CCPC Minutes 08/20/2020 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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.