. And every time somebody comes in here and asks for more density -- not this particular item, but, you know, what you're doing is you're just increasing the overall traffic that we're going to have at buildout, whatever "buildout" means. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is helpful. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, could I add one comment, too. Because this -- the timing of this conversation is just critical because we also live in a world right now where real estate wise we've seen the biggest influx of people and families moving here from other states that we've seen in 15 years during some of our slowest -- predominantly slowest months. And it looks like, the world we live in, that's going to continue at great number as people leave other states to come here for a variety of reasons. So it's a timely issue that's reaching critical mass. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point well taken. Thank you. Anything else for staff? Well, we're going to hear from Nancy Gundlach. Before we do, anything more for Mike Sawyer? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning Division. And this morning we are recommending approval of the petition, the PUD portion of the petition, as it is consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. And if you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commission? No questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Ms. Gundlach. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 21 of 40 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have anyone in the room who is able to answer the question "are there any registered speakers"? MR. BELLOWS: No registered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No registered, okay. From Ray, we heard -- you don't need to come up, Ray. I'll just repeat what you said. You said that there are no registered speakers. Having confirmed that, are there any members of the public who would like to be heard on this matter but have not yet registered? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Hearing none, we will close the public comment portion and begin our deliberation of the matter. Would anyone like to start? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I will then, unless you want to. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll go after you, if it's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm inclined to and will vote in favor of both of these. But it has brought -- it's brought to our attention and given us the opportunity to talk about some very important issues, the question of whether this really is a race to the Board of County Commissioners, and I take the County Attorney's point. But I think in some respects it, as a practical matter, could be seen that way. But the escape valve, if you will, is lowering level of service, which, of course, would be unfortunate but may well have to happen. I would prefer to see, from a planning perspective, our role as being trying to work out compromises with applicants where possible to forestall the need to reduce the level of service. And among other qualities that I admire in Mr. Yovanovich is that he's willing to negotiate with owners and others to sometimes trim some excess fat off proposals, and I appreciate that. But I believe that is part of our responsibility to forestall the need to lower level of service. But I think you're going to limit your ALF number to 250, and -- that's correct, isn't it, sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So on that basis, I would entertain a motion for approval with the disjunctive word "or" added between hotel and ALF, as Commissioner Fry pointed, out and a limitation of 250 if you go the ALF route. Is there a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Will there be -- I'm sorry. Will there be -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is going to be on the GMPA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: GMP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. And will there be the removal of the No. 4 of the allowable uses -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I don't think so. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, is that what -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the GMP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're right. In the GMP, yes, it's to be removed from the GMP ordinance. That's correct. Thank you. With those -- with those three conditions or changes, the movant and the seconder both agree to those? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. Just in terms of traffic and how I'm thinking about it just to elicit other viewpoints. I feel maybe more sensitive now than ever to our responsibility to control additional traffic on the roads to the extent we can up here. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 22 of 40 We get a lot of items that come before us where actually they're -- really, I find it much easier when they're reducing -- they may be changing the use, but they're reducing the overall traffic. This one is increasing the traffic from the 2013 use, but the way I'm accepting of it is that they're really just returning to the original use that was approved back in 1988. So I believe that, you know, in good faith, we can't really go and back say that we can't allow them to increase the traffic again even though they made a strategic pivot back in 2013, and they're now kind of going back. I like the flexibility of having the ALF as a possible -- if the market, and it's the highest and best use of the product -- the project and the land. I think that's a great thing. So I do plan to vote in favor but with some, I think, maybe additional scrutiny on traffic increases even more than I think we have been sensitive to in the fact moving forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm in full agreement with your observations. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's been moved and seconded with three changes. They're a matter of record. Does anyone need them repeated? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: That passes unanimously. So that was the GMPA. Now we're going to go to the PUDA. Any discussion -- any further discussion on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve the PUDA 20190000154 as proposed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And will there -- do we need the disjunctive "or" in that one as well? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe you're going to need all the same revisions you had -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All the same provisions in the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's acceptable to the movant and the seconder? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any further discussion? MR. YOVANOVICH: My bad. Other than you don't want to take out the comparable use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You don't want to take out the "comparable." MR. YOVANOVICH: That can stay in the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The PUD, yeah. So it's really just two things. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 23 of 40 Everyone on the same page and in agreement before we vote? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich. Without objection, I suggest that we take our morning recess now and see what we can accomplish on the second companion matters immediately after. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just worried about Tim Hall. He was here on billable hours, and he didn't get a chance to speak. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's still getting paid. Don't you worry about him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone object if we have a 10-minute recess rather than a 15? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like to see if there's any chance we can get the computer to work again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you don't mind. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was -- if we can't, that's fine. It will be -- we'll do the same thing, but in the interim, if we can -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Miller was pretty clear to me that this is a major problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm good then. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we'll stand in recess for 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had from 10:23 a.m. to 10:36 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in -- are we ready? Okay. ***All right. The next two items are also companion items. The first one is PL20190000454. It's a proposed small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment seeking to create the Germain Immokalee commercial subdistrict, and companion to that is a proposed commercial PUDZ. It is PL20190000451, and that seeks to permit the C-4 use of luxury automobile dealership and for other purposes. All persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures starting with Mr. Eastman, and then clockwise, please. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials and a conference call with the applicant and their attorney. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've had staff materials plus a meeting with staff and 6.1.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 24 of 40 communications with the applicant's lawyer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke with Mr. Yovanovich about this petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Flavio is here on behalf of the owner of the property. I'm the land-use lawyer; Dominick Amico is the engineer who can answer any civil engineer questions regarding the petition; Mr. Tom Barber will be doing most of the presentation after I do some introductory remarks; Mr. Trebilcock is available to -- actually will provide some brief transportation testimony; and Andy Woodruff is here to answer any environmental questions you may have. Like the first item, you have two items in front of you. You have a Growth Management Plan amendment to create the Germain Immokalee subdistrict and a commercial PUD. By way of -- by way of history, the property is a little under nine acres. It's on Immokalee Road just west of the I-75 interchange. It's shown to you in yellow on this property. The property to the immediate east is activity center property, and that is where the Walmart Supercenter is. There's a hotel there now. I don't know if it's open yet, but it's close to opening if it's not already open. There's self-storage. There's a car wash. And then to the north you've got Carlton Lakes -- or, I'm sorry, Pelican Strand -- or The Strand, sorry, The Strand, and it's commercial activity. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan, this property would be eligible to -- would be eligible to rezone to C-1 office and medical office uses under the existing Comprehensive Plan or low-intensity commercial because we have commercial on one side. If we had commercial on both sides, then you can rezone to the more intensive of the two zoning categories. We met with David Weeks because he retired, and we talked about whether a luxury automobile dealership would, in fact, qualify as a low-intensity use because of the reduced amount of traffic, and I'll get into -- if we were to do an 80,000-square-foot medical office use on this property, which we could ask for under the existing Comprehensive Plan, it would actually generate more traffic -- and Mr. Trebilcock will take you through that -- than what we're asking for with the luxury automobile dealership that we would put on the property. Initially there was a thought that, yes, we could go under the existing Comprehensive Plan amendment or Comprehensive Plan language because it's a low-intensity use, but since it's also a C-4 use, there was a concern that it wouldn't qualify as a lower intensity or the same -- or a low intensity. So we did go forward with the proposed subdistrict on the property. The request is to -- to create the subdistrict and allow for a maximum of 80,000 square feet of floor area limited to C-1 uses, which are office uses, and a luxury automobile dealership, so that's the Comprehensive Plan amendment before you. You'll note that the definition of what a luxury automobile dealership is, it's a dealership that sells only high-end luxury vehicles such as, but not limited to, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Maserati, Lotus, BMW, Lexus, or Jaguar, and the hours of operation may be less than a typical automobile dealership, and inventory may be limited. That definition actually comes from an alternative impact fee study that was done for transportation specifically for automobile dealerships, because they did a study to show that they had less impact than the typical dealerships, so they, in fact, have a reduced impact fee rate related to that use. So that's where that definition came from. I think I'm going the wrong way. That's the map of the subdistrict that we're creating, again, adjacent to where the existing activity center is, and I mentioned the uses that were already 6.1.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 25 of 40 there. Again, showing you how we are adjacent to and consistent with what's around us. And, actually, Tom is going to get into a pretty detailed compatibility analysis, because we took good care in making sure we sited the uses appropriately, put our preserves in the right area, because we do have some residential properties to the south of this project. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Tom, and then Tom will have Norm go through a brief presentation, and then we'll be available to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Barber, you can use the other mic. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's got to hit the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, you need to be close to that. All right. MR. BARBER: Good morning. Tom Barber, certified planner from Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. As Rich mentioned, there's a lot of other PUDs surrounding the current property. As you can see, the areas in red are PUDs; the areas in orange, commercial PUD; and green is mixed use. So as the companion PUD, it will be split into two tracts. Tract A will be the luxury motor vehicle dealership with accessory uses you would typically see at an automobile dealership such as showrooms, car wash, offices, service, and repair facilities. And Tract B will be located on the southern portion of the site and will be entirely made up of the preserve. So the master concept plan is laid out in such a way that the display area's up against Immokalee Road to the north, the showroom will be tied in with that, service area behind that building, and parking/vehicular storage above, vehicular storage behind that building, and then the preserve is located to the south abutting Livingston Lakes community. The development standards are typical of what you would see with a commercial use with some adjustments for the luxury automotive dealership. Some important operational restrictions to note to make this as compatible as possible with the surrounding uses: No outdoor paging or amplified sound will be allowed; collision shop operations are prohibited; the hours of operation are set forth; the service doors must be -- remain closed at all times unless at times when the vehicles are entering or exiting the site; and outdoor lighting will be restricted to 25 feet maximum height. So this is a layout of what the site might look like. As you see, display would be up in front near Immokalee Road. Sales area, showroom just behind that, the service building with some vehicular storage above and then, of course, the preserve abutting Livingston Lakes with an 8-foot concrete wall. The rendering of the front of the building will be modern design and aesthetically pleasing. It will tie in well. The showroom height is a maximum height of 30 feet with the service center height roughly 47 feet, and that's in comparison to the Extra Space Storage which is 45 feet just to the east of the property. And with that, I'll invite Mr. Trebilcock up to go over some of the transportation elements of the project. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer, certified planner. We prepared the traffic study for the project. And just highlights of the project is establishing the trip cap of 166 p.m. peak-hour two-way trips for the project. As Mr. Yovanovich had mentioned, a comparable, if you're thinking about it, for an 80,000-square-foot medical office would be 227 p.m. peak-hour two-way trips. So this is a substantial reduction when you look at a comparable use, I guess. Also, another highlight of the project, in working with staff, a good recommendation that they had was to do a shared access, an interconnection with the adjacent property. So we're looking at a suggestion to put the access to the west, that we would share it on the property line with the neighboring property. So both parties would benefit. There would be one less access on Immokalee Road, which would be beneficial as well. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 26 of 40 And then we -- oops. And a key summary, though, in the trip generation is, as a result, there's no significance in terms of we're under the normal 2 percent level-of-service impact on the road we directly impact. So we're under that. So there's no significance. And there's not a level-of-service problem either with that section of Immokalee Road either. And we did update the TIS to the 2019 AUIR as a key thing as well and, actually, the volumes have gone down, ironically, in the 2019. And that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I wasn't going to yell at you because the numbers got better for you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Oh, that's the contingency, okay. No. Thank you. So next slide. This is just, you know, a quick summary of the trip generation so we see what we have, the link volumes that we typically will look at, and our next slide kind of shows us -- this is the 2019 AUIR kind of summary information that the capacity is 3,500. The road, with our traffic, we're still underneath that. And our level of service percentage is 1.4 percent and less than 1 percent, so it doesn't meet any significance test there either. And so that's really kind of the highlights on traffic for the project. MR. BARBER: Thanks, Norm. So the project will tie in well with the other sites and create good vehicular connection. It will be a frontage road that runs into the site that connects Useppa Way down with Juliet Boulevard and, with that, pedestrian connection as well to make sure pedestrians can access in and around and through the site. From an environmental perspective, the existing habitats were mapped by Passarella & Associates. They're dominated by pine and Melaleuca with cypress. There does exist a 3.9-acre wetland area in the center of the property which is impacted with some various levels of exotic vegetation. A listed species survey was conducted, and no document listed species were found. And as far as the preserve, it was chosen in a place to best align with the neighboring preserve to the east and also buffer the residential to the south. So here's a slide to show the preserve connectivity with some other surrounding natural area to maintain the hydraulic and preserve connectivity. From a north/south buffer standpoint, it was important to look at the Livingston Lakes community, and we put together a sightline showing what their view might be out of the back of their second-floor home. There is a 170-foot preserve there that we've created -- well, it's a natural preserve that we're leaving in place that will obstruct their view from the proposed development. Then if we zoom out a little bit further, there's roughly 500 feet between the Livingston Lakes property line and the proposed service center building. And just as a point to mention, the buildings in Livingston Lakes are laid out in such a way that the orientation of their views are not looking directly at this project site. They'll still have views of preserve area. From the western buffer, it abuts an Ag 2 property, so we're proposing a Type B 15-foot buffer there. From the east side up against Extra Space Storage, we're also proposing a 15-foot Type B buffer as well. So the roll-up doors have been oriented to the east and west of this site. They're high-speed quiet doors. And, as I said before, they'll remain closed at all times except when vehicles are entering or exiting the building. So from a compatibility standpoint, it's my professional opinion that this site fits well with the existing property uses around it. And here's another look at the proposed site plan. And it's our understanding that staff recommends approval for both the Growth Management Plan amendment and the Commercial Planned Unit Development, and we'd be happy 6.1.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 27 of 40 to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant? Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Barber, I just want to thank you. You have a couple things in your presentation that I just wish were standard in all presentations, the sightlines being one. I think it critically important for us to understand what the adjacent neighbors will see and hear, and I think with a car dealership, we have an idea of what they'll hear, and it doesn't look like a lot of impacts from what they see. But you also had that rendering, that three-dimensional perspective rendering that showed the completed project in context with the surrounding area, and I don't think we see that type of exhibit very often, so I think that's extremely helpful to see, so I thank you for that. I just want to confirm an assumption I'm making -- I would say a conclusion I'm making is that, from what Mr. Trebilcock said and Mr. Yovanovich, if you guys did not come forward with a GMP amendment, you could build medical office buildings that would generate 270 trips, and now you're asking for 166 trips, which is a 40 percent reduction in the traffic that might have been generated without coming forth; is that an accurate statement? MR. YOVANOVICH: He's a lot taller than I am. Under the Growth Management Plan, we could have brought forth a PUD for medical office and general office uses on the property. So the Comp Plan amendment before you would have been unnecessary. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And those uses would have generated -- as you've heard from Mr. Trebilcock, if we did medical office space there would have generated more trips than the luxury automobile dealership will generate. So going back to the prior hearing, you like to see that we're actually coming in and potentially reducing traffic impacts. We're asking for the opportunity to potentially reduce traffic impacts by allowing us to have a luxury automobile dealership as a potential use. COMMISSIONER FRY: Lexus was shown on your rendering, Germain Lexus. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that -- is that public knowledge, or is it still yet to be determined what dealership it might be? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it is -- it is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You already have a Germain Lexus. MR. YOVANOVICH: And they're relocating to this site. COMMISSIONER FRY: Relocating. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask Mr. Trebilcock about a segment of Immokalee that is either failing now or due to fail in the near future. I think it's the one east -- west of Airport. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's 42.1, and it's due to fail in 2025. COMMISSIONER FRY: 2025. My question is, that segment, not directly impacted by this but, of course, a lot of the traffic that exits and comes to this dealership will be using that segment that is, I'd say, in jeopardy at this point. Is that factored in at all to the traffic studies? And I'm not -- I'm not saying this project has responsibility for that segment. I'm just asking for the context of how it -- how that is evaluated. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Good question. The -- for this one, no, because we -- you look directly in front of you, that segment. And if you're well under, which we are, then you don't need to go any further. That's really how the analysis is done as far as that goes. COMMISSIONER FRY: When -- and I'm remembering back to one of the earlier items I 6.1.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 28 of 40 heard when I joined this commission, and it was an apartment complex and -- up on Livingston, and it actually -- that segment came up. And was that because it tripped the -- tripped the threshold for needing to look at -- it was in a CCMA, I think. MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, no, that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You were not on that one, were you? That was Stock, correct? COMMISSIONER FRY: There was one that you were not on? I guess there -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But I was on it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Of course he was on it. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you were on it. That's reassuring. MR. TREBILCOCK: But we look at -- so the first thing is is within your -- you know, in front of the road you impact, if you're at 2 percent or more, then you've got to go to the next segment adjacent to you. So you keep going until you're below that percentage. And the next segment would be if you're 3 percent, you know, so it goes on and on. So that would be the case, probably, in that project, where you had to look at segments further out. COMMISSIONER FRY: In this case, you only look at the segment that's directly impacted. And if you're below 2 percent, you do not need to look further, correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, because you'd be considered a lesser impactive project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thanks, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Last question, Rich. Mr. Barber mentioned wetlands in the center of the project. Is there a mitigation of those wetlands? Is that part of this project? How are those treated? MR. YOVANOVICH: It won't be part of the zoning, but it will -- I'm sure will be part of the district permit that we'll have to get for the property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So there will be some mitigation payment -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- or preservation of some other lands elsewhere? MR. YOVANOVICH: Dom, do we know? Have we already permitted it, or are we done permitting? MR. AMICO: For the record, Dom Amico, Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. We have not started any permits. The Water Management District claimed that as a wetland. The Army Corps did not. So there will be some mitigation required for the District when we file that permit. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarification, I mean, when the applicant identifies, they can ask for a jurisdictional determination through the Corps. In this case, Dominick, didn't the Corps recognize it as not a beneficial wetland? MR. AMICO: Correct, they declined jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As you just stated, they declined. But they still have to go through the District, South Florida Water Management District, for the permit. I was going to ask the same question just for the record to make sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: And if the Water Management District says yes, it is a beneficial wetlands, then they have to do what? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they'll have -- typically, they'll offer different alternatives, but, typically, the -- for the District, they'll have a water treatment on site. If they do not, then they'll have to mitigate somehow through a mitigation bank or otherwise to compensate for the loss of wetlands. That's typically done through the Corps though, Section 4.04 of the Clean Water Act, and this is adjunct to that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the concern, then, is really treating the water that's generated 6.1.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 29 of 40 by the project on that property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The District is more concerned about treatment of the water and the runoff. The Army Corps is interested -- always interested in loss of wetlands. COMMISSIONER FRY: I see. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Kind of two different views of the same problem. MR. BARBER: We need to provide that stormwater treatment whether we have wetlands or not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. AMICO: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I did not anticipate this being such an enlightening day. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I used to deal with that when I was in the Army Corps. I know really quite a history on that. MR. EASTMAN: There's three components of water that the District would deal with. There's water use, like your well; there's the stormwater drainage; and then there's wetlands, which serves species. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. There was a statement made that the luxury dealership -- and I'm not sure if this question is for yourself or for the applicant, but the luxury dealership is different in terms of number -- maybe reduced hours, less people. I just wanted to kind of ascertain what really are the differences. Because you're -- Germain owns luxury and, I'll say, standard brands, such as -- I think your group owns Honda, Lexus, and others; BMW. MR. GALASSO: Yeah, yeah, yeah. We own 22. For the record, Flavio Galasso, vice president, Germain Motor Company. So, yeah, we own 22 different brands all over the country. And you're exactly right. So in the luxury business, the type of consumer that we deal with is a little different than the typical consumer that they don't have a lot of time to be able to shop online and do all that. So, typically, when they have a break, whether it's lunch or after work, they go to dealerships. And the numbers are much higher because the concentration of that at that time is much higher than it will in the luxury. In a luxury store, the consumer's, 95 percent of the time, shopping online, right, and, therefore -- I'm sorry, having said [sic] in a long time. So you find that in the last 10 years, we have some numbers from industry experts. The numbers went from a customer used to go to 7.3 dealerships, you know, to get the shopping done. Now they go to 1.3 because of the Internet. And in luxury -- in luxury dealers it's actually less than that because we deliver cars to people's homes a lot as well. So to answer your question, I'll tell you that without -- without having all the numbers in front of me, there's probably 40 percent reduction in people at the stores when you go to a -- from the luxury store -- from a volume store, Honda, Toyota, and all that, to a luxury car, like in this case Lexus. Customers just -- if you go to a luxury store, you probably don't know how we pay the bills because nobody's there. It's because a lot of this stuff is done via the Internet. And if you second, now, that COVID-19, what it's done to the business, we're delivering, like, 25 percent of the cars to people's homes now in the luxury business, you know. People don't want to touch anything, right? So we have DocuSign now, which we never had before. It's a new thing that we do. That reduced the count as well. We also do in-services now, because our cars now -- the luxury cars, more specifically, they have -- we can do all of the stuff via computer, via, you know, Internet, and access your garage and fix your car when it's any kind of issue. We can change tires in your house now. We have vehicles. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 30 of 40 So the manufacturers are making us go more towards people's homes, and they don't believe that's going to change a lot. Some is going to drop, but they believe that that's going to be just a new way of doing business, that we're going to have more and more people wanting to just wait at home, especially the customers that know us. They trust us. So we just show up at their house and deliver the car. And so the count is way down. I don't know if that answered the question or -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, very, very well. Thank you. We were told -- during my conference call I asked what the property to the west might become, and I believe it's a pending possible application as a multifamily sort of residential. What is the loudest activity at a car dealership? I understand your garage bays for repair will be closed during most of the time. It's air conditioned. That will keep a lot of the noise inside. What is the loudest activity that the neighbors have to experience if they live near a car dealership? MR. GALASSO: Well, it used to be exactly what you said, Mr. Fry. It used to be the service facilities, but now -- not only just because of -- we're building them with air conditioning for the area because of the heat and so on and so forth. Also, OSHA, you know, restrictions for noise within the actual employees also has changed. So all that equipment is -- if you go to a -- if you remember going to facilities 20 years ago and go to them now, all the equipment is very quiet. It's got to be whisper quiet, right? All these manufacturers have -- so to answer that question, we don't page loudly anymore. We haven't in a long time. It's just a matter of give that high-line store a little more of a classy feeling than somebody yelling, you know, "Carl, Line 1," right? I mean, so we changed that a long time ago. To answer your question, there is not any -- if you go to one of the stores -- and I invite you to visit the stores -- you won't hear any noise at all. I mean, we don't page at the facilities. Actually, we close all the time because of restrictions from the insurance company as well as the heat index and so on and so forth. So there won't be any noise whatsoever. And our employees are not allowed to be outside. I mean, there's a lot of things that we do more from the customer experience perspective, yeah, not to see, like, 20 people outside smoking or something like that. We try to avoid that. I don't think you'll see you'll see any -- and how this is developed, we're so far away from anything anyway that I don't see you'll see any -- it used to be service, to answer your question, but it's not anymore, you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: The last dealership -- or I'm familiar with one of your dealerships. I'm there quite a bit. It's very quiet, you know, very upscale. The last -- is the last dealership that your group built, was it the BMW dealership, or has there been one locally since then? MR. GALASSO: Well, we built Sarasota Toyota, but not here. Here we build -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It was Honda, right? COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, the Honda. That's since then. MR. GALASSO: Yeah, the Honda was just built. Forgot that. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm also familiar with that one. MR. GALASSO: Yeah, yeah. We built that one, right. And we -- yeah, I know, so the same thing with that one, the same questions were asked, you know, at that time a few years ago. And if you go through that as well, we had to do -- we had very sophisticated speed doors. They're super expensive. And we don't want to buy them, but we do, and they're super quiet. They're double pane. They're hurricane rated as well, so that makes it even more quiet. So that was the last one that we built, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So with the Lexus dealership, we can expect a quality similar to the BMW dealership, I would assume, in the look and the aesthetic of it? 6.1.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 31 of 40 MR. GALASSO: Yeah. If you see -- COMMISSIONER FRY: We saw the rendering. MR. GALASSO: We're trying to -- one of the things we pride ourself -- and you're welcome to go to our Honda facility, which is not at the level that this is, but it's still -- for a Honda store, it's recognized as one of the best stores in the country. Honda comes and uses it as an example all the time. We try to build the places to look more like a home. Like, we're very passionate about the customer experience and how the customers put to [sic] -- you know, entering our dealership being different than any other dealership. So, you know, we have concierge people in the front, the back of the store. So we do a lot of things just to try to provide that. So, yeah, we're very proud of -- and you can look at the Honda store, and you'll see that it looks a little different than most Honda stores, especially if you go inside and see what we did inside. This is designed to be without the -- you have to be within the recommendations of Lexus as an image program, if you will, but we put a lot of our own stuff into it and make it look more like a residential; fancy. Landscaping is very upscale. I mean, we go really into a lot of details. We're very -- and I'm the one that decides all that, so we go really all out in trying to make it look like, you know, our BMW store, if you're familiar with that. And that's an old -- and that was done, what, 13 years ago. So that was done a long time ago, and it's -- still, we put a lot of money to keeping it so when you guys come around it looks like you want to be there, right? So... COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions from the Planning Commission? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a question. I don't drive a Mercedes, but I saw a Mercedes wasn't on the list. I just always thought that was a luxury car. MR. GALASSO: That is a luxury car, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it wasn't on the list. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. You know, I was told that in this particular case Mercedes is -- I'm teasing. I don't know where that came from. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, as you said, this language evolved from something else. COMMISSIONER FRY: Joe, fortunately your Lamborghini is on the list. MR. GALASSO: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have one quick question. What's going to happen to the current Lexus location now off 41? MR. GALASSO: So when we purchased that from Bob Germane -- basically, we are renting the property from him. And I really haven't spoken to him in detail, but I'm assuming that there's going to be an expansion of their Toyota building. You know, because Toyota's doing so much business, I'm assuming that's what's going to happen. I haven't spoken to him directly, but you will assume that -- because he sold Toyota to another brother. So the brother is wanting that property, so I'm assuming it's going to be a part of service at the auto or something like that, right? That's what I'm assuming. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. MR. GALASSO: That's correct? Oh, yeah, that's correct. And, you know -- and land right now, it's so hard to get it right here that I'm sure they'd love to have that, right? So... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. Anything else, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're good to go. MR. GALASSO: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you very much. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 32 of 40 Staff presentation, please. MS. FAULKNER: Good morning. Sue Faulkner, Comprehensive Planning. I had only one thing I wanted to let you know, I believe. Tim Finn emailed you an email we've received over the weekend that was for opposition to this project. And if you've all seen it or read it, I don't need to read it into the record, or I can. Your desire. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've seen it. Anybody need it read? MS. FAULKNER: It's from Mr. Charles Berry. All right. That being said, staff recommends this petition to be moved to the BCC with your recommendation to approve and transmit to the powers that be at the state anyway. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is small scale, so... MS. FAULKNER: It is a small scale, so this would be for adoption for the BCC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MS. FAULKNER: Any questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not from me. With leave of the Planning Commission, I'm going to ask Mr. Yovanovich to return to the mic, because I forgot to ask myself if I had any questions, and I do. Comments. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's past. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's nothing that you haven't heard that -- that you heard from me on Tuesday, but I want to bring it back. It was observed that the luxury language -- luxury automobile language was in the GMPA but was not needed in the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, yes, good point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- in the PUD language and, of course, you'd be amenable to putting -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes, you're right. Shame on me for forgetting to recall that. We will take that very same language and put it into the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But we'll add "Mercedes" to both. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then, also, at the NIM Mr. Amico made the statement that currently there are no lit signs at the luxury dealerships of this ownership family. Would the applicant be willing to add that as a commitment, that there would be no lit signage in the front? MR. GALASSO: Do you want me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Whoever. MR. GALASSO: Yeah. Currently, most manufacturers -- unless you are in a very, very high traffic area and it's allowed, typically, we don't have -- I mean, we have -- the building is going to have -- like, the name is going to be -- you talking about signs -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm talking about lit. MR. GALASSO: Yeah. Well, the Germain Lexus of Naples can be lit or not. Usually it is lit, just in the building, but not on the sign, right? The sign is kind of like the one that's now -- it a monolight. It doesn't have any lights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. So you'd be willing to make that commitment for this one? MR. GALASSO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Those are the only two comments that I had. Thanks. MR. GALASSO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have a presenter from the PUD side? Staff? MR. FINN: Yes. Hello. Good morning. I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP, and the rezoning criteria within the LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 33 of 40 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions on the PUD? Mr. Finn, is that you behind the mask? MR. FINN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. One question from Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Finn, would you concur that this project will generate less traffic than what might have gone here otherwise? MR. FINN: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, we do have an additional information to be presented by Mike Sawyer in regard to access. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Now would be a good time. MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon -- actually, it's not afternoon. Good morning. Transportation staff does have a recommended condition of approval that we'd like to show you and then read into the record. Basically, the condition would be the following: "The Immokalee Road access shall be relocated to the western property line and designated as a joint driveway to serve this PUD development as well as the property to the west. The joint access shall include all required reciprocal easements to allow construction and use to service both parcels and shall be permitted and constructed at time of first SDP or plat of either parcel development." CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's been worked out with the other owner? MR. SAWYER: We believe that is true. We are currently looking at the Coral Blue Apartment development PUD just to the west of this, and they are showing the joint access on that master plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If we were to approve this subject to that condition and you weren't able to reach agreement, where would that leave the -- where would that leave the action of the Planning Commission? What kind of a record would that be? Maybe this is for County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: I hate this last-minute crap. Yeah, it's a problem. It's a problem. So maybe we add "if feasible, the Immokalee Road shall be." CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I did want to comment as well. I never like some other property owner control our destiny. We certainly would like to move there, but if we cannot reach an agreement with the property owner to the west, we need to be able to at least keep our east access until we can reach an agreement, if we can reach an agreement with the property owner to the west. It's in everybody's best interest, but sometimes some people don't see it the same way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. Mike, what's your take on that if we put in "if feasible"? MR. SAWYER: That would be fine with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So the applicant would be able to retain their existing ingress and egress? MR. SAWYER: Correct. I would recommend that possibly a consideration of making a note on the master plan might be appropriate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that's a good idea. It probably would help your bargaining position, too, the applicant. Jeff, does that work. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I recommend "if feasible." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you put up the site plan again. Show me where this -- let me see where the access is. We're talking, then, to the -- so that's the access point there 6.1.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 34 of 40 to the west. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the east. It would relocate here to the west if we can reach an agreement with the property owner to the west. And we would like to do that, trust me, as we have every incentive to do that, to move to the west. But if it doesn't work out, we need to still be able to use this access point to the east. And as you know, we've already shown as interconnection, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I would agree, because the property owner may not want that access. So we can't stop their development based on the requirement unless we want to impose that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And eventually this other PUD will be coming before us; will it not? MR. SAWYER: As I said, currently staff is reviewing that PUD, and it is currently showing that joint access on their master plan. That's why we're looking to try and get consistency between the two. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Well, I think we've got a language fix, so I'm okay with that if -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, could we just show the other shot, the aerial shot that showed, like, the wooded area where that project's going to be, et cetera. I think it was just on there a few minutes ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, that's a better view. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Almost there. Man. It was the real aerial. No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that one. That's pretty close. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: You had a live photo that showed the -- anyway, this is better. Yeah, 3D photo. MR. YOVANOVICH: With the 3D buildings on it? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. If you don't mind showing that just for perspective. MR. YOVANOVICH: I misunderstood what you were saying. Is that the one? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yep. Thank you. Just for clarification, is this project that's in with staff right now that we just referenced, is that the entire wooded there on the corner or just a portion of it? MR. SAWYER: It's the entire property west all the way to the existing rental development. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: To Livingston Woods? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. Mike, do you consider moving of the access point to the west side of the property beneficial to the county's traffic system? MR. SAWYER: Yeah. It would definitely be preferred to have a shared access. That actually eliminates conflict points. It actually reduces them by half. COMMISSIONER FRY: But no traffic light and no cut -- no median cut at that point? MR. SAWYER: Definitely not a traffic signal at that location. It would never meet distance warrants. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 35 of 40 As far as any potential left-in at that location, we could possibly look at that at time of SDP or plat to see if it met distance requirements as well as what the length would need to be. I would caution, currently we have a study going on for Immokalee going all the way -- from Livingston, I believe, all the way -- almost to 951. I think it's short of 951, but I can't remember exactly where, as far as making what is likely going to be a series of intersection improvements similar to what we are currently working to implement and was approved by the Board for Pine Ridge to gain back some of the capacity that we need to meet the current needs on Immokalee. Those intersection improvements would possibly impact any kind of left-in that might be allowed either now or potentially removed later. So I would just have that caution. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's on the table, and it would be decided later if it makes sense? MR. SAWYER: Correct. And even if it were allowed now, it might, hence, in the future at some point be removed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions, comments for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ray, do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one, Charles Berry, who's participating via Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Berry, are you online? Mr. Berry, can you hear us? MR. BERRY: I'm online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. All right, sir. MR. BERRY: Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can hear you. You have three minutes. MR. BERRY: Thank you very much. I think one of the things that's failing to be considered here is the potential interaction between this development and the one that's coming up to the west that would eat up the rest of that preserve. I point out that this preserve is the only green space left between Route 41 and I-75. We feel that that's unfortunate that it's all going to get used up. With respect to the preserve immediately to the west, that is projected to be low-cost housing in excess of 200 units, which I think changes the traffic patterns just a bit. I think it also contemplates a cut-through on Immokalee Road. All of the traffic studies notwithstanding, I'm not sure they always deal with reality. We've got a drag strip out there. And the noise levels and the traffic levels, particularly at peak traffic hours, are pretty intolerable, but they are what they are, and I really hate to see them made worse. The other question that I have is, I've heard this comparison here that the dealership is better than a medical development in that location, but it doesn't mean that you would approve the medical development either. So I think that's a specious argument. So I've talked about the green space. I've talked about the highway. And my last comment is, what's the overall benefit here to -- other than the Germain organization? There's no benefit to me. I live in Bermuda Palms, which is immediately to the west. And there's also proposed an interconnecting road with our property and both properties to the east, which I suspect raises another unknown in the whole contemplation. So that, I think, presents my discussion: Green space, all gone; highway traffic deterioration; and overall benefit to the public, none. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 36 of 40 Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Any other registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Are there any people here who have not registered but would like to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently that's not the case. So we'll now close the -- oh, applicant, do you wish to do any rebuttal since we did have a member of the public? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we've said everything we needed to say, and we're available to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. We'll now close the public comment unless -- oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: The public speaker mentioned that the property that's shown as wooded that we're looking at right now is a preserve. If it were a preserve, it would be un-developable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that was not correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. There are a lot of, I think, incorrect statements, and I'm just -- I don't feel the need to take on a member of the public to address those. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to hear staff just respond to his statement that it's a specious argument that the -- you know, that there's a better use for that property than the dealership in terms of traffic. I mean, I think what we've heard is that it actually is a less intense generator of traffic than what would go there otherwise. So just address his concerns that he made about traffic and then also the green space to the right. Is there any chance that that would remain green space despite what happens with the dealership? MR. BELLOWS: The subject property is -- can be developed consistent with the current Growth Management Plan, so there's no guarantee that if this petition were denied that it couldn't be developed with, say, residential uses or that -- it's not going to remain green space forever. So the Comp Plan Amendment is allowing for the expansion of the commercial, which is adjacent to it, which is a comparable complementary use. COMMISSIONER FRY: Additional expansion of the commercial use but with generating less traffic -- MR. BELLOWS: Far less. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- than what might go there under the current plan? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the property to the west, which is green space now, that will be developed also? MR. BELLOWS: Is being developed as residential. COMMISSIONER FRY: As either commercial or multifamily residential. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Mixed development is my understanding. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if they're doing -- I just want to talk about under the existing Comprehensive Plan. I don't know what the petition is in front of you for the property; the green. You cannot use our commercial rezone as a basis to let commercial creep under our current Comprehensive Plan. So if they're going to do commercial on that, it's going to require a Comprehensive Plan amendment as well. So I just wanted to make sure you're -- the approval of this doesn't give the neighbor to the west a basis to say we set a precedent for them to get commercial. COMMISSIONER FRY: And, likewise, I guess I would ask Mr. Klatzkow, we are not 6.1.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 37 of 40 really not at liberty to consider what might go next door in considering this application, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Only to the -- only to the extent of the possibility of interconnects would you look at it. But, no, these properties develop on their own, and each application comes before you standing on its own merits that are evaluated under the criteria, and you make your decision. I would note that this type of commercial use does not generate traffic. I mean, if you want to buy a luxury car, you're going to drive to the dealership. It doesn't matter if it's here or somewhere else. It's residences that generate traffic. But, you know, that's neither here nor there, I guess. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Try a third time. We'll close the public comment portion of this hearing and ask for discussion and deliberation from the Planning Commission, if anyone would like to lead it off. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is it time to entertain a motion or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. We certainly could, yeah. We've got a couple of things to be added into it, but... COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you like to list those first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. We're going to add the "luxury" language on the Exhibit A of the PUD ordinance, we are going add a developer commitment that there will be no lit signage in the front, and we're going to add the words "if feasible" after the additional language that has been brought forward with respect to the joint driveway proposal. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I think for clarification, for the lit sign -- and, again, I know the VP there came up and spoke. All those dealerships have lit signage on the actual building. You're talking about a separate sign along Immokalee Road? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Front, correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good clarification. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, typically, those are backlit, aren't they? They still have to comply with the -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- sign ordinance within the county. They've asked for no deviation from that. So, regardless, they have to comply with it. What you're saying is there will be no pole sign or monument sign out along the Immokalee Road to identify the location. That's -- yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thanks for that clarification. That's a good -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Hopefully no sign twirlers either, but I don't think we can put that in there right now, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a motion with those conditions? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do the GMP first. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think those changes go to the PUD not the GMP amendment so I just wanted to make sure -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All of them? 6.1.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 38 of 40 MR. YOVANOVICH: None of those changes you just talked about -- those -- all those three changes that you just mentioned all go to the PUD. They don't go into the GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I stand corrected then. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I wanted to make sure we're clear on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the motion will be without conditions. This is on the GMP. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the seconder's okay with that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Now entertain a motion on the PUD with those three conditions in it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Is there an EAC action called for in this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So that concludes the substantive agenda items. I don't believe there's any new business. I don't believe there's any old business. So I'll ask if there's any public comment on any matter that was not on our agenda. Anyone wish to be -- to come forward and be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing not, we're clear on that. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Therefore, without objection, we're adjourned. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 20, 2020 Page 39 of 40 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:31 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, 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. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 08-20-2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes (13399 : August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes)