Agenda 03/23/2021 Item # 9A (Resolution - Ave Maria SRA)03/23/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a
Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners amending the Town of Ave
Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) to revise the SRA town plan and master plan in
accordance with Section 4.08.07.F.4 of the Land Development Code, and specifically to: increase
the civic uses from 148,500 to 350,000 square feet to accommodate a hospital use; redesignate 5±
acres of services district to Town Center 3; to add Appendix G, deviations to provide for a signage
deviation for an off-premises sign outside of the SRA boundary and a maximum lot size deviation
for multi-family development; and add a vehicular trip cap based on existing permitted uses. The
subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road in Sections 31
through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18,
Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff's findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above-referenced petition, render a decision regarding this SRA Amendment petition and
ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the
community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property, consisting of approximately 5,027 acres is located on the
north side of Oil Well Road and the west side of Camp Keais Road near the intersection of Ave Maria
Boulevard and Anthem Parkway in Section 14, Township 48 South, Range 29 East, Collier County. The
petitioner is requesting the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Town of Ave Maria SRA and
Master Plan to increase the square footage allocated to Civic Uses. Add a vehicular trip cap for the SRA
based on the current entitlements. Allow Neighborhood General to permit commercial signage and to
allow off-premises signage. Obtain a deviation from Section 4.08.07 to allow multiple-family residential
parcels larger than 4 acres. To re-designate about 5 acres that is part of the Services District to Town
Center 3. Additionally, the proposal adds 40,000 square feet of Mini-Warehouse use to Town Center 3.
Proposed SRA Amendment: The master developer proposes to Amend the Town of Ave Maria SRA
document and Master Plan. The applicant stated that a hospital provider may construct a 25 -bed hospital
with emergency center near the Town Center area of Ave Maria. Additional Civic Use square footage
would be needed to construct a hospital. The applicant proposes the following:
• For potential hospital use, they propose to increase Civic Use square footage in (Table 1, Ave
Maria Land Use) from 148,500 square feet to 350,000 square feet.
• Proposal to add Mini-Warehouse use (storage) to Table 1 with a maximum of 40,400 square feet.
• To remain traffic neutral, they propose a vehicular trip cap of 4,320 PM peak hour trips.
• Proposal to allow signage in Ave Maria Town Centers 1, 2 and 3 to meet Town Core/Community
General standards or, sign standards from Section 5.06.04.F. of the LDC.
• Proposal to increase maximum lot size for multiple-family in Neighborhood General from 4 acres
to 25 acres.
• Proposal to redesignate 5 acres of the Services District to Town Center 3.
The applicant has requested a deviation for the maximum size of multiple-family residential lots.
9.A
Packet Pg. 33
03/23/2021
Deviation #1 “seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)I), Town Design Criteria, which requires
multifamily residential lots shall be a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow multi -family residential lots
to be a maximum of 50 acres.” Staff finds the deviation is not reasonable and justifiable; Zoning and
Development Review staff recommends NOT APPROVING this deviation. The maximum 4-acre parcel
sized was intended to promote compact urban design and promote walkability. Large development tracts
of multiple-family projects are not in keeping with the Town design in the SRA district.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as
needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet
the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved
by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional
revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates and that revenue is directly related to the value
of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria
used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) The subject property,
Ave Maria SRA, is located within the Agricultural/Rural/RLSA designated area, as identified on the
countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Zoning for the subject
site is located in 2 Overlays - MHO-RLSAO, Mobile home overlay, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay. The requested civic and commercial uses and square footage are allowed by the RLSA Overlay.
Based upon the above analysis, staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Town of Ave Ma ria SRA
may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition SRAA-PL20190002416 on February 4, 2021, and there was a motion to approve by
Commissioner Schmitt second by Commissioner Homiak with stipulations noted below and forward to
the Board for consideration. The motion carried 4-2 with Commissioners Schmitt, Homiak, Shea and
Fryer voting in favor. Commissioners Klucik and Fry voted against the motion. The dissent was related to
the impacts of signage on the Town Center that have not yet been contemplated.
1. Elimination of Deviation #1 from the Resolution.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship
Receiving Area. The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is
consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County
Commissioners, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or
unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of
the listed criteria.
Criteria for SRA Amendment
1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
9.A
Packet Pg. 34
03/23/2021
3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and
transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA s hall not be
sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the
exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited
on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the
size of the land or parcel.
5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater
than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated
state.
6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross
acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross
acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the
consumption of Stewardship Credits.
7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA
located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space
shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HAS, but shall not encroach into such
areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be
contiguous to, or encompass a WRA.
9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or
indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation
planning standards.
10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
GMP.
11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07
A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District
Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs,
HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship
Credits to implement SRA uses.
14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hear ing as these items relate
to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires a majority vote for
Board approval (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the recommendation of the CCPC and recommends approval
9.A
Packet Pg. 35
03/23/2021
of petition PL20190002416 Ave Maria SRAA with the stipulation that Deviation #1 is eliminated from
the resolution.
Prepared by: C. James Sabo, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (PDF)
2. Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (PDF)
3. Attachment B Proposed SRA Master Plan 2020 (PDF)
4. Attachment C Comprehensive Planing Memorandum (PDF)
5. Attachment D Backup material Ave Maria SRAA (PDF)
6. Supplemental Staff Memo-Ave Maria 2-04-2021 (PDF)
7. legal ad - agenda ID 15111 (PDF)
8. Virtual Hybrid Waiver (PDF)
9. [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (PDF)
9.A
Packet Pg. 36
03/23/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.A
Doc ID: 15111
Item Summary: This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners amending the Town of Ave
Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) to revise the SRA town plan and master plan in accordance
with Section 4.08.07.F.4 of the Land Development Code, and specifically to: increase the civic uses from
148,500 to 350,000 square feet to accommodate a hospital use; redesignate 5± acres of services district to
Town Center 3; to add Appendix G, deviations to provide for a signage deviation for an off -premises sign
outside of the SRA boundary and a maximum lot size deviation for multi-family development; and add a
vehicular trip cap based on existing permitted uses. The subject property is located north of Oil Well
Road and west of Camp Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East and
Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida.
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Prepared by:
Title: – Zoning
Name: James Sabo
02/19/2021 3:55 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
02/19/2021 3:55 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Lissett DeLaRosa Level 1 Reviewer Completed 02/22/2021 9:41 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 02/24/2021 2:30 PM
Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 02/25/2021 3:59 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 03/02/2021 9:14 AM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 03/11/2021 8:56 AM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 03/11/2021 8:59 AM
Zoning Jeanne Marcella Additional Reviewer Skipped 03/11/2021 9:14 AM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 03/11/2021 8:30 PM
County Manager's Office Dan Rodriguez Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 03/12/2021 11:46 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 03/23/2021 9:00 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 03/12/2021 12:34 PM
9.A
Packet Pg. 37
Page 1 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2020
SUBJECT: SRAA-PL20190002416 TOWN OF AVE MARIA, SRA AMENDMENT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENTS:
Applicant:
David Genson, P.E.
Ave Maria Development, LLLP
2600 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, FL 34105
Agents:
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103
Property Owners:
Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Ave Maria Utility Company LLLP
AMULT, LLC Ave Maria Development LLLP
2600 Golden Gate Parkway 2600 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34105
REQUESTED ACTION:
To Amend the Town of Ave Maria SRA and Master Plan to increase the square footage allocated to
Civic Uses. Add a vehicular trip cap for the SRA based on the current entitlements. Allow
Neighborhood General to permit commercial signage and to allow off-premises signage. Obtain a
deviation from Section 4.08.07 to allow multiple-family residential parcels larger than 4 acres. To
re-designate about 5 acres that is part of the Services District to Town Center 3 to allow for the
development of office space near the cell tower facility. Additionally, the proposal adds 40,000
square feet of Mini-Warehouse use to Town Center 3.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of approximately 5,027 acres is located on the north side of Oil
Well Road and the west side of Camp Keais Road near the intersection of Ave Maria Boulevard and
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 2 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
Anthem Parkway in Section 14, Township 48 South, Range 29 East, Collier County (See location
map page 2). The proposed Master Plan document is included as Attachment B.
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 3 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The master developer proposes to Amend the Town of Ave Maria SRA document and Master Plan.
The applicant states that a hospital provider may construct a 25-bed hospital with emergency center
near the Town Center area of Ave Maria. To accommodate the hospital use, the square footage
allocated to Civic Uses within the SRA needs to be increased from 148,500 square feet to 350,000
square feet. The applicant proposes to amend Table 1 Land Use to increase the Civic Use square
footage maximum to reflect the increase. Additionally, the applicant proposes to add Mini-
Warehouse use to Table 1 with a maximum of 40,400 square feet. In order to remain traffic neutral,
the developer states that they are modifying the SRA to add a vehicular trip cap based on the current
entitlements. The change allows for adjustments to the land use mix as the SRA continues to develop
with a maximum vehicle trip intensity. The applicant states that the proposal is similar to those for
PUD’s in the urban area of the County. The proposed trip cap is 4,320 PM peak hour two-way
vehicles per hour (vph).
The applicant proposes to add language for Neighborhood General to permit commercial signage
for projects. The applicant states that the existing sign criteria within the SRA is not appropriate for
stand-alone commercial uses or multi-tenant parcels located outside the Ave Maria town core. The
applicant seeks a deviation for an off-premises sign to be located greater than 1,000 feet from the
SRA boundary on Oil Well Road to provide direction for motorists using S.R. 29 to arrive.
Currently, the maximum lot size for multi-family residential dwelling units in the Neighborhood
General area is 4 acres. The applicant seeks a deviation from Section 4.08.07 of the LDC to allow
multi-family dwelling unit projects on lots larger than 4 acres. That applicant states that the deviation
will permit a single developer to construct dwelling units not on individual lots, but rather on tracts
of land as is typical throughout the County. The applicant also proposes to re-designate
approximately 5 acres that is presently part of the Services District to Town Center 3. The applicant
claims that it will allow development of flex service/office space near the cellular tower and water
treatment facilities.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site, consisting of 5,027 acres, is located at 6868
Arthrex Commerce Drive (northeast corner of Arthrex Commerce Dr and Oil Well Road) and 5365
and 5325 Ave Maria Blvd., in Sections 8 and 17, Township 48 South, Range 29 East, and Section
33, Township 47 South, and Range 29 East.
The subject property, Ave Maria SRA, is located within the Agricultural/Rural designated area, as
identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The
Zoning for the subject site is located in 2 Overlays – MHO-RLSAO, Mobile home overlay, and
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Although, Ave Maria exceeds the 4,000 acres for a town in
SRA Attachment C of the Growth Management Plan, it was previously approved.
Based upon the above analysis, staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Town of Ave Maria
SRA may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Conclusion:
Based upon the above analysis of FLUE policies, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed
SRAA to be “consistent by policy” with the FLUE. The Comprehensive Planning Memo is included
as Attachment C.
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 4 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s August 28, 2020
TIS and revised SRA Document for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states;
“The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation application s,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with
consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not
approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment
as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient
as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or
adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below
an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless
specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant
impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where
it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s
significant impacts on all roadways.”
Staff finding: According to the TIS and revised SRA document the proposed change is to increase
the square footage for a hospital use in Town Center 2b at Ave Maria. There is also a proposed
change to address mini warehouse use. As noted in the TIS the Ave Maria SRA does not currently
include a trip cap commitment; however, this amendment does incorporate a trip cap as part of
Exhibit A that is based on the existing development, original and proposed uses, plat and site plan
approvals. The TIS data reflects current ITE standards and includes traffic recaps of the original
2004 SRA with an estimated +/- 4,059 PM Peak Hour two-way trips; the 2014 SRA amendment
using current with an estimated +/- 261 PM Peak Hour two-way trips; for a combined total of +/-
4,320 PM Peak Hour two-way trips for the Ave Maria SRA. A further analysis was provided as part
of the TIS showing the approved plus pending development trips current at Ave Maria as well as a
scenario that includes the propose use changes noted above regarding the hospital and mini
warehouse uses with this SRA amendment. This petition proposed to retain the same number of
trips associated with the original Ave Maria SRA plus the previous SRAA petition for the proposed
SRA Trip Cap of 4,320 PM Peak Hour, two-day trips as noted in Exhibit A.
Based on the TIS, the updated current ITE standards and the revised SRA, the subject amendment
can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan because there are no additional traffic impacts resulting from the proposed changes.
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 5 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 6 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 7 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
Off-Site Premises Sign Location N.W corner Camp Keais-Oil Well
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 8 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
STAFF REVIEW:
Zoning Review: The proposed amendments comply with the requirements of the SRA procedures
set forth in LDC Section 4.08.07. In compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.E, the proposed changes
are not in conflict with any SRA suitability criteria, or any RLSA District regulations. The proposed
changes continue to direct incompatible land uses away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and
Conservation Lands. The petitioner has already demonstrated that he has acquired or will acquire
sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The proposed Amendment should not
have negative impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. The proposed
Amendment does not change the overall approved uses, increase the overall approved density, or
change the perimeter boundaries of the SRA (or DRI), but it does change the location of permitted
uses. There is an additional Town Center 3 district that will be re-located within the existing Services
District. However, the change is not substantial.
The increase from 148,500 square feet to 350,000 square feet for Civic Uses is acceptable as the
proposed increase is intended for a hospital use.
The applicant has requested a deviation for the maximum size of multiple-family residential lots and
a deviation for off-premises signage. The deviations are detailed in the section below.
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address
environmental concerns. The proposed petition does not impact environmental commitments within
the SRA. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this
project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-
1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with
the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval.
Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types
of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected
types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or
otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure will continue to have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at
this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of each development
order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable
concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought.
The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure will continue to be sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in
the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of
each development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate
turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with
all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including
but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought.
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 9 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The petitioner’s rationale
and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
Deviation #1 “seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i), Town Design Criteria, which
requires multifamily residential lots shall be a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow multi -family
residential lots to be a maximum of 50 acres.”
Petitioner’s Justification:
The master developer for Ave Maria develops or sells vacant land tracts to other developers. Tracts
of land rather than individual lots are sold for development of multi-family residences. The maximum
lot size of 4 acres is an insufficient size to practically and efficiently develop multi-family units within
a Town where 11,000 dwelling units are planned, of which just over 4,000 dwelling units are
proposed to be multifamily dwellings. Within the master planned community where master
developers will utilize larger overall land tracts, the 4-acre maximum is not a logical size. The
proposed 50-acre maximum lot size will be sufficient to allow flexibility in response to multiple
developers and market demand, which will provide for a diversity of housing types within the SRA
which has been an expressed desire by the public.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation is not reasonable and justifiable; Zoning and
Development Review staff recommends NOT APPROVING this deviation. The maximum 4-acre
parcel sized was intended to promote compact urban design and promote walkability. Large
development tracts of multiple-family projects are not in keeping with the Town design in the SRA
district.
Deviation #2 “seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G, Off-Premises Directional Signs, which
requires that the sign may be located no more than 1,000 feet from the building, structure or use for
which the sign is displayed, to instead allow an off-premises real estate sign to be located on the
north side of Oil Well Road approximately 4,500 feet outside of the Town of Ave Maria SRA
boundary. The sign shall be consistent with the size and copy provided in the attached exhibit titled
“Off-Site Real Estate Sign”.”
Petitioner’s Justification:
Barron Collier Partnership desires to install an off-premise real estate sign near the intersection of
Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road in order to provide way finding directional signage for
motorists arriving to the Town via S.R. 29. The off-premises real estate sign would be located on
land owned by Barron Collier Partnership, approximately 4,500± feet east of Ave Maria Boulevard
on the north side of Oil Well Road, which is located within the Stewardship District boundary. This
signage is similar to the off-site real estate sign previously permitted at the intersection of Immokalee
Road and Camp Keais Road, also located within the Stewardship District boundary.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation is reasonable and justifiable; staff sees no
detrimental effect with this deviation. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends
APPROVAL of this deviation. Off-premises signs are reasonable when related to way finding for
specific destinations.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found
this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Element, preservation of listed
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 10 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
species habitat and other native areas within the Rural Lands Stewardship Areas are addressed by
the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas. No revisions to the environmental portions
of the SRA are being requested.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition revised on December 3,
2020 and provided the following information regarding review of this petition.
The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the propos al is consistent with
the criteria set forth below.
Criteria for SRA Amendment extracted from LDC Section 4.08.07
1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned
development.
3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and
transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited
on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the
exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land
that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or
parcel.
5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than
1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state.
6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage
of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes
only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits.
7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located
outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be
required to consume Stewardship Credits.
8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such
areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be
contiguous to or encompass a WRA.
9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or
indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the
proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards.
10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
GMP.
11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.]
and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07.
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 11 of 11
Town of Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416
December 17, 2020
12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District
Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs,
WRAs, and Conservation Lands.
13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits
to implement SRA uses.
14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition SRAA-
PL20190002416 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval
as described by the attached Resolution subject to elimination of Deviation #1.
Attachments:
A) Proposed SRAA Resolution
B) Proposed Master Plan document
C) Comprehensive Planning Memo
D) Back Up material
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Final Staff Report Ave Maria SRAA PL19-2416 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution - 022621 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.3Packet Pg. 63Attachment: Attachment B Proposed SRA Master Plan 2020 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Memorandum
To: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: November 17, 2020
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: SRAA-PL20190002416 REV. 3
PETITION NAME: Ave Maria SRAA
REQUEST: An amendment to the Ave Maria SRA to do the following:
• Remove 5 acres from services district and added to town center 3.
• Increased square feet of gross civic feet from 148,500 sf to 350,000 sf and added 40,000 square
feet of mini warehouse (in Town Center #3)
• Added SRA trip cap of 4,697 vph (vehicles per hour)
• Amended Master plan with a detailed closeup of proposed amended area.
• Deviation justifications #1 and #2 have been added to Appendix G.
• New table in TIS is provided
• New table showing 2020 SRA Amendment at buildout has been added to revised TIS
LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of 5,027 acres, is located at 6868 Arthrex Commerce Drive
(northeast corner of Arthrex Commerce Dr and Oil Well Road) and 5365 and 5325 Ave Maria Blvd., in
Sections 8 and 17, Township 48 South, Range 29 East, and Section 33, Township 47 South, and Range 29
East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property, Ave Maria SRA, is located within the
Agricultural/Rural designated area, as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). The Zoning for the subject site is located in 2 Overlays – MHO-RLSAO, Mobile
home overlay, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.
Although, Ave Maria exceeds the 4,000 acres for a town in SRA Attachment C of the Growth
Management Plan, it was previously approved.
Conclusion
Based upon the above analysis of FLUE policies, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed SRAA
to be “consistent by policy” with the FLUE.
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Attachment C Comprehensive Planing Memorandum (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
Page 1 of 1 ver.1-22-2021
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF MEMO
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2021
SUBJECT: SRAA PL20190002416 TOWN OF AVE MARIA
REQUESTED CONTINUANCE:
At the December 17, 2020 meeting of the CCPC, the applicant requested a continuance to allow
them to hold a second informational meeting with Ave Maria residents. The intent was to allow
additional questions from residents and to provide information about the project to residents who
were not able to attend the NIM. A summary of the meeting from the applicant is provided below:
A developer meeting was held on 01/14/2021 at 5:30 at the Ave Maria Master Association Office
(5076 Annunciation Circle #103, Ave Maria, FL 34142). The meeting was held in person and
through the Master Association Zoom account. There were approximately 60-70 residents who
attended the meeting in total.
Representing the developer (Ave Maria Development) were David Genson and Austin Howell.
The developer went through the presentation prepared for the Collier County Planning
Commission. The residents were informed during the presentation that the agenda item will be
pushed from the 01/21/2021 CCPC meeting to the following CCPC on 02/04/2021.
Overall, there were no major issues with the proposed changes to the SRA. The change to the
deviation regarding multi-family lot size from 50 acres maximum to 25 acres maximum was
mentioned. An exhibit was displayed which demonstrated how the development would result with
the deviation. During the presentation, Mr. Klucik, an Ave Maria resident, asked if the signage
requirements to the neighborhood general area were being changed to allow commercial signage
in this area. We informed Mr. Klucik that the proposed changes to commercial signage are solely
within the Town Center areas of the SRA. The presentation preamble wou ld be amended to reflect
the correction, the proposed language change would remain the same as it correctly stated the
change.
The rest of the dialogue revolved around general questions in Ave Maria, not related to the
proposed amendment change.
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Supplemental Staff Memo-Ave Maria 2-04-2021 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.7
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: legal ad - agenda ID 15111 (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
9.A.8Packet Pg. 67Attachment: Virtual Hybrid Waiver (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 1 of 82
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, February 4, 2021
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
Karl Fry
Joe Schmitt
Paul Shea
Robert L. Klucik, Jr.
Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board
Representative
ABSENT:
Christopher T. Vernon
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 2 of 82
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone. Please take your seats. And welcome
to the, shall we say, cool February 4, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Do I have a button or something that I can push to get your
attention now?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think you do, but I'll try to --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: A new chair, I thought I might have moved up in the
world.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will try to be attentive. And if I'm not being sufficiently
attentive, raise your voice a little.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Robb, it was a lateral move that you made.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I know; yeah, it was.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Secretary, please call the roll.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
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. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six out of seven.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows or Mr. Frantz.
MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No changes. Thank you, sir.
All right. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on February 18. Does
anyone know whether he or she will not be able to be in attendance at that meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it looks like we will be in good shape.
At the end of our substantive agenda, I'm going to save at least 30 minutes time for some
old business and new business matters that I'd like to talk about having to do with upcoming
agendas. So if we're not completed by, say, 4:00 p.m., I'll ask for a hard break at that time so that
we can talk about some things that -- well, I've got a couple on my mind and others may as well.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As is typical, are we planning to break around noon?
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 3 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. We can decide that right now or wait and see how the flow
goes. Is it important that we --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm just meeting somebody, and I just want to tell
them, but that's -- it shouldn't -- the meeting shouldn't hinge on anything. I'm just asking out of
curiosity if that's your plan.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The plan would be not to interrupt a presentation at an awkward
point. But within that framework, we're going to shoot for noon or as close as we can --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to that. Thank you, Commissioner.
All right. Let's see. There are no minutes before us for action, so we can move to Item 6,
which is the BCC report/recaps. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 26th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the
Sabal Bay PUD rezone and amendment to add 102 acres and 230 dwelling units. That was
approved by the Board by a vote of the 4-1 with Commissioner Taylor opposed.
There were two items on the summary agenda. That was the conditional use for the EMS
safety service facility on DeSoto and Golden Gate Boulevard and the LDC amendments, some of
those dealing with the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office District. Those were approved
on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Chairman's report. I have a couple of small things, and then one I'm going to use as a
tease for what I want to talk about, or one of the things I want to talk about under old or new
business.
First of all, another shout out to our County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, for an excellent job in
the presentation that he and his colleagues made for us under the workshop. It was very, very
informative, so much appreciation to you, County Attorney Klatzkow.
Second, a word of thanks to staff for providing us with the looks ahead, and I see we have
another one that's before us. I think these are extremely helpful, and I assume everyone knows
that with access to CityView on the county website we can get working on these projects well
before our agenda packet comes through. And so particularly, in times like these when we have
lots of very consequential matters in front of us, it's helpful to know as far in advance as possible
what we have coming.
Now, in exchange, we have to agree that we're not going to be critical of staff if the agenda
changes from these estimates, because that's all they are is estimates. And so this is staff's best
guess, but it's not anything that is carved in stone. But I think it's very helpful and, I think it's also
helpful, those of us who want to be following what the Hearing Examiner is looking at, have those
matters summarized also on the agenda and can be referred to, so that's all good.
Then the one thing that I want to tease a little bit for later discussion has to do with our
agenda. And as you know from looking at the looks ahead, we're scheduled to hear two RLSA
village applications on the 18th, and those are always not only consequential but extremely
detailed, lots of permutations and aspects of the issues that arise, and I want to be fair in not taking
undue advantage of Planning Commissioners' time.
So I'm going to want to talk about whether we want to go forward scheduling both of those
on the 18th or put one off to the 4th of March where right now we don't have a crowded agenda, if
anything at all. So that we will talk about and have a conversation about as we move forward.
Consent agenda, we have none.
***Public hearings, advertised, the first one is 9A1, PL20190002416. This is the Town of
Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area proposed amendments.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 4 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Before we get into that --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- can I bring something up?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You certainly may.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And it's germane to what you were just speaking about. It
goes to Item 6, which was the report of the county commissioners, their action.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For this look-ahead, could that also include kind of a chart
with the recent votes that we've taken and the subsequent actions that the county has taken so we
kind of have a written record of -- you know, so we're seeing what -- you know, what happens to
our recommendation?
Sure, we get it, you know, orally, I guess, but it would be nice to see it in writing, too.
And it seems like they're already putting it in writing in some format so that they can present it to
us. So if we could just add it to the look-ahead.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows, do you want to respond to that? I have no objection
to adding that.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Board of County Commissioners' web page has a BCC recap,
and that's where some of this information is taken from.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just add the recap. Just add the recap to the -- and we're done.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
All right. So this is Ave Maria. All those 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: Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting,
please, with Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: None.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: In my case, materials and communications with staff and also
members of the public, and a site visit.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm sorry; I did have a very brief conversation with
Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I need to add that as well, because I had a very brief one as
well.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did not. No. Okay. Now -- I was almost confused
here for a minute. No, I have no disclosures.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had a discussion with Mr. Yovanovich reference this
petition.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I attended the official NIM and then -- and I do
not -- I don't think I was a commissioner at the time, and then I attended the informal community
meeting that the developer had subsequent.
And I did speak with staff, I did speak to developer representatives about this, and I will
also disclose that I have been a tenant of the applicant or a close associate of the applicant, Ave
Maria Development, for 11 years. My law practice has been renting space. I don't know if that's
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 5 of 82
relevant, but Mr. Klatzkow said I should at least bring it up so that we can -- everyone knows that
I'm disclosing it.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think the disclosure's important, and I don't believe it's an issue.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you very much. Applicant, please proceed.
Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning
Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, certified planner,
and our team today representing the Barron Collier companies is Austin Howell, who is part of the
applicant team; Rich Yovanovich is, of course, the land-use attorney; and Norm Trebilcock is here
as our transportation engineer in the event you have some questions regarding transportation.
Ave Maria, as you well know, it's under development. It was the first SRA and town in
Collier County. And we are making several changes that I consider to be sort of cleanup, and as
this project evolves and it matures, I think you're going to continue to see some tweaks. This was,
as I said, the first project that came about as a town, and there's some nuances there that we're
continuing to work through. It is a stewardship area. It's about 5,000 acres.
So we've got several requests, and I have them bullet pointed here, and I'm going to go
through each of those, and then I'll go through some slides that talk a little bit more about those.
So one of the changes we're making is to redesignate about five acres that's presently part of the
services district, and the services district is really their utility site, and it would redesignate that to a
Town Center 3 designation, and I'll go through that in a little bit more detail in a moment.
We're increasing the civic uses significantly from 148,500 square feet to 350,000 square
feet which will accommodate a proposed hospital that's to be constructed near the Arthrex site on
Oil Well Road. We're modifying this to add a trip cap for the project. Much like you see for a
Planned Unit Development, we're adding a trip cap for all of Ave Maria, which in the future that
would allow us to hopefully make some adjustments in land-use allocation without necessarily the
need to modify a trip cap.
We're going to -- if you've been to Ave Maria, there is a mini warehouse CubeSmart that's
been constructed there. It's fairly small. It's a little over 40,000 square feet. It was ledgered at
the time against our retail square footage in the project. It's not really an industrial use, and
Arthrex has really consumed almost all of that industrial space, so we created a separate line for the
indoor self-storage. It's not a new insertion of a use. It's been accounted for. Norm has
accommodated that in his trip analysis that he conducted to set the trip cap. But we were just
trying to keep the ledgering straight, as the county staff didn't really know where to put it, and we
didn't think it fit any of the categories that are established for Ave Maria.
In the town center area, it has signage criteria. We're asking for that signage criteria to not
only be subject to the town center criteria but also the Collier County Land Development Code for
buildings. I'll give you an example. There's a convenience store out there that doesn't really fit
the mode of having wall signage and things that you would find if you're on a pedestrian-oriented
site.
So we would like that to be subject to the county's regular code requirements for those
types of commercial signs. We're asking for a deviation to allow an off-premise sign on Oil Well
Road. There's presently one at the intersection of Camp Keais Road and Immokalee Road that
some of you may have seen in your travels. There's a photograph of it in your report, but we're
asking for one as well on Oil Well Road.
And we're then asking for another deviation, and this is something you've seen on a couple
of other of the villages that have come through, but we're asking to deviate from the maximum
acreage size of four acres for multifamily. We initially asked for that to be up to 50 acres for our
multifamily sites, and we subsequently, to our neighborhood meeting, reduced that request to 25
acres. Your staff report incorrectly states that the request was for 50 acres. It initially was, but
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 6 of 82
it's been reduced to 25 acres, and it's my understanding that that's similar to -- I think it was Hyde
Park, Rich. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Rivergrass.
MR. ARNOLD: Rivergrass, I'm sorry. Hyde Park had an unlimited acreage relative to
the multifamily. It was Rivergrass that had the 25-acre limitation that we're asking for as well.
So that describes the overall changes we're asking to make. The current master plan -- this
relates to that services district. So this is -- the arrow's pointing to the purple area, and that's the
utility site. I didn't put it in the presentation, but -- do we have access to the visualizer, Ray?
This is an aerial photograph of the services site. And you can see right now it has a water
and sewer plant. There's a cellular tower that operates telemetry and phone services for the town,
and the portion that's accessed off the same road as the park, we were redesignating about five
acres there to be a Town Center 3, which the intent here is to allow services that the community
needs as it matures. There's really no place out there for lawn service providers, pool cleaning
people to have a shop set up for them where they can have a place for themselves. And so they're
traveling great distances to be here in some cases, so it makes sense to have a location in town for
them, and this made the most sense from a community standpoint because it was sort of tucked in
and away. And if you go out there, there's a huge berm that surrounds this site, so it's very little
that you can even see for these -- I wouldn't call them quasi-industrial uses, but they are services
where they have trucks and potentially trailers and things like that that they will need stowage.
So if I can -- so on this image you can see the arrows pointing to where we've redesignated
about that five acres in yellow, and that's how it would be reflected on the overall master plan.
That's a little bit closer of a blowup, and you can see how that relates. It goes from all being
services to a portion of Town Center 3.
Potential hospital site, identified it with the star. So that's Arthrex's facility off of Oil Well
Road, and the hospital's yet to be determined exactly how many beds it will be, but we've asked for
a square footage that seems consistent with at least the Colliers' discussion with a hospital group
that wants to be located there. I think most of the community supports having a hospital facility to
service Ave Maria. I don't think there's objections that I'm aware of related to the request to
expand the civic use size.
We have several text revisions. This is the one that reflects the square footage increase for
the civic. Also, the 40,400 square feet for mini-storage, and this is where we also inserted the trip
cap. So the SRA trip cap is going to be 4,697 vehicles per hour. And I'm sure if you have
questions, Norm can explain exactly how he came up with that trip cap. But we felt like this was
the direction to go so we have, as I mentioned, latitude in the future to maybe manipulate some of
the land-use changes without intensifying the overall project.
We've updated a couple of the LDC sections here to reference the signage that would be
allowed in the town centers consistent with our request.
This related to our deviation for the multifamily. Right now the LDC says that
multifamily sites cannot exceed four acres, and none of us really know the history of where the
four-acre number was established. And I know you've heard this discussion before on your other
villages, but if you're in a master planned community, a four-acre tract to develop a multifamily
product when you're going to have a bundled golf community, for instance, as Lennar will out at
Ave Maria, it doesn't really make sense to have to fragment your development into these four-acre
chunks of land, because all it does, as Rich has said, it provides firms like mine a lot more
engineering fees to do multiple site plans for something that you could have accomplished as one
master plan.
So I know there was some pushback, and staff says they're not supporting the 25 acres, but
we think we're asking for something that's a functional size as a master developer. You all see
several multifamily apartment complexes, for instance, come through, and those typically can be in
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 7 of 82
the 20-acre range and, larger, but we've limited this to 25 acres and hope that you can support that.
And we've got an image if we want to get into more detail on that specific request if we have
questions.
The other deviation related to the off-site sign. And this is an image of what the sign
would be with some sizes in it. And if you look at the one that's on Immokalee and Camp Keais
Road, it's essentially an off-site sign announcing Ave Maria. So, obviously, as people migrate to
Ave Maria from the East Coast of Florida, they come up State Road 29 and then over on Oil Well
Road to the site. This is sort of an announcement, and the location is just east of the Ave Maria
entrance about a quarter of a mile.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, did you wish to be heard at this time?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till after he's done. I have a question on the
four --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- issue, but I'll wait till --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- till it's time for questions.
MR. ARNOLD: So I put this lifestyle sign in here. This was a question that had come up
at our neighborhood information meeting. There are signs sort of like this throughout the
community, and I put it in there because there was some thought from staff early on that we need
might need to add some criteria. We have community signage already established that these were
permitted under, so I'm not going to -- we ultimately had no further discussion with staff on that,
so...
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman.
MR. ARNOLD: And that was it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Regarding that last slide, I don't want to jump ahead of
you. It's just because it was germane to -- I thought he was going to keep going, Commissioner
Schmitt, so I can wait, or whatever.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'll wait till --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your call.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, I'll just ask you. So when we were at the
information meetings, the issue that I thought came up is that the signage is not in compliance right
now with the existing code?
MR. ARNOLD: I hate to say it's not in compliance because they were permitted signs,
but the question the county had was were they permitted, I guess, adequately, and under what
criteria.
And as far as I know, that's gone no further. There's no code case against them. And we
put this in case -- I didn't want to have to go back and have another neighborhood meeting because
I didn't talk about this issue. So I put it in so we could talk about it and if, as we furthered the
discussion, we had to put in some criteria, I was covered.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But as of now your petition has nothing to do with these
lifestyle signs.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what lifestyle signs are. It's just -- they're just
advertising signs, when you come down to it. The distinction that we're having internal
discussions with are signs that are internal to the community, which we don't really care about, and
then signs that are on -- I'll call them external signs, signs that are, like, on the right-of-way. And
the one thing the county doesn't want to see is, in essence, small billboards, you know, "buy our
community," "what a wonderful community," "this is a great lifestyle in our community." That's
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 8 of 82
what we're trying to regulate. We're not really regulating the internal signs. So whatever they put
inside, we don't really care. It's sort of like a store or -- we don't really care about the signage you
put inside the store; it's what's outside that the public sees that matters.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I mean, the issue here, these signs are on the roads
that are owned by the local government, and --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that would be --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's an internal issue.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no, it's not. It's not an internal issue. They still
have to meet the code. There is a county code for such signs.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm telling you is that what the county cares about from a
public policy standpoint is what I'll call the external signs that the public sees. The internal signs,
we don't really care about that as much.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You don't enforce the code there, or you do?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you what the internal discussions -- I'm telling you what
the discussion have been. It's not my job to enforce the code. That's on the County Manager's
side.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure, sure. The only reason it's an issue is there's a sign
bloat. There's, you know, probably 100 signs on a couple miles of road, and so in the community
it's an issue; that's all. But it doesn't appear that we're taking that up, so it's not an issue for us.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to ask, then, well, why doesn't your community
board take issue with that?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We have no authority. That's a county --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Certainly you do.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We don't. Well, we do. It's our land, but the
county -- the board, before I was on the local board, chose to give an easement to the developer to
put whatever signs they want up, that's all.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Like I said, you do have authority.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to go further with your other comments?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'll go with the four acres. Wayne, of course, you
and I go way back. And I, too, don't understand what a four-acre limitation -- and I noted that
staff is not approving. Typically, four acres would be, what, maybe two or three buildings at best
in a cluster development. It just doesn't make any sense that it be limited to four acres.
MR. ARNOLD: I have an exhibit, Mr. Schmitt, I can put on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, please. Because I can't recall why it was limited
to four acres. I have no idea. Yeah, that's exactly what it would be is --
MR. ARNOLD: So here's an exhibit that Barron Collier created, and it shows these little
boxes, and you put buildings inside a four-acre-or-less tract. And what happens, and the reason
it's important to have more than four acres when you have a master developer, is that you would
have the other side of this -- this shows the no limitation, and you end up with the exact same
product.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that would be -- and that would be developed as one
site plan, then.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One SDP, one submittal.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, frankly, a condominium type -- it could be a
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 9 of 82
condominium-type development. The other would be multiple developments.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, and I think, Mr. Schmitt, I just -- you know, trying to go back to
the whole theory of the town, and I guess if the developer had chosen to create multiple
multifamily tracts that would be four acres so you wouldn't end up with, you know, a monolithic
building that's, you know, a mile long -- but I mean, that's not how developers develop property.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: And I just -- the scenario doesn't seem to make sense when in this
particular case a developer like Lennar --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only recollection, if it was going to be some kind of
a, what do you want to call it, community blocks or city blocks that would be developed. But I
have to concur, the four-acre limitation -- though it may make sense -- it may have made sense 20
years ago, when I look at it today it just doesn't make sense, and I think the deviation and the
request for deviation is certainly appropriate and justified.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Quickly, to the four acres. I believe you mentioned the major
criteria for wanting 25 acres was not so much this as it was being able to incorporate a golf course;
is that correct or inaccurate?
MR. ARNOLD: It's one example, and it's an existing example. Lennar is purchasing a
large tract of land, and they want to do a bundled golf community with condominiums surrounding
a golf course. And if they have to create small, little four-acre segments, it's really, I guess, a very
inefficient way to develop land by just having to create these little four-acre-or-less tracts in which
to put buildings and then have to deal with a setback from that boundary that's really an artificial
boundary and then come in for another Site Development Plan on one more building. So this just
makes a lot more efficient sense from a development standpoint.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I look forward to asking staff. You know, they
recommended denial of that deviation, so I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
But my other question is about the signage.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You showed an exhibit. You mentioned the internal signs. If
they're not part of this discussion, and Robb has said they are an issue internally, but they're not
really part of our -- no the other ones, the internal -- the lifestyle signs that are inside the
community. If they're not addressed in this, why are you showing them?
MR. ARNOLD: This was part of our presentation at the neighborhood information
meeting. Because I wanted to make sure if staff was going to tell us we needed to adopt criteria to
have those signs, I wanted to make sure I didn't have to readvertise and go back because I forgot to
tell somebody I'm potentially dealing with lifestyle signs.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But staff did not dictate that you had to address those signs?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a clarification on this four-acre. I mean, the way you
depict it, it does sound kind of silly if you can put a bunch of four-acre plots together and make a
large community. So I'm gathering that the regulations doesn't say you can't have adjacent
four-acre multifamily. Is that --
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, it does not.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it does seem silly without that qualification, because I
thought the idea would be to separate the units around. If you can just put them next to each other,
it does sound kind of silly.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 10 of 82
MR. ARNOLD: It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless you look at it in the context
if there were going to be strict block requirements.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
MR. ARNOLD: That would be the only context, but we don't have those criteria in the
neighborhood general category where these can be constructed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This may go back to the -- I hate to bring it up -- the
Community Character Plan. That was part of the ongoing dialogue at the time in Collier County
and -- when the county implemented the Community Character Plan and the infamous Dover-Kohl
study.
MR. ARNOLD: It could have been. I just don't recall. Maybe Anita has further
recollection, but I don't. From our perspective, in today's environment, it just does not make sense
to restrict those to four acres in size.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did the community raise any objections to this at
the -- and I'll ask Robb this as well. Any issues from the community in regards to the clustering
like this into one large development?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Schmitt, at 50 acres there was a lot of question in how large these
were going to be; is this something that could be retrofitted into an established community, et
cetera. I didn't attend the second informal meeting, but it's my understanding that when they
were -- discussed that we modified the acreages limitation to 25 acres, that there were no
comments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I would absolutely disagree with that. I think we
listened to the change that was proposed. And I don't -- the feedback that I get as a leader in the
community and an elected official out there and someone who people come to when these things
come up to get my spin or my understanding of these things, there's still opposition to this. The 25
acres really doesn't mean much compared to the 50. I mean, it's a move, but it doesn't mean much.
I will ask --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's the basis --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, the basis is -- well, first of all, this graphic is helpful
because what it shows is, if you do something that's unobjectionable, you can do something that's
unobjectionable.
But someone already mentioned, you also could build a large, long building if it's 25 acres
that, you know, that snakes, and it imposes a different character on the community and on nearby
communities. You also mentioned a developer like Lennar, and I agree with you. A developer
like Lennar is not going to probably do something that seems to be offensive or unpleasant that
people would object to. But we're not always going to have a development like Lennar, and that's
what I would suggest. They should be asking for a deviation for this project. They want carte
blanche to do this deviation throughout with no idea who the developer's going to be. We don't
know if Ave Maria Development is going to continue to be the owner of this whole project. They
could sell it next week. I don't think they will. But we should have policy that helps us
accomplish in the goals of our community regardless of who the owner is.
And I do think it's -- you know, if this was just a petition for this project, I would probably
have no objection to it. I would ask a lot of questions, but I would say, yes, let's have a deviation
for this project. And I would say that, you know, they asked for 50; they got 25. They're
showing this. I mean, why don't you show what you're doing, and have you been able to do -- you
know, what are you actually doing at Lennar, and have you been impeded from being able to do
that? You sought a builder, the builder was attracted, you know, under the current conditions,
under the current code, and they're building a beautiful project. And I think they're able to do it
because I think they're selling -- they're already selling the project. So if you could speak to that,
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 11 of 82
that would be interesting.
Do you have those drawings? Because Mr. Bellows -- or Mr. Sabo forwarded some
drawings to me of the Lennar project, the multifamily.
MR. ARNOLD: I do not have them, no. I haven't seen them.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Sabo, will you be able to show them later?
MR. SABO: I can pull them up.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's got to come up to the microphone.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding, Commissioner Klucik, is --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Introduce yourself, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
My understanding, that in the interim Lennar is doing exactly what you see on this screen,
which is doing a small four-acre SDP, then doing another small four-acre SDP, then doing another
small four-acre SDP to get to the overall --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is this representative of the actual project or is --
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- this is an example of what -- what can occur under the
regulations today.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. But is this something Lennar --
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is not Lennar's. I'm just saying the concept of how they're
doing it. I'm not saying this is Lennar. I'm just saying --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that's why I started out by saying, this slide shows that
you can do something unobjectionable under the existing rule or under the new rule, and
that's -- my point is, it doesn't show all the other iterations and configurations that might not be as
pleasant, you know, to the people that -- you know, the 3,000 homeowners that have already
committed -- either own or have committed to buy a home in Ave Maria.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand that concept. And maybe I misheard you. I
don't think anybody's going to come in with a building that you can really sell that's going to be
25 -- a 25-acre building or several-hundred-foot-long monolithic building, because that's just not
the market. So, I mean, it wasn't our intent to provide an opportunity for someone to come in and
build a big, long, huge building on greater than four acres that would be objectionable to the
community.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would just interrupt you there and say that so many
things have happened in the 13 years since I've been a homeowner in Ave Maria that weren't
anticipated and that the market -- you know, the market has changed dramatically.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no question --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ebbed and flowed. And so that representation, right now
maybe you're right. And, again, I'll go back to what I say, our job as commissioners is to do
something that withstands the long haul and that looks in the interest of -- you know, the greater
interest of the community, the common good. The developer -- I say at every one of our
meetings -- I'm one of the elected officials on the board out there for our district board. I say it at
every meeting. I give the developer a hard time, and they answer my questions, and they
generally, you know, satisfy me, but I keep asking hard questions, and I always explain that I think
we have a good developer. I think we have the best developer out there, but that doesn't mean that
they don't -- you know, they don't deserve scrutiny. If we actually -- if they're going to be a good
developer, they will get scrutinies from bodies like us and like our local body and the people. And
you do well. And, you know, this developer does well, but this is scrutiny right now.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And perhaps --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment, if I may. Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. As far as massing of buildings, our current
architectural standards would prevent the type of building that you're talking about, if it were a
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 12 of 82
90- or 100-foot or more type of building. They're going through the review process. It doesn't
come to this committee, but through the staff review process, there are architectural standards that
would prohibit that type of development. And I don't know if staff can highlight that, because
there certainly would be in the review process.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We would have to comply with the county's architectural
standards.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What -- Mr. Klucik, what I'm going to see is if we can maybe
come up with a maximum length of a building. I don't have that off the top of my head. But I
think that's really -- am I right, that's a concern about how long the building -- because there's going
to have to be building separation under the code.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would say length, height, the massing of it. You could
do something beautiful like what Lennar is doing. And, I'm sorry, market conditions can change.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you can do something, you know -- I mean, let's face
it, there are -- there are homes that we've built out there that are very different than what the
expectation was, you know, in the beginning. And I'm not saying there's something wrong with
that. I'm just saying that we don't know. And so you could propose this for this project, and you
wouldn't have any resistance, and you could move forward, I think, but to say we have to have this
new standard across the other -- how many homes do we have left to build, 7,000 homes, what,
2,500 of which will be multifamily homes; is that about right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a potential, yeah. I have to pull up the exact. There is a
breakdown within Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So we're talking about a lot of homes over a long
period of time in which market conditions can change and, you know, I'm here championing the
homeowner who's afraid of what -- you know, of the unknown.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I think our code should address and bridal the
unknown. And what I would say is, maybe I'm wrong, but the developers, attorneys, and staff
wrote the code that says four acres. Somewhere along the line that's what your team, your client's
team, the applicant's team thought was a good idea, whether they thought it was a good idea
because we've got to do that or we won't get it passed or it's a good idea because that's the character
of the community we want, but it wasn't the county that said, oh, you can only do four acres.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so now you're asking to change something that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I recognize --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If it's onerous, it's onerous because the developer sold this
onerous plan to all the people that are investing, you know, their lives into this community as
homeowners.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, and I was not on the team --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- when it was done, and I've asked the question "why."
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I look around, and nobody could tell me why that was in
there when you can clearly end up with -- through piecemealing Site Development Plans, you
can -- you can -- if there was a desire that you could never have a subcommunity within Ave Maria
greater than four acres, you would have said you can't put one next to each other, so --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The whole idea is setbacks and parking.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're meeting every one of them --
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 13 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Setbacks and parking and buffers and all of
that stuff is different if you're developing a large piece than if you're developing a bunch of small
pieces. And this example doesn't show that, but there are examples that you could show where it
would make a difference; am I right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe. I don't know. I haven't -- what I'm --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So first of all, you know, as far as I'm concerned, this
example is useful for the point that was made, but it's not useful or it actually -- you know, I would
say I can use it -- what I said. It shows something unobjectionable that can be done under the old
code or the proposed code.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm going to say in response is there's an envelope --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Pardon.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's an envelope. I'm going to take this off. There's a
four-acre envelope, right? Take one of these boxes. It's a four-acre envelope with setbacks that
are required, buffers that are required, and every one of those is met under this example.
Everything else inside of that envelope, as long as I meet the development standards for height and
I get through the architectural review with the county, there's all kinds of different permutations
that can occur with those buildings.
I can't -- I can't give you every example of what could happen out there, but what I'm
suggesting is this is a fairly representative type of development that would occur and that we can
do it any way under the existing regulations. If the goal of the code was to create an opportunity
for engineering firms to make more money by doing SDPs, that's a great -- that's a great goal for
the engineering companies, but it didn't have a planning purpose is what I'm trying to suggest.
And I'm just trying -- I don't know why the four acres is there.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would suggest that the whole SRA included
brochure language as code, which described a very bucolic, walkable, shady, you know, wonderful
place. And I'm not saying that, you know, 50 acres, which is what your original proposal was, you
know, the applicant apparently thinks large 50-acre multifamily home units is something that fits in
with that, and I'm not saying it doesn't. But there are people who, obviously, think it doesn't.
And you're saying you can still do it, but you have to -- but you're inhibited -- the current code
inhibits that. At least it slows it down or it makes you think, oh, it's going to be more costly --
MR. YOVANOVICH: More expensive.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- to put that together. And maybe it's good that there's a
roadblock or a speed bump, you know. And like I said, in this case I think the solution is you
come before this board and then we approve it. Wow, this Lennar project is great. Who would
be against it? And then we all say, great, deviation, whatever it is that you've proposed, that's
wonderful. We're granting it.
And that might be a little bit more costly. I certainly understand that's a hurdle, okay.
Well, I'm advocating at this point I think that's a hurdle that should be there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand. And I want to just clarify one thing on the
record. I wasn't there either, but my understanding was that the informal meeting -- and I think
what you said is the information was taken in. There certainly was not negative feedback at that
meeting. I'm not saying you didn't get negative feedback after the meeting. But it's correct that it
was not an issue that was discussed in detail like we're discussing right now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I chose to keep quiet because I was -- you know,
I'm a commissioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I participated by listening.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I just want to make sure that we didn't misrepresent
that --
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 14 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, sure, and I certainly didn't mean to say that there was
a --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- something that was unethical or, you know, dishonest
about your representation. You're right, it was largely virtual, you know, and it was -- people were
listening. And there wasn't a lot that was new, and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And I've been in a few meetings with you where you've
never hesitated to do what you're doing right now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- which is great. I don't mind.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I love my town.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you do. So usually when there's an issue, it comes up and
we have a discussion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Personally, I'm grateful that we have an insider from Ave Maria
on this issue, as I'm sure none of us are as familiar with Ave Maria as you are. It's nice to have
your perspective, so I do appreciate it.
It sounds to me like we have the applicant saying that the rule of four acres appears to be
arbitrary, so I'll be looking to staff to tell us if it's not arbitrary, what is the justification. I guess
for me, if it's not -- if it's not arbitrary, I'd like to understand what the risk is of expanding the limit
to 25 acres, but I'll wait for that.
I would like to ask Jeff, Attorney Klatzkow, all these projects have to go through review by
staff. And are we unduly worried about the risk of something untoward or heinous being
permitted out there in Ave Maria if we did have a 25-acre limit and they had -- and they could
create a 25-acre site plan?
MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't rely on staff. I'd rely on your own judgment.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, staff's here to give you recommendations and advice but, at
the end of the day, as I said at the prior meeting, you are the Planning Commission and, you know,
it's your responsibility to ensure that these projects are in the public's interest.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I know. I just know that it's always brought up that regardless
of what we decide, they have to go through the approval process, the SDP, and they're
always -- these -- you talk about environmental and wastewater, all those types of requirements
need to be met.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I bring something up to answer that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will give an example of the most recent SRA or the only
SRA amendment that I think has happened in this project. And I brought it up before, and you
know what I'm going to mention. So they asked for a deviation -- or a change to the SRA to allow
exceptions for street trees when the conditions on the lot make it difficult to have the street trees
that the code requires.
So this board, I think, and then the County Commissioners heard that story, oh, wow, we
have these -- you know, it's a good story, and any body that is in charge of regulations like that
ought to make exceptions. The problem is the exception -- and I will always be that person that
advocates for this from now on. The exception should also state that the exception can't become
the rule, so there needs to be a limit in there. They went on to build a community that has zero
street trees by taking advantage of the exception that has hundreds of houses in it with zero street
trees because they count trees that are 20 feet away from the street as street trees.
So every street in Ave Maria is shady and tree lined with sidewalks except in that
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 15 of 82
community, because they asked for an SRA exception, they got it, and then they -- you know, they
didn't -- they took advantage of it.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I think we as commissioners can, you know, be
wary of those things and, you know, try to come up with decisions that factor in that we don't really
know the implications exactly, what the implications are going to be.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Point well taken.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to, if I may comment.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry. My point was that the staff allowed that
through, and maybe if I had -- you know, if someone had known that they were going to do that,
you know, someone could have objected to it, but that was kind of a private process between
the -- I mean, maybe there was some public. It was, you know, on the website if you wanted to go
find it.
But I just wanted to tie it into what you -- the point you made. We can count on the staff.
The staff does their job. The rule said that you have an exception, and they met the exception,
every single lot. So the county can -- you know, the staff, we can only count on them to actually
do what the regulation says, and they shouldn't do something beyond that, I guess, you know; that
would be my point. So we need to be careful.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, so that perhaps in anticipation of what Mr. Sabo will say,
perhaps other members of staff, I don't -- I don't want the impression to be left that the four-acre
determination was capricious or unreasonable or just pulled out of thin air at the time it was made.
I fully expect that it relates to such things as buffering, which is important from an aesthetic point
of view and setbacks and the like for the overall quality of life in an area.
Now, one can disagree about the need for setbacks and buffering when you have higher
density buildings that look alike and perhaps are structured for multifamily, but I don't think we
should scratch our head and say, were our predecessors in planning, were they -- you know, were
they crazy or not thinking properly? I think they were thinking quite properly. It's just that some
may disagree at this later time whether that's advisable.
And the final point I want to make, and take Rivergrass as an example, they get 25 acres,
but Rivergrass, nothing had been developed. So now we're dealing with a going concern which
has been quite significantly developed. And 25 acres might work in an undeveloped Rivergrass
from the startup, but we're nearing buildout here. I mean, not -- it's very well built out. And so
you have issues of compatibility, I think, that arise if you put 25 acres in Ave Maria versus putting
25 acres in something that is still on the planning board -- on the drawing board, rather, like
Rivergrass.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I would say I agree with you that the four
acres was imposed. No one seemed to object to it. I would say that the four acres came from the
applicants but, you know, we don't know. But certainly there's no history where it was
contentious.
And you're exactly right, everyone went forward with that, and now that 2,800 people, you
know, have bought homes, it seems that you have an obligation, you know, to assess whether it's
alike or different from Rivergrass.
What I would say as well as is I had a question about the signage. And I would like to see
what the signage -- this is the commercial signage in the town center -- what the before and after
looks like, what's possible now, and what is -- you know, what is the code now, and what is the
change that you're suggesting.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a specific detail for every single tenant, because that's what
it would be.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is one -- this is one of the bullet points in your first
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 16 of 82
slide in which you talked about the major changes that you're, you know, asking for. And
since -- if we don't know what the before and after looks like, then I would just --
MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Klucik, not to cut you off, but we're asking for exactly what
any other commercial use can have for signage. The town center criteria was set up to be, in some
instances, very pedestrian, which makes sense for some of the signage. It doesn't make sense for
the uses that you have like a convenience store that is auto-oriented and not pedestrian-oriented.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, and I think that's for the Commission to decide
if we understand what it is now and what it is in the future, because right now you -- again, you
have these same 2,800 homeowners who have a community where the signage is already
established, the legal requirements for signage is already established and being followed, and I
don't understand why we wouldn't see what the change would look like, the before. And it's not a
big deal. It's just, I'm asking to see --
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- what is the current -- and I'm sure someone can get that
to us, if it's -- staff has to do it, what the standard is now and what it would -- what the possibilities
would be in the future, and hopefully, staff, somebody will address that for us.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: I'm finished with my presentation, so I'm happy to answer any other
questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to go back to the history of the SRA, I mean, the
SRA was actually developed in concert between Barron Collier and at that time Ave Maria, which
was Monahan. I'm trying -- I lost his name for a minute. And they actually hired a private
consulting firm that put some of that language together. And if I recall, I believe it was
WilsonMiller that did a lot of the original language.
MR. ARNOLD: It was.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Anita, you may have some history as to why the four acres
exist because you were at one time part of that firm.
But when the SRA language came in and a lot of that was vetted through the public as we
went through the development in the approval process, this was one of the first -- it was the first
SRA to come in under the Rural Land Stewardship, so -- and you're correct, I mean, the four -- if
we're going to -- we're discussing the four acres, I'm sure there was a reason many years ago as to
why that was proposed by both Barron Collier and -- in concert working with WilsonMiller.
So -- but at the same point, you point out how it can be -- what it actually can create under
those rules. So I'd be interested when staff comes up to see if Anita has any history as to the origin
of the four acres and why it was proposed originally at four acres.
MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Schmitt, to that point I would just simply say that what we're
asking to deviate from is the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I understand.
MR. ARNOLD: And Barron Collier did not write your Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. It went through the public process. It went
through all the public hearings. Staff certainly shepherded it through and, of course, it went before
the Board. And all during that time frame nobody ever made any -- that I can recall, any
comments regarding the four-acre limitation.
Again, the only thing I can translate it to is part of what was originally envisioned as part
of the community character and the blocks -- city blocks being developed at the -- in the original
proposal.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 17 of 82
I'm not against it. I agree with -- 25 acres, to me, makes sense instead of four separate
SDPs and four separate submittals, and it just seems to make sense. But I -- enough of my
comments. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So Robb is speaking as if Lennar -- and I think it's been almost
presented like Lennar is controlling the development of this entire project. The owner is Ave
Maria Development. Can you please explain the ownership -- the development ownership chain
and who the developers are -- who the builders are.
MR. ARNOLD: The primary developer is Barron Collier Companies as Ave Maria
Development. They have sold off parcels out there to Pulte Homes, for instance. They've sold
off tracts to Lennar. They've sold off parcels to other builders. They've partnered with other
builders and doing some of that work themselves. There are multiple people doing work out there.
Lennar was one good example, Mr. Fry, that I could tell you it's ongoing in this sort of an example
where they're having to carve the bundled golf community up into small little fragments in order to
meet the code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But Barron Collier is still the controlling entity; is that
correct?
MR. ARNOLD: In some sort. It's not Barron Collier but, yes, an entity of.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: An entity of Barron Collier, yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: How do you incorporate a golf course with four-acre parcels, or
is it -- is the golf course itself not subject to the four-acre --
MR. ARNOLD: The golf course would not be subject to that limitation. It's only for
multifamily dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have further presentation? Commissioner
Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, just since we brought up Thomas Monahan. I also
want to bring up the memory of Paul Marinelli who, unfortunately, expired prematurely, you know,
and he couldn't really see the Ave Maria really take off. And he was also part of the project. He
was the president of Barron Collier company, I believe, at the time.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just want to remember both of them, you know,
for -- obviously, I get to enjoy it every day, but it's a huge asset to our county and, certainly, I can't
believe I get to live there every day.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that it, applicant?
MR. ARNOLD: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Any further questions or comments before we have staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Sabo.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Will we be hearing from Norm Trebilcock?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can. We'll call him up, yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have a question for Mr. Sabo just to clarify something
that I was asking him to present.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 18 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You had sent links to some of the project materials for the
Lennar project or, you know, in the public record. So it was the actual plan that looks like what's
on here but for the actual two-story and four-story. If you have that and you can show that at
some point, that would be great, or certainly somebody on staff. Is that something you think we
can do?
MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager.
Yes, I have those. I had trouble with the link, pulling it up, but one of our staffers, Diane
Lynch, was kind enough to pull it up onto the podium, so we should be able to pull it up without an
issue.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And, likewise, if we can, you know, clarify what is
the current signage rule, and then what would the new one be?
MR. SABO: That I need a little bit more time because I was spending time pulling up the
site plan. So if you can give me a little more time for that, we can --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
MR. SABO: -- we can get that addressed as well.
I want to address a couple of things while this graphic is up. I understand the issue with
four acres and the presentation that they would have to submit multiple times for SDP. You can
submit for an SDP at the county, under several tracts, one SDP application. So just to
clarify -- clarify that.
Additionally, I got some information from the County Attorney to apparently --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So a lot of administrative burden is actually -- it's
not -- they didn't have to submit -- for this project, they wouldn't have to submit five site plans,
SDPs?
MR. SABO: No, no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: They could submit one but with these bundling
requirements?
MR. SABO: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait -- wait a minute. But you still would have tracts
you would still have to put in setbacks, meet setback requirements. You still would have the
separate requirements for buffering unless you asked for a deviation between the tracts for
buffering. So it's not simply you could just cluster it and submit. You still have to meet all the
other requirements per each tract. I want to make that clear. That's not -- what you said is true,
but it also is true that you still have to comply with all the other requirements --
MR. SABO: That is --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- or ask for deviations from those requirements.
MR. SABO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. SABO: You would have to meet buffering --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. SABO: -- and setback requirements on each parcel. So, essentially -- I don't know
how to use the stick on here -- but their Tract E -- that entire boundary of Tract E would have
buffers and setbacks. The entire boundary of Tract -- I got the gag. All right. There it is.
Okay. So on Tract E you'd have to meet the buffer and setback requirements. For Tract
D, you would have to meet the buffer and setback requirements. Tract C, et cetera. You could
submit all those under a single SDP application, you are correct. I just want to make sure that the
correct information is portrayed. But, yes, you are correct, Commissioner Schmitt, you would
have to meet all those standards.
Okay. Now, the County Attorney sent information that -- I guess the visualizer had
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 19 of 82
information about 4,697 peak-hour trips. The SRA document has 4,320 p.m. peak-hour trips. So
that would be their standard, 4,320; just to clarify that.
So just to get to our recommendation, which is to not approve the Deviation 1, the 25 acres
larger than the four-acre maximum. The intent is compact urban design and to promote
walkability. So that is why we -- our recommendation, why we are recommending against the
deviation.
The other part of that recommendation is Ave Maria is an established town. It's already
being built. The development pattern, the expectations of the community is already that four acres
is the maximum size of the parcel. Yes, yes, you can connect those parcels together, but you do
still have to meet those setbacks and buffers on each tract.
And, essentially, that's our recommendation: Approval minus the -- minus the deviation.
And then I can -- for Mr. Klucik I can try to pull up these plans.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just as a -- can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what is the -- you know, as a planner, and when we
have our code, what is the purpose of the buffer and setback requirements in general?
MR. SABO: In general is to create a buffer or a softening of the edge of the property to
set the buildings back, set the properties, the fronts of the buildings back so that there's space in
front. It's to -- you know, other than that, I can't really explain it.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it's more for aesthetics and noise, things like that?
MR. SABO: Correct.
MR. BELLOWS: I can also help -- for the record, Ray Bellows.
It also helps establish the human scale of what is desired for that type of zoning district,
that type of residential unit. So you want to make sure you have adequate trees and landscaping
and vegetation in a residential environment, or otherwise you have more of a downtown city-type
residential environment. This is a Rural Lands Stewardship Area. The original intent is to keep
these smaller-scale structures with a lot of vegetation and make pedestrian access through, you
know, smaller shops, instead of having a monolithic type of one structure on the entire acreage
there.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm in agreement with seeking to fulfill that objective. I'm
sorry that what's not before us today is an application that would allow for some buffering but
perhaps not the full buffering that would be called for, but this would allow for absolutely no
buffering and limited setbacks and would apply to the entire community of Ave Maria, which is
also disturbing. I've got some other points that I'm going to raise. But Commissioner Fry will be
recognized.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So in, I guess, trying to wade through this four-acre versus 25
acres versus maybe we reduce it to 10, you know, we have the ability to do whatever we think we
see fit. Allura was an apartment complex that came to us. It was on 35 acres. It ended up being,
I think, 300 units or so. Is that -- that had setbacks and, you know, aesthetics and buffering.
What about Allura? Allura would not be possible, I don't -- I'm not sure if it would be possible
with this four-acre limit. But is there something about Allura that isn't walkable, that isn't compact
urban design?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, Allura's not in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand that, but it's at least something we can visualize.
We had personal --
MR. BELLOWS: And it's more of an urban/suburb design versus a rural, you know,
design intended for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just not clear what you're looking to end up with with the
four-acre limit. What you're --
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 20 of 82
MR. BELLOWS: I think the idea is to get something, as the applicant has depicted here, a
project similar to that. I think that was the original intent versus one large building that could have
covered the entire acreage.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But to me that's a very -- that's like a block-style development,
whereas if they had a larger area and they could have buildings at angles and, you know, a much
more creative design would be possible if they had the ability to draw with a brush on a larger
easel, I guess, or a larger template.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree wholeheartedly, but this is just for illustrative purposes by the
applicant to show what's possible. It's not their attempt at designing something.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins.
MS. JENKINS: Good morning. Anita Jenkins, for the record, the Zoning Director.
To put the history on the four acres, the full code has to be in context. So the code for the
Rural Land Stewardship SRA towns was written to be compact, pedestrian-oriented, and walkable.
So the four-acre block for the multifamily was one of the intentions to meet that goal.
So we're implementing policy in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area with a full code, and
this is one part of the code that implements that policy of walkable. It helps to establish the
interconnectivity through the town where when you get larger tracts, you break the
interconnectivity. It's not that they couldn't come in with a plan that would be 25 acres and they
could demonstrate how they maintain the interconnectivity for the town, so they could accomplish
that, but that was the history behind that four-acre.
And, Commissioner Schmitt, you're right, when you bring up the Community Character
Plan, these are common planning principles for community development that intends to be
walkable and compact is to set some development standards that are different than suburban
standards where you see the larger multifamily tracts in the coastal area in particular.
So they could accomplish these things. I think in both ways we could find solutions to
maintain the intent and the scale of the town while they can also bring in a 25-acre piece at the
same time.
Also, one thing to mention, it was brought to my attention that the architectural standards
do not apply to a multifamily project that is not adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. So
that's just something to keep in mind as well.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So can you explain that again.
MS. JENKINS: The architectural standards found in our Land Development Code do not
apply to multifamily housing that is not adjacent to collector arterial roadways.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right now what would be a restriction on length or
height? Is that what you're talking about, things like length and height, or what other -- what are
the other architectural --
MS. JENKINS: Yeah, yes. And facing and articulation and things like that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what are the standards, then, that would be required for
a multifamily?
MS. JENKINS: The standards would not apply for multifamily that does not -- that is not
adjacent to a collector. So they would bring in in an SDP their architectural standards for review.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's a clean slate, and they bring something in, and
then through the process it gets approved or disapproved. There's no -- there are no actual limits
imposed, standards imposed?
MS. JENKINS: If it's not adjacent to a collector arterial, right.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I think I'm being seemingly pedantic. I do that
sometimes because I don't understand and I ask another question.
So does that mean it could be 12 stories? In theory, they could propose 12 stories, and
then it would be up -- through the planning you would say, you know, that's not going to work here
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 21 of 82
or, you know, what -- that's why I'm asking.
MS. JENKINS: So you do have to -- they would have to comply with their own height
limits that they would have in their Ave Maria SRA document. So there are some development
standards that they would comply with there. I'm just speaking to the Land Development Code
and the architectural standards that would apply to the multifamily. If there are standards in the
SRA that would apply to multifamily, they would have to be consistent with those standards.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So can we get somebody to confirm what the height
standard is for multifamily in Ave Maria?
MS. JENKINS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Jenkins, I just wanted to confirm, because to me this -- it's
very -- it's clear to everybody that the intent was always that you could put multi four-acre parcels
together in multifamily? It was always the intent? See, I view that more, the four-acre, as you
missed the phrase that says you can't put two four-acre units adjacent; otherwise, to me, it's a much
cleaner, easier -- you get something better if you put them all under one, as Commissioner Fryer
was saying, where you could do a lot more in terms of creativity and buffering and aesthetics. So
it just seems to me like you forgot the line that says you can't put four-acre parcels next to each
other in multifamily.
MS. JENKINS: The intent of the four acres was to maintain interconnectivity so that you
don't have a 50-acre parcel that is not interconnected with the rest of the town.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the picture they just showed is --
MS. JENKINS: And that's what I'm saying. I think that the code can be met and
demonstrated with four-acre tracts without losing that interconnectivity and that scale. It's really
about the town scale and interconnectivity that you're trying to achieve with the overall code as a
whole.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Now, how does that -- I guess I don't see the interconnectivity.
You have interconnectivity within the development when you stack them all together around each
other. I guess I don't see what you're losing on the interconnectivity side when you end up with
25 acres that are four-acre parcels.
MS. JENKINS: Well, I think that the illustration that is on the screen now, you can see
that that area then does not have connections. It's just one large parcel, so you don't have
interconnections that are through. Now, I understand that when you're trying to do multifamily
along a golf course, that's going to be a different scenario.
But if you remember the SRA in general, we were thinking transect, right? So you would
expect the higher densities to be in more of the higher density areas in block formations for
walkability. But when you're developing it along a golf course, then that interconnectivity may
not be as high-density intersections as you would have in a block configuration. So there's always
some chance for, you know, needing flexibility for this. But the idea that you're looking at here is
that you do just have that a series of multifamily that's not interconnecting with the full town.
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, if I can -- if I can add to that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead, and then Commissioner Fry after that.
MR. SABO: On your podium screen there, or the visualizer screen there, that is the
current Lennar National Golf Club SDP for the multiple family condominium product that they are
selling now or building now. Those two parcels with the dark line in between, those are four-acre
parcels.
Mr. McLean informed us that the LDC allows, under a unified Site Development Plan,
relief between those buffers. So there is -- in our LDC code the ability to remove some of those
buffers if the parcels are attached or connecting or adjacent, abutting.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 22 of 82
Now, what -- to your point, Mr. Shea, I don't know what happened with the SRA. I'm not
sure exactly what happened, but it is possible that the words, you can't butt them together, you can't
put four or five in a row or whatever that -- you know, that may have been eliminated or not
included, whatever, but the -- I think the intent of the four acres was to disburse the parcels
throughout the community, and there is technically a loophole here that you can stack them
together or put them in rows, but I don't necessarily know that that was the intent, so I hope that
answers some of the question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Based on that drawing that you're showing us, I guess I'm not
seeing any advantage or restriction gained by the four-acre limitation compared to just letting that
be one site plan. If the buffers are relaxed or suspended when you're putting them together on an
SDP, then what are we gaining by restricting them to four acres?
MR. SABO: Yeah, that's a great point. That is a great point, and I don't have the answer
to that. As I mentioned, it may have been an oversight, you know, 14, 15 years ago when the SRA
was put together, that -- you know, the people who put them together are humans, right? So they
may be left out. We don't want them all stacked up together, maybe.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I could see if you don't want large developments in
large -- large areas, large communities that have no interconnectivity, so you've cut off a whole
section of the development from another, but that's still very possible, as it is shown here with the
four-acre limitation.
MR. SABO: Right. Agreed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: The other question I had for you, Mr. Sabo, had to do with the
trip cap. One of your first comments was that the SRA has -- shows a trip cap of 4,300-and-some
trips, correct?
MR. SABO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But their application is for a trip cap of 4,600 and some, I
believe, or am I -- or was that just a correction on what they're asking for, or is there a difference
between the two?
MR. SABO: It was pointed out to me, Mr. Fry, that there was something on the visualizer
that had 4,697.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct.
MR. SABO: And that is incorrect. The SRA document has 4,320, so just to make that
clear. And we can --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. SABO: -- get Mr. Trebilcock, but he's nodding his head, so it looks like --
COMMISSIONER FRY: So the actual ask is 4,300-and-some trips as is in the SRA
document?
MR. SABO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not what I found in the materials.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Nor I.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: What I found was that the original ask was for 46- and some
change, and after some back and forth with staff, it was brought down to 43- and some change.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But the final is 4,300.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's where we are now, just like we're at 25 acres, but the
original ask was 50.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to go back to the drawing that's on the
visualizer right now. This is the current proposal?
MR. SABO: Correct. Tract 1, The National, Ave Maria --
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 23 of 82
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. SABO: -- and Lennar Homes, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so each one of those darkened blocks, I call them,
the borders, that's four acres each?
MR. SABO: Correct. The left side of the screen, it's sort of a C-shaped pointing north.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep.
MR. SABO: That's a four-acre parcel, and then to the right it's -- it's got kind of a
bulb-out there, that's also a four-acre parcel.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, then I guess I'm going to ask Wayne, then.
Wayne, what would be different on this site plan if you were allowed to go to the 25-acre limit or,
Rich, do you want to address that? Because it appears that Lennar is coming in with the request
regardless of the four-acre or 25-acre limitation. I go back --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me interject, if I may, please. We did not call up staff during
the applicant's presentation, and the applicant will have a full opportunity to rebut and answer
additional questions. Unless you feel very strongly about it, I would suggest that we wait until the
applicant is back up in rebuttal.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'd like to get my question answered.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does staff object?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're discussing -- we're discussing a plan that was put
up by staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think my question is very relevant to the issue at hand,
because this was introduced by staff; this was not introduced by the applicant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not arguing with the importance of your question. I just want
to try to be even-handed in allowing interruptions. And so I'm going to turn to Ms. Jenkins and
say, what would staff prefer on this? We didn't -- we didn't call Mr. Sabo up during the applicant's
presentation.
MS. JENKINS: Oh, I'm fine with the questions being answered as you have them from
anyone that you want to ask the question of.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm glad you're fine with it, because we control the
proceedings, and I'm going to ask the question anyway.
MS. JENKINS: I'm fine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, my experience, in the one or two times that I've done this,
you've asked staff up many times during our presentation --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and they answered questions. So, I mean, I've been flexible.
It's always been friendly about how we do this.
Mr. Schmitt, the only thing different between what you have here, instead of doing it six
times, six-plus times to get to 25 acres, we would do it once. You'll get the same big picture. The
25 acres is going to look the same, but we'll do five separate or six separate Site Development
Plans to come up with this very same plan because it's going to continue on. This is -- assuming it
was a 25-acre thing. If this is four acres and four acres and four acres and four acres, it's going to
look the very same at the end if I'd have come in with one 25-acre project.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it might have had more buffering.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it would not. We're not getting out of any buffering. We are
providing all required perimeter buffers on this project. We're not getting out of any of the
perimeter buffers. This is purely an internal issue, as we were talking about earlier. The buffer
on the street, going to be the same. The buffer on the left-hand side, going to be the same when
you get to the end of the development.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 24 of 82
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: Buffer along the golf course is going to be the same. What?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Buffer between the buildings?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Buffer between your buildings? This is your code right now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, but the buffer between the buildings, we would at least be
able to discuss if you came in with an SDP that was an aggregation of four-acre lots aggregating
25.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't come to the Planning Commission for Site Development
Plans.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't come to the Planning Commission for Site Development
Plans. Your staff has approved, I'm assuming, correct, Mr. McLean, you've -- approved this --
MR. McLEAN: I'll put it on the record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- drawing. So the buffer between the tracts is not required under
the code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it would be required. They asked for --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The out -- external boundary would be -- is required, and we're
going to meet all of those, but the internal can be eliminated under the uniform Site Development
Plan process.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you said you'd have to do it six times, but it seems as
though maybe you did -- maybe, you know, it was a choice because you're starting a new project
and you're going slow. You actually could have done all six in one SDP. You would have just
had --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd have to do six SDPs. I have to do six.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- just had Mr. Sabo say that you could do it all as one. So
it's -- the answer is, one of you is right, and I'm certainly not saying that I know who's right. But
you're saying you couldn't submit one SDP, and Mr. Sabo is saying that you could submit just one
SDP.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's news to me. We're almost -- during the break I'm going to
confirm that, because --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I've never been under the impression I can come in with a
25-acre SDP for a multifamily project. I've always been -- and if we're wrong, then I don't even
know why I'm here, to be honest with you, because I'm going to go to 50 acres, you know, and I'm
going to be unlimited is what I'm being told.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say is you submitted -- here you submitted
an eight-acre SDP.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Lennar. I didn't -- I'm saying, this is the first I've heard of
it, Mr. Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me.
The applicant or the applicant's -- the person who bought the land who would be benefiting
from a change in their future development submitted this plan, and it has eight acres, and you're the
one that said it was one SDP. Maybe it wasn't. You don't know.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It wasn't me.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You don't know, I understand. You're just -- it wasn't
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 25 of 82
yours to shepherd through because it was Lennar.
But from what Mr. Sabo is saying, you could do eight acres, you could do 25 acres,
whatever. You can do it as one plan. It's a little more cumbersome because you have to put the
parcels together. I mean, that was your opening argument is that you can submit, you know,
the -- you know, you had the graphic there, you can bundle it all together. But you're saying that
you would have had to -- in that bundle that you showed, you would have had to do five separate
SDPs.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I would have had to -- yeah, to get to 25, I would have done six
plus.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I guess we need to know for sure what is the
requirement.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll go back to my question. I mean, that's the crux of the
entire argument. Can they -- can, in fact, this -- could this have come in with a -- I'll call it a
cluster development of showing the full 25 acres? And it appears it can. There's no -- I don't
think there's any restriction.
MR. SABO: That's my understanding.
MR. KLATZKOW: Matt, could you -- since this is the guy in charge of it, let's get
Matt's --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- ruling, as it were.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can assure you, if I'd known I could have done this with one
25-acre SDP, I wouldn't be here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, life is short. Let's see what the man has to say.
MR. McLEAN: I didn't swear in, so I apologize on that part.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll swear you in.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. McLEAN: I do.
Matt McLean, Director of Development Review.
The question at hand is the four-acre piece. If an SDP comes in and it does have tracts
that are carved up into four-acre sections, they can submit one unified Site Development Plan for
multiple parcels and effectively do what you're seeing on the screen. That is how that one was
permitted. There are perimeter buffer requirements, but in the internal tract line, which is in the
middle of the particular document that you see in front of you, the code does not require internal
buffer between the two multifamily buildings.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wow.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Then what is the benefit of a four-acre tract limit?
MR. McLEAN: I can't say if there's a benefit one way or the other. I can say that they
can develop it that way under the current code. They just have to be defined as four-acre tracts.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I go back to the original intent as Anita pointed out. It
was -- the four acres was once when it was envisioned it would be walkable city blocks. And
that's what I recall when this first was being developed, and they would be separate sections with
parallel streets in a walkable interconnected community.
But, Anita, you talked about interconnectivity. I mean, this is -- essentially, it is
interconnected. It depends how you determine interconnected. There is one street that connects
all the buildings, and it just happens to be where the parking and the drive -- and I guess it's -- all
these are facing the golf course.
MR. KLATZKOW: Unless I'm missing something here, and staff can clarify, this entire
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 26 of 82
issue we're talking about is not relevant.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because they can do it anyway.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can do it anyway. That's what --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think it's important to parse out what that actually means
and if, in fact, that --
MR. KLATZKOW: But if they --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. If they can do it anyway, there's no need to request a
deviation. It's a nonissue.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a nonissue.
MR. KLATZKOW: So we've just spent an hour on a nonissue.
MR. YOVANOVICH: With all due respect, I want clearly on the record that the
reference -- Wayne, I need that back. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm going to interrupt you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You may.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. Okay. So I want clarification on -- you
know, so we talked about there's no need for buffers internally between the two lots. So right now
where we have those two buildings that are at the borderline, could they be connected? Could
they -- you know, could they straddle that border as one solid unit so that we have one long,
serpentine building? Because I think that does, then, change interconnectivity, because if you
have a long building -- you know, the idea that it's limited to four acres actually limits how long a
building can be unless -- unless you could have one long building if you put the lots together.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. You get into zero lot line restrictions and other
requirements. If those buildings were connected, and I -- I'm going back to --
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean for the record.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- review. Matt, if you have one up against the lot line,
you're in a zero lot line, and you're now into the building code in regards to fire code and access
and all the other type of things. I do not believe you could staddle one building across the two
parcels.
MR. McLEAN: As the regulations stand today for the SRA, and within the Land
Development Code, you still would have to meet setbacks from that tract line, so you would not be
able to have a building that combined and went over that tract line.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But if it was eight acres, so if this was all able to be
developed as one, then that building could be twice as long; is that true?
MR. McLEAN: If the limitation was eight acres, they could -- they could build one
building within the eight-acre tract, if they so choose --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So -- in essence --
MR. McLEAN: There would not be a tract line, then, at this point --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. What I'm saying is there's a difference. There
clearly is a difference, and we've already heard -- and it makes sense. And I'm not even arguing
that that would be wrong. We've already heard, you know, if they get 25, then they're going -- it's
going to be easier to do 50 or 75 or 100 in one fell swoop, and the only restriction is, you know,
what we just said, you know.
So my whole point is, this is a speed bump and it is meaningful. It might not be as
meaningful as, you know -- you know, we don't know the history. It might not be as meaningful
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 27 of 82
as it could have been if they said you can't put two together but, obviously, that's not the case. But
it is meaningful, and it does change the character of what they can do, and it does make it more
walkable because you can't have a really long serpentine building, and that is definitely not
walkable.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the way this is shown, you could have the three
buildings on the east -- correction, west side of this --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You can shove them together.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could have them together.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, but then you couldn't have all five buildings together
which --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could not.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If that was one eight-acre parcel that was submitted as one
project, because we've increased it to 25 acres, then that could be one long building.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I'm saying is is that that's fine, we can decide that
that's what we want the code to allow, and I'm saying -- I'm arguing that I don't think that's good. I
think that does change the character. It changes the walkability. It changes the expectation of,
you know, the 2,800 homeowners who are already there, and, you know, what the county has
already said is the requirement. And I think if you're going to make this change, especially
because -- you know, the applicant is largely saying they can do what they want to do anyways.
It's just a matter of taking some of the paperwork burden away. Well, I think we've just come up
with a reason to keep the burden of the paperwork there, and I -- that's it right there.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to the staff. James, if, in fact -- and I'll
ask during the break if you can confer with the applicant, because if, in fact, this is allowable as
was attested to, I would like you to confer with the applicant to see if they're going to withdraw
their request for the deviation, because it seems to be a moot point.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes.
MR. SABO: Understood.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not. I can answer that. It's appropriate now? And Matt
McLean will correct me if I'm wrong, because he only lets me play engineer a couple times a year,
and I want to save it. But that line that's there becomes a tract line, and we've got to meet the
setback from that line.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So if I had the 25-acre parcel, if I somehow got that building a
little bit too close to that tract line when I built it, I don't have to come in and ask for a variance.
That's -- when you're forcing me to identify the specific internal tract lines, you have issues with
setbacks from those internal tract lines; not building separation, but set back from those individual
tract lines.
So what we're trying to say is, give me the 25-acre envelope. I will meet all of the height
requirements. I will meet all of the perimeter buffer requirements. I will meet all of the building
separation requirements. And I can do that with one Site Development Plan instead of six platted
lines with six platted internal setback lines for buildings is all I'm suggesting.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you're actually getting to Commissioner Klucik's point: You
want to be able to put in big boxes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I didn't say that, Jeff. What I'm saying --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if the issue here is separation between buildings and meeting
the setbacks here, Mr. Klucik's point is spot on. What the four acres is doing is it's stopping you
from putting in what I'll just call the big boxes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your setbacks are going to be dictated on the height of
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 28 of 82
the building, regardless, so you --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have building separation requirements.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You've got building separation based on the height of the
building, and how would that differ than what's shown for the separation from the lot line?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I missed the --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You've got -- let's go between those two buildings
there between the lot lines. You've got -- and I -- it's too hard to read what the distance is. But
would that distance be different if, in fact, it were one tract? You still have to have building
separation based on one-half the height of the building.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll have the same building separation but on there also, when you
look, there's also a lot line --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- setback as well. We have to meet both of those if you break
this into four-acre lots in one 25-acre Site Development Plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You have those internal lines as well for building setbacks. I
don't know what you get out of this whole process of making us break up the lines like that into
four separate or six separate lots.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, you didn't hear my point?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, the answer is, I could come in under the code --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Would you believe me if I told you that I just made the
point?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know better. I know better. That's my line. I didn't
license it to you. I didn't license it to you.
What I'm saying, Mr. Klucik, we could come in today with one big building on the
four-acre tract. I could come in -- if I wanted to do a 400-foot-long building on that one-acre
tract -- on that four-acre tract, I can do it, and I could do it on the next one and the next one and the
next one. The market's going to dictate what people really want to buy.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And we've already --
MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's not --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We've already acknowledged that the market changes, and
we have no idea what the market is going to be like, and the whole idea is our land use -- our code,
which the SRA is a part --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- tries to protect us from just, you know, absolute market
conditions ruling how we build and how we develop, and you know that as well as I do. I mean,
I'm stating the obvious. That's the whole point is we're trying to inhibit an absolute market
condition base. The market conditions might be we want a really long building on four acres.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I could do that today.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right now -- right now, Lennar's a great developer or great
builder, Ave Maria Development is a great developer, and so this is great. And like I said, in the
beginning, fine, let's get a -- you know, apply, and we'll approve this whole project.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, and then --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't speak for the whole Commission, obviously. But
in my view, you take this down, you know, as a deviation, for this particular project, and I don't
think you have any pushback. And, you know, do you have to then keep doing that, you know, for
the next project and the next project? Yeah, I get it. In that scenario, you would have to keep
coming back for a larger deviation if you thought you needed it. In this case, you don't even need
the deviation because it will probably be more expensive to come to us to ask to get the change
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 29 of 82
when all you would have to do is submit your 25 acres in one plan.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, and then we'll have a break.
COMMISSIONER FRY: At the risk of reinforcing anything that Mr. Yovanovich says, I
will simply observe that even in that left or the right four-acre parcel, what I think -- the point I'm
taking from Rich's statement is that instead of those three buildings, they could have put one long
building, and they chose not to because the market would not support that. So I think because they
have building separation -- unless we believe they're going to put in some super long building,
then --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we've already --
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- the risk of the 25 acres, I think, is negligible.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we've already had, you know, people talking about
putting in different types of housing, you know, for different markets. Obviously, this is a golf
course community. You're not going to sell large, you know -- and it's non-coastal. You know,
you're out here. You're not going to sell a big building.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But the only thing that you're -- the four-acre limit restricts is
that you can't have a mile-long building --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that in itself would be a reason to not change
the code, I mean, in my view, to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: On that note, if we may, we'll have a 13-minute recess until 10:45.
(A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. And we were in a
spirited dialogue when we recessed, but this is staff's presentation time, and we'll return to that, if
we may. Mr. Sabo and Ms. Jenkins.
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager, for the record.
We have nothing further. Our recommendation is approval with removal of Deviation No.
1.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Jenkins.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. Anita Jenkins. I was just going to answer a question that
someone asked about the height. The height in neighborhood general is 3.5 stories for
multifamily.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So I understand that these buildings are four
stories based on, I think, the drawings that you had -- that were in some of the packet. So is -- are
some of these buildings four stories, or are they three-and-a-half? And I guess that's a question
that I'll ask the applicant.
But I'll ask you, I had asked about commercial signage, you know, the difference. I know
you said you needed some time. Are you still working on that, or can you answer?
MR. SABO: I am. I need additional time.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to follow up on whether there's four stories or not is
irrelevant. It can't exceed, what, three-and-a-half stories, you said? That's the limit.
MS. JENKINS: That's for neighborhood general, 3.5.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For neighborhood general. Okay.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 30 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So is this project submitted as four, and is it approved at
four, or is the -- did I misread the --
MS. JENKINS: When you say "this project" --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This particular drawing is Lennar -- yeah, you're right.
This project is not before us. My question is specific to the drawing in the --
MS. JENKINS: The drawing just disappeared.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, the drawing that just disappeared. Since it's up
there and we're referencing it and since we're mentioning the height restriction, am I correct that
this project is four stories, or is it not?
MS. JENKINS: Let me ask Mr. McLean if this is the same -- I can't read it on the screen
here, but this is the same illustration, Mr. McLean, that we looked at earlier that had the height
limit of 3.5 stories.
MR. McLEAN: It's 35 feet.
MS. JENKINS: Thirty-five feet.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ah, okay. So maybe the four stories are contained within
35 feet? I guess I'll ask the applicant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I want to interject something very quickly while we're
waiting, and that is that I had made a commitment to our court reporter that I would ask everyone
respectfully, please try not to talk on top of one another because she can only record what one
person is saying at a time. And so let's enable her to create a faithful reproduction of what's
happening by speaking just one at a time. Thank you.
Mr. McLean.
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, Director of Development Review.
The max height on this particular development's 35 feet, and it is within the code
requirements.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Anything else from staff?
MR. SABO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have some questions and comments that I'd like to make. No
one else is illuminated at this point, so I'm going to proceed.
There's been talk of the hospital use, which I think everybody -- I presume everyone is in
full agreement that if there were a hospital there, that would be a very good thing and a desirable
thing. And in allowing for the density that a hospital would need, I think, is a good idea. But are
there other uses that could be made of this property if the hospital arrangement never came to pass
that we should, perhaps, consider limiting the density for hospital uses rather than anything more
broad? Do you have an observation on that, Mr. Sabo?
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I agree with your statement based -- excuse me -- based on
the civic uses, municipal buildings, schools, hospitals, things like that, those would all be permitted
uses if it is in your purview to limit the civic uses to specifically hospital for -- or for whatever
percentage of 350,000 you would see fit.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'd ask other members of the Planning Commission if this
is an important point to them or not. Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not an important point. I think limit -- just saying if
it was for civic, to me, is fine. But let's go back to when Arthrex first put its building in there.
Did it not have to come in for some kind of a site -- or amendment to the SRA to allow for
the -- Arthrex to go in because it's -- what is it? I guess it's not a factory, but whatever they would
term that as, an industrial site, as you enter. Would that be a similar type thing where they could
now have civic center and say, no, we don't want the civic center, I'm going to put in a, I don't
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 31 of 82
know, FedEx distribution center?
MR. SABO: No, not as a civic use.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The change that they required, I think, to come before the
Board was to move the town center --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it was.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- designation, which is where you can -- town center is
simply -- I mean, I guess it's equivalent to commercial. You know, it's one designation. And they
had acreage along -- they had acreage along Camp Keais Road that they changed to be residential,
and then they moved that acreage to be along -- to front Oil Well Road, so I think that's what that
was.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So if we stuck -- good point. So if we stuck with
civic, that kind of change could not take place.
MR. SABO: For that parcel, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That parcel, unless they came back in through some kind
of an amendment. Does that help you?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I guess -- yes, I'd ask Commissioner Klucik if he believes
that -- the folks in Ave Maria, are they looking specifically at a hospital as an objective or any civic
use?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I think -- you know, I just speak for myself. When I
heard this proposal, you know, before I was a Planning Commissioner and I looked at it, I, you
know, was looking at the idea of increased civic uses, and I was trying to understand exactly how it
all works, and it's a little confusing. But I think because of the definition of the civic uses, it
does -- to me, I thought that was limitation enough, and I certainly haven't seen or heard, you
know, anybody objecting to that.
And I think -- I don't think that the designation that we're changing applies to any particular
acreage. It's within the whole project; is that right? We're changing a designation to increase this
civic usage, but it applies to anywhere where you could do civic usage wherein the SRA. We're
just saying that there's now an increased acreage that's possible.
MR. SABO: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it doesn't apply to any particular tract of land, except
the only tracts that are available for civic use is limited.
MR. SABO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The recharacterization -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. Let
me just finish.
Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The recharacterization of the mini-warehouse use from
industrial to mini-warehouse has the effect of freeing up the area for more industrial. And I just
want to be sure that that was contemplated by the people of Ave Maria and that they're comfortable
with more industrial.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, again, I'll speak for myself. I didn't hear anyone
objecting to that, you know, in my analysis. You know, I look at that as -- there are a lot of
limitations on what -- you know, to begin with, what kind of commercial and how much can be out
there.
And I don't think that this -- you know, I mean, it's after the fact. You know, they did
something and they said we want to tweak it and reconfigure it so that we can, you know, do
something different. I think what they put in there, you know, hasn't been objectionable, and I
don't foresee where it would -- you know, what it would be that would be that objectionable
because, again, I don't think the developer would ever feel like that could work for them because
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 32 of 82
they still have 7,000 more houses to sell. So I'm not worried, and I haven't heard anybody else
express concern.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I needed to know.
Commissioner Schmitt, I'll call on you, and then I'll come back to myself.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just going back to the hospital. The only thing I
was concerned about is they have to go through, as you well know, the certificate of need and go
through the state and all the other requirements.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: They actually don't.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that has been repealed.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's been done away with legislatively.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: CONs are gone.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. I was just concerned if they had to do that
and then they changed it. But no, disregard.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see. Oh, on the TIS.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Please. TIS?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Traffic Impact Statement.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ah, sorry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. The -- you know, I like to think that there is at least a
plausible scientific basis behind the calculations that are made for a TIS, but I frequently am
proven wrong in that sanguine assumption. And in this case the traffic consultant came in initially
at 4,697, I think, and then was trimmed back down to 43-and-something. So it sounds -- it sounds
less scientific and more like horse trading or negotiation. How would you characterize that
process, Mr. Sabo?
MR. SABO: I'm going to defer that question to our Transportation staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Mr. Walker's [sic].
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Sawyer.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sawyer, I mean. Excuse me.
MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. And I did walk
up here, so that gets you a bit towards "Walker."
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for covering for me.
MR. SAWYER: The issue that we had with Ave Maria is that we had a TIS that was
originally done as part of the original SRA. Subsequent to that, there was an amendment that was
done. And what we needed to do was to make sure that we were on an even playing field with our
current standards. That was accomplished. One of the other challenges that we had is that the
original SRA actually had a single category for residential. It didn't -- it basically lumped together
single-family and multifamily.
And so what we had to do, working with the consultant, was to figure out how we could
balance that out, split out the single-family, the multifamily, and then basically, again, get to that
firm basis. And, quite honestly, it took us a couple of iterations of the TIS to actually get there.
I think what we have is a good reflection of both what the original SRA trips would be,
according to current standards, as well as the amendment and then now what they're proposing to
do, which is basically to keep what those trips were, currently, and get that into a form that we can
actually start reviewing to. And keep in mind, the trips for Ave Maria are vested. They're
banked. So if you go into the AUIR, you'll see those numbers as part of those banked numbers.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else have questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, if those numbers are banked, then why -- and if I
understand this correctly, they're not asking for additional trips. They're saying -- they're basically
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 33 of 82
formalizing a trip cap based on the utilization prior to this application, is that correct, and saying
that will exist in perpetuity and this will apply to it, or is that trip cap changing based on this
application? I'm unclear on that.
MR. SAWYER: The trip cap is remaining the same according to the -- again, the original
SRA and the amendment that was done.
The reason that we wanted to have the trip cap is that it allows staff to review to that
standard as the SDPs and the plats come in. Every time something comes in, Development
Services looks at those numbers, keeps track of them and, if you will, starts counting them down.
It also allows for the applicant to have a certain flexibility in the types of development that actually
occurs within the development itself. We've got a scenario that they presented this time that
shows the hospital and the other uses that you see. And that all works into those uses.
Ultimately, if you did all of them to the maximum number allowed, it would exceed that trip cap.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I see. So what you're saying is there really was never a formal
trip cap established for the SRA, so you went back and you calculated, based on the uses that had
already been approved, what that might be, and you're establishing that as a trip cap moving
forward, giving them flexibility in how they utilize that trip cap? Is that an accurate reproduction
of where we're at?
MR. SAWYER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else for traffic?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Mr. Sawyer.
MR. SABO: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo, I want to loop back if I can to be sure that I have gained
an accurate understanding from the dialogue that we had about four acres versus 25 acres and the
like.
I see that I had made an onerous assumption about buffering, that you can -- you could
have four-acre parcels together without a requirement of buffering between them, correct?
MR. SABO: That is my understanding, correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. But if you -- if you have a requirement that they come
in with an aggregation divided into four-acre parcels, at least you prevent the serpentine snake, the
long building that Commissioner Klucik was concerned about; am I correct?
MR. SABO: That is correct, it would prevent elongated buildings.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And they would be able to come in with one Site
Development Plan. It just would have to be divided into four-acre lots, and they couldn't have one
building crossing those lines?
MR. SABO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And the proposal at this point is that the applicant is
requesting that the 25 acres apply to the entire Ave Maria rather than just this project?
MR. SABO: That is correct. That's my understanding as well, correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: They could have -- they could have come in and asked that this
simply be applicable to the single project, right?
MR. SABO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What single project?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can we approve an amendment that puts that limitation on
it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we could.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What single project are we talking about?
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 34 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The application that's before us as opposed to the entire --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Actually, no. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's true. I
think the application before us doesn't make any distinctions. This drawing happens to be an
example of the project that Lennar is doing, but I don't think any language in the application -- I
could be wrong. I don't think any application in the language [sic] specifies. I think we could
specify -- we would need to get staff to give us some input as to the specifics. We could specify
that it would be limited to this National PUD, or I don't know what it's called. You know,
whatever the designation is. But I don't -- am I right that right now application has no distinction
about this Lennar project?
MR. SABO: That is correct. So what you could do, what is in your purview, the Lennar
project was, obviously, developed with four-acre parcels. If you remove this deviation
completely, they would still continue to be able to develop four-acre parcels that are abutting and
aggregate them together but, Mr. Klucik is correct, if the deviation is allowed, they could create
25-acre parcels from now on.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think the distinction that I would make is, I do trust
both the market conditions and Lennar at this point, that I wouldn't expect them, for instance, to put
all those buildings together to make one long building, you know, if -- which is what they could do
if we made this change, you know, and limited it to this project. And so I'm not -- I'm satisfied
that I don't think that that will be a problem for this acreage, this project. And so I would be
willing to say for that project the 25 acres is not a problem for me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But we're concerned, I think, about having the 25 acres apply to
the entirety of Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, right, the other 7,000 units that are yet to be
developed, exactly.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That clarifies it.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: As I read this application, it is to amend the Town of Ave Maria
SRA and master plan with a basket of changes. It is not a single project that's being proposed
here. So I guess we keep talking about a project, but these are general changes to the master plan
for Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, that was my point, is that if we were going to say we
want to limit it, we would definitely need, you know, I think even legal input but certainly staff
input as to how we would amend what we would be approving to make sure that it's just applying
to -- at least certain portions. Maybe the 25-acre piece just applies to this one project.
COMMISSIONER FRY: To what one project?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, to the National Golf Course that Lennar is putting in
and that Planned Unit Development for the National. Now, I'm not saying that -- you know, that
that's the way to go. I'm saying that seems like it's worth looking at.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask the County Attorney if we would have it within our
power to recommend that all of these special provisions apply only to the current project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I talk?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to hear from the County Attorney first.
MR. KLATZKOW: Boy, I hate doing stuff piecemeal like this. I also hate deviations, by
the way, unless there's a substantial reason for it, because there's a reason why we have things in
the code. And you guys look at the code, and you are approving it, and the next thing you know,
somebody comes in, I need a deviation. Why? Because I need it. And the next thing you know,
you have crappy buildings all over the place.
You could do it but, honest to God, I mean, this was supposed to be -- the vision was
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 35 of 82
supposed to be -- this was supposed to be a town, and the town was supposed to have a certain look
to it. It was supposed to be developed in a certain way. And, unfortunately, the residents don't
have, really, the input that they should have in this, to be quite blunt.
It's developing almost like a regular PUD, almost, where a developer comes in, and every
time he wants -- sees a market opportunity, he comes in and says, well, now I want to do this.
Now I want to do that, and -- rather than growing in an integrated manner, which was the whole
point of this, to get a town in an integrated manner and to have a certain look to it.
So, no, I'm not a big fan of deviations because it's, like, there's always a market reason for
it, and the market changes like this (indicating). And so a year from now there's another market
change, then the year after that there's another market change, and the next thing you know, you've
got this development that's not what everybody intended and certainly not what the people are
buying into.
But if you're asking me, do you have the power to do that, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to find our presentation so I can at least put the master
plan up and let's talk about -- is this it? Okay. Thank you.
So this is Ave Maria. It's roughly 5,000 acres. It's got a university in it. It's a big area.
It's a town. To expect us to know on the date we submitted the first SRA document that we knew
how every one of these roughly 4,000 acres was going to develop is an unfair burden when you put
together that SRA document.
The Land Development Code was specifically amended to allow for deviations in towns.
I know that because we did it because originally the way it was written is if you -- when you did
your first SRA document, you were married to it. You were never allowed to have flexibility to
whatever the Land Development Code said.
So we came in because things change over time. So the deviation process was specifically
added to address towns and for allowing us to do it as amendments to the SRA, because before a
few years ago, you couldn't even do that.
So I want to -- and I'm going to make sure -- Austin's going to correct me. I would -- and
can you come up real quick. What I think Mr. Klucik is saying for the Lennar development, not
just this one condominium portion within the development -- it's right here, right?
MR. HOWELL: Uh-huh.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We call that the National project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I want -- I just want the Planning Commission to understand
where that is, and I'm trying to figure out how I mark this. I don't think if I do this -- did I make a
mark? I did.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where Lennar's developing right now. That's their golf
course community. Actually, I missed it a little bit. It comes down here.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just -- let me just say, I think this is an older graphic, so it
doesn't really -- it portrays a prior --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It shows the land mass, but it doesn't show the actual buildout.
What I'm saying is the land mass where I think Mr. Klucik is saying he is comfortable with this
deviation applying is that land mass; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, that would be the footprint of what's being proposed
as the National -- Lennar's National Golf Course community.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we will come up with an appropriate descriptor of that land
mass before we get to the Board of County Commissioners to say the requested deviation to be able
to do 25-acre parcels will only apply to this land mass, so it will be a very limited deviation. We'll
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 36 of 82
have to follow the other process that's in your code anywhere else in Ave Maria, but for the
deviation purposes, this land mass is where we would do the deviation. And I think that is -- is
that what you're --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I mean, that sounds appealing to me. I think that,
you know, the commissioners should all have a chance, you know, to ask more questions if we're
limiting it to that. I think that's a -- yes, I think you have summed up what I think I could support.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that works for us. I mean, we'll deal -- if we have
another master developer that comes in and decides they need an area-wide deviation, we'll come
in. I'm not going to come in for every SDP. I mean, that's -- and ask for a -- we're not going to do
that. But for this master development area, we'll limit the requested deviation to that area, and
hopefully that addresses the concern that some people have about a community-wide deviation and
the unknown that might occur through that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And while you're up here, I want to just say that I actually,
you know, would want to underscore what Attorney Klatzkow expressed, because I could have said
the exact same thing. The only thing I would add is that, you know, having lived there and been
there for 13 years from the very beginning, I would say that I'm very grateful that Ave Maria
Development and Barron Collier stuck with it. They came up with a plan to try to sell homes
when nobody was buying homes and, yes, it deviated from their original plan.
You know, when they did it, they didn't really have to make too many changes to do their
big Maple Ridge project, but they stuck with it. And I was wondering, you know, when are they
going to walk away because we were there for a long time, and there was nobody buying houses.
And I only make that point just to say that I really do -- you know, I don't just say these
things about our developer because I feel like I have to. Ave Maria Development does a great job.
And that doesn't mean that I won't continue to ask pesky questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It wouldn't be as much fun for me if you didn't.
And I just wanted to point out the evolution of the town, and, Mr. Klucik, you're aware of
this, Arthrex expanded greatly out there. It was never contemplated that Arthrex was going to be
there. So we came in and we gave them a bigger land mass, and we gave them more square
footage, because we didn't have enough square footage set aside for light industrial. So it did
evolve, and we've made changes based upon what's been for -- and I think they've all been positive
changes for the community. I mean, I think Ave Maria is a great community.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The reduced street trees, I don't like that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. We'll -- but anyway. Generally, I'd like to think -- so
hopefully that addresses the concern of some of the Planning Commissioners that have concerns
about the applicability of the deviation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Rich. Do you agree with staff's interpretation
that you can consolidate four-acre parcels into a single site plan and submission now that you've
had the chance to read?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The only thing I learned --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: The only reason I say that is you said you'd drop your request
for Deviation No. 1 if they were correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- it still is important for this piece of property to not have
to worry about those lot lines.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I don't want to totally eliminate it because it is
important for this, and I think the more limited application is a better application.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. And the other question is, do we have to act on this
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 37 of 82
other -- why do we have to make -- we can vote to not approve the deviation, but it sounds like we
can -- why would we apply it to a project that's not even before us?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think you're correct, and as has been said by the County
Attorney numerous times, we can make whatever recommendation we wish. We're not limited by
what the application is. We can -- you know, we can either carve out in this particular case the
project and say that the deviation will apply there but not elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I'm concerned, and I share the County Attorney's concern that
that --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I'm not willing to do that, because I haven't seen
anything on that project other than Mr. Klucik's opinion that it's a good project. So I'm not willing
to vote to waive it on that one project.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I absolutely appreciate that point, which is why I was kind
of hesitant, you know, a little bit about it. My whole idea is that's how I would -- you know, that
was my first feedback. My very first feedback back before I was a planning commissioner to the
developer or, you know, to the -- even to the County Commissioner was that they should -- you
know, no one would -- you know, we would -- our fears would not be there, anyone who has fears
like me, but the concerns people have would disappear if you showed us the project, the project
that this deviation applies to, and then we can say, oh, okay, I can live with that; that's -- there's
no -- there's no reason to not give a deviation, or whatever the reason is, it's overcome by the
upside.
And I certainly understand Attorney Klatzkow's, you know, concern that we're just making
deviations all the time, but I think that's exactly what -- it's more appropriate to make a deviation
when we know what's before us, and then we can say, what is the downside, whatever. And I
would also say that the process -- you know, I agree with you that the process to approve
something like that, I don't think it's fair for all of you to just say, oh, well, Commissioner Klucik
thinks it's cool, so thumbs up. I agree with you. I just -- the reason I'm willing to be supportive
of it is because that's what I've been encouraging or hopeful that the developer would do all along
when they do things in Ave Maria.
MR. KLATZKOW: And if you guys want to see what it's actually going to look like, you
can say, come back and show us exactly the project that you need this deviation for.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's kind of where I'm headed, I think. Thank you.
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, the amendments before us is a basket of amendments.
This deviation applies to this particular project, but there is -- there's self-storage units in here.
There's the hospital use. There's signage, all that stuff. But am I correct that the only thing that
really applies directly to that project, maybe signage a little bit, too, is majorly this deviation?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That's the primary -- the primary -- one of the -- the primary
amendment that applies to this property is the deviation.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But we really are -- we're amending the overall SRA for
Ave Maria through this process.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Process, correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I will just say that we still -- you know, I don't
want -- what I don't want procedurally or due-process-wise, I don't want -- since we still don't have
an answer on the signage, you know, my question that the staff, I'm asking them to get back to us
on, I don't want to mess up the due process for the applicant, because I don't want to vote until I
know the answer to that question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 38 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, just so we know, this project that Mr. Klucik knows
what it is is a gated community and it's an enclave within Ave Maria. So the impacts of this
deviation are very limited and will only be felt, if you will, by the internal residents of that
community.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would say that I learned something at our last
district meeting on Monday, because we were looking at the bonds, you know, issuing the bonds.
It actually is not a gated community, because these are public -- those roads are going to end up
being publicly owned roads, and so there will be controlled access but anyone can actually enter
the property. They just -- there's some certain -- there's a gatehouse.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's true.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it actually is -- the government out there will own the
streets.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. It's controlled access through the gates.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure I understand all the ramifications of that nuanced
difference.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, simply that the public has a right to go there. So the
idea that it's restricted to the people that live there as far as having an interest would not actually be
accurate.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the gatehouse is a visual deterrent at most.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think they can -- yeah. I don't really know how it
works. It's a little strange to me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They can still ask you to present your identification, things like
that --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but they can't stop you, Mr. Fryer, from going through the gate
if you say I want to go through the gate.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's no different than a CDD. All our CDDs
are the same.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The gatehouses look nice. They can slow you down, but
everybody has a right, because -- to enter.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If those roads are built by the CDD.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If those roads are public.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because not all CDDs use --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can stop and validate your insurance, your license
and other type of things prior to entering the community, but it's -- the CDDs are the same
as -- same thing, because they used the public municipal bonds to pay for the infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say is the reason I bring that up, you
know, based on what Mr. Yovanovich said, is that it will be used for walking, biking. You know,
so the appearance, you know, the buffering, you know, the setbacks actually will matter to people
who do use that. You know, the public is free to go in there recreationally.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Yovanovich? And I'm going
to turn it back over to staff to see if they have anything further.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just as curious to see what staff's going to present on the
signs, because there's no pictures of signs in the development order, so...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins, do you want the floor?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. Anita Jenkins, for the record.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 39 of 82
I just wanted to make a correction. When I reported the height for multifamily at 3.5, that
is in accordance with the LDC. The Ave Maria SRA document allows four stories for multifamily
in neighborhood general. So I just wanted to make sure the record was correct on that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Mr. Sabo, anything further from you, sir?
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, no. Our recommendation is removal of Deviation No. 1 and
recommending approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
To Mr. Klucik's question, I put information or put requests out. I don't have an answer yet
for the signage. So I would just need either additional time -- I don't know how you want to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there may be a motion to table. I mean, that's how we
would --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I would -- I would make the motion to table it until
we get that question answered.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- that will be in order. After we ask for staff to complete
and then public input and then rebuttal, and then the motion to table would be in order.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're welcome to remind me when it's time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll do my best. Mr. Sabo, anything further, sir?
MR. SABO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Mr. Frantz, do we have any registered speakers?
MR. FRANTZ: (Witness shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's -- you're nodding no?
MR. FRANTZ: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any member of the public who is present wish to be
heard on this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we'll ask the applicant to present rebuttal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to -- Mr. Chairman, can I have one minute to look
something up before I say something about signs under the RLSA program? I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly. Do you want a five-minute continuance or, rather,
recess?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. No more than five minutes. I just don't want you to all sit
here and watch me scroll.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're still going to watch you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll be in recess for five minutes until 11:26.
(A brief recess was had from 11:21 a.m. to 11:26 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene. And we'll ask
Mr. Yovanovich and his team to present rebuttal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: On the sign issue, under the county's Land Development Code
standards for -- for the RLSA, it specifically says that in the town core -- and then it incorporates
into the town center the standards that are in the town core. It specifically says we're to follow the
county's sign code.
So all we're asking you is to make us consistent with the Land Development Code to allow
us to use the sign code in the town center, because that's what the RLSA has always intended. So
we're just asking to let us go back to that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you point me to a page? Because I actually have that
document up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't point you to a page, but I can show you.
MR. BELLOWS: Do you want to put it on the visualizer?
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 40 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: Will that work?
MR. BELLOWS: We'll try it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Klucik, under town core, that's what it says regarding
signs.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So this is section -- what is the actual document
we're looking at?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The Land Development Code and the MUNI code, 4.08.07.J.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is LDC; this is not the SRA?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the LDC. And what I'm asking you to do is put us back to
what the LDC -- that is really weird.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I guess my question is more what does -- I'm
assuming that, fine, this is -- you have to meet this, but if the SRA is more restrictive, then you also
have to meet the SRA. So that's really my concern.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm -- and I understand that. What I'm suggesting to you is
when Ave Maria came through, it was the very first town that came through the process. It may
have been close to or near the same time as the LDC. There are -- do you have the pictures,
Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: It's right behind you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how good that picture is. But when you look
through, you can see that the types of signs that they're showing work great in the core.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So this is the SRA?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the SRA. These work great on the core when you're
walking and up down the street, like 5th Avenue, when you have those signs. It doesn't work
when you get to the shopping centers that are also allowed in the town centers and you have
multiple tenants in a building, and they can't get the signage to let people know -- because of the
orientation of these town centers, to let them know who the vendors are in these shopping centers,
and we're just trying to give our tenants sign visibility so we can continue to attract providers in the
town.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So what -- other than this page, which I really can't
see that well, what is the -- can you actually give me the reference? Because I can pull at least that
page up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Page 40, the town plan.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then what is the -- what is the other language that
otherwise -- so it's saying you can do these things, and it gives examples, I'm assuming. But other
than that, what does the SRA actually say?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. These signs.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it says you're allowed to do this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. It doesn't let me go to the -- it doesn't let me go to the --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But what I would say is early on the developer put
up some commercial buildings and, you know, they knew -- you know, they knew they were going
to do that, and I think the whole idea of this -- you know, I mean, I realize now you're asking for a
change. The community now functions fine, and everyone knows where everything is and, you
know, and we can find things, and the expectation is that there's not a lot of signage.
Unfortunately, we have all the street signs on -- you know, on the subdistrict roads that I, you
know, kind of complained about already. We have pollution in that regard, sign pollution. But
there isn't -- you know, it's actually really nice. You can see what's there. You can see, oh, it's a
Mobil station. I mean, everybody knows there's a Mobil station. If you drive by, you see it.
Now, I understand you might have a situation where a building is not fronting the street
and then it would be more difficult for people to understand where that business is.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 41 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we cannot do -- we can do nothing to help that
businessperson know that their business is in that building because we don't have the appropriate
signage.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say is given -- you know, this is my
impression on this. If right now you're extremely restricted under the SRA, then simply adopting
what applies across the board, you know, to the county, I don't think is the appropriate solution. I
think some in between where you actually factor in the uniqueness of this community is the
appropriate change. And that -- that's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is, whatever the
county standard is applies to Ave Maria. We already heard about Ave Maria being unique.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ave Maria was first.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I assume --
MR. YOVANOVICH: And what -- with -- the one thing about Ave Maria is there's 20
years of lessons learned about tweaks that need to occur for Ave Maria to continue to thrive.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And what I just said is perhaps a tweak is
appropriate but simply adopting the countywide standard for signs I don't think is a tweak. I think
that's saying, oh, it's just like every community. And so what I'm -- you know, my thought is, I
welcome a sign change proposal, you know. I won't -- you know, I would make an amendment to
disapprove this one, you know, that portion of it precisely because I think something other than
simply adopting the county rule would be appropriate.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we respectfully disagree. We think that the county's sign
standards are very strenuous, and if they're good enough for the regular citizens of Collier County
and the restrictive nature, I don't think we're in any way harming the residents of Ave Maria by
applying those same standards. And we would request that you approve that deviation that we
requested, the limitation on the deviation, on the size and, again, with any -- any further questions
you may have...
I do want to point out that this has got to be the first time I've ever been accused of
overstating the amount of traffic, because my engineer came in with a number that staff -- we
worked through and realized that we had overstated the impact, and that was an honest discussion
back and forth, and we hope you'll approve that trip cap as well and every other amendment we're
requesting so we can go to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff has recommended approval of the sign. The only thing
that you've recommended denial of is Deviation 1, correct, Mr. Sabo, which had to do with the
4-acre to 25-acre increase for multifamily?
MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo. Yes, that is correct; however, I think
Mr. Klucik brings up a good point. There is a lot of uniqueness to Ave Maria, and part of their
problem is they don't have the ability to put up signs that -- you know, marquee type signs and gas
station signs and things like that. It may be appropriate for Ave Maria to have slightly different
standards. Maybe not as restrictive as the town core but not as liberal as the remainder of the
community. So Santa Barbara and Davis is different than an intersection in Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, and I think that's a great summary. And I am doing
my best, because I do work with the developer on a lot of things and I will be over the long haul.
And I'm trying to be very fair, and I'm not trying to just say no. I'm trying to suggest that there be
something that's appropriate for the community. I agree. I agree. If there's a business and it's
not, you know, doesn't have frontage, you know, on the street, nobody's going to know where it is.
What's the solution? I think there should be one. I just disagree that it should just be whatever is
allowed elsewhere in the county precisely because there's a reason the SRA has no -- you know,
limits the signs right now. So just saying, oh, whatever the -- whatever the county requirements
are is good enough. It's not that Ave Maria is better. It's that Ave Maria is different. That's all.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 42 of 82
And it's -- it definitely would be out of character. The signs that would be allowed under the code,
if we just adopted the code, would definitely be out of character and would change the character of
what's already established in Ave Maria.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Signs in the county have been a significant
emotional event for many years; it goes back almost 20 years when the sign code was changed.
We probably have the most restrictive sign code in the nation.
And when Ave Maria came out -- and some of the examples that were shown in the SRA
were examples that were submitted in the SRA because they wanted to exceed the county
standards. County standard does not allow neon lights, or neon -- signs require backlighting and
other type of requirements; height limitations.
So to be concerned -- just to ease your concern, the sign standards within the LDC are
very, very restrictive, and when the SRA was developed, the town wanted to exceed those
standards. That's why they developed the sign standards for the SRA. I don't think you're putting
yourself at risk in regards to complying with the LDC because it is very -- they are very restrictive.
But that's just -- just a little history on signs.
I'm sure, Jeff, you can highlight as well the history of signs in Collier County, and some of
it is probably even long before your time. Yeah, you were still on the county staff then when we --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I'm the guy -- I'm one of the guys who redid the sign code
once upon a time.
You're absolutely right, we have a very restrictive sign code. It's an aesthetics issue so
that -- the Board of County Commissioners wanted certain aesthetics for the community, and we
have our sign code.
So you go up -- I look at Lee County, because I drive a lot there, and I look at their
signage, and I think it's ghastly. And then I drive around Collier County and I look at our signage,
and it's just much nicer.
But, you know, if the people of Ave Maria are looking for something in between -- I mean,
I'm hearing from Mr. Klucik, but that's just one individual. I don't know what the community
wants. You may want to start thinking about some sort of advisory board, by the way, setting up
over there that could -- either an advisory board that's created by the Board of County
Commissioners or just a private advisory board that you can come and say, look, you know, we've
met and this is what the community feels like, because I think the Planning Commission could give
that far more weight with the Board of County Commissioners. How many people live in Ave
Maria now?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, there's 2,800 from what I understand; 2,800 homes
have been sold.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So you've probably got about 5-, 6,000 people there already.
And you might want to think about establishing it, because it's one thing to say that, you know, I
think the community should do this. It's another thing to say that, you know, we've met as
advisory board, that --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say to that specific issue is I don't think
anyone in town has any idea that this is even on the radar to be able to put up the kind of
commercial signs that you would find throughout the county. Nobody even understands that's
what this is before us.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But if you had your own advisory board that met on a regular
basis, these are the issues you can talk about.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Oh, absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: And then come back to the Planning Commission and the Board of
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 43 of 82
County Commissioners: This is what our community wants.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. What I would say is I have a decent read on the
people that communicate with me, which are many, but I certainly am not going to say that
everybody agrees with me.
MR. KLATZKOW: The commissioner's absolutely right. We have a very tight sign
development code. But if you guys want something more, you need to tell the Board that. But
it's just you right now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, and other thing I would point out is that we're going
from something that's unique to Ave Maria to just saying, well, whatever the county comes up with
is good for us. And I think actually we should -- if we're going to change the signage, it should be
a specific signage not it just goes with the flow of whatever the county's going to do. And I
certainly don't discount that the county has -- you know, has done something good in its, you know,
limitations on signage.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there are a number of directions we could go on this. First
I want to ask Mr. Sabo, is staff's recommendation with respect to the signage the same as it was in
the written materials?
MR. SABO: Well -- all right. So can I change my mind?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh.
MR. SABO: All right. Since Mr. Klucik brought this up -- this is a good point -- the
option that you have is to remove that portion of it. They have lived with the signage thus far and
could potentially live with it another six months or whatever it is. That's one option. Or you
could simply approve it. Like Mr. Schmitt said, the sign code we have is very restrictive. That's
an option. So it's really up to you. I think he brings up a good point, I really do, and -- but
ultimately it's a policy decision recommendation on your part.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we understand. Thank you. I just -- I was looking for
something tangible, if you will, concrete example of language that we could -- that we could
embrace.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So, Mr. Chairman, what I would say is because this was
brought up at the information meetings that the developer had, when I asked staff about this
particular issue, they hadn't -- they weren't really that knowledgeable about it as if it wasn't on their
radar screen. And that's maybe because they were saying, oh, we want to adopt the county
standards, and so no one really thought too much about it. But that's all I'll say. And, you know,
I'm not -- certainly not trying to sell you out that you hadn't done your job, but it was foreign that it
was even part of the -- if you look at the staff recommendations, I don't even think it really
mentions the signage as an issue that they really had an opinion one way or the other on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have several options before us. One of them would be
to continue this matter to a date certain soon and ask staff to come back with a recommendation
that recognizes the uniqueness of Ave Maria and put that before us for consideration. Another
would be to take negative action on the request that's before us so that it could go on to the Board
of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm going to go ahead and make that first motion,
that we table this or we continue it to get more feedback on this signage.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're not going to agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll hear -- Commissioner Schmitt, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's look at the deviation, what it's asking for. It's
asking for one specific thing: Location of off-premises directional signs. Typically, it says no
more than 1,000 feet from the building. They're asking for 4,500 feet. So we're not changing in
any way, shape --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's not the one. There's two different sign issues.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 44 of 82
That's a specific sign issue, and then there's a sign issue for the town center.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The town center is clearly defined in the SRA. And it
probably -- has a greater flexibility than what's allowed in the current code.
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, I put up the proposed amendment language.
Here at the bottom is signage. The new language is a strikethrough and the underline. So the
town core shall apply, the community general standards shall apply, and then where that doesn't or
where it's limited, they would rely on LDC Section 5.06.04.F., which is the county standards for
signage.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. SABO: So that's what Mr. Klucik is concerned about is the generalness of the
county's sign standards applied to Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So what I really see is that there -- we can ignore
the first two, town core and community general, and just apply the third one, because it's "or." So
there really is no specific sign standards for Ave Maria if we were to adopt this, and I don't think
that's the way to go.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's not the way it reads.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would argue that it does, but I certainly am open to
someone else --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It reads that you have the town core standards and the
community general standards or the LDC, so you've got three different standards.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you only have to comply with one of them. So if you
don't like or can't comply with the first two, you could -- because it's "or," you could comply with
the third.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Change it to "and."
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's kind of where we are now.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Where we are now is exactly that, because you
would still have the more restrictive pieces of the town and community.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to be heard on this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think at this point, I think it's only fair to let the
applicant -- you guys vote however you vote; make your recommendation. We've been in this
process for almost a year. I don't know how many months it's going to take Mr. Sabo to come up
with his newly designed potential sign that he wants to recommend that you guys approve for Ave
Maria.
I'll be honest with you, I'm a little taken aback at the change from the recommendation of
approval to maybe not a recommendation of approval from staff.
So I think it's only fair to have our amendments heard, voted on, and we can move forward
to the Board of County Commissioners with your recommendation on each of these individual --
MR. KLATZKOW: But the Board relies on your recommendation. You can make it,
you can not make it, you can continue it. If you feel the need to continue it to give the Board a
proper recommendation, then do so. If you feel you can make a recommendation to the Board
now, then do so.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo, how long would it take for you to bring something back
to us with respect to this signage question?
MR. SABO: This -- to clarify, for the record, I would not draft sign ordinance language.
I would put that to the applicant to come up with sign standards. They would have, you know,
however much time that they would need to develop standards specific to Ave Maria and then, you
know, whatever our hearing schedule would be.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there any reason why this would drag on longer than, like,
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 45 of 82
between now and the 18th of February?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, you have our standard. We have given you the
standard that the developer would like to see happen, which is to follow the code.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So he's telling me to go back and bring something else to you in
order for you to make a decision. He's not going to come up with -- to anything else. He says
he's not doing anything other than shift it to me to try to figure out what I want the signs to look
like. We know what we want the signs to look like. They're the signs that are in the code.
There's no reason to continue me for me to come back and say, I really meant it when I said we
wanted to refer to the standards that are in the code.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We could -- we could ask for staff to draft sign language, and
particularly in consultation with Commissioner Klucik, that might be acceptable to us, and I think it
could be done in very short order and -- certainly within the next two weeks, and if that's the wish
of the Board, we've got -- we've got a motion. It hasn't been seconded yet.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that something we could review and pass on the consent
agenda if we --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- reviewed it in advance?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you can't. You can't do that, because I have to have some
input on that, on the sign. I mean --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you'd have input during the consent agenda.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't reconsider things on the consent agenda. The consent
agenda is to make sure that staff did what you directed them to do, and all you're directing staff to
do is to come up with something and present back to you for discussion, and you can't -- you can't
do that in the consent agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I would say is that I don't think the community has
any understanding that the -- that we would see different signage at this point based on what has
happened, because it's been undersold and underplayed as we're simply adopting the county
standards, and people -- that doesn't mean anything to anybody.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's my opinion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you -- Commissioner Schmitt, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. No disrespect to the Commissioner representing
the community, but that's one person. I don't -- we had nobody else from the public speak, we had
no concerns. They do have a board out there. And we're sort of recreating on the fly here, and
that -- it's really concerning to me that we have one outspoken commissioner, that we're sort of now
going back to the drawing board. I haven't heard from anybody else, and I -- this was not an issue
until discussed today. I'm just confused by this whole aspect of wanting to rewrite the sign code
which, frankly, when we did the sign code in this county, it took probably well over a year, and we
hired a consultant, we had community meetings, and it was a pretty extensive operation in order to
amend the LDC.
And then all of the nonconforming signs that were out there were noted, the code
enforcement issues. I mean, this is not something that can be done by the seat of the pants. So
I'm just questioning the whole process.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that what you could do is you could take the
existing code that does apply, this 5.06.04.F, and you could see if there's anything that would be
tweaked specific to Ave Maria. What we're saying is that Ave Maria should not have any specific
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 46 of 82
sign standard that's different than anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can say that for the entire county. I mean, I know Ave
Maria's different, but do we want another sign code for each rural village? I mean, this, to me, is
going down a slippery slope.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, in this case, we already have something unique, and
we're saying let's do away with it, but there's really no good reason to do away with it. The
argument is, you know, we have a potential issue down the road with some shop owner, and there
is no current issue. And they're asking to get rid of something without a real grounding for it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So the concern is that where you have visible shopping centers
that have signs that are flush with the face of each storefront, this would introduce the possibility
that they could put a marquee sign out in front of all the shopping centers that shows Publix,
Bealls, so on so forth, and that's your concern; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's my concern. And I certainly don't think [sic] that
some form of that might be appropriate, but there's no -- right now it's whatever is allowed
throughout the county, and I don't even know what that is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just -- because I've got a process concern here. Mr. Sabo's
already said that he has no intention of having staff come back with anything. There is no
community organization --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- that can come up with something. There just isn't. I'm very
uncomfortable with a single person dictating new code that everybody has to live with. So if --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well -- and that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing
that we not approve this change --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. That's different.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and we work with what we've got, and if there -- if there
is, you know, some other way to go forward with it with a modification, then that's fine. But I'm
not proposing a modification. I'm trying to --
MR. KLATZKOW: May I finish?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. Mr. Attorney, I'm going to --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to wind up winning if you keep your mouth shut.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just want to explain that what I'm suggesting is to try to
accommodate a change that I think could be good, and I am agreeing with the applicant that maybe
a change is good. And so I'm trying to actually be very accommodating and open to the idea that
maybe we should change this. And what I'm saying is, you know, let's not go all the way to the
end. Let's go somewhere in the middle. And I apologize, I -- you know --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no middle to go to, because staff is not going to come up
with anything, all right. So if there's no middle to come up with from the signage standpoint, no
other issue, there's no point in continuing this.
It's not like we're going to have public hearings and hear from the people of Ave Maria as
to what kind of signage code you have. So the issue then comes down to, do we keep the
requirements as they are today, which is the SRA, or do we do away with the SRA requirements
and, oh, by the way, once you do that, those other towns are going to ask for "me too, me too," all
right. This is just not going to be limited to Ave Maria. I've seen this game work before.
So the questions are, are you going to get rid of the SRA requirements, or are you going to
keep them?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would --
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 47 of 82
MR. KLATZKOW: And it's a yes/no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say if we say no, if we say we're not going to
get rid of them, then I think that, you know, the applicant is likely to come back with something
that, you know, maybe is in between. You know, and they can say they're not going to, they
refuse, they have it -- you know, I get that. That's their right to assert that they want all or nothing,
but at the same time, I think, you know -- and I also think couldn't we direct staff to come up with a
proposal to change this, to modify it?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We could, but as a practical matter -- and I'm trying to evolve here
as this develops. I'm sensitive to the right, if you will, of the applicant to get this resolved and for
it to get onto the Board of County Commissioners.
We have options in place where we can express our point of view with respect to the sign
issue and with respect to the acreage issue, Deviation 1. We could vote to approve the application
but deny those two pieces of it. And stating our reasons cogently, we would send it on to the
Board of County Commissioners. And if at that point, if there's a large assemblage of members of
Ave Maria or spokespeople who have been delegated the responsibility of speaking for a larger
group, they can appear before the Board of County Commissioners and make that case. So that's
my -- go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to clarify one thing. We are not trying to avoid the
Land Development Code RLSA sign requirements. You're not opening up Pandora's box. We're
saying we want to meet the Collier County established Land Development Code sign requirements
for SRAs. We want to meet the code. That's what we're asking for. We're not asking for an
exemption from the LDC. We are not -- so don't -- we're not opening a Pandora's -- we're not
asking for an exception. We want to meet the code. And I want to --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I want to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: One more thing.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Yovanovich --
MR. YOVANOVICH: My NIM, my NIM for this project was in August of 2019.
August of 2019 we had a follow-up voluntary -- 2019, sorry -- 2020, 2020.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Twenty.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wrong year. COVID's got me off by a year.
So from August until now, we haven't heard a peep from the residents of Ave Maria saying
we have a problem with these signs. We had a follow-up voluntary NIM; didn't hear a peep.
I respect Mr. Klucik's opinion. I'm not saying he doesn't have a very strong opinion, and
he's expressed them many times in the past. I'm fine with that. But we haven't heard from the
residents of Ave Maria saying we are opposed to what was requested. I don't know that
Mr. Klucik's read the sign code yet himself to know whether or not he has an objection to what the
county code is. But we haven't heard from the residents of Ave Maria opposing this sign -- our
request to be using the county code.
So I want to just put that in context, and I would hope that we can move forward with a
recommendation of approval of the modifications that we've requested and, obviously,
you'll -- somebody will make a motion, and we'll figure out what the will of the Board -- or the
Planning Commission is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have a motion before us, and --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to respond to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what I would say is, right now -- and you can answer
me if -- would you be able to put up a marquee type sign now? Would the applicant be able
to -- or in Ave Maria, in the area like, for instance, in front of a -- not in the town core but in the
town center.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 48 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean a directory sign that lists the names of the tenants?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yeah. Like a lighted sign that has the
colored -- well, the colored plastic signs, that, you know -- or colored glass signs that are in front of
shopping centers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that there -- I don't know that the colored glass
signs --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the point of it is that you're asking that you would be
able to do that, and I get that, and I'm not opposed to some form of that.
What I'm saying is that I think it should be unique to the community that is unique, that has
also been sold to us as unique. And all I'm saying now is is you're right, the people have not
spoken because they have no idea -- they have no comprehension of what this proposal is because,
as I said, it was not really discussed that much and, as I said, the staff didn't even realize it was
something to really weigh in that much on about, because when I asked them specific questions,
they -- it was as if, what? That's not part of the -- you know, what are you talking about?
Okay. Now, I knew it was part of it because I had gone to the meetings. And so, you
know, to your credit, you never -- it's not that you didn't talk about it. It's that it didn't seem like it
was an issue, and if you recall, I thought you were suggesting that we were going to have signage
initially because of the way it was worded; it was incorrectly worded on your material that you
presented, and it was in -- where people would live. You wanted signs. That's how it was
worded, and it had to -- you know, you had to go on record and correct that, that that was not what
you were proposing. So there was some confusion here.
And I also will say, I'm an elected representative in that community. I was recommended
for appointment to this position because Commissioner McDaniel, who's also representing of
people of Ave Maria, thought that I had my finger on the pulse of the community. I am not saying
that everyone feels the way I do, but I certainly will tell you that I don't -- you know, I don't think
I'm off in being concerned about this.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for the Chair. What stage are we in? Are we in
deliberation here, or are we still in rebuttal? Are we in deliberation?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is still rebuttal. We have not moved to deliberation.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: We shouldn't be having motions made then.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no. You asked for the opinion of -- the input from
the staff, and I don't think we are in rebuttal.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry, of the community.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, how about can you put the motion up if we haven't gone
through the --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we haven't had a second, first of all, and I haven't heard
Mr. Yovanovich, basically, rest. So as far as I'm concerned, we're still in rebuttal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm only responding to comments that are occurring with regard to
questions.
And, you know, if you're going to stop asking staff questions and you're going to not -- I
just only request that I be given an opportunity to respond to staff comments that I may believe are
not totally accurate.
I'm done with my presentation. And I'm perfectly fine with resting and having you-all go
to a motion to deliberate, but I only ask is if you bring staff up and ask them questions, that I be
provided the same courtesy.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fair enough.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 49 of 82
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, are you -- in this signage section, are you really trying to
address the situation where a non-street-facing business does not have adequate signage?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are trying to make sure that businesses that want to come to
Ave Maria stand a fighting chance of being successful. That's why we're making these changes
just to the town center. We're not doing anything in neighborhood general. It's just the business
districts, if you will, within Ave Maria. So we're not -- we're not making up a problem. We're
addressing a problem to bring businesses to Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I get it, but Robb's -- and I have to say, if they have flush signs
and this would open up the possibility that every commercial development, whether it faces a
collector road or an arterial, you could put up a marquee sign with all the businesses listed, and
that's against the vision of Ave Maria, and then I see that as a valid concern.
So that's simply -- my question is: Are we -- do we need to invoke the entire LDC when
we have an SRA signage, or are you really looking to address a specific situation that we could do
in a more limited fashion?
MR. ARNOLD: This is Wayne Arnold. If I might address that questions, please.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
MR. ARNOLD: The signage in the town core right now -- and I don't want to -- I need to
correct you. A marquee sign is not a multi-tenant sign.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. ARNOLD: That would be a directory sign --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: -- in the county's nomenclature. A marquee sign is specifically allowed
here, and it allows it to be attached to a theater to indicate the shows that are being played. That's
the limitation in the town core.
What it doesn't allow is a multi-tenant facility, if you go to a medical appointment, it
doesn't allow you have to directory sign where you can have multiple doctors' names listed on it.
It doesn't allow you to have a gas station sign. It doesn't make any provisions for those things.
And we have a -- we have other things outside the town core. But as your LDC even says,
it says, you go to the town core, if you're in any of the other context zones, but then at town core, if
you read the section that Rich put on the visualizer, it says per signage for the LDC.
So every other town that's out there, if they didn't come and ask for a specific standard,
they would defer back to the LDC, which I think we all agree is a fairly significant standard. But
here, just one example, Mr. Fry, was a directory sign that's not permitted.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it would -- even with this change it would not be permitted.
MR. ARNOLD: It would not with the change, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I will ask, it says, signage within Town Center 1.
Town Center 1, is that where the Mobil station is, or what is Town Center 1? What -- I'm trying to
make sure that I know --
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Klucik, they all allow the same. Town Centers 1, 2, and 3 all refer
you back to town core.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But this particular deviation -- or change, excuse
me, is limited, is that correct, to Town Center 1? I mean, that's what I'm reading.
MR. ARNOLD: That's not my language. That is not the proposed change.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So then I'm not even looking at what
we're -- the commissioners aren't even looking at the language, so I have a problem with that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in your resolution.
MR. ARNOLD: It should be in your resolution if you're looking at that, Mr. Klucik.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 50 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And I'd like someone, if we could, have staff put
that up for us.
MR. SABO: The resolution is in front of you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That is the resolution, all right. So the resolution limits
these -- this change to Town Center 1, and I'm asking for someone to clarify, because there's more
than one town center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What you're not seeing, Mr. Klucik, is they didn't share with you
the language in Town Center 2 and 3. That says signage within Town Centers 2 and 3 shall
comply with the town core. So you have one page. You don't have the next page on there to
show you that it applies to all three town centers.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So -- okay. Well, can I see that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If it's town core -- I realize you could have
misspoken -- then if it refers to town core, then for 2 and 3 this new thing wouldn't apply.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The way it works is the town core is where you identify the
types of signs you're allowed to have. Then you go to Town Centers 2, 3 -- 1, 2, and 3, and it says,
refer back to town core for the types of signs you're allowed to have in Town Centers 1, 2, and 3.
What we've added to our language is the ability to do the town core signs that are in our
SRA document, or the LDC signs.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I'm saying is as written there that would be limited
to Town Center 1 unless -- unless the Town Center 2 standard says whatever applies for Town
Center 1 also applies to Town Center 2. What is it that you'd like me to look at?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the resolution that talks about the revisions we're making to
Town Center 2, which is the very same language.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Ah. So it's on a different page?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can keep that, but I need it back.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's very helpful. That's not the resolution you have?
MR. SABO: That is not the resolution that I have.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's the resolution that I printed from your website.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you have it up on yours?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, do you need --
MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't we take lunch, and we can figure out exactly what we're
talking about during the break.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what we'll do. Would anyone object if we came back a
little --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you want a full hour?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's 12:09.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So does Terri.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll stand in recess until 1:10, an hour and one minute.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:09 p.m. to 1:10 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please.
When last we were together, I believe the applicant had rested with the request that if we
then end public comment and call staff back, that we would give the applicant a chance to rebut.
So without objection, we will do that, but first Mr. Sabo has a clarification.
MR. SABO: Correct. James Sabo, for the county.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 51 of 82
Just to clarify, my recommendation to the Planning Commission has not changed. My
recommendation is approval with the removal of Deviation 1.
What I wanted to clarify is the information that Mr. Klucik brought up is information that
you could consider, but it is up to you. It's up to you to consider the information he brought up
regarding signage, so -- but my recommendation stands as presented.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that clarification, sir.
Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I would basically withdraw my motion and replace
it with a motion to pass it in accordance with the staff's recommendation but without the
sign -- with the sign piece dropped that we discussed in detail for the commercial signs in Town
Center 1.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the motion would be that we accept staff's
recommendation on Deviation 1 but then add that we're going to keep the SRA signage.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sign for activity center the same.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a procedural --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to have lots of discussion, but we're going to put a --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But a procedural thing. Can you just make a motion before
you get to deliberation?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Any time you want?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just, procedurally, I'm trying to understand this.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. We will -- we will have lots of discussion on this, and we're
going to begin our discussion with a motion and possibly a second, but we're not going to end
deliberation or discussion until everybody has had everything to say that they wish.
County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ray, have we any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any registered. I'll check with online. No, no online.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to close the public portion?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to do that, yes. We will close the public portion on
the -- with the condition that if for some reason we asked staff to come back, we'll give the
applicant a chance to also rebut. But I'd hope that we can get through this without having to
reopen.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I thought we were already
at that point. So, obviously, without hearing from the public, my motion would have been
premature, and that certainly was not my intent because I thought we had already asked the public
for comment.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We did.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We did.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You were right, we did.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's moved and seconded, and we will now have a full and
complete discussion.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll kick it off.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do.
COMMISSIONER FRY: The reason I seconded the motion is I believe that -- I look at
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 52 of 82
the justification to approve deviations to be that there is a demonstrated benefit to the deviation and
a significant benefit to it. We've established that the applicant is able to design all the same
similar communities with very, very minor differences with the four-acre limitation on multifamily
homes in place, so that's why I do support denying that deviation.
And to the signage, a similar viewpoint, I guess a similar framework in looking at it. My
concern with opening it up is that I think we have established, through testimony, that
including -- expanding it to include the LDC, while the LDC may be considered, quote, restrictive,
we have identified at least one area where it's less restrictive which would allow the addition of
directory signs to any commercial shopping center in Ave Maria, and that's not a -- that is an
expansion of the signage rules. And I get the impression that the people in Ave Maria maybe like
the flush mounted signs. And the client -- the applicant did present, I thought, a very reasonable
request, which you as well, Mr. Klucik, thought was reasonable, which is how do we let people
know that that those off-street businesses are there? So I do believe that an exception of some
kind would be justified there, but I do not believe that opening the entire less restrictive LDC, we
have enough information -- or I have enough information to support that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm really not clear on the motion regarding signs.
What was that meaning we will stay with the staff recommendation?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. The staff recommendation with the one change is
that, as to the addition or the change to adopt the LDC signage standard for Town Center 1 is -- we
approve it without that, without any change to the signage. We would -- we're approving the sign
that's off property, but we're not approving the internal signage standards change. That's what my
motion is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, I'm going back to the -- I'm looking at the
resolution. So how would that resolution read, so I'm clear?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. I'm sorry. I'll have to call it up. What page is
the resolution on?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's see. That section was -- James, you --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: 9A1C, attachment to your resolution, 100620?
MR. SABO: Page 75 and Page 96.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's not what I'm seeing here.
MR. SABO: Page 75. Page 96.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. Well, I'm opening up the agenda with all of the
information attached, and I'm trying to find a page number there. That's what I have.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Seventy-five and 96 of what packet that --
MR. SABO: The proposed resolution.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mine, I'm at Page 28 of 2, 448. But it says,
signage within Town Center 1 shall comply with town core standards, strike through the "and."
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Strike that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So community general standards or LDC. So you're
recommending that that -- basically the section that says LDC Section 5.06.04.F come out?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I believe the language that is currently in there is
the part that is not underscored, and so my amendment is removing the portion that is underscored,
which says "or LDC Section 5.06.04.F."
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in that regard, there's no change in the signage criteria
for Ave Maria other than the deviation for the off-premise sign?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 53 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, of course, minus the 25, the increase to 25 acres.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's Deviation 1.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's Deviation 1.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the issue here is -- and I have to agree
with -- we've had two public hearings -- or two public meetings, none of which this was an issue,
and all of a sudden now it's an issue because, of course, you raised it as an issue. And as far as
with regards to the applicant, the purpose of this was to allow for businesses that don't front a
frontage street. So now we're basically saying they will not be able to put up any kind of --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Directory.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- directory sign or other type of sign. Even if they put
the hospital in or another type of facility, directional signs or multi signs for hospitals, doctors'
office locations, all those kinds of things, none of that can be done now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, without them submitting something that -- for
instance, I would support -- well, not us. We make a recommendation, but that the commissioners
would support. I think that's the appropriate way to do it is to not -- to not bite this off now this
way. I don't think that that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So based on your recommendation, if the hospital goes in,
they're prohibited from putting any type of internal signage?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, they would be if they didn't ask for a deviation, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. So if we wanted to put any kind of directional
signs within, let's say, the interior portion of the hospital property for location to the emergency
room or doctors' offices or other type of things, in order to do that, they would have to come and
amend the SRA again.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't think that's the case, because right now we have so
many directional signs in town; then we must be breaking the code all over the place. So
that -- you know, certainly in Ave Maria there are a lot of directional signs that tell you how to get
to the doctor's office and how to get to the town center and how to get to the school and the
university.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I don't know, because I don't know if that is
basically part of the sign -- sign ordinance, and I don't have that in front of me.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
There, I believe, was an investigation of some of those signs, and a lot of those signs were
not permitted through the county.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that leaves -- it leaves a situation for the applicant
then. In order to put any type of signage, they would have to make that clear back to the residents
and come back in with another amendment.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And I think that you would get support from the
community, and I'm certainly -- I haven't represented that there's widespread disagreement with
that. What I've -- what I'm saying is I would -- if you went and polled the people in town, they
would have no idea that that's actually on the table.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Despite the fact that we've had two public meetings and --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I told you that when they couched it in the first
meeting, they actually had it -- actually, in the second meeting, I had to correct what they were
saying they were proposing in the second meeting. They actually -- so in both meetings they
actually had slides that said they were proposing that in the residential areas they could have
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 54 of 82
commercial signs. Because it was a typo. I agree it was a typo.
Let me finish. So when I went into the meeting and when people went into the meeting,
we were concerned about that. And then the response was, oh, no, no, no, that's just in the town
center, in the commercial areas. And then because people were relieved that the big issue of
having those signs in residential areas, you know, was no longer an issue, there was not really a
discussion or an understanding of what the proposed change really was. And I'm quite confident
that there's a lack of knowledge that that's what this proposal is actually proposing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I agree. I'm just one guy, but I'm actually not just one
guy. I'm a guy that actually does have my finger on the pulse of the community.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I can't support the recommendation to eliminate this
request. I think that the LDC standards are very restrictive and certainly would not be abusive
or -- in any way to the Town of Ave Maria. In fact, I believe that the standards that are now
allowed within Ave Maria, frankly, exceed the LDC standards. So as proposed, I cannot support
the petition.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would support it -- the limit of the acreage, even though
I think it's sort of onerous. But the applicant's going to be able to do what they could even without
the limitation. So I would agree with the staff recommendation on that. But for the signage, I
think it ought to stay with the staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I was just thinking about your question, Joe, and not having the
background you do, if I simply see a reference to an LDC section and I'm in Ave Maria, even
sitting here, I would not know the full ramifications of that. So I'm thankful that that came up
today, because it would not have been included in the application had it not in some way expanded
what they could do sign-wise. And I -- my personal concern is not understanding exactly what the
ramifications are and knowing that there already is a sign ordinance or rules in place in Ave Maria
under the SRA, are we opening Pandora's box to some unintended consequences like directory
signs where they may not be desired. That was a concrete example, you know, throughout Ave
Maria. And I guess I feel, by having it on the record, if the applicant chooses to approach it or go
forward with the County Commission and have them vote differently, at least the issue is on the
table. So that is why I seconded the motion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I support Joe's position. I support voting approval on the
staff's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there -- yeah, Vice Chair.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I will support Joe's view on the signage, too, because I sat
here through all the Land Development Code amendments, and it was very lengthy and very
thorough, and I don't see any reason for it not to apply here. There's no reason, because maybe
then your -- the Ave Maria has code violations.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, there probably are issues out there that are code
violations.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, we also have the ability to now -- if we do approve what
Joe's suggesting, to see if the public really is against it, and you have to get -- and get to the
commissioners' level as well, if you really have some good public views against the approval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Chair would entertain a motion to amend the main motion if
someone wishes to make it.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we hear from Karen?
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 55 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We did.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was me talking.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was, thank you, Karen, for
weighing in. I meant the Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have a motion and a second. Do we have to call the
question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, we can -- there could be a move -- a motion to amend the
main motion to express --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I make a motion to amend -- to approve as staff
proposed. I still believe that the 25 acres is certainly not -- would create a problem in any way,
shape, or form. But it's clear from the staff's position that the -- that the current design can
proceed with the four acres. So it does not create an undue hardship other than it does create
somewhat of an engineering and technical problem for the applicant, but it looks like it's easy
enough to get through it. So I would make a recommendation to support -- to amend and support
the staff recommendation as proposed that is denying the recommendation for the 25 acres but
keeping the sign language as stated --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and as proposed in the current recommendation from
staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I'd second that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's been moved and seconded to amend the main
motion by reverting to the proposal that staff has brought forward which is to deny Deviation 1 but
in all other respects to approve.
Is there any further discussion on the motion to amend?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not -- and this is just a -- this is a vote on the motion to amend,
not the main motion. All those in favor of amending the main motion, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It passes 4-2. Did I count that correctly? All right. So
now we have a main motion that is identical to staff's recommendation that we approve this but
with the exception of Deviation No. 1. Any other discussion on the main motion as amended?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll simply say that I'm going to vote no just because
of -- you know, I want the amendment that was amended out in, and that's the basis for my
objection.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I just --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would encourage that we go back to Ave Maria and get
their input prior to the Board of County Commissioners so that there's clarity so that the folks in
Ave Maria have a clear understanding of the -- both the pros and cons and, frankly, any second and
third order impacts this may have. My biggest concern is lack of directional signs and the inability
to do internal directional signs that they would now be allowed to do under the LDC.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 56 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say just to my neighbors, so that's -- you
know, if you feel strongly about this, then, you know, you've now been told that that would be the
way to -- you know, you have to make yourselves known, your voices heard. I certainly am not
going to, you know, run and act like this is a burning issue. I made my point, and I do think that
it's -- you know, it's -- something in between would be better than just adopting the -- you know,
the county's code, but obviously that, you know, hasn't persuaded this panel. But I just -- you
know, if people in town do feel strongly that they don't want to have commercial signs, then they
need to speak up between now and the commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. You didn't?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, he did.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: No. I just applaud what you said, Joe. I think we're doing our
job here. We're putting the issues on the table. In my opinion, yeah, maybe some analysis
between now and the County Commission meeting it would be helpful to know exactly what
ramifications there are from having the LDC sign ordinance brought in. You know, does it
actually create a problem or does it not? I feel similar on the four-acres to 25-acre discussion. It's
very possible that that really has no real negative ramifications on the intent, but I don't feel I have
enough now to say for sure that it doesn't, and that's why I voted to maintain the four-acre
limitation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then we have an amended main motion in front of us, which is to
accept the recommendation of staff, which was to recommend approval of the application with the
exception of Deviation 1, which we disapprove of.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those if favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 4-2. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chairman, just to clarify, the vote was to forward the
approval of the staff as proposed, which was denying recommendation -- deny the --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Deviation 1.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- deviation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know that's what you meant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. The amendment -- the amendment reverted it back to
the --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would just like to say to my colleagues I really do
appreciate that you thought my contribution was helpful to understand Ave Maria better.
Obviously, the developer understands Ave Maria very well, too. And, you know, it's -- I was -- I
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 57 of 82
enjoyed having the chance, you know, to weigh in, and I'm very proud of the community, and I'm
sure it will continue to be a great place regardless, you know, of how this ends up panning out.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you very much. And for my part, I'll simply say that
your contribution was very, very well received and appropriate, and we thank you, and Ave Maria's
lucky to have you out here carrying the flag.
All right. Anything else on this before we go on to the next one?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***The next one is a companion item. It is 9A2 and 9A3. And
these are -- these are, respectively, PL20200001448 and PL20200002056. They are City Gate
Commerce Park. It's a PUDA and a DOA, a development order amendment.
Without objection, we'll do as we usually do on these companions and we'll discuss them
together but vote on them separately.
And we will first ask all those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise and be sworn in
by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures beginning with Mr. Eastman,
please, sir.
MR. EASTMAN: None.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials and conversation with the engineering team for
the applicant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. In my case, materials from an exhibit -- and
communications with staff and applicant's agents as well as a site visit.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I had a conference with Ms. Harrelson and her team,
because I can't remember who was there except for Josh.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Likewise, I had a conversation with Jessica and her team
regarding the petition.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Ms. Harrelson, you may proceed.
MS. HARRELSON: Good afternoon. Jessica Harrelson, certified planner with Davidson
Engineering here representing the applicants in the City Gate Commerce Park PUDA and DOA.
Here with me today is Josh Fruth, vice president of Davidson Engineering; Roger Rice,
representative for City Gate; Sean Callahan, representing Collier County; and Norm Trebilcock,
the traffic consultant.
We have a PowerPoint presentation prepared that Josh and I will run through and then
answer any questions that you have.
City Gate Commerce Park is depicted by the red dashed line that you see in this aerial here.
It is located in the northeast quadrant of the I-75 and Collier Boulevard intersection lying east of
Collier Boulevard. City Gate is an existing PUD and development order originally approved in
1988 and permits a variety of office, commercial, and industrial land uses.
Requested updates include the addition of medical office, 10,000 square feet, for essential
service personnel only to the sports complex extension that's located here in this hatched area. It's
128 acres. And pursuant to the addition of medical office, the two-way p.m. peak-hour trips have
been updated for the sports complex extension to a total of 345. This results in a total of 6,344
two-way p.m. peak-hour trips for City Gate overall.
Essential services are defined as those services and facilities including utilities, safety
services, and other government services necessary to promote and protect public health, safety, and
welfare, including but not limited to police, fire, emergency medical, public park, public library
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 58 of 82
facilities, and all other services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas, telephone,
electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by providers that have been
approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate jurisdiction in government facilities.
Deviation No. 6 is an existing deviation within the PUD relating to directional signs
internal to the PUD. This deviation has been updated to increase the number of signs, the sign
area, and height. Again, these signs are internal to the PUD and are necessary for way finding.
Approval of this deviation has no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Existing Deviations 13, 15, 16 and 17 relating to grass parking for the sports complex
project has been updated to also include lots abutting the sports complex project that provide
overflow parking for the sports complex project.
The number of permitted caretaker units has been updated from seven to total of 10.
These are permitted east of the FPL easement. The reason for the increase is to address the needs
of large landowners within City Gate and also due to the requested decrease in minimum lot size
east of the FPL easement.
A deviation has been added to allow the South County Regional Water -- Water Treatment
Plant's directional sign to be located off site within Lot 11 of City Gate. This will allow the sign to
be placed on the exterior side of the fence and be visible to the public.
A deviation has been added to request a reduction in the number of required parking spaces
for a proposed warehouse facility that is planned west of the sports complex project known as
Uline. This will allow the facility to meet actual parking demands and allow more open space to
be provided on site. And as you may know, Uline and the Board entered into a contribution
agreement in October of 2020.
As I mentioned previously, the minimum parcel size for the lots east of the FPL easement
have been reduced from one acre to a quarter acre. Parcel width is being reduced from 150 feet to
50 feet. Lots that are one acre or greater will have a side yard requirement of 25 feet, and lots less
than an acre will have a side yard requirement of seven-and-a-half feet.
City Gate has a required yard plan which requires that native vegetation be retained in the
required yards for each lot or unified development. Language has been added to allow these lots
surrounding the lake and recreational tract known as the Tract RL campus to have the option to
provide required native vegetation within different lots located within the PUD. This will allow
for larger pockets of native vegetation to be provided.
The maximum zoned height for the sports complex project has been updated from 75 feet
to 90 feet and the actual height from 85 feet to 100 feet. This applies to lots west of the sports
complex project, east of the FPL easement, and south of City Gate Boulevard north, that includes
uses that are compatible and complementary to the sports complex project. The purpose of the
increase is to address the height needed for a tower element of a proposed resort that may be
located adjacent to the sports complex project, and the star is the location of the potential resort
location.
The master development plan has been updated to reflect the changes that I have gone
over, to update the current lot configuration, and to also show the relocation of City Gate
Boulevard south.
A neighborhood information meeting was held at the sports complex project on
December 17th. There were no objections from the public related to the updates being requested
with this amendment.
And now Josh Fruth will come up and finish.
MR. FRUTH: Hello, Commissioners. For the record, Josh Fruth, vice president,
Davidson Engineering.
A little history on City Gate. You guys have seen us quite often, but there are some new
board members, so we wanted to go through a few items. City Gate, as Jessica mentioned, was
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 59 of 82
originally approved zoning in 1988, which predates the adoption of the Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan from Collier County in 1989.
In 2016, the Board of Commissioners started their site selection for what is now knowns as
the Paradise Coast Sports Complex. The original rezone came before this Planning Commission
in 2017 to update the PUD ordinance.
Preliminary site design also started in 2017, and in 2018 we had additional rezone updates
that came before the Board at the same time we started construction on Phase 1 of the sports
complex.
Last year we had some updates related to the overall PUD, and Phase 1 completion is
pushing towards -- was pushing towards the end, and today's application is -- that Jessica just
covered now.
The importance of the '88 application is the establishment of the zoning -- commercial and
industrial zoning for the MPUD. That PUD document was approved as 88-93 in 1988, as I
mentioned.
So part of the history, going towards the sports complex and the property in the overall
PUD, as you see on the screen here is some -- a little bit of history with the newspaper articles.
But the Board of County Commissioners, as I mentioned, in 2016 started the site selection.
On the right-hand side of your screen, in May of 2016, Commissioner Saunders had a town
hall to address what, at the time, the Hunden Strategic Partners had identified as 28 probable sites
for the sports complex for Collier County. That was whittled down to a handful and then again
reduced. Some of these sites are shown on the screen between North Collier Regional Park, the
Golden Gate Golf Course at the time, which the county did not own, East Naples, and Manatee
Park. Eventually reduced down to three sites: City Gate, the already owned county 305 parcel,
which is between City Gate and the landfill, and the Magnolia Pond site, which is across the street
from City Gate.
So as we roll through to 2017, the purchase and sale agreement between City Gate and
Collier County, and development happens, and we start pushing forward. The point of the site
selection is that we recently received a noise complaint unrelated to these applications, so on behalf
of Collier County, I'd like to address those, because we do want to be a good neighbor.
In 2016, part of those -- that site selection was listening to the neighbors and, as I
mentioned, the North Collier Regional Park was on the list, but that park, as you will see soon,
here, the proximity to the residential zoning was much closer than this site, and this site gave the
county a little bit more flexibility with the acreage of the 305 acres that the county already owned.
As you see on your screen here, we had originally placed a 3,000-seat stadium near the
right-of-way to the north, which would be close to the residential -- residentially zoned district.
We listened to the public. We shifted things around. In 2018, as the county moved forward and
into '19 and clearing, the design team, Collier County and the Board of Commissioners said, you
know, we're going to move forward with the City Gate property as noted.
We shifted, which you'll see here. This is an aerial of May. The four fields in Phase 1
were completed. The stadium construction continues, but we shifted that away from the
residentially zoned district for a reason, because we were listening to the public moving forward.
Here we are today. You can see the development in the foreground here. This is the
stadium, which will be plus or minus, hopefully, opening up here within a month-and-a-half.
And the importance here is that, again, remember, zoning was established for the City Gate
PUD in 1988. The noise complaint is coming from the parcel that is starred on your screen. This
is an aerial from 1993. The property is undeveloped.
In 2002, the property is now developed. The residential property was developed actually
in 2000. And on the screen here you can see the distances to the residentially zoned district to the
property line of the sports complex, which is within the PUD.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 60 of 82
The property in question is roughly 745 feet from the property, another 14 -- or total of
about 1,400 feet from what is now the food truck and bar pavilion area.
And as you guys probably know, the Collier County noise ordinance exempts parks from
being required to follow the overall noise decibels and items related to complaints; however, as I
mentioned, we want to be a good neighbor, so the property, which is industrial zoned, as you guys
know, is permitted to be up to 87 decibels. And so we started doing some sound testing. And for
point of reference, normal speaking volume is roughly 60 decibels; thunder is 120 decibels; your
refrigerator's 50; vacuum cleaner is 60 to 85; alarm clock, 65 to 80; chainsaw, 125; lawnmower and
rifle, handgun, shotgun, between 163 and 170 decibels.
So those sound readings are shown on the screen here. You have the yellow, red, green,
and blue. Again, we took the readings from the right-of-way, not from the actual property lines.
So we were a little bit away from the property closer to the residential. And the highest reading
we had was at 10:30 in the morning, and this is important to understand, that these readings
followed and started the day before the neighborhood information meeting. And the reason we
started this is because this complex was built mainly -- and one of the big events was the football
university, and that event takes place every Christmas -- every week before Christmas.
So we started on December 16th, had these readings through December 22nd. On
December 18th at 10:30 in the morning in yellow, which is the food truck bar area, there was a DJ
doing announcements of teams. That reading was at 88 decibels. However, the exact same time,
if you move to the red or blue or screen area, which is closer to the residentially zoned district,
those readings dropped to 52 to 55 decibels, which, as I mentioned, normal speaking volume is
60 decibels.
So the importance of this is, again, I've highlighted here the rifle, handgun, shotgun,
between 163 and 170 decibels.
As I mentioned, we had the reading at 10:30 at 88. The property in question, which is
starred on the screen, is a football throw's away from an active outdoor gun range, which is much
closer in proximity than the distances we've shown on the screen.
Also, for reference, North Collier Regional Park. The -- some of the fields as shown on
the screen to the right are just a little over 300 feet away from the residentially zoned district as
opposed to what the Paradise Coast complex is, 700 plus 230 rough [sic] or minus feet.
So with that, I will open it up for questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to go back, go back to -- and, Jessica, you
and I discussed this. And staff may be able to address this as well.
Please go back to the slide regarding essential services personnel, and let's talk about the
medical facility. Because my concern is -- I have no issue with the medical facility, but my issue
is, I believe this was a misrepresentation.
So who is building the medical facility?
MR. FRUTH: The medical facility was added -- again, Josh Fruth with Davidson -- was
added at the request of Collier County. There is 10,000 square feet of general office on the sports
complex extension already. The request was to -- for the medical office for -- as defined here for
the essential service governmental facilities. Since Collier County -- again, this is a request to get
it in there. This does not mean it's going to happen, but it is a request to give Collier County the
flexibility and option to have a medical office building since they are a self-insured company.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Okay. I have no issue with that, but it says for
essential services personnel. Who -- in our discussion on the phone yesterday, you classified -- or,
Jessica, you classified essential services personnel is, essentially, everybody that works for the
county. I think that's a very broad expansion of the term "essential services personnel."
My issue is, in the staff report and as publicly advertised, why not just have stated that it
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 61 of 82
was a medical office facility to service government county employees? I disagree with classifying
essential services personnel. Everywhere else we talk about essential services personnel when we
talk about affordable housing, when we talk about availability of housing, essential services
personnel were typically, as classified, firemen, EMS, teachers, medical services, staff, and other
related fields.
This is, essentially, now for all county employees. I don't have an issue with that. But
why didn't we just state that and say it was for county employees? Why are we using the term
"essential services personnel" to classify -- to cover all government employees?
MR. FRUTH: Well --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And whose idea was that? Because I believe this was a
misrepresentation.
MR. FRUTH: I understand what you're stating, Commissioner. I think working with
staff and our client, which is the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager's
Office, we believe that those that we are representing would be the ones that would be using this
facility if the county did, you know, decide to move forward with a facility of this nature.
With that said, in coordinating with county staff at Growth Management, I think that, quite
honestly, we didn't even think twice about it because of the way this definition on the screen reads
today. Governmental facilities was our intent. It was the intent for those that are employed by
Collier County to use the facility. So it was not anybody's ill will to steer it in the wrong direction.
It was just, we agreed upon it and we moved on.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, again, to me it's a misrepresentation of
what's being asked for because -- is Mr. Bellows now deemed essential under this? Ray, no
disrespect, but you're now essential.
MR. FRUTH: Well, given the state of pandemic, you know, I think everybody's essential
in the county, right?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Given the way this is described, Jeff, are you essential,
too?
MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just have a real problem with the fact
that -- why not just have stated that this was for government and county employees? There's
nothing wrong with that. I just have a problem the way it was advertised and the way it is being
presented to this board.
MR. FRUTH: I understand, Commissioner, and I think, like I said, before it was not
intended to be that way. We agreed upon it, so we moved on. So there was actually no rebuttal
about it. It was just one of those things, as you know, when you agree, you move forward.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I note it for the record then.
Next thing, let's talk about the caretaker units. Put up the slide -- where are the location of
the caretaker units?
MR. FRUTH: Okay. So as Jessica mentioned, there are 10 proposed. We have seven
already in the PUD as approved from the 2020 ordinance.
Collier County has one caretaker right here that is -- right now is -- will be plus or minus
about five to six weeks away from being ready for CO and deliverable to the caretaker which will
be occupied by a deputy sheriff. It is very similar to the Collier County Public Schools. That is
the exact model that was adopted. I'm going to go to a few extra slides here so I can walk you
guys through this. Give me one second, please.
So the definition of the caretaker is an accessory use to the principal use exclusive to the
property owner, tenant, or designated employee, and any other requirement which the County
Manager or designee determines necessary to mitigate adverse impacts.
So in the case of Collier County for the sports complex, at the time of design and review,
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 62 of 82
we wanted to adopt the Collier County's Public Schools' model, because we wanted to have
security on site, and the thought behind this, how do we make this happen and how and what do we
determine the caretaker and how many?
So fast forward to today and where we're at, take Golden Gate High School for instance,
69 acres on your screen right here. There is a caretaker. One caretaker on the property.
The new high school, which is in design right now, which Davidson Engineering is doing,
there is a proposed caretaker in the corner of the property, 61 acres. Mike Davis Elementary,
immediately east of Golden Gate High School, 17-and-a-half acres. If you take Mike Davis and
Golden Gate High School, you have roughly 80 acres. The sports complex project is 195 acres.
If you double Mike Davis and Golden Gate High School, that would mean we would have four
caretakers. We're asking for three.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right.
MR. FRUTH: Three because of where we're locating them --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're asking for 10.
MR. FRUTH: Three for the sports complex. I'll get to the 10. Yes, you are correct.
Three for the sports complex, one right here in Phase 1, we have two in Phase 2, and then the 10,
the additional seven, are because of what we just talked about Jessica presented with Uline and
entering into a contribution agreement with Collier County.
We have two large landowners in this PUD now. Collier County is one of those, and
Uline is one. Uline just closed on 102 acres, so they would have two caretakers as well. But with
these PUD revisions in front of you today, because of the land that remains since we had two big
chunks taken down, the land along the canal could be smaller lots, smaller businesses, business
caretakers. So we wanted to have that provision added to allow for some additional just in case
those businesses wanted them, and then also in case the distribution facility wanted to add some to
theirs as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So these caretaker units, are they residential units
where people actually live in them?
MR. FRUTH: They are. They are business -- they are tied to the businesses. And the
resident -- in Collier County's case, a sheriff deputy would be living in the unit.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tom, do -- the caretaker units, do they live in those units
on the schools?
MR. EASTMAN: Yes, they do live in the units. The school district does not charge rent
for that. And it's a long-standing program that we've had.
The idea is that you'll have less vandalism if there's a police presence there. And they've
also been helpful in terms of doing routine checks of the property to make sure that it's safe and
secure.
Another reason that we're in support of it at the school district is the Collier County
Sheriff's Office provides YRDs and a police presence in our school system during the school hours.
And it's a way to help with affordable housing to keep police officers in residence at a low cost.
So I guess one question would be, will -- the police that are living in this project, will they
be charged a rent, or will they be rent-free like with the school district?
MR. FRUTH: Sean Callahan is here. He'll speak on behalf of that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, because I have more questions about the caretaker
unit. I want to know -- go ahead and answer Tom's, because I want to follow up on some more
questions.
MR. CALLAHAN: For the record, Sean Callahan. I'm the Executive Director of
Corporate Business Operations in the County Manager's Office. I oversee the operational aspects
of the sports complex.
So with respect to the three caretakers residences, it is our intent to enter into an agreement
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 63 of 82
with the Sheriff's Office. We haven't determined whether we would charge rent or not for the
division. My understanding is in the past that it's been done both ways.
MR. EASTMAN: Not at our -- not with respect to the school district. We've never
charged rent, so that would be a misunderstanding. They've always lived there rent-free.
And getting back to the medical office, will teachers be allowed to go to the medical office,
or is that just strictly county employees?
MR. CALLAHAN: I believe we've only looked at it strictly for county employees at this
point.
MR. EASTMAN: Then I would agree with Commissioner Schmitt's comments regarding
labeling that essential service personnel 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who's going to -- so who's in the other caretaker units?
Because caretaker -- again, the reason I asked Tom is because I know exactly what they're for at the
school.
MR. CALLAHAN: Sure. And, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is a -- it sounds like we're trying to put 10 units
into an area and calling it a caretaker when, in fact, they're really not a caretaker. You're providing
housing for 10 people within the county, maybe one or two sheriffs. And who's going to control
who goes into those units? Is that a county function? Is that your function?
MR. CALLAHAN: I can speak with respect to the three units that are assigned to the
sports complex. Those will be sheriff's deputies. I'll defer questions to Mr. Fruth on who goes in
the other ones.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And is that a requirement, or is that just how you're
choosing to use it? To you.
MR. CALLAHAN: The county has no intent to --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I know. And I guess what I'm saying is, it's a
caretaker residence. It's kind of a generic term, and it doesn't seem to require that any particular
person live there. And I guess -- and it might not even be something that this board, you know,
weighs in on, because it seems like it's something bigger than that, or maybe it is exactly what the
Planning Commission should be weighing in on.
I guess I'm trying to figure out, could you authorize your deputy to live there because
they've had, you know, a rough time finding housing that they can afford? You know, I'm just
throwing something out, you know. No, that's really for you, because you're the one that said
you've been the one that kind of determines -- manages these facilities.
MR. CALLAHAN: I can tell you that the sports complex has no intent to do it with
anybody except for a sheriff's deputy.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But you wouldn't be restricted?
MR. CALLAHAN: I don't believe so, the way it's currently written, no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me go back to the Uline facility. You said
they're going to have how many caretaker units? Were the --
MR. FRUTH: They have zero right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Zero, okay.
MR. FRUTH: Because they took down a large land chunk, they could have a couple if
they chose to do.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they're a private industry.
MR. FRUTH: They are.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And they're going to be a tenant on the property.
MR. FRUTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why would the county build them a caretaker facility?
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 64 of 82
MR. FRUTH: The county is not building them a caretaker facility. I don't -- I never said
that. I don't know who said that. This would be -- the rest of the caretakers, the remainder, the
request is to increase it to 10. Collier County is using three of the 10 that will be -- that would be
within the PUD ordinance. The other seven would be private if a business chose to build a
caretaker.
One for such instance that you'll see around town is there are caretakers that live at storage
facilities. The guard at the gate will often live in a studio-style apartment at the entrance of a
storage facility. That's not uncommon.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But those are all private businesses.
MR. FRUTH: Correct. All the remainder of the caretakers would be private businesses.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would not be under county control?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct, yes. Collier County has an agreement to have three of the
10 that are within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And these are simply scattered throughout the complex.
They're not -- they're not in any central location?
MR. FRUTH: Yes. Right now the other seven are not spoken for. They're -- you know,
it may be built out with no more caretakers and Collier County is the only one that has three deputy
sheriffs living on their property. But to have the option, again, caretakers is a right within the
industrial district. We're just, you know, updating the way that it reads because of the lot sizes
with the two large landowners that are now there, Collier County and Uline, and then the smaller
lots that remain because it could be more businesses.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have one other point. Go back to the slide where
you showed the news articles. Yeah, can you go back the one off there, because I want to look
at -- I mean, this is just for general public consumption. And I know the bullet states -- right there.
The bullet states -- this is from 2016 -- 60 to $80 million. What's our total cost now for
construction? Somewhere in the neighborhood of, what, 140 million?
MR. FRUTH: Well, no. I would not say 140 million, but I believe if you go back on the
record from the December 8th Board of County Commissioner meeting, at the time Deputy County
Manager Nick Casalanguida stated that we would probably be around $100 million.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. I mean, just showing that number 60 to 80
is, again, a misrepresentation. I know it was 2016, but we ought to tell the truth and be factual and
note that it's well -- it's over $100,000 [sic] for that sports complex to date.
MR. FRUTH: Correct. The intent of this on the screen was to show that town hall
meeting that was held on May 17th, 2016, and the sites that were whittled down from the 28th that
I mentioned. It was no intent to mislead any of this information. Again, this is taken from my
2018 presentation to this board, which is why I wanted to show it because, again, we have new
board members. I wanted to bring you guys up to speed with some of the history.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only other comment -- and I'll raise it with Nancy.
It's just an issue of when we make a bullet statement and we go an increased number, I would have
preferred we had identified from two. And I had to ask Jessica that in regards to the height, but I
got the impression we were coming in for after the fact.
But, Nancy, you don't have to answer it now. I'll just point it out when you're up there.
But it -- I did ask the question, because I thought you were coming in for an after-the-fact height
limitation. I have no issue with it. I just didn't know what the height was. It would have been a
lot easier for us on the Board when we have a statement and it's increased from 75 feet to 100 feet.
Okay. Thanks. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 65 of 82
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious, the other seven caretaker cottages or
residences, those would be designed, built, paid for by the businesses that they support?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. So we're not -- Collier County's not paying for those?
MR. FRUTH: Collier County's not responsible for any other caretaker units.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You alluded to the relocation of City Gate Boulevard, was it
south, or was it north?
MR. FRUTH: City Gate Boulevard South, you are correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- is that -- is there a slide that shows exactly how it's
being relocated? I guess that's it. It's moved to the north now?
MR. FRUTH: Yeah. Actually, let me go to the end of this presentation where I was so I
can show you the rendering. It's directly related to the October 2020 contribution agreement that
Jessica mentioned between the Board and Uline. In that agreement, Uline is making, roughly,
six-and-a-half million dollars worth of contributions, including relocating the roadway. In the
agreement, Collier County agreed to allow for the location of the roadway because the plat comes
before the Board of County Commissioners and that roadway, as you can see here, is aligned
roughly plus-or-minus 300 feet off of the southern property line of the PUD. Going to this slide,
you can see the roadway moves to so -- it's roughly about 50 feet off of the property line.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Last question: This includes a reduction in the
side yard setbacks, the properties over one acre and then those under an acre. What is the reason
for that? What's the vision?
MR. FRUTH: So the reduction is because the lot is getting smaller. If we still had the
25-foot-wide side yards and you have a property that is a quarter acre, 25 feet on each side, you
pretty much leave yourself with nothing to build.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So, I guess, why are the lots getting smaller? What are you
envisioning changes -- what will go in now that wouldn't have gone in?
MR. FRUTH: That's a good question. So as I mentioned, we have two large landowners
now which have taken down, combined, 100 and -- plus or minus 170 acres of the 419, but
remember that 419 also includes the sports complex extension.
The only land that is remaining in the PUD is the land that is along the canal, the northern
limits of the PUD. It would be these lots up here north of the sports complex and west of Big
Cypress Basin's emergency operations field station. These are smaller lots, obviously. So you're
not going to have another distribution center. You're not going to build another sports complex.
So the thought there is that there's probably going to be businesses that come in that complement
Collier County Sports Complex. So if it's a complement, they're not going to be building, you
know, 10, 15-acre businesses. They're probably going to be the smaller quarter-acre to two-acre
type facilities.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So that applies only to the leftover lots to the -- lots to the north,
is what you're saying?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct, yes. So it applies to everything east of the FPL easement,
but there's only this land remaining for sale.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: Just going back to the caretaker units, we don't use that term at the
school district. We just call them police residential trailers. And I also wanted to get this on the
record. The school district does not pay for those trailers to be constructed or purchased. We
simply supply a cement pad, and the police officers purchase their own trailers, and they can
remove them when they're no longer living there. So the school district does not pay for their
actual living unit, but they let them live on that cement pad on the school site free of charge,
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 66 of 82
rent-free, and in exchange for their sort of keeping an eye out on the place and to help our local
police with their housing situation.
MR. FRUTH: Correct. Mr. Eastman, as you noted, here is the Triple G site, we call it, as
a future sheriff's residence.
In the case of Collier County, I will say for the record that the cost savings for the county,
what we did was a direct material purchase for this caretaker unit. It was double-dipped. It was
used as a caretaker -- as a construction trailer, and then it is converted to the caretaker.
So instead of Collier County renting or building into the contractor's model to rent a
construction trailer for three years, the direct material purchase was part of the guaranteed
maximum price, and then it's converted to a caretaker in the end. So it was a dual purpose, and
actually Collier County saved money by doing it that way.
MR. EASTMAN: Would you say that you had three construction trailers or 10
potentially, or how many construction trailers were there?
MR. FRUTH: So there is -- there is one construction trailer right now, and the other two
have not been built because Phase 2 is just starting clearing right now. But the contractor does
have for this phase planned for a doublewide which would be equal to two trailers.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just, you know, to make me better informed, I thought I
heard you say that there's a right for industrial property to have caretaker facilities; is that what you
said?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct. The Land Development Code allows for industrial zoning
to have caretakers.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so then this Uline would otherwise have an ability to
have some sort of a caretaker facility?
MR. FRUTH: Well, they fall into the PUD zoning district now, so it --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it wouldn't.
MR. FRUTH: In effect, if it's silent in the PUD, it would revert back to the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So there would be some provision where they would be
able to have these caretaker cottages even without saying we're going to have seven.
MR. FRUTH: That's correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it would be a lesser number, or how does that work?
MS. HARRELSON: Jessica Harrelson. I believe it's one per principal use.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. All right. Well, I just wanted to -- you know, I
mean, that was something that's novel to my knowledge, and that's interesting. I'd never even
thought about that before, so I learned something today.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, on the caretaker line again, it's authorized in
industrial zoning but, of course, this is a PUD, and your statement that since the PUD is silent, it
reverts back to the industrial zoning criteria?
MR. FRUTH: If the PUD was silent, it would revert back to the Land Development Code.
But our PUD is not silent. Again, it is already approved to have seven. We're asking --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, it has seven.
MR. FRUTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in your justification -- and I'm reading the staff
report -- it's sort of like we would like three more; we really can't justify why we need three more.
MR. FRUTH: Well, as I mentioned already, the justification is because of the two large
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 67 of 82
landowners and then the additional application request before you today to reduce the minimum lot
width, lot acreage, and coverage because we feel that there are businesses that will be coming to
support Collier County's Paradise Coast Sports Complex. With the smaller businesses, we do not
know if they're going to ask for a caretaker. We just want to plan for the future.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if -- and it's public knowledge because I think it's
already been advertised that they're looking at a major hotel or some other type of recreational
facility coming in. Is the thought that one of these caretaker units will be to support that operation
as well?
MR. FRUTH: As of right now, no, the resort has not asked for a caretaker unit.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else for Mr. Fruth or Ms. Harrelson?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have more for us?
MR. FRUTH: No, we will rest.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. So am I now to understand that we will
now hear from staff's employees? Ms. Gundlach.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal
Planner.
And staff is recommending approval of the proposed City Gate PUD amendment and
development order amendment. And if you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to
answer them today.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nancy, I would just ask for future reference -- and this
was an existing PUD. And it says, you know, increase the number of caretaker units to a
maximum of 10. It would have been nice to have said, to increase from seven to 10. Likewise,
for the maximum height, increase -- and I had to ask Jessica this because I did not go back and look
at the original ordinance, the maximum zoned height, and you're going from an actual height of 85
to 100. So just for future reference, if we do that type of -- it just makes our job a little easier to
understand what you're presenting, because I immediately highlighted that saying, well, why are
they asking for this? And my question to Jessica was, is this something for after the fact or some
other requirement? I understand now what it's for, and I don't have an issue with it. It just makes
it easier.
MS. GUNDLACH: Sure, I can do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else for Ms. Gundlach?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will say that I'm fully supportive of this application. The one
concern I had was adequately addressed in my meeting with staff on Tuesday; I'll just bring that
forward so that people can be aware of it. But there is a -- there's a deficient road segment in
question here, and it's Segment 33 of Collier Boulevard/951, and the minimum -- the existing
AUIR LOS is F, and the minimum standard, I believe, is E.
So that was a red flag. But I've now been informed that FDOT has some scheduled
improvements and, according to staff, these improvements, once they're in place, will alleviate the
concern that we would otherwise have as a result of this segment being deficient. Did I say that
right?
MS. GUNDLACH: Mike, can you confirm that?
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation planning. Yes --
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 68 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead, Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: -- you're correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thanks. You're going to be Mike Walker again if
you keep walking up here.
So I just wanted to make that -- make that point clear because, you know, deficient roads
are of concern to us, but since that is going to be adequately dealt with, I am fully supportive of this
application.
Anybody else have any questions or comments for staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Ms. Gundlach.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public speakers registered?
MR. FRANTZ: We have one registered public speaker. I'm going to say the name
wrong, but Ulrike Uncle.
MS. UNCLE: That's me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you please spell your name for us, ma'am.
MS. UNCLE: U-l-r-i-k-e. It's a German name. It's Ulrike. And my name is Ulrike
Uncle, and I am the yellow star on your little map, which I think it's more like a black star when
you don't want me there.
I'm coming before you because I'm the resident who had the noise complaint. And even
though I understand that everybody plays by the rules and everything is to code, it still doesn't
comply to what I'm going through, and it is that I now have -- I feel like I live on a football field all
day long, and the -- and the decibels are all fine. They're all not above anything, but there are
tournaments Friday, Saturdays. Now they started concerts. So when I go home to my home I
wanted to have my peace and quiet and read my book on the porch, I hear screaming, yelling,
whistleblowing, which is all normal for that facility, so nobody does anything wrong.
But when you hear that 12 hours a day all weekend long and during the week at the
evenings because there's training going on, it is very -- I don't know. I want to compare it to -- we
all had that flight, three-hour flight where the baby cries in the rear, and everybody gets so annoyed
and nobody can do anything. That's how I feel. I feel -- even though everybody does everything
right and I want to be a good neighbor, I want to voice my discomfort of what is there. And what
I'm asking for is the PUD shows that there are some sound vegetation walls, something that would
at least make it less.
And so even what you did was the buffer, which is there at the moment, which will go
away because these are the only properties that are going to be sold, has -- yeah, that's a picture
from my backyard.
So this is my backyard. I see the football stadium. I can tell you the color of the jerseys.
And, yeah, the distances are all correct to your -- whatever the regulations are. It is very, very
annoying. And I sent in some sound bites just to let them hear.
You mentioned the shooting range which is next to me. That's 20 minutes a day. I can
live with that. You know, if somebody trains to shoot, that's a 20-minute thing I can live with.
But every weekend or almost every weekend -- and it will be every weekend, there will be games.
There will be whistling, and there will be screaming and yelling of cheering parents, which is
normal. So I've just tried to find some relief that I can have my peace and quiet when I go home.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
From the applicant, then, are there plans for berms or other barriers to mitigate the noise
from escaping?
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 69 of 82
MR. FRUTH: Again, Josh Fruth with Davidson Engineering.
The photo on the screen is from 2018 prior to any improvements being completed. We
have completed. It has not gone through CO yet. So, again, this will eventually mature and grow
up.
I explained at the neighborhood information meeting that at maturity this -- plus one of the
issues is we are required by code to remove exotics. Fortunately for this property, City Gate does
have a required yard plan versus a preserve, so we have strategically placed those required yards
along the City Gate Boulevard north corridor north of those fields, but we had to remove the
exotics. We did replant, as part of the code. Another item that the Board of County
Commissioners approved as a new pilot program for landscaping we've been working with the
Naples Botanical Gardens for more resiliency, more native vegetation, and those plants are in the
ground. So the views will change. It just will take some time, obviously, for resiliency, not
planting 20-, 30-foot-tall trees.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the lady is talking more about noise than views.
MS. UNCLE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are berms being employed in this?
MS. UNCLE: We do not have berms planned along the buffer. This, as you see here, is
along the canal on the south side of the canal. For noise purposes there are no planned noise walls
or berms because, in reality, including I-75, those walls -- they don't block 100 percent of the noise,
so that was not planned in this PUD.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there anything within reasonable economic parameters that
could be done to mitigate this problem somewhat for the lady?
MR. FRUTH: Can you give me five minutes to discuss?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. In fact, we'll take our midafternoon break and give
you -- we'll take --
COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask her one question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I think he's going to release you, so I wanted to just ask you a
quick question. So you're here, you are the one star. Nobody else is here. But how do your
neighbors feel? You live in a line of homes, correct? I know they're large lots.
MS. UNCLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But how do they feel? Are there other people that share your
sentiments?
MS. UNCLE: Well, everybody said, well, if you can get something, we all sign it. I
think my unique situation is that my house is at the back. I have like, what, 30 feet to the canal.
Everybody else's house is on the street, and they have some sort of greenery in their backyard,
which is my front yard. So the neighbor next to me, which is the shooting range, is quiet because
he has a shooting range. So he doesn't -- and I might not should have said that, but he is the one
who -- who is happy that he can do what he does. So people tell me -- yeah, you know, I'm the
bad guy, and I'm coming forward to voice my opinion, and everybody would sign afterwards.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're in a unique situation, meaning you are more
impacted than your neighbors are.
MS. UNCLE: Yes. Especially now since all the green area -- and that will go away
anyway. So I can -- like I said, I have straight view to the -- to the facility and to the games and to
the property.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But I think Josh is saying that that is temporary; that will
change over time.
MR. FRUTH: Yeah, that is correct. It will change.
MS. UNCLE: But they're little -- at the moment, they're planted hedges. They are four
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 70 of 82
feet tall. They don't do much, and I don't think they're ever going to be bigger and more dense to
somewhat block the noise. And the view is not -- is not the issue at all. It's really --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Noise.
MS. UNCLE: -- the continuous noise all day long. That's what goes on. It's the crying
baby in the three-hour flight. That's what it is.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll take a 10-minute break until 2:33, and then we'll hear back
from the applicant.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: In recess.
(A brief recess was had from 2:23 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. Before we
continue with this matter, there are a couple of things that I want to address, and the first one was
the absence of Commissioner Chris Vernon. I'm kind of out of the loop now. It used to be, and I
think the way Mark had it as well, that commissioners would contact me and let me know if they
were not available, and I would ask for a reason and, really, any reason would do. But we don't
want to leave it out there as an unexcused absence. So what do we know?
MR. BELLOWS: We did have a conversation with him yesterday, and he said he had a
conflict with a prior appointment that he couldn't get out of.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Then that will go down as an excused absence. Thank
you very much.
The other thing is is I've spoken with Mr. Yovanovich and his client, IRRV. Realizing the
lateness of the hour and that we're going to review -- we're going to reserve 30 minutes or so to talk
about agendas, would prefer -- he would prefer not to start and then be interrupted. So without
objection from the Planning Commission, we will simply make note that this -- that his matter,
IRRV, is continued until the 18th. It will be the first item on the agenda for February 18th.
There's no objection, so that's how that will go.
Mr. Fruth.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're going to get into the discussion of what we're
going to do on the 18th.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, yeah, by all means.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That complicates issues.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It does complicate it a bit, and we're absolutely going to get into
that. Thank you.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, Josh Fruth.
So I have talked to both of our -- of the applicants, Collier County and City Gate, and I
have also talked to the neighbor represented here on the map in front of you.
I explained where we're at and what we can do. The -- I'm showing you this map again
because through here, as part of the development of the sports complex and the master stormwater
system for the PUD, we have a cleared drainage easement that is in line of sight of the resident in
question. We are offering to work with the resident to do a dense landscape buffer, not canopy
trees but landscape buffer, within this drainage easement area, which is approximately 50 feet
wide, because there will be development on that property in the future, and then that canopy -- or
that hedge would be maintained to opaqueness and levels that will assist with views and sound.
We cannot build a wall. We can't do anything like that, but that's the best we can offer and, as I
explained to the property owner and -- where we're at, and we're willing to commit to that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 71 of 82
Ms. Uncle, would you like to respond to that? Is that satisfactory to you? I think it
shows a level of responsiveness on the part of the county.
MS. UNCLE: First of all, I want to thank you that so much time got into my little
complaint. I didn't know that when I complained for the first time that this much study has been
done, and I appreciate your willingness to help me. And I will do what I can do on my side. I
don't know if that alleviates the problem, but at least we have something to move forward and for
me to hope that it will get better.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I thank you, applicant, for your
willingness to --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, of course, Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I know I might be kicking a dead horse. But I live about
a mile from Gulf Coast High School. I don't think sound barriers will make a difference,
my -- because it doesn't. And we have acres of trees between -- and I'm not complaining about it.
I'm fine with it because it's periodic, not continuance like hers. But don't they make some kind of
more directional speakers that don't have to fill the neighborhood with that noise? I think that
would help her more than a buffer. I don't think the buffer's going to do anything for her sound
issue, because it doesn't for us.
MR. FRUTH: Good point, Commissioner Shea.
So I mentioned on the record already about the I-75 walls. We agree. I told her that. I
said, one thing that will help her as part of this PUD to make these lots smaller, we will have more
buildings and businesses that come in. Those hardened surfaces will help reflect that sound. But
to answer your question directly, there's already a provision that we put in the PUD in 2018 to have
the sound amplified and directed to the south.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: The direction's important.
MR. FRUTH: Away from the residents, yes.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: The 60 dBs is like we're talking now, and I can sit a mile
away, and it sounds just like we're talking now, and it can be irritating. So it's direction.
MR. FRUTH: It's in the PUD already. There's already a provision in there for that. We
acknowledge that.
Again, an hour ago when I was going through this, history was important because we
listened to the public. North Collier said too close to the residents. Whittled down to a site of
this size because the county owned land, but we put in those provisions listening to the
commissioners and the residents to, you know, amplify any sound, direct it to the south.
So, for instance, the stadium, the north deck, if you look at the PUD, the videotronics board
there that's there and the sound that is there, it's on the north end for a reason, because you can still
have an event and amplify sound to the south.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you'll continue to work with Ms. Uncle --
MR. FRUTH: We will.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and keep her apprised of what's being done and receive her
input?
MR. FRUTH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am.
MS. UNCLE: Maybe just one more thing.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead.
MS. UNCLE: What you said is -- the direction doesn't matter, because screaming and
yelling kids are screaming and yelling kids. They're -- or cheering parents. That is the noise
that's annoying. It's -- right now there's no speaker system. And that -- there was one day, and
that was shut down, I guess, by the police or so.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 72 of 82
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, wow.
MS. UNCLE: My concern, or my future concern will be we have that football stadium,
and I think there will be concerts every weekend. And I saw that the provision was that it will
face to the south. But it's so close that it doesn't matter what direction it goes. A concert is a
concert, and it will be loud. And if that's another thing I need to look forward to -- I mean, I'm just
looking down -- we are just in the beginning of this development. And I hope it will be
successful, but I'll go down with it; that's how I feel. So I wanted to just voice that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. UNCLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thanks very much.
Any further discussion? Oh, are there any more speakers registered, Mr. Frantz?
MR. FRANTZ: There are no more speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any member of the public who's present wishes to be
heard on this, now would be the time.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, and without objection, we'll close the public comment
portion and open it up for deliberation, discussion, and vote by the Planning Commission. Who'd
like to lead off?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval with the additional condition, the offer
from Mr. Fruth to build a dense hedge buffer to benefit this nearby resident.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this for the PUDA, because there's --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're starting with the PUDA --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a comment.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would support the motion, but I'm going to make two
provisions. One is that staff make a correction when this goes before the Board of County
Commissioners that they delete any reference to the term "essential services personnel." If the
intent is to open it to the entire Collier County staff, then they identify it as such, because essential
services personnel, like I said, is a definition that is different. You had the definition, and I think
it's a broad stretch to say that everybody in the county staff is essential. If they were, none of them
would have been laid off during the pandemic.
But the second one is, I'm still having a tough time justifying, just because we're
asking -- we already have seven caretaker units and we'd like three more just because we think we
may need three more, I just don't find that to be justification to ask for that change in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. On the first point, with respect to essential services
personnel, would the applicant be willing to revise that?
MR. FRUTH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. How would you -- what would you propose to say
instead?
MR. FRUTH: Well, we'll work with county staff with Ray and Nancy to come up with
the correct language before it goes --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's Collier County employees, right?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your phrase.
MR. FRUTH: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would amend the motion to include the first item. The
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 73 of 82
second item I'm not sure I see the ramifications one way or the other enough to know on that one.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it's been moved, and we need a second. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? This is
on the PUDA. All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You convinced me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes -- it passes unanimously, 6-0.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I feel beat.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then we have the DOA. Would there be a motion on that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion on the DOA?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I was not objecting to your -- I just did not know in my own
mind whether it's something worth pursuing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It just was kind of like we want this because we want it.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But today everything is --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't want it to become a -- you know, a -- kind of a
trailer park back there, is what I --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got at least one matter to discuss. I don't know whether
it's under old business or new business. By the way, though, I'll raise this for discussion. It has to
do with our template, agenda template. Right now it has new business coming before old
business, and I'm accustomed under Robert's Rules of seeing -- we deal with old business before
we come to new business. And so it seems to me that we should reverse the order in the template
unless -- does anybody have an objection to us doing that?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What would be the order, then?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the template agenda that we use, after we go through our
scheduled hearings, it then goes to new business and then after that old business. And it seems to
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 74 of 82
me that those two should be reversed.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then without objection, we'll ask staff to change the template so
that we deal with old business first and then new business.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm just imagining the last time it was moved that they
swap them the other way; when that was.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, not within my tenure, but that's -- well, who knows.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a similar request regarding the agenda.
If it's timely --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- I'll introduce it. I really appreciate the additional bookmarks
that have been added to the agenda, to the packet. I wanted to request one additional one which
would be a book -- a specific bookmark for the NIM synopsis for each item; would that be
possible? I don't see any bookmarks for the NIMs, but that's one of the things that I think we all
want to refer to.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I just want to make sure I understand. So in your electronic agenda, you want a bookmark
where it solely says neighborhood information meeting, or in the hard copy packets you get?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't get a hard copy. So it's the digital, yes. You always
have the NIM synopsis in there. It just would be great to have a direct bookmark for it so we can
refer to it because we often refer to it in the meeting as well; we go back and recite something that
was said in the NIM.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you're talking about a bookmark within that
action -- that agenda item?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Within the PDF.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But with -- like -- so there would be -- if we were hearing
three items, there would be three NIM summaries.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: This would be a subset of the item that we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I'm glad you clarified that. So --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Throwing a bookmark in.
MR. BELLOWS: It's separate where all the NIMs are under one category; you can just go
check it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: City Gate had it.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So when you look at the agenda item that we're hearing --
MR. BELLOWS: You want to see NIM.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- within that there would be a sub-element for the NIM.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's been in there anyway.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's my understanding that most of the time we get this from the
applicant. It's part of their scanned packet. So we'd have to figure out a way to separate them
because they come as -- with the rest of their backup material.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you see?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I do now.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 75 of 82
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He found it. He's --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak --
MR. KLATZKOW: Make it a condition for the applicant to have it separate. That takes
the work off staff.
COMMISSIONER FRY: That would be great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excellent. Okay. This is under old business, which I think is
where we should be before we get to new business. And I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are we going to talk about the next item -- did we vote on
continuing the next item or not?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I thought we did without objection.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I thought we did.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The -- I'm just going to ask for a brief status report from staff
on -- and I'm not necessarily pushing for a hurry, but when might staff have a recommendation to
us about how to decide whether a matter comes before the HEX or the CCPC? Have you had
meetings on that, or it's in progress?
MR. BELLOWS: It's in progress. We have been communicating amongst staff and with
the Hearing Examiner as well, so we will at some point come back to you with some proposals.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In that regard, could you come up with some kind of a
decision matrix where you show what the item is and -- you know what I mean as far as a decision
tree? Do you know what I'm talking about? How you would say yes or no?
MR. BELLOWS: In the earlier discussion today.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just so it graphically portrays where you make
the decision and the criteria for that decision and as to whether it comes -- goes to the Hearing
Examiner or the Planning Commission.
I'm comfortable with what we've been doing, quite honestly, because I'm well aware of the
issues that the Hearing Examiner has been entertaining.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. One of the options that I was thinking of is that we take out any
discretion and just say, these are the items that are going to the HEX, period.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine.
MR. BELLOWS: But we're evaluating all those options, and we'll be able to respond at
some point.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be sure it hadn't been lost.
Appreciate that.
All right. Any other old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: New business? I had mentioned as a tease, sort of, that I'm
concerned about our workload, and I want to be sure that we remain in charge of our own workload
to the extent that it's at all practicable.
And February 18's coming up. We had two RLSA villages scheduled to be heard on that
day, and now we've got an RFMUD rural village that will begin to be heard on that day. And it's
obvious that we -- you know, those are all matters of considerable importance and consequence,
and we're not -- we're not going to get to a point of voting on all three of those. One, maybe.
So I would like us to consider having a continuance now on the second of the two RLSA
villages so that we as Planning Commissioners don't need to be fully prepared on something there's
just no reasonable likelihood that we're going to get to on the 18th. Any comments on that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious if those were presented on the same day
because the intent was to present them as companion items. They're totally unique, I understand.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 76 of 82
But was there -- was there intent in having them on the agenda for the same day that we might not
be aware of in making this decision?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there are some things that are floating around and about,
and I don't believe staff is ready to make a formal comment on it. But I will simply say to you that
it has been brought to my attention unofficially that there are discussions ongoing about possibly
wrapping the three RLSA villages together into a town. And that may or may not happen, and
staff is not in a position to say anything on it, but I'm just telling you that I've heard that through the
grapevine.
But from my point of view, whether that happens or not, these are -- these are -- the two
coming up, just like the first one we heard, these are separate and distinct matters, and they would
not be heard, in my judgment at least, as if they were companions like if we have a GMPA and a
PUD or the very same facts. These are entirely separate facts.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So they would be single threaded. We do one, finish it, and
then do the next.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think so.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is the idea, though, that if this change were to happen, then
what we do might end up being moot?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It might.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we wouldn't necessarily make that call to not do it
because the applicant has put their application in and we need to just move forward?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't know whether anything is going to come to fruition with
respect to what we'll call aggregation. And I don't want the decision that we make or that I'm
asking that we might consider making today to be dependent upon whether we're going to be
deciding on an aggregated entity of some kind or individually. I'm assuming it's going to be
individual.
And all I'm trying to do -- it's very, very narrow. I'm just trying to protect ourselves from
having to prepare fully for something that there's just no likelihood we're going to have to vote on
on the 18th. So what -- what do the other Planning Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I appreciate that you're, you know, being forward thinking
so that, you know, we don't -- plus, I think that helps the applicants as well. They don't -- they're
not here ready to present something that they're not going to present.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. And I think staff -- staff has already flagged
March 4th, where I don't think there's anything yet on, for a continuation of what we have for
February 18. So the natural way of dealing with this, in my view -- and I want to hear what others
have to say -- would be that we take the second -- the second scheduled RLSA. Was it Longwater,
or was it Bellmar? I don't know. But the one --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Bellmar.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bellmar is the second one?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, then we would continue Bellmar to March 4. Now, we
may not reach it on March 4, but at least we, as a Planning Commission, would know that we
would not have to be prepared to make a final recommendation on that on February 18th.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Me, too; I agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Have you had a chance to talk to the applicant and get their position
with respect to the change you're making?
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 77 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Only preliminarily, but I see that Mr. Yovanovich is here, and
he'd certainly be -- we'd welcome his input.
MR. EASTMAN: And I certainly appreciate what you're trying to do, and I think it's
smart. I just think that knowing the applicant's position is an important factor in making the
decision.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's hear from Mr. Yovanovich, who's approaching.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's good afternoon, right? For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We had already planned on our calendar that there was a
likelihood that you would not finish both villages on -- is it the 18th?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that one would probably get continued to the 4th, so we've
already blocked out those days. I do think that -- I think the second village will go a little quicker.
I know they're separate and distinct, but once you get the rhythm of understanding what you're
reviewing for the first one, hopefully the second presentation will go a lot quicker; we won't have
to repeat ourselves. But I know there will be big issues, but we anticipate -- we're hopeful that
you'll complete the review of both villages by the 4th. And, so with that -- and I think what you're
proposing will more likely get us to there, so...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So any further comment on any of this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we would hear Longwater on the 18th and Bellmar --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We would hear Longwater first presumably on the 18th after we
finish with IRRV.
MR. YOVANOVICH: IRRV?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Irvo (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then Bellmar after that. But, undoubtedly, that will go to
March 4, and Longwater may also. Hope not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Hope not.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So, Ray, you'll note on the agenda, because they've both
been advertised for the 18th, right?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we'll have to make a note of the continuance.
MR. KLATZKOW: On the agenda so they don't have to readvertise.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I have a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Moved.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just to restate what I believe we're doing is we are going to
continue Bellmar to a date certain, namely March 4, but -- and we will leave Longwater on the
February 18 agenda and hoping that we will reach it on that time. But the first item on the
February 18 agenda will be IRRV.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And am I right that on the 4th we would hear -- if we didn't
finish with Longwater, then we would hear that before Bellmar --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- on the 4th?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And Ms. Jenkins provided me with a list of dates when
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 78 of 82
this room is available if we want to put on a special meeting. They are Friday, February 19;
Monday, March 15; Tuesday, March 16. It may be premature for us to do that, but if we don't do
it, we may lose those dates, so just --
MS. JENKINS: Commissioner, if I may, Anita Jenkins.
You may consider the 19th as an alternative or an extra day for the 18th in case you don't
finish the Immokalee Road Rural Village and you want to get the other villages started. You do
have that availability on Friday, February 19th, for this room.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: What does the Planning Commission think about, then, us
reserving February 19 for either a start or a continuation of Longwater?
COMMISSIONER FRY: With my business, I cannot commit to two days in a row.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would try to make it work, but I cannot commit to it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would certainly likely want to attend at least one of
those sessions virtually.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I can't make the 19th.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let's -- then we'll hear these, you know, as we can,
and we may have to bump things back. But we'll move with all deliberate speed, and we'll go in
that order.
So it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of
that action, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are you on new business still?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I have a -- since we don't chat much, I have a dilemma.
This is related to One Naples. We've already heard on it, and I don't even know if I'm allowed to
talk about it anymore. But in reading the newspaper, in talking to staff, and in talking with one of
the commissioners, I think there's a big misunderstanding of what we did at that meeting, and I'm
worried that it's going to be presented by -- and staff report is -- as I see that it happened here.
How do we request that we have the ability or suggest maybe the Chair has the ability to review
staff's report to the commissioners before it's issued particularly as it reflects upon what happened
here?
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just short-circuit this. The staff report's going to be
published in the electronic agenda, so you'll have access to it approximately a week before the
matter is heard.
If upon your reading it you believe that there is anything that is in error about that, you can
talk to the staff, and if they disagree with you, then you're free to talk to the individual
commissioners and just let them know what you think happened.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is the nature of the concern that you have as to what
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 79 of 82
will be presented --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- or how it will be summarized?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: How it will be summarized as what actually happened.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that's what I'm saying. Do you have an indicator of
what you think is going to be the misunderstanding?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think when you read the newspaper, you talk to staff and you
talk to the commissioners, then think that the application as proposed was voted at a draw, 3-3, and
the application as proposed was never voted on. So, in essence, nobody supported the basic
application.
So they don't really understand -- and the newspaper was very misleading in that sense as
well -- that the commissioners here, nobody would make a motion to support it, which to me is
basically a 7-nothing defeat of the proposal.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. I'm getting really nervous --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I'm talking. I don't have to hold on. All I'm saying is
there was not a draw in the vote. We voted on a modified proposal which the applicant said he
would not accept.
So to picture -- or to visualize what we did as a draw is wrong since he's going -- they're
going to the Board or the commissioners with the full application again, not the modified one.
That's all I'm saying. I just want it represented properly what happened here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Since we're talking about an item that's very important to one of
my clients --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- can I please say something?
MR. KLATZKOW: Go ahead.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Shea --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You know what, I'm going to object to that. I don't think
this is the time for hearing from -- you know, from others. I think this is a discussion amongst --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think you should be discussing this petition outside of an
advertised public hearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is an advertised public hearing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My item. My item was not specifically noticed, and I'm a little
concerned about the record.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I just want to address one comment that Mr. Shea made about
what's being presented.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment here. I'm going to make a ruling, and then if the
Planning Commission wants to overrule me, they can. We're not going to talk about the
substance --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- the issues of One Naples. We're going to talk about how we
proceed and how we assure that our point of view as a Planning Commission is fairly and
accurately represented in staff material.
And so on that basis, and in keeping -- I hope we'll all be in keeping with that, I'm going to
rule that it's out of order for Mr. Yovanovich to address the Planning Commission at this time.
Now, if anybody wants to make a motion to overrule me, the floor is yours. If not, there we have
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 80 of 82
it.
All right. I'd like to comment on what Commissioner Shea has said, because I happen to
agree with him. And I don't believe that we as a Planning Commission should be having input on
any aspect of the staff report except that part that deals with what the Planning Commission said
and did.
(Commissioner Schmitt left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I'm not looking for, certainly, a role for myself or for the
Planning Commission in looking over the shoulders of staff as they prepare their own staff report.
But there have been times -- and I don't believe that staff is at all ill-motivated or acting
improperly. It's just, naturally, if you get a situation, let's say, where -- well, I'll mention Heritage
Bay even though we're not going to be talking about it, but it was an example of where the
Planning Commission ruled in a way that was contrary to staff. Now, we haven't seen the staff
report yet on Heritage Bay, but it puts staff in a position where they have to be very careful to fairly
represent the -- and in full -- fully and fairly represent what the Planning Commission said and
why. And that's asking an awful lot of an entity who has -- whose recommendation has not been
followed.
And so that is -- that's something that I would -- I would like us to perhaps talk about and
think about. And in those cases where the Planning Commission has gone in a direction that's
different from staff, that there might be some intermediate oversight. And I would be glad to play
that role. And not to grind my own axe, but just to be sure that someone who's looking
exclusively after what the Planning Commission said and did, that such a person had looked at that
language and had some input in it before it goes out in the staff report.
The problem is that if -- that if it's not in the staff report, it's going to be given second
shrift. Even if you stand up and speak -- even a Planning Commissioner were to stand up and
speak at a BCC meeting, it's just not going to have the same imprimatur as if it had been included
in the staff report.
So that's my two cents. I'd like to hear from -- what others have to say on that point.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I think what Jeff said is the appropriate way for us to move
forward is to -- is to take the initiative to review what was written, and then if we feel it's not
accurate, we -- I guess you're saying we could call or email the elected commissioners?
MR. KLATZKOW: Keep in mind the material thing that staff looks at is what did the
motion say and what were their votes, okay. You could have four days of discussions prior to that.
They don't matter. What staff is going to report to the Board is what was the motion and what was
the vote, okay. That motion is in the transcript. Court reporter's very good with that; gets the
transcript pretty quick.
And if you think that the staff report is inaccurate, the first thing I would suggest is you
look at the actual motion that was made, all right, and what the vote was, and then if you think staff
made an error, by all means you've got -- you've got some time between the published agenda and
when it gets to the Board, and staff can make the change, all right. They have no agenda, all right.
But I will tell you that a lot of times you think you know what you voted on, but then when
you look at the motion, it's like, oh, which sometimes is why I interject and I try to get more
clarification on the motion, because you've got like, multiple days of hearings, and in your head
you think you know what you've ruled, but sometimes that's not really what happened.
So that's what I would suggest, that if you're concerned about One Naples -- and don't trust
anything you read in Naples Daily News. If you're concerned about One Naples, by all means,
look at the staff report, and if you think it's wrong, first look at the actual motion that you made.
And if staff is wrong, they will correct it, or you can call me, and I'll make sure that they correct it,
all right? But you may be surprised that your memory as to what you thought you voted on,
because I'm pretty sure what staff does is they actually look at what -- the motion that was made
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 81 of 82
when they're doing the staff report.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have not ever seen a revision that has been publicly posted to an
agenda packet, but are you saying --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we can do that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and we've done that not necessarily for a staff recommendation,
but we've done it in the past where we fixed the record. It's not rare.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: But I'm pretty sure -- and, Ray, correct me if I'm wrong, but they
look at the actual motion that was made, and that's what's in the staff report.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We view the video of the meeting or we
get the transcript and look at that as well. But the combination of the two, we verify everything
and make sure we get it right, because we don't want it to go before the Board with an incorrect
representation of the Planning Commission vote.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Does the Planning Commission -- or does -- the County
Commission, do they get to see the original draft that was presented to us? So a lot of times
we're -- you know, in this case for sure, we were modifying the ordinance that was drafted for us,
and we decided to amend that draft ordinance, correct, and that's what we ended up passing. Did
they see the -- you know, the unadulterated initial piece that would have been in accord with staff
recommendation, or is it in accord -- is that original ordinance in accord with the applicant? You
know, how is -- and if they don't see the original, then it doesn't matter. If they only see what we
voted on then --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Normally what happens -- and Ray will correct me -- is that
there are changes that are made during the discussions, the applicant makes those changes, staff
ensures that the changes were made, and that the planning -- so to the planning board
recommendation is on that amended item, and that's what the Board sees.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And they don't really know what the original looked like?
They just see what we ended up voting on?
MR. KLATZKOW: They just see what -- because the applicant's agreed, yeah, I'll change
the ordinance, so boom, boom, boom, so that's what they're seeing. They're seeing the ordinance
as amended by mutual agreement between the Planning Commission and the applicant, and then
the staff report on that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it's not necessarily always by mutual agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no, it's always by mutual agreement; otherwise, you don't
have -- otherwise, you don't really have a recommendation. If you --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. Like today we voted, and it was -- it wasn't what the
applicant agreed to. We decided to modify.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And so they'll -- they'll see what was presented here -- and
you're right on this particular case -- and then the Planning Commission -- it will be part of the
recommendation is the Planning Commission voted but they wanted to see this change or they
wanted to see that change.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But the applicant has the ability to modify the application
between now and when it goes to the County Commission, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, because at the end of the day the applicant's looking for four
votes, and at the end of the day, the applicant may decide that it's in their best interest to abide by
the Planning Commission vote so that they can get their item passed.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 82 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Now I understand what you were saying as far as
when it ends up going to the county commissioners, it generally is going to be amended by the
applicant --
MR. KLATZKOW: Generally, yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- for that reason, and if not, then it won't be.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You get items like One Naples which is an outlier. It just is.
But, you know, we'll deal with it when it gets to the Board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I suggest we do this -- because I think Commissioner Shea's
point is well taken. But I don't want to anticipate a shortcoming on the part of staff when they
haven't -- when they haven't prepared their report yet. But I'm going to be looking carefully at
what is submitted to the BCC on One Naples and Heritage Bay and see how that is -- how that is
handled. It's sometimes a daunting task to represent a point of view that you officially as staff
don't share, didn't embrace, but it can be done. It's just it takes some careful drafting and some
objectivity.
So I suggest that we table this and see how things come out on those two and see if we're
comfortable. There may not be a problem. But I'm glad you brought that up. Anybody else
want to weigh in on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
I don't have anything further to talk about under new business. Does anybody else have
any new business they want to bring up?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, public comment, any member of the public wish to be
heard on any item that was not on our agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, and without objection, we're adjourned.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 3:11 p.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.
9.A.9
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: [Linked] Feb 4 2021 CCPCminutes (15111 : PL20190002416 SRAA Town of Ave Maria)
February 4, 2021
Page 1 of 82
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, February 4, 2021
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
Karl Fry
Joe Schmitt
Paul Shea
Robert L. Klucik, Jr.
Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board
Representative
ABSENT:
Christopher T. Vernon
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney
February 4, 2021
Page 2 of 82
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone. Please take your seats. And welcome
to the, shall we say, cool February 4, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Do I have a button or something that I can push to get your
attention now?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think you do, but I'll try to --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: A new chair, I thought I might have moved up in the
world.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will try to be attentive. And if I'm not being sufficiently
attentive, raise your voice a little.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Robb, it was a lateral move that you made.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I know; yeah, it was.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Secretary, please call the roll.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
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. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six out of seven.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows or Mr. Frantz.
MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No changes. Thank you, sir.
All right. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on February 18. Does
anyone know whether he or she will not be able to be in attendance at that meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it looks like we will be in good shape.
At the end of our substantive agenda, I'm going to save at least 30 minutes time for some
old business and new business matters that I'd like to talk about having to do with upcoming
agendas. So if we're not completed by, say, 4:00 p.m., I'll ask for a hard break at that time so that
we can talk about some things that -- well, I've got a couple on my mind and others may as well.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As is typical, are we planning to break around noon?
February 4, 2021
Page 3 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. We can decide that right now or wait and see how the flow
goes. Is it important that we --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm just meeting somebody, and I just want to tell
them, but that's -- it shouldn't -- the meeting shouldn't hinge on anything. I'm just asking out of
curiosity if that's your plan.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The plan would be not to interrupt a presentation at an awkward
point. But within that framework, we're going to shoot for noon or as close as we can --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to that. Thank you, Commissioner.
All right. Let's see. There are no minutes before us for action, so we can move to Item 6,
which is the BCC report/recaps. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 26th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the
Sabal Bay PUD rezone and amendment to add 102 acres and 230 dwelling units. That was
approved by the Board by a vote of the 4-1 with Commissioner Taylor opposed.
There were two items on the summary agenda. That was the conditional use for the EMS
safety service facility on DeSoto and Golden Gate Boulevard and the LDC amendments, some of
those dealing with the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office District. Those were approved
on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Chairman's report. I have a couple of small things, and then one I'm going to use as a
tease for what I want to talk about, or one of the things I want to talk about under old or new
business.
First of all, another shout out to our County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, for an excellent job in
the presentation that he and his colleagues made for us under the workshop. It was very, very
informative, so much appreciation to you, County Attorney Klatzkow.
Second, a word of thanks to staff for providing us with the looks ahead, and I see we have
another one that's before us. I think these are extremely helpful, and I assume everyone knows
that with access to CityView on the county website we can get working on these projects well
before our agenda packet comes through. And so particularly, in times like these when we have
lots of very consequential matters in front of us, it's helpful to know as far in advance as possible
what we have coming.
Now, in exchange, we have to agree that we're not going to be critical of staff if the agenda
changes from these estimates, because that's all they are is estimates. And so this is staff's best
guess, but it's not anything that is carved in stone. But I think it's very helpful and, I think it's also
helpful, those of us who want to be following what the Hearing Examiner is looking at, have those
matters summarized also on the agenda and can be referred to, so that's all good.
Then the one thing that I want to tease a little bit for later discussion has to do with our
agenda. And as you know from looking at the looks ahead, we're scheduled to hear two RLSA
village applications on the 18th, and those are always not only consequential but extremely
detailed, lots of permutations and aspects of the issues that arise, and I want to be fair in not taking
undue advantage of Planning Commissioners' time.
So I'm going to want to talk about whether we want to go forward scheduling both of those
on the 18th or put one off to the 4th of March where right now we don't have a crowded agenda, if
anything at all. So that we will talk about and have a conversation about as we move forward.
Consent agenda, we have none.
***Public hearings, advertised, the first one is 9A1, PL20190002416. This is the Town of
Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area proposed amendments.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
February 4, 2021
Page 4 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Before we get into that --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- can I bring something up?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You certainly may.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And it's germane to what you were just speaking about. It
goes to Item 6, which was the report of the county commissioners, their action.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For this look-ahead, could that also include kind of a chart
with the recent votes that we've taken and the subsequent actions that the county has taken so we
kind of have a written record of -- you know, so we're seeing what -- you know, what happens to
our recommendation?
Sure, we get it, you know, orally, I guess, but it would be nice to see it in writing, too.
And it seems like they're already putting it in writing in some format so that they can present it to
us. So if we could just add it to the look-ahead.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows, do you want to respond to that? I have no objection
to adding that.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Board of County Commissioners' web page has a BCC recap,
and that's where some of this information is taken from.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just add the recap. Just add the recap to the -- and we're done.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
All right. So this is Ave Maria. All those 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: Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting,
please, with Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: None.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: In my case, materials and communications with staff and also
members of the public, and a site visit.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm sorry; I did have a very brief conversation with
Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I need to add that as well, because I had a very brief one as
well.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did not. No. Okay. Now -- I was almost confused
here for a minute. No, I have no disclosures.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had a discussion with Mr. Yovanovich reference this
petition.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I attended the official NIM and then -- and I do
not -- I don't think I was a commissioner at the time, and then I attended the informal community
meeting that the developer had subsequent.
And I did speak with staff, I did speak to developer representatives about this, and I will
also disclose that I have been a tenant of the applicant or a close associate of the applicant, Ave
Maria Development, for 11 years. My law practice has been renting space. I don't know if that's
February 4, 2021
Page 5 of 82
relevant, but Mr. Klatzkow said I should at least bring it up so that we can -- everyone knows that
I'm disclosing it.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think the disclosure's important, and I don't believe it's an issue.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you very much. Applicant, please proceed.
Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning
Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, certified planner,
and our team today representing the Barron Collier companies is Austin Howell, who is part of the
applicant team; Rich Yovanovich is, of course, the land-use attorney; and Norm Trebilcock is here
as our transportation engineer in the event you have some questions regarding transportation.
Ave Maria, as you well know, it's under development. It was the first SRA and town in
Collier County. And we are making several changes that I consider to be sort of cleanup, and as
this project evolves and it matures, I think you're going to continue to see some tweaks. This was,
as I said, the first project that came about as a town, and there's some nuances there that we're
continuing to work through. It is a stewardship area. It's about 5,000 acres.
So we've got several requests, and I have them bullet pointed here, and I'm going to go
through each of those, and then I'll go through some slides that talk a little bit more about those.
So one of the changes we're making is to redesignate about five acres that's presently part of the
services district, and the services district is really their utility site, and it would redesignate that to a
Town Center 3 designation, and I'll go through that in a little bit more detail in a moment.
We're increasing the civic uses significantly from 148,500 square feet to 350,000 square
feet which will accommodate a proposed hospital that's to be constructed near the Arthrex site on
Oil Well Road. We're modifying this to add a trip cap for the project. Much like you see for a
Planned Unit Development, we're adding a trip cap for all of Ave Maria, which in the future that
would allow us to hopefully make some adjustments in land-use allocation without necessarily the
need to modify a trip cap.
We're going to -- if you've been to Ave Maria, there is a mini warehouse CubeSmart that's
been constructed there. It's fairly small. It's a little over 40,000 square feet. It was ledgered at
the time against our retail square footage in the project. It's not really an industrial use, and
Arthrex has really consumed almost all of that industrial space, so we created a separate line for the
indoor self-storage. It's not a new insertion of a use. It's been accounted for. Norm has
accommodated that in his trip analysis that he conducted to set the trip cap. But we were just
trying to keep the ledgering straight, as the county staff didn't really know where to put it, and we
didn't think it fit any of the categories that are established for Ave Maria.
In the town center area, it has signage criteria. We're asking for that signage criteria to not
only be subject to the town center criteria but also the Collier County Land Development Code for
buildings. I'll give you an example. There's a convenience store out there that doesn't really fit
the mode of having wall signage and things that you would find if you're on a pedestrian-oriented
site.
So we would like that to be subject to the county's regular code requirements for those
types of commercial signs. We're asking for a deviation to allow an off-premise sign on Oil Well
Road. There's presently one at the intersection of Camp Keais Road and Immokalee Road that
some of you may have seen in your travels. There's a photograph of it in your report, but we're
asking for one as well on Oil Well Road.
And we're then asking for another deviation, and this is something you've seen on a couple
of other of the villages that have come through, but we're asking to deviate from the maximum
acreage size of four acres for multifamily. We initially asked for that to be up to 50 acres for our
multifamily sites, and we subsequently, to our neighborhood meeting, reduced that request to 25
acres. Your staff report incorrectly states that the request was for 50 acres. It initially was, but
February 4, 2021
Page 6 of 82
it's been reduced to 25 acres, and it's my understanding that that's similar to -- I think it was Hyde
Park, Rich. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Rivergrass.
MR. ARNOLD: Rivergrass, I'm sorry. Hyde Park had an unlimited acreage relative to
the multifamily. It was Rivergrass that had the 25-acre limitation that we're asking for as well.
So that describes the overall changes we're asking to make. The current master plan -- this
relates to that services district. So this is -- the arrow's pointing to the purple area, and that's the
utility site. I didn't put it in the presentation, but -- do we have access to the visualizer, Ray?
This is an aerial photograph of the services site. And you can see right now it has a water
and sewer plant. There's a cellular tower that operates telemetry and phone services for the town,
and the portion that's accessed off the same road as the park, we were redesignating about five
acres there to be a Town Center 3, which the intent here is to allow services that the community
needs as it matures. There's really no place out there for lawn service providers, pool cleaning
people to have a shop set up for them where they can have a place for themselves. And so they're
traveling great distances to be here in some cases, so it makes sense to have a location in town for
them, and this made the most sense from a community standpoint because it was sort of tucked in
and away. And if you go out there, there's a huge berm that surrounds this site, so it's very little
that you can even see for these -- I wouldn't call them quasi-industrial uses, but they are services
where they have trucks and potentially trailers and things like that that they will need stowage.
So if I can -- so on this image you can see the arrows pointing to where we've redesignated
about that five acres in yellow, and that's how it would be reflected on the overall master plan.
That's a little bit closer of a blowup, and you can see how that relates. It goes from all being
services to a portion of Town Center 3.
Potential hospital site, identified it with the star. So that's Arthrex's facility off of Oil Well
Road, and the hospital's yet to be determined exactly how many beds it will be, but we've asked for
a square footage that seems consistent with at least the Colliers' discussion with a hospital group
that wants to be located there. I think most of the community supports having a hospital facility to
service Ave Maria. I don't think there's objections that I'm aware of related to the request to
expand the civic use size.
We have several text revisions. This is the one that reflects the square footage increase for
the civic. Also, the 40,400 square feet for mini-storage, and this is where we also inserted the trip
cap. So the SRA trip cap is going to be 4,697 vehicles per hour. And I'm sure if you have
questions, Norm can explain exactly how he came up with that trip cap. But we felt like this was
the direction to go so we have, as I mentioned, latitude in the future to maybe manipulate some of
the land-use changes without intensifying the overall project.
We've updated a couple of the LDC sections here to reference the signage that would be
allowed in the town centers consistent with our request.
This related to our deviation for the multifamily. Right now the LDC says that
multifamily sites cannot exceed four acres, and none of us really know the history of where the
four-acre number was established. And I know you've heard this discussion before on your other
villages, but if you're in a master planned community, a four-acre tract to develop a multifamily
product when you're going to have a bundled golf community, for instance, as Lennar will out at
Ave Maria, it doesn't really make sense to have to fragment your development into these four-acre
chunks of land, because all it does, as Rich has said, it provides firms like mine a lot more
engineering fees to do multiple site plans for something that you could have accomplished as one
master plan.
So I know there was some pushback, and staff says they're not supporting the 25 acres, but
we think we're asking for something that's a functional size as a master developer. You all see
several multifamily apartment complexes, for instance, come through, and those typically can be in
February 4, 2021
Page 7 of 82
the 20-acre range and, larger, but we've limited this to 25 acres and hope that you can support that.
And we've got an image if we want to get into more detail on that specific request if we have
questions.
The other deviation related to the off-site sign. And this is an image of what the sign
would be with some sizes in it. And if you look at the one that's on Immokalee and Camp Keais
Road, it's essentially an off-site sign announcing Ave Maria. So, obviously, as people migrate to
Ave Maria from the East Coast of Florida, they come up State Road 29 and then over on Oil Well
Road to the site. This is sort of an announcement, and the location is just east of the Ave Maria
entrance about a quarter of a mile.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, did you wish to be heard at this time?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till after he's done. I have a question on the
four --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- issue, but I'll wait till --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- till it's time for questions.
MR. ARNOLD: So I put this lifestyle sign in here. This was a question that had come up
at our neighborhood information meeting. There are signs sort of like this throughout the
community, and I put it in there because there was some thought from staff early on that we need
might need to add some criteria. We have community signage already established that these were
permitted under, so I'm not going to -- we ultimately had no further discussion with staff on that,
so...
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman.
MR. ARNOLD: And that was it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Regarding that last slide, I don't want to jump ahead of
you. It's just because it was germane to -- I thought he was going to keep going, Commissioner
Schmitt, so I can wait, or whatever.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'll wait till --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your call.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, I'll just ask you. So when we were at the
information meetings, the issue that I thought came up is that the signage is not in compliance right
now with the existing code?
MR. ARNOLD: I hate to say it's not in compliance because they were permitted signs,
but the question the county had was were they permitted, I guess, adequately, and under what
criteria.
And as far as I know, that's gone no further. There's no code case against them. And we
put this in case -- I didn't want to have to go back and have another neighborhood meeting because
I didn't talk about this issue. So I put it in so we could talk about it and if, as we furthered the
discussion, we had to put in some criteria, I was covered.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But as of now your petition has nothing to do with these
lifestyle signs.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what lifestyle signs are. It's just -- they're just
advertising signs, when you come down to it. The distinction that we're having internal
discussions with are signs that are internal to the community, which we don't really care about, and
then signs that are on -- I'll call them external signs, signs that are, like, on the right-of-way. And
the one thing the county doesn't want to see is, in essence, small billboards, you know, "buy our
community," "what a wonderful community," "this is a great lifestyle in our community." That's
February 4, 2021
Page 8 of 82
what we're trying to regulate. We're not really regulating the internal signs. So whatever they put
inside, we don't really care. It's sort of like a store or -- we don't really care about the signage you
put inside the store; it's what's outside that the public sees that matters.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I mean, the issue here, these signs are on the roads
that are owned by the local government, and --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that would be --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's an internal issue.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no, it's not. It's not an internal issue. They still
have to meet the code. There is a county code for such signs.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm telling you is that what the county cares about from a
public policy standpoint is what I'll call the external signs that the public sees. The internal signs,
we don't really care about that as much.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You don't enforce the code there, or you do?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you what the internal discussions -- I'm telling you what
the discussion have been. It's not my job to enforce the code. That's on the County Manager's
side.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure, sure. The only reason it's an issue is there's a sign
bloat. There's, you know, probably 100 signs on a couple miles of road, and so in the community
it's an issue; that's all. But it doesn't appear that we're taking that up, so it's not an issue for us.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to ask, then, well, why doesn't your community
board take issue with that?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We have no authority. That's a county --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Certainly you do.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We don't. Well, we do. It's our land, but the
county -- the board, before I was on the local board, chose to give an easement to the developer to
put whatever signs they want up, that's all.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Like I said, you do have authority.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to go further with your other comments?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'll go with the four acres. Wayne, of course, you
and I go way back. And I, too, don't understand what a four-acre limitation -- and I noted that
staff is not approving. Typically, four acres would be, what, maybe two or three buildings at best
in a cluster development. It just doesn't make any sense that it be limited to four acres.
MR. ARNOLD: I have an exhibit, Mr. Schmitt, I can put on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, please. Because I can't recall why it was limited
to four acres. I have no idea. Yeah, that's exactly what it would be is --
MR. ARNOLD: So here's an exhibit that Barron Collier created, and it shows these little
boxes, and you put buildings inside a four-acre-or-less tract. And what happens, and the reason
it's important to have more than four acres when you have a master developer, is that you would
have the other side of this -- this shows the no limitation, and you end up with the exact same
product.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that would be -- and that would be developed as one
site plan, then.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One SDP, one submittal.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, frankly, a condominium type -- it could be a
February 4, 2021
Page 9 of 82
condominium-type development. The other would be multiple developments.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, and I think, Mr. Schmitt, I just -- you know, trying to go back to
the whole theory of the town, and I guess if the developer had chosen to create multiple
multifamily tracts that would be four acres so you wouldn't end up with, you know, a monolithic
building that's, you know, a mile long -- but I mean, that's not how developers develop property.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: And I just -- the scenario doesn't seem to make sense when in this
particular case a developer like Lennar --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only recollection, if it was going to be some kind of
a, what do you want to call it, community blocks or city blocks that would be developed. But I
have to concur, the four-acre limitation -- though it may make sense -- it may have made sense 20
years ago, when I look at it today it just doesn't make sense, and I think the deviation and the
request for deviation is certainly appropriate and justified.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Quickly, to the four acres. I believe you mentioned the major
criteria for wanting 25 acres was not so much this as it was being able to incorporate a golf course;
is that correct or inaccurate?
MR. ARNOLD: It's one example, and it's an existing example. Lennar is purchasing a
large tract of land, and they want to do a bundled golf community with condominiums surrounding
a golf course. And if they have to create small, little four-acre segments, it's really, I guess, a very
inefficient way to develop land by just having to create these little four-acre-or-less tracts in which
to put buildings and then have to deal with a setback from that boundary that's really an artificial
boundary and then come in for another Site Development Plan on one more building. So this just
makes a lot more efficient sense from a development standpoint.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I look forward to asking staff. You know, they
recommended denial of that deviation, so I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
But my other question is about the signage.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You showed an exhibit. You mentioned the internal signs. If
they're not part of this discussion, and Robb has said they are an issue internally, but they're not
really part of our -- no the other ones, the internal -- the lifestyle signs that are inside the
community. If they're not addressed in this, why are you showing them?
MR. ARNOLD: This was part of our presentation at the neighborhood information
meeting. Because I wanted to make sure if staff was going to tell us we needed to adopt criteria to
have those signs, I wanted to make sure I didn't have to readvertise and go back because I forgot to
tell somebody I'm potentially dealing with lifestyle signs.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But staff did not dictate that you had to address those signs?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a clarification on this four-acre. I mean, the way you
depict it, it does sound kind of silly if you can put a bunch of four-acre plots together and make a
large community. So I'm gathering that the regulations doesn't say you can't have adjacent
four-acre multifamily. Is that --
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, it does not.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it does seem silly without that qualification, because I
thought the idea would be to separate the units around. If you can just put them next to each other,
it does sound kind of silly.
February 4, 2021
Page 10 of 82
MR. ARNOLD: It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless you look at it in the context
if there were going to be strict block requirements.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
MR. ARNOLD: That would be the only context, but we don't have those criteria in the
neighborhood general category where these can be constructed.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This may go back to the -- I hate to bring it up -- the
Community Character Plan. That was part of the ongoing dialogue at the time in Collier County
and -- when the county implemented the Community Character Plan and the infamous Dover-Kohl
study.
MR. ARNOLD: It could have been. I just don't recall. Maybe Anita has further
recollection, but I don't. From our perspective, in today's environment, it just does not make sense
to restrict those to four acres in size.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did the community raise any objections to this at
the -- and I'll ask Robb this as well. Any issues from the community in regards to the clustering
like this into one large development?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Schmitt, at 50 acres there was a lot of question in how large these
were going to be; is this something that could be retrofitted into an established community, et
cetera. I didn't attend the second informal meeting, but it's my understanding that when they
were -- discussed that we modified the acreages limitation to 25 acres, that there were no
comments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I would absolutely disagree with that. I think we
listened to the change that was proposed. And I don't -- the feedback that I get as a leader in the
community and an elected official out there and someone who people come to when these things
come up to get my spin or my understanding of these things, there's still opposition to this. The 25
acres really doesn't mean much compared to the 50. I mean, it's a move, but it doesn't mean much.
I will ask --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's the basis --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, the basis is -- well, first of all, this graphic is helpful
because what it shows is, if you do something that's unobjectionable, you can do something that's
unobjectionable.
But someone already mentioned, you also could build a large, long building if it's 25 acres
that, you know, that snakes, and it imposes a different character on the community and on nearby
communities. You also mentioned a developer like Lennar, and I agree with you. A developer
like Lennar is not going to probably do something that seems to be offensive or unpleasant that
people would object to. But we're not always going to have a development like Lennar, and that's
what I would suggest. They should be asking for a deviation for this project. They want carte
blanche to do this deviation throughout with no idea who the developer's going to be. We don't
know if Ave Maria Development is going to continue to be the owner of this whole project. They
could sell it next week. I don't think they will. But we should have policy that helps us
accomplish in the goals of our community regardless of who the owner is.
And I do think it's -- you know, if this was just a petition for this project, I would probably
have no objection to it. I would ask a lot of questions, but I would say, yes, let's have a deviation
for this project. And I would say that, you know, they asked for 50; they got 25. They're
showing this. I mean, why don't you show what you're doing, and have you been able to do -- you
know, what are you actually doing at Lennar, and have you been impeded from being able to do
that? You sought a builder, the builder was attracted, you know, under the current conditions,
under the current code, and they're building a beautiful project. And I think they're able to do it
because I think they're selling -- they're already selling the project. So if you could speak to that,
February 4, 2021
Page 11 of 82
that would be interesting.
Do you have those drawings? Because Mr. Bellows -- or Mr. Sabo forwarded some
drawings to me of the Lennar project, the multifamily.
MR. ARNOLD: I do not have them, no. I haven't seen them.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Sabo, will you be able to show them later?
MR. SABO: I can pull them up.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's got to come up to the microphone.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding, Commissioner Klucik, is --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Introduce yourself, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
My understanding, that in the interim Lennar is doing exactly what you see on this screen,
which is doing a small four-acre SDP, then doing another small four-acre SDP, then doing another
small four-acre SDP to get to the overall --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is this representative of the actual project or is --
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- this is an example of what -- what can occur under the
regulations today.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. But is this something Lennar --
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is not Lennar's. I'm just saying the concept of how they're
doing it. I'm not saying this is Lennar. I'm just saying --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that's why I started out by saying, this slide shows that
you can do something unobjectionable under the existing rule or under the new rule, and
that's -- my point is, it doesn't show all the other iterations and configurations that might not be as
pleasant, you know, to the people that -- you know, the 3,000 homeowners that have already
committed -- either own or have committed to buy a home in Ave Maria.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand that concept. And maybe I misheard you. I
don't think anybody's going to come in with a building that you can really sell that's going to be
25 -- a 25-acre building or several-hundred-foot-long monolithic building, because that's just not
the market. So, I mean, it wasn't our intent to provide an opportunity for someone to come in and
build a big, long, huge building on greater than four acres that would be objectionable to the
community.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would just interrupt you there and say that so many
things have happened in the 13 years since I've been a homeowner in Ave Maria that weren't
anticipated and that the market -- you know, the market has changed dramatically.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no question --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ebbed and flowed. And so that representation, right now
maybe you're right. And, again, I'll go back to what I say, our job as commissioners is to do
something that withstands the long haul and that looks in the interest of -- you know, the greater
interest of the community, the common good. The developer -- I say at every one of our
meetings -- I'm one of the elected officials on the board out there for our district board. I say it at
every meeting. I give the developer a hard time, and they answer my questions, and they
generally, you know, satisfy me, but I keep asking hard questions, and I always explain that I think
we have a good developer. I think we have the best developer out there, but that doesn't mean that
they don't -- you know, they don't deserve scrutiny. If we actually -- if they're going to be a good
developer, they will get scrutinies from bodies like us and like our local body and the people. And
you do well. And, you know, this developer does well, but this is scrutiny right now.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And perhaps --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment, if I may. Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. As far as massing of buildings, our current
architectural standards would prevent the type of building that you're talking about, if it were a
February 4, 2021
Page 12 of 82
90- or 100-foot or more type of building. They're going through the review process. It doesn't
come to this committee, but through the staff review process, there are architectural standards that
would prohibit that type of development. And I don't know if staff can highlight that, because
there certainly would be in the review process.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We would have to comply with the county's architectural
standards.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What -- Mr. Klucik, what I'm going to see is if we can maybe
come up with a maximum length of a building. I don't have that off the top of my head. But I
think that's really -- am I right, that's a concern about how long the building -- because there's going
to have to be building separation under the code.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would say length, height, the massing of it. You could
do something beautiful like what Lennar is doing. And, I'm sorry, market conditions can change.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you can do something, you know -- I mean, let's face
it, there are -- there are homes that we've built out there that are very different than what the
expectation was, you know, in the beginning. And I'm not saying there's something wrong with
that. I'm just saying that we don't know. And so you could propose this for this project, and you
wouldn't have any resistance, and you could move forward, I think, but to say we have to have this
new standard across the other -- how many homes do we have left to build, 7,000 homes, what,
2,500 of which will be multifamily homes; is that about right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a potential, yeah. I have to pull up the exact. There is a
breakdown within Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So we're talking about a lot of homes over a long
period of time in which market conditions can change and, you know, I'm here championing the
homeowner who's afraid of what -- you know, of the unknown.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I think our code should address and bridal the
unknown. And what I would say is, maybe I'm wrong, but the developers, attorneys, and staff
wrote the code that says four acres. Somewhere along the line that's what your team, your client's
team, the applicant's team thought was a good idea, whether they thought it was a good idea
because we've got to do that or we won't get it passed or it's a good idea because that's the character
of the community we want, but it wasn't the county that said, oh, you can only do four acres.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so now you're asking to change something that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I recognize --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If it's onerous, it's onerous because the developer sold this
onerous plan to all the people that are investing, you know, their lives into this community as
homeowners.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, and I was not on the team --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- when it was done, and I've asked the question "why."
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I look around, and nobody could tell me why that was in
there when you can clearly end up with -- through piecemealing Site Development Plans, you
can -- you can -- if there was a desire that you could never have a subcommunity within Ave Maria
greater than four acres, you would have said you can't put one next to each other, so --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The whole idea is setbacks and parking.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're meeting every one of them --
February 4, 2021
Page 13 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Setbacks and parking and buffers and all of
that stuff is different if you're developing a large piece than if you're developing a bunch of small
pieces. And this example doesn't show that, but there are examples that you could show where it
would make a difference; am I right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe. I don't know. I haven't -- what I'm --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So first of all, you know, as far as I'm concerned, this
example is useful for the point that was made, but it's not useful or it actually -- you know, I would
say I can use it -- what I said. It shows something unobjectionable that can be done under the old
code or the proposed code.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm going to say in response is there's an envelope --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Pardon.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's an envelope. I'm going to take this off. There's a
four-acre envelope, right? Take one of these boxes. It's a four-acre envelope with setbacks that
are required, buffers that are required, and every one of those is met under this example.
Everything else inside of that envelope, as long as I meet the development standards for height and
I get through the architectural review with the county, there's all kinds of different permutations
that can occur with those buildings.
I can't -- I can't give you every example of what could happen out there, but what I'm
suggesting is this is a fairly representative type of development that would occur and that we can
do it any way under the existing regulations. If the goal of the code was to create an opportunity
for engineering firms to make more money by doing SDPs, that's a great -- that's a great goal for
the engineering companies, but it didn't have a planning purpose is what I'm trying to suggest.
And I'm just trying -- I don't know why the four acres is there.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would suggest that the whole SRA included
brochure language as code, which described a very bucolic, walkable, shady, you know, wonderful
place. And I'm not saying that, you know, 50 acres, which is what your original proposal was, you
know, the applicant apparently thinks large 50-acre multifamily home units is something that fits in
with that, and I'm not saying it doesn't. But there are people who, obviously, think it doesn't.
And you're saying you can still do it, but you have to -- but you're inhibited -- the current code
inhibits that. At least it slows it down or it makes you think, oh, it's going to be more costly --
MR. YOVANOVICH: More expensive.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- to put that together. And maybe it's good that there's a
roadblock or a speed bump, you know. And like I said, in this case I think the solution is you
come before this board and then we approve it. Wow, this Lennar project is great. Who would
be against it? And then we all say, great, deviation, whatever it is that you've proposed, that's
wonderful. We're granting it.
And that might be a little bit more costly. I certainly understand that's a hurdle, okay.
Well, I'm advocating at this point I think that's a hurdle that should be there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand. And I want to just clarify one thing on the
record. I wasn't there either, but my understanding was that the informal meeting -- and I think
what you said is the information was taken in. There certainly was not negative feedback at that
meeting. I'm not saying you didn't get negative feedback after the meeting. But it's correct that it
was not an issue that was discussed in detail like we're discussing right now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I chose to keep quiet because I was -- you know,
I'm a commissioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I participated by listening.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I just want to make sure that we didn't misrepresent
that --
February 4, 2021
Page 14 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, sure, and I certainly didn't mean to say that there was
a --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- something that was unethical or, you know, dishonest
about your representation. You're right, it was largely virtual, you know, and it was -- people were
listening. And there wasn't a lot that was new, and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And I've been in a few meetings with you where you've
never hesitated to do what you're doing right now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- which is great. I don't mind.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I love my town.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you do. So usually when there's an issue, it comes up and
we have a discussion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Personally, I'm grateful that we have an insider from Ave Maria
on this issue, as I'm sure none of us are as familiar with Ave Maria as you are. It's nice to have
your perspective, so I do appreciate it.
It sounds to me like we have the applicant saying that the rule of four acres appears to be
arbitrary, so I'll be looking to staff to tell us if it's not arbitrary, what is the justification. I guess
for me, if it's not -- if it's not arbitrary, I'd like to understand what the risk is of expanding the limit
to 25 acres, but I'll wait for that.
I would like to ask Jeff, Attorney Klatzkow, all these projects have to go through review by
staff. And are we unduly worried about the risk of something untoward or heinous being
permitted out there in Ave Maria if we did have a 25-acre limit and they had -- and they could
create a 25-acre site plan?
MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't rely on staff. I'd rely on your own judgment.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, staff's here to give you recommendations and advice but, at
the end of the day, as I said at the prior meeting, you are the Planning Commission and, you know,
it's your responsibility to ensure that these projects are in the public's interest.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I know. I just know that it's always brought up that regardless
of what we decide, they have to go through the approval process, the SDP, and they're
always -- these -- you talk about environmental and wastewater, all those types of requirements
need to be met.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I bring something up to answer that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will give an example of the most recent SRA or the only
SRA amendment that I think has happened in this project. And I brought it up before, and you
know what I'm going to mention. So they asked for a deviation -- or a change to the SRA to allow
exceptions for street trees when the conditions on the lot make it difficult to have the street trees
that the code requires.
So this board, I think, and then the County Commissioners heard that story, oh, wow, we
have these -- you know, it's a good story, and any body that is in charge of regulations like that
ought to make exceptions. The problem is the exception -- and I will always be that person that
advocates for this from now on. The exception should also state that the exception can't become
the rule, so there needs to be a limit in there. They went on to build a community that has zero
street trees by taking advantage of the exception that has hundreds of houses in it with zero street
trees because they count trees that are 20 feet away from the street as street trees.
So every street in Ave Maria is shady and tree lined with sidewalks except in that
February 4, 2021
Page 15 of 82
community, because they asked for an SRA exception, they got it, and then they -- you know, they
didn't -- they took advantage of it.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I think we as commissioners can, you know, be
wary of those things and, you know, try to come up with decisions that factor in that we don't really
know the implications exactly, what the implications are going to be.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Point well taken.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to, if I may comment.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry. My point was that the staff allowed that
through, and maybe if I had -- you know, if someone had known that they were going to do that,
you know, someone could have objected to it, but that was kind of a private process between
the -- I mean, maybe there was some public. It was, you know, on the website if you wanted to go
find it.
But I just wanted to tie it into what you -- the point you made. We can count on the staff.
The staff does their job. The rule said that you have an exception, and they met the exception,
every single lot. So the county can -- you know, the staff, we can only count on them to actually
do what the regulation says, and they shouldn't do something beyond that, I guess, you know; that
would be my point. So we need to be careful.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, so that perhaps in anticipation of what Mr. Sabo will say,
perhaps other members of staff, I don't -- I don't want the impression to be left that the four-acre
determination was capricious or unreasonable or just pulled out of thin air at the time it was made.
I fully expect that it relates to such things as buffering, which is important from an aesthetic point
of view and setbacks and the like for the overall quality of life in an area.
Now, one can disagree about the need for setbacks and buffering when you have higher
density buildings that look alike and perhaps are structured for multifamily, but I don't think we
should scratch our head and say, were our predecessors in planning, were they -- you know, were
they crazy or not thinking properly? I think they were thinking quite properly. It's just that some
may disagree at this later time whether that's advisable.
And the final point I want to make, and take Rivergrass as an example, they get 25 acres,
but Rivergrass, nothing had been developed. So now we're dealing with a going concern which
has been quite significantly developed. And 25 acres might work in an undeveloped Rivergrass
from the startup, but we're nearing buildout here. I mean, not -- it's very well built out. And so
you have issues of compatibility, I think, that arise if you put 25 acres in Ave Maria versus putting
25 acres in something that is still on the planning board -- on the drawing board, rather, like
Rivergrass.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I would say I agree with you that the four
acres was imposed. No one seemed to object to it. I would say that the four acres came from the
applicants but, you know, we don't know. But certainly there's no history where it was
contentious.
And you're exactly right, everyone went forward with that, and now that 2,800 people, you
know, have bought homes, it seems that you have an obligation, you know, to assess whether it's
alike or different from Rivergrass.
What I would say as well as is I had a question about the signage. And I would like to see
what the signage -- this is the commercial signage in the town center -- what the before and after
looks like, what's possible now, and what is -- you know, what is the code now, and what is the
change that you're suggesting.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a specific detail for every single tenant, because that's what
it would be.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is one -- this is one of the bullet points in your first
February 4, 2021
Page 16 of 82
slide in which you talked about the major changes that you're, you know, asking for. And
since -- if we don't know what the before and after looks like, then I would just --
MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Klucik, not to cut you off, but we're asking for exactly what
any other commercial use can have for signage. The town center criteria was set up to be, in some
instances, very pedestrian, which makes sense for some of the signage. It doesn't make sense for
the uses that you have like a convenience store that is auto-oriented and not pedestrian-oriented.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, and I think that's for the Commission to decide
if we understand what it is now and what it is in the future, because right now you -- again, you
have these same 2,800 homeowners who have a community where the signage is already
established, the legal requirements for signage is already established and being followed, and I
don't understand why we wouldn't see what the change would look like, the before. And it's not a
big deal. It's just, I'm asking to see --
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- what is the current -- and I'm sure someone can get that
to us, if it's -- staff has to do it, what the standard is now and what it would -- what the possibilities
would be in the future, and hopefully, staff, somebody will address that for us.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: I'm finished with my presentation, so I'm happy to answer any other
questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to go back to the history of the SRA, I mean, the
SRA was actually developed in concert between Barron Collier and at that time Ave Maria, which
was Monahan. I'm trying -- I lost his name for a minute. And they actually hired a private
consulting firm that put some of that language together. And if I recall, I believe it was
WilsonMiller that did a lot of the original language.
MR. ARNOLD: It was.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Anita, you may have some history as to why the four acres
exist because you were at one time part of that firm.
But when the SRA language came in and a lot of that was vetted through the public as we
went through the development in the approval process, this was one of the first -- it was the first
SRA to come in under the Rural Land Stewardship, so -- and you're correct, I mean, the four -- if
we're going to -- we're discussing the four acres, I'm sure there was a reason many years ago as to
why that was proposed by both Barron Collier and -- in concert working with WilsonMiller.
So -- but at the same point, you point out how it can be -- what it actually can create under
those rules. So I'd be interested when staff comes up to see if Anita has any history as to the origin
of the four acres and why it was proposed originally at four acres.
MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Schmitt, to that point I would just simply say that what we're
asking to deviate from is the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I understand.
MR. ARNOLD: And Barron Collier did not write your Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. It went through the public process. It went
through all the public hearings. Staff certainly shepherded it through and, of course, it went before
the Board. And all during that time frame nobody ever made any -- that I can recall, any
comments regarding the four-acre limitation.
Again, the only thing I can translate it to is part of what was originally envisioned as part
of the community character and the blocks -- city blocks being developed at the -- in the original
proposal.
February 4, 2021
Page 17 of 82
I'm not against it. I agree with -- 25 acres, to me, makes sense instead of four separate
SDPs and four separate submittals, and it just seems to make sense. But I -- enough of my
comments. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So Robb is speaking as if Lennar -- and I think it's been almost
presented like Lennar is controlling the development of this entire project. The owner is Ave
Maria Development. Can you please explain the ownership -- the development ownership chain
and who the developers are -- who the builders are.
MR. ARNOLD: The primary developer is Barron Collier Companies as Ave Maria
Development. They have sold off parcels out there to Pulte Homes, for instance. They've sold
off tracts to Lennar. They've sold off parcels to other builders. They've partnered with other
builders and doing some of that work themselves. There are multiple people doing work out there.
Lennar was one good example, Mr. Fry, that I could tell you it's ongoing in this sort of an example
where they're having to carve the bundled golf community up into small little fragments in order to
meet the code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But Barron Collier is still the controlling entity; is that
correct?
MR. ARNOLD: In some sort. It's not Barron Collier but, yes, an entity of.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: An entity of Barron Collier, yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: How do you incorporate a golf course with four-acre parcels, or
is it -- is the golf course itself not subject to the four-acre --
MR. ARNOLD: The golf course would not be subject to that limitation. It's only for
multifamily dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have further presentation? Commissioner
Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, just since we brought up Thomas Monahan. I also
want to bring up the memory of Paul Marinelli who, unfortunately, expired prematurely, you know,
and he couldn't really see the Ave Maria really take off. And he was also part of the project. He
was the president of Barron Collier company, I believe, at the time.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just want to remember both of them, you know,
for -- obviously, I get to enjoy it every day, but it's a huge asset to our county and, certainly, I can't
believe I get to live there every day.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that it, applicant?
MR. ARNOLD: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Any further questions or comments before we have staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Sabo.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Will we be hearing from Norm Trebilcock?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can. We'll call him up, yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have a question for Mr. Sabo just to clarify something
that I was asking him to present.
February 4, 2021
Page 18 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You had sent links to some of the project materials for the
Lennar project or, you know, in the public record. So it was the actual plan that looks like what's
on here but for the actual two-story and four-story. If you have that and you can show that at
some point, that would be great, or certainly somebody on staff. Is that something you think we
can do?
MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager.
Yes, I have those. I had trouble with the link, pulling it up, but one of our staffers, Diane
Lynch, was kind enough to pull it up onto the podium, so we should be able to pull it up without an
issue.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And, likewise, if we can, you know, clarify what is
the current signage rule, and then what would the new one be?
MR. SABO: That I need a little bit more time because I was spending time pulling up the
site plan. So if you can give me a little more time for that, we can --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
MR. SABO: -- we can get that addressed as well.
I want to address a couple of things while this graphic is up. I understand the issue with
four acres and the presentation that they would have to submit multiple times for SDP. You can
submit for an SDP at the county, under several tracts, one SDP application. So just to
clarify -- clarify that.
Additionally, I got some information from the County Attorney to apparently --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So a lot of administrative burden is actually -- it's
not -- they didn't have to submit -- for this project, they wouldn't have to submit five site plans,
SDPs?
MR. SABO: No, no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: They could submit one but with these bundling
requirements?
MR. SABO: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait -- wait a minute. But you still would have tracts
you would still have to put in setbacks, meet setback requirements. You still would have the
separate requirements for buffering unless you asked for a deviation between the tracts for
buffering. So it's not simply you could just cluster it and submit. You still have to meet all the
other requirements per each tract. I want to make that clear. That's not -- what you said is true,
but it also is true that you still have to comply with all the other requirements --
MR. SABO: That is --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- or ask for deviations from those requirements.
MR. SABO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. SABO: You would have to meet buffering --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. SABO: -- and setback requirements on each parcel. So, essentially -- I don't know
how to use the stick on here -- but their Tract E -- that entire boundary of Tract E would have
buffers and setbacks. The entire boundary of Tract -- I got the gag. All right. There it is.
Okay. So on Tract E you'd have to meet the buffer and setback requirements. For Tract
D, you would have to meet the buffer and setback requirements. Tract C, et cetera. You could
submit all those under a single SDP application, you are correct. I just want to make sure that the
correct information is portrayed. But, yes, you are correct, Commissioner Schmitt, you would
have to meet all those standards.
Okay. Now, the County Attorney sent information that -- I guess the visualizer had
February 4, 2021
Page 19 of 82
information about 4,697 peak-hour trips. The SRA document has 4,320 p.m. peak-hour trips. So
that would be their standard, 4,320; just to clarify that.
So just to get to our recommendation, which is to not approve the Deviation 1, the 25 acres
larger than the four-acre maximum. The intent is compact urban design and to promote
walkability. So that is why we -- our recommendation, why we are recommending against the
deviation.
The other part of that recommendation is Ave Maria is an established town. It's already
being built. The development pattern, the expectations of the community is already that four acres
is the maximum size of the parcel. Yes, yes, you can connect those parcels together, but you do
still have to meet those setbacks and buffers on each tract.
And, essentially, that's our recommendation: Approval minus the -- minus the deviation.
And then I can -- for Mr. Klucik I can try to pull up these plans.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just as a -- can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what is the -- you know, as a planner, and when we
have our code, what is the purpose of the buffer and setback requirements in general?
MR. SABO: In general is to create a buffer or a softening of the edge of the property to
set the buildings back, set the properties, the fronts of the buildings back so that there's space in
front. It's to -- you know, other than that, I can't really explain it.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it's more for aesthetics and noise, things like that?
MR. SABO: Correct.
MR. BELLOWS: I can also help -- for the record, Ray Bellows.
It also helps establish the human scale of what is desired for that type of zoning district,
that type of residential unit. So you want to make sure you have adequate trees and landscaping
and vegetation in a residential environment, or otherwise you have more of a downtown city-type
residential environment. This is a Rural Lands Stewardship Area. The original intent is to keep
these smaller-scale structures with a lot of vegetation and make pedestrian access through, you
know, smaller shops, instead of having a monolithic type of one structure on the entire acreage
there.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm in agreement with seeking to fulfill that objective. I'm
sorry that what's not before us today is an application that would allow for some buffering but
perhaps not the full buffering that would be called for, but this would allow for absolutely no
buffering and limited setbacks and would apply to the entire community of Ave Maria, which is
also disturbing. I've got some other points that I'm going to raise. But Commissioner Fry will be
recognized.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So in, I guess, trying to wade through this four-acre versus 25
acres versus maybe we reduce it to 10, you know, we have the ability to do whatever we think we
see fit. Allura was an apartment complex that came to us. It was on 35 acres. It ended up being,
I think, 300 units or so. Is that -- that had setbacks and, you know, aesthetics and buffering.
What about Allura? Allura would not be possible, I don't -- I'm not sure if it would be possible
with this four-acre limit. But is there something about Allura that isn't walkable, that isn't compact
urban design?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, Allura's not in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand that, but it's at least something we can visualize.
We had personal --
MR. BELLOWS: And it's more of an urban/suburb design versus a rural, you know,
design intended for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just not clear what you're looking to end up with with the
four-acre limit. What you're --
February 4, 2021
Page 20 of 82
MR. BELLOWS: I think the idea is to get something, as the applicant has depicted here, a
project similar to that. I think that was the original intent versus one large building that could have
covered the entire acreage.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But to me that's a very -- that's like a block-style development,
whereas if they had a larger area and they could have buildings at angles and, you know, a much
more creative design would be possible if they had the ability to draw with a brush on a larger
easel, I guess, or a larger template.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree wholeheartedly, but this is just for illustrative purposes by the
applicant to show what's possible. It's not their attempt at designing something.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins.
MS. JENKINS: Good morning. Anita Jenkins, for the record, the Zoning Director.
To put the history on the four acres, the full code has to be in context. So the code for the
Rural Land Stewardship SRA towns was written to be compact, pedestrian-oriented, and walkable.
So the four-acre block for the multifamily was one of the intentions to meet that goal.
So we're implementing policy in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area with a full code, and
this is one part of the code that implements that policy of walkable. It helps to establish the
interconnectivity through the town where when you get larger tracts, you break the
interconnectivity. It's not that they couldn't come in with a plan that would be 25 acres and they
could demonstrate how they maintain the interconnectivity for the town, so they could accomplish
that, but that was the history behind that four-acre.
And, Commissioner Schmitt, you're right, when you bring up the Community Character
Plan, these are common planning principles for community development that intends to be
walkable and compact is to set some development standards that are different than suburban
standards where you see the larger multifamily tracts in the coastal area in particular.
So they could accomplish these things. I think in both ways we could find solutions to
maintain the intent and the scale of the town while they can also bring in a 25-acre piece at the
same time.
Also, one thing to mention, it was brought to my attention that the architectural standards
do not apply to a multifamily project that is not adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. So
that's just something to keep in mind as well.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So can you explain that again.
MS. JENKINS: The architectural standards found in our Land Development Code do not
apply to multifamily housing that is not adjacent to collector arterial roadways.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right now what would be a restriction on length or
height? Is that what you're talking about, things like length and height, or what other -- what are
the other architectural --
MS. JENKINS: Yeah, yes. And facing and articulation and things like that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what are the standards, then, that would be required for
a multifamily?
MS. JENKINS: The standards would not apply for multifamily that does not -- that is not
adjacent to a collector. So they would bring in in an SDP their architectural standards for review.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's a clean slate, and they bring something in, and
then through the process it gets approved or disapproved. There's no -- there are no actual limits
imposed, standards imposed?
MS. JENKINS: If it's not adjacent to a collector arterial, right.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I think I'm being seemingly pedantic. I do that
sometimes because I don't understand and I ask another question.
So does that mean it could be 12 stories? In theory, they could propose 12 stories, and
then it would be up -- through the planning you would say, you know, that's not going to work here
February 4, 2021
Page 21 of 82
or, you know, what -- that's why I'm asking.
MS. JENKINS: So you do have to -- they would have to comply with their own height
limits that they would have in their Ave Maria SRA document. So there are some development
standards that they would comply with there. I'm just speaking to the Land Development Code
and the architectural standards that would apply to the multifamily. If there are standards in the
SRA that would apply to multifamily, they would have to be consistent with those standards.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So can we get somebody to confirm what the height
standard is for multifamily in Ave Maria?
MS. JENKINS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Jenkins, I just wanted to confirm, because to me this -- it's
very -- it's clear to everybody that the intent was always that you could put multi four-acre parcels
together in multifamily? It was always the intent? See, I view that more, the four-acre, as you
missed the phrase that says you can't put two four-acre units adjacent; otherwise, to me, it's a much
cleaner, easier -- you get something better if you put them all under one, as Commissioner Fryer
was saying, where you could do a lot more in terms of creativity and buffering and aesthetics. So
it just seems to me like you forgot the line that says you can't put four-acre parcels next to each
other in multifamily.
MS. JENKINS: The intent of the four acres was to maintain interconnectivity so that you
don't have a 50-acre parcel that is not interconnected with the rest of the town.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the picture they just showed is --
MS. JENKINS: And that's what I'm saying. I think that the code can be met and
demonstrated with four-acre tracts without losing that interconnectivity and that scale. It's really
about the town scale and interconnectivity that you're trying to achieve with the overall code as a
whole.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Now, how does that -- I guess I don't see the interconnectivity.
You have interconnectivity within the development when you stack them all together around each
other. I guess I don't see what you're losing on the interconnectivity side when you end up with
25 acres that are four-acre parcels.
MS. JENKINS: Well, I think that the illustration that is on the screen now, you can see
that that area then does not have connections. It's just one large parcel, so you don't have
interconnections that are through. Now, I understand that when you're trying to do multifamily
along a golf course, that's going to be a different scenario.
But if you remember the SRA in general, we were thinking transect, right? So you would
expect the higher densities to be in more of the higher density areas in block formations for
walkability. But when you're developing it along a golf course, then that interconnectivity may
not be as high-density intersections as you would have in a block configuration. So there's always
some chance for, you know, needing flexibility for this. But the idea that you're looking at here is
that you do just have that a series of multifamily that's not interconnecting with the full town.
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, if I can -- if I can add to that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead, and then Commissioner Fry after that.
MR. SABO: On your podium screen there, or the visualizer screen there, that is the
current Lennar National Golf Club SDP for the multiple family condominium product that they are
selling now or building now. Those two parcels with the dark line in between, those are four-acre
parcels.
Mr. McLean informed us that the LDC allows, under a unified Site Development Plan,
relief between those buffers. So there is -- in our LDC code the ability to remove some of those
buffers if the parcels are attached or connecting or adjacent, abutting.
February 4, 2021
Page 22 of 82
Now, what -- to your point, Mr. Shea, I don't know what happened with the SRA. I'm not
sure exactly what happened, but it is possible that the words, you can't butt them together, you can't
put four or five in a row or whatever that -- you know, that may have been eliminated or not
included, whatever, but the -- I think the intent of the four acres was to disburse the parcels
throughout the community, and there is technically a loophole here that you can stack them
together or put them in rows, but I don't necessarily know that that was the intent, so I hope that
answers some of the question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Based on that drawing that you're showing us, I guess I'm not
seeing any advantage or restriction gained by the four-acre limitation compared to just letting that
be one site plan. If the buffers are relaxed or suspended when you're putting them together on an
SDP, then what are we gaining by restricting them to four acres?
MR. SABO: Yeah, that's a great point. That is a great point, and I don't have the answer
to that. As I mentioned, it may have been an oversight, you know, 14, 15 years ago when the SRA
was put together, that -- you know, the people who put them together are humans, right? So they
may be left out. We don't want them all stacked up together, maybe.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I could see if you don't want large developments in
large -- large areas, large communities that have no interconnectivity, so you've cut off a whole
section of the development from another, but that's still very possible, as it is shown here with the
four-acre limitation.
MR. SABO: Right. Agreed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: The other question I had for you, Mr. Sabo, had to do with the
trip cap. One of your first comments was that the SRA has -- shows a trip cap of 4,300-and-some
trips, correct?
MR. SABO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But their application is for a trip cap of 4,600 and some, I
believe, or am I -- or was that just a correction on what they're asking for, or is there a difference
between the two?
MR. SABO: It was pointed out to me, Mr. Fry, that there was something on the visualizer
that had 4,697.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct.
MR. SABO: And that is incorrect. The SRA document has 4,320, so just to make that
clear. And we can --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
MR. SABO: -- get Mr. Trebilcock, but he's nodding his head, so it looks like --
COMMISSIONER FRY: So the actual ask is 4,300-and-some trips as is in the SRA
document?
MR. SABO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not what I found in the materials.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Nor I.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: What I found was that the original ask was for 46- and some
change, and after some back and forth with staff, it was brought down to 43- and some change.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But the final is 4,300.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's where we are now, just like we're at 25 acres, but the
original ask was 50.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to go back to the drawing that's on the
visualizer right now. This is the current proposal?
MR. SABO: Correct. Tract 1, The National, Ave Maria --
February 4, 2021
Page 23 of 82
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. SABO: -- and Lennar Homes, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so each one of those darkened blocks, I call them,
the borders, that's four acres each?
MR. SABO: Correct. The left side of the screen, it's sort of a C-shaped pointing north.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep.
MR. SABO: That's a four-acre parcel, and then to the right it's -- it's got kind of a
bulb-out there, that's also a four-acre parcel.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, then I guess I'm going to ask Wayne, then.
Wayne, what would be different on this site plan if you were allowed to go to the 25-acre limit or,
Rich, do you want to address that? Because it appears that Lennar is coming in with the request
regardless of the four-acre or 25-acre limitation. I go back --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me interject, if I may, please. We did not call up staff during
the applicant's presentation, and the applicant will have a full opportunity to rebut and answer
additional questions. Unless you feel very strongly about it, I would suggest that we wait until the
applicant is back up in rebuttal.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'd like to get my question answered.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does staff object?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're discussing -- we're discussing a plan that was put
up by staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think my question is very relevant to the issue at hand,
because this was introduced by staff; this was not introduced by the applicant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not arguing with the importance of your question. I just want
to try to be even-handed in allowing interruptions. And so I'm going to turn to Ms. Jenkins and
say, what would staff prefer on this? We didn't -- we didn't call Mr. Sabo up during the applicant's
presentation.
MS. JENKINS: Oh, I'm fine with the questions being answered as you have them from
anyone that you want to ask the question of.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm glad you're fine with it, because we control the
proceedings, and I'm going to ask the question anyway.
MS. JENKINS: I'm fine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, my experience, in the one or two times that I've done this,
you've asked staff up many times during our presentation --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and they answered questions. So, I mean, I've been flexible.
It's always been friendly about how we do this.
Mr. Schmitt, the only thing different between what you have here, instead of doing it six
times, six-plus times to get to 25 acres, we would do it once. You'll get the same big picture. The
25 acres is going to look the same, but we'll do five separate or six separate Site Development
Plans to come up with this very same plan because it's going to continue on. This is -- assuming it
was a 25-acre thing. If this is four acres and four acres and four acres and four acres, it's going to
look the very same at the end if I'd have come in with one 25-acre project.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it might have had more buffering.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it would not. We're not getting out of any buffering. We are
providing all required perimeter buffers on this project. We're not getting out of any of the
perimeter buffers. This is purely an internal issue, as we were talking about earlier. The buffer
on the street, going to be the same. The buffer on the left-hand side, going to be the same when
you get to the end of the development.
February 4, 2021
Page 24 of 82
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: Buffer along the golf course is going to be the same. What?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Buffer between the buildings?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Buffer between your buildings? This is your code right now.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, but the buffer between the buildings, we would at least be
able to discuss if you came in with an SDP that was an aggregation of four-acre lots aggregating
25.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't come to the Planning Commission for Site Development
Plans.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't come to the Planning Commission for Site Development
Plans. Your staff has approved, I'm assuming, correct, Mr. McLean, you've -- approved this --
MR. McLEAN: I'll put it on the record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- drawing. So the buffer between the tracts is not required under
the code.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it would be required. They asked for --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The out -- external boundary would be -- is required, and we're
going to meet all of those, but the internal can be eliminated under the uniform Site Development
Plan process.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you said you'd have to do it six times, but it seems as
though maybe you did -- maybe, you know, it was a choice because you're starting a new project
and you're going slow. You actually could have done all six in one SDP. You would have just
had --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd have to do six SDPs. I have to do six.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- just had Mr. Sabo say that you could do it all as one. So
it's -- the answer is, one of you is right, and I'm certainly not saying that I know who's right. But
you're saying you couldn't submit one SDP, and Mr. Sabo is saying that you could submit just one
SDP.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's news to me. We're almost -- during the break I'm going to
confirm that, because --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I've never been under the impression I can come in with a
25-acre SDP for a multifamily project. I've always been -- and if we're wrong, then I don't even
know why I'm here, to be honest with you, because I'm going to go to 50 acres, you know, and I'm
going to be unlimited is what I'm being told.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say is you submitted -- here you submitted
an eight-acre SDP.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Lennar. I didn't -- I'm saying, this is the first I've heard of
it, Mr. Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me.
The applicant or the applicant's -- the person who bought the land who would be benefiting
from a change in their future development submitted this plan, and it has eight acres, and you're the
one that said it was one SDP. Maybe it wasn't. You don't know.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It wasn't me.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You don't know, I understand. You're just -- it wasn't
February 4, 2021
Page 25 of 82
yours to shepherd through because it was Lennar.
But from what Mr. Sabo is saying, you could do eight acres, you could do 25 acres,
whatever. You can do it as one plan. It's a little more cumbersome because you have to put the
parcels together. I mean, that was your opening argument is that you can submit, you know,
the -- you know, you had the graphic there, you can bundle it all together. But you're saying that
you would have had to -- in that bundle that you showed, you would have had to do five separate
SDPs.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I would have had to -- yeah, to get to 25, I would have done six
plus.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I guess we need to know for sure what is the
requirement.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll go back to my question. I mean, that's the crux of the
entire argument. Can they -- can, in fact, this -- could this have come in with a -- I'll call it a
cluster development of showing the full 25 acres? And it appears it can. There's no -- I don't
think there's any restriction.
MR. SABO: That's my understanding.
MR. KLATZKOW: Matt, could you -- since this is the guy in charge of it, let's get
Matt's --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- ruling, as it were.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can assure you, if I'd known I could have done this with one
25-acre SDP, I wouldn't be here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, life is short. Let's see what the man has to say.
MR. McLEAN: I didn't swear in, so I apologize on that part.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll swear you in.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. McLEAN: I do.
Matt McLean, Director of Development Review.
The question at hand is the four-acre piece. If an SDP comes in and it does have tracts
that are carved up into four-acre sections, they can submit one unified Site Development Plan for
multiple parcels and effectively do what you're seeing on the screen. That is how that one was
permitted. There are perimeter buffer requirements, but in the internal tract line, which is in the
middle of the particular document that you see in front of you, the code does not require internal
buffer between the two multifamily buildings.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wow.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Then what is the benefit of a four-acre tract limit?
MR. McLEAN: I can't say if there's a benefit one way or the other. I can say that they
can develop it that way under the current code. They just have to be defined as four-acre tracts.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I go back to the original intent as Anita pointed out. It
was -- the four acres was once when it was envisioned it would be walkable city blocks. And
that's what I recall when this first was being developed, and they would be separate sections with
parallel streets in a walkable interconnected community.
But, Anita, you talked about interconnectivity. I mean, this is -- essentially, it is
interconnected. It depends how you determine interconnected. There is one street that connects
all the buildings, and it just happens to be where the parking and the drive -- and I guess it's -- all
these are facing the golf course.
MR. KLATZKOW: Unless I'm missing something here, and staff can clarify, this entire
February 4, 2021
Page 26 of 82
issue we're talking about is not relevant.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because they can do it anyway.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can do it anyway. That's what --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think it's important to parse out what that actually means
and if, in fact, that --
MR. KLATZKOW: But if they --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. If they can do it anyway, there's no need to request a
deviation. It's a nonissue.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a nonissue.
MR. KLATZKOW: So we've just spent an hour on a nonissue.
MR. YOVANOVICH: With all due respect, I want clearly on the record that the
reference -- Wayne, I need that back. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm going to interrupt you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You may.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. Okay. So I want clarification on -- you
know, so we talked about there's no need for buffers internally between the two lots. So right now
where we have those two buildings that are at the borderline, could they be connected? Could
they -- you know, could they straddle that border as one solid unit so that we have one long,
serpentine building? Because I think that does, then, change interconnectivity, because if you
have a long building -- you know, the idea that it's limited to four acres actually limits how long a
building can be unless -- unless you could have one long building if you put the lots together.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. You get into zero lot line restrictions and other
requirements. If those buildings were connected, and I -- I'm going back to --
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean for the record.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- review. Matt, if you have one up against the lot line,
you're in a zero lot line, and you're now into the building code in regards to fire code and access
and all the other type of things. I do not believe you could staddle one building across the two
parcels.
MR. McLEAN: As the regulations stand today for the SRA, and within the Land
Development Code, you still would have to meet setbacks from that tract line, so you would not be
able to have a building that combined and went over that tract line.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But if it was eight acres, so if this was all able to be
developed as one, then that building could be twice as long; is that true?
MR. McLEAN: If the limitation was eight acres, they could -- they could build one
building within the eight-acre tract, if they so choose --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So -- in essence --
MR. McLEAN: There would not be a tract line, then, at this point --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. What I'm saying is there's a difference. There
clearly is a difference, and we've already heard -- and it makes sense. And I'm not even arguing
that that would be wrong. We've already heard, you know, if they get 25, then they're going -- it's
going to be easier to do 50 or 75 or 100 in one fell swoop, and the only restriction is, you know,
what we just said, you know.
So my whole point is, this is a speed bump and it is meaningful. It might not be as
meaningful as, you know -- you know, we don't know the history. It might not be as meaningful
February 4, 2021
Page 27 of 82
as it could have been if they said you can't put two together but, obviously, that's not the case. But
it is meaningful, and it does change the character of what they can do, and it does make it more
walkable because you can't have a really long serpentine building, and that is definitely not
walkable.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the way this is shown, you could have the three
buildings on the east -- correction, west side of this --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You can shove them together.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could have them together.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, but then you couldn't have all five buildings together
which --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could not.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If that was one eight-acre parcel that was submitted as one
project, because we've increased it to 25 acres, then that could be one long building.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I'm saying is is that that's fine, we can decide that
that's what we want the code to allow, and I'm saying -- I'm arguing that I don't think that's good. I
think that does change the character. It changes the walkability. It changes the expectation of,
you know, the 2,800 homeowners who are already there, and, you know, what the county has
already said is the requirement. And I think if you're going to make this change, especially
because -- you know, the applicant is largely saying they can do what they want to do anyways.
It's just a matter of taking some of the paperwork burden away. Well, I think we've just come up
with a reason to keep the burden of the paperwork there, and I -- that's it right there.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to the staff. James, if, in fact -- and I'll
ask during the break if you can confer with the applicant, because if, in fact, this is allowable as
was attested to, I would like you to confer with the applicant to see if they're going to withdraw
their request for the deviation, because it seems to be a moot point.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes.
MR. SABO: Understood.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not. I can answer that. It's appropriate now? And Matt
McLean will correct me if I'm wrong, because he only lets me play engineer a couple times a year,
and I want to save it. But that line that's there becomes a tract line, and we've got to meet the
setback from that line.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So if I had the 25-acre parcel, if I somehow got that building a
little bit too close to that tract line when I built it, I don't have to come in and ask for a variance.
That's -- when you're forcing me to identify the specific internal tract lines, you have issues with
setbacks from those internal tract lines; not building separation, but set back from those individual
tract lines.
So what we're trying to say is, give me the 25-acre envelope. I will meet all of the height
requirements. I will meet all of the perimeter buffer requirements. I will meet all of the building
separation requirements. And I can do that with one Site Development Plan instead of six platted
lines with six platted internal setback lines for buildings is all I'm suggesting.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you're actually getting to Commissioner Klucik's point: You
want to be able to put in big boxes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I didn't say that, Jeff. What I'm saying --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if the issue here is separation between buildings and meeting
the setbacks here, Mr. Klucik's point is spot on. What the four acres is doing is it's stopping you
from putting in what I'll just call the big boxes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your setbacks are going to be dictated on the height of
February 4, 2021
Page 28 of 82
the building, regardless, so you --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have building separation requirements.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You've got building separation based on the height of the
building, and how would that differ than what's shown for the separation from the lot line?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I missed the --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You've got -- let's go between those two buildings
there between the lot lines. You've got -- and I -- it's too hard to read what the distance is. But
would that distance be different if, in fact, it were one tract? You still have to have building
separation based on one-half the height of the building.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll have the same building separation but on there also, when you
look, there's also a lot line --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- setback as well. We have to meet both of those if you break
this into four-acre lots in one 25-acre Site Development Plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You have those internal lines as well for building setbacks. I
don't know what you get out of this whole process of making us break up the lines like that into
four separate or six separate lots.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, you didn't hear my point?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, the answer is, I could come in under the code --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Would you believe me if I told you that I just made the
point?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know better. I know better. That's my line. I didn't
license it to you. I didn't license it to you.
What I'm saying, Mr. Klucik, we could come in today with one big building on the
four-acre tract. I could come in -- if I wanted to do a 400-foot-long building on that one-acre
tract -- on that four-acre tract, I can do it, and I could do it on the next one and the next one and the
next one. The market's going to dictate what people really want to buy.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And we've already --
MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's not --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We've already acknowledged that the market changes, and
we have no idea what the market is going to be like, and the whole idea is our land use -- our code,
which the SRA is a part --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- tries to protect us from just, you know, absolute market
conditions ruling how we build and how we develop, and you know that as well as I do. I mean,
I'm stating the obvious. That's the whole point is we're trying to inhibit an absolute market
condition base. The market conditions might be we want a really long building on four acres.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I could do that today.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right now -- right now, Lennar's a great developer or great
builder, Ave Maria Development is a great developer, and so this is great. And like I said, in the
beginning, fine, let's get a -- you know, apply, and we'll approve this whole project.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, and then --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't speak for the whole Commission, obviously. But
in my view, you take this down, you know, as a deviation, for this particular project, and I don't
think you have any pushback. And, you know, do you have to then keep doing that, you know, for
the next project and the next project? Yeah, I get it. In that scenario, you would have to keep
coming back for a larger deviation if you thought you needed it. In this case, you don't even need
the deviation because it will probably be more expensive to come to us to ask to get the change
February 4, 2021
Page 29 of 82
when all you would have to do is submit your 25 acres in one plan.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, and then we'll have a break.
COMMISSIONER FRY: At the risk of reinforcing anything that Mr. Yovanovich says, I
will simply observe that even in that left or the right four-acre parcel, what I think -- the point I'm
taking from Rich's statement is that instead of those three buildings, they could have put one long
building, and they chose not to because the market would not support that. So I think because they
have building separation -- unless we believe they're going to put in some super long building,
then --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we've already --
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- the risk of the 25 acres, I think, is negligible.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we've already had, you know, people talking about
putting in different types of housing, you know, for different markets. Obviously, this is a golf
course community. You're not going to sell large, you know -- and it's non-coastal. You know,
you're out here. You're not going to sell a big building.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But the only thing that you're -- the four-acre limit restricts is
that you can't have a mile-long building --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that in itself would be a reason to not change
the code, I mean, in my view, to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: On that note, if we may, we'll have a 13-minute recess until 10:45.
(A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. And we were in a
spirited dialogue when we recessed, but this is staff's presentation time, and we'll return to that, if
we may. Mr. Sabo and Ms. Jenkins.
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager, for the record.
We have nothing further. Our recommendation is approval with removal of Deviation No.
1.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Jenkins.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. Anita Jenkins. I was just going to answer a question that
someone asked about the height. The height in neighborhood general is 3.5 stories for
multifamily.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So I understand that these buildings are four
stories based on, I think, the drawings that you had -- that were in some of the packet. So is -- are
some of these buildings four stories, or are they three-and-a-half? And I guess that's a question
that I'll ask the applicant.
But I'll ask you, I had asked about commercial signage, you know, the difference. I know
you said you needed some time. Are you still working on that, or can you answer?
MR. SABO: I am. I need additional time.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to follow up on whether there's four stories or not is
irrelevant. It can't exceed, what, three-and-a-half stories, you said? That's the limit.
MS. JENKINS: That's for neighborhood general, 3.5.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For neighborhood general. Okay.
February 4, 2021
Page 30 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So is this project submitted as four, and is it approved at
four, or is the -- did I misread the --
MS. JENKINS: When you say "this project" --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This particular drawing is Lennar -- yeah, you're right.
This project is not before us. My question is specific to the drawing in the --
MS. JENKINS: The drawing just disappeared.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, the drawing that just disappeared. Since it's up
there and we're referencing it and since we're mentioning the height restriction, am I correct that
this project is four stories, or is it not?
MS. JENKINS: Let me ask Mr. McLean if this is the same -- I can't read it on the screen
here, but this is the same illustration, Mr. McLean, that we looked at earlier that had the height
limit of 3.5 stories.
MR. McLEAN: It's 35 feet.
MS. JENKINS: Thirty-five feet.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ah, okay. So maybe the four stories are contained within
35 feet? I guess I'll ask the applicant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I want to interject something very quickly while we're
waiting, and that is that I had made a commitment to our court reporter that I would ask everyone
respectfully, please try not to talk on top of one another because she can only record what one
person is saying at a time. And so let's enable her to create a faithful reproduction of what's
happening by speaking just one at a time. Thank you.
Mr. McLean.
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, Director of Development Review.
The max height on this particular development's 35 feet, and it is within the code
requirements.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Anything else from staff?
MR. SABO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have some questions and comments that I'd like to make. No
one else is illuminated at this point, so I'm going to proceed.
There's been talk of the hospital use, which I think everybody -- I presume everyone is in
full agreement that if there were a hospital there, that would be a very good thing and a desirable
thing. And in allowing for the density that a hospital would need, I think, is a good idea. But are
there other uses that could be made of this property if the hospital arrangement never came to pass
that we should, perhaps, consider limiting the density for hospital uses rather than anything more
broad? Do you have an observation on that, Mr. Sabo?
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I agree with your statement based -- excuse me -- based on
the civic uses, municipal buildings, schools, hospitals, things like that, those would all be permitted
uses if it is in your purview to limit the civic uses to specifically hospital for -- or for whatever
percentage of 350,000 you would see fit.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'd ask other members of the Planning Commission if this
is an important point to them or not. Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not an important point. I think limit -- just saying if
it was for civic, to me, is fine. But let's go back to when Arthrex first put its building in there.
Did it not have to come in for some kind of a site -- or amendment to the SRA to allow for
the -- Arthrex to go in because it's -- what is it? I guess it's not a factory, but whatever they would
term that as, an industrial site, as you enter. Would that be a similar type thing where they could
now have civic center and say, no, we don't want the civic center, I'm going to put in a, I don't
February 4, 2021
Page 31 of 82
know, FedEx distribution center?
MR. SABO: No, not as a civic use.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The change that they required, I think, to come before the
Board was to move the town center --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it was.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- designation, which is where you can -- town center is
simply -- I mean, I guess it's equivalent to commercial. You know, it's one designation. And they
had acreage along -- they had acreage along Camp Keais Road that they changed to be residential,
and then they moved that acreage to be along -- to front Oil Well Road, so I think that's what that
was.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So if we stuck -- good point. So if we stuck with
civic, that kind of change could not take place.
MR. SABO: For that parcel, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That parcel, unless they came back in through some kind
of an amendment. Does that help you?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I guess -- yes, I'd ask Commissioner Klucik if he believes
that -- the folks in Ave Maria, are they looking specifically at a hospital as an objective or any civic
use?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I think -- you know, I just speak for myself. When I
heard this proposal, you know, before I was a Planning Commissioner and I looked at it, I, you
know, was looking at the idea of increased civic uses, and I was trying to understand exactly how it
all works, and it's a little confusing. But I think because of the definition of the civic uses, it
does -- to me, I thought that was limitation enough, and I certainly haven't seen or heard, you
know, anybody objecting to that.
And I think -- I don't think that the designation that we're changing applies to any particular
acreage. It's within the whole project; is that right? We're changing a designation to increase this
civic usage, but it applies to anywhere where you could do civic usage wherein the SRA. We're
just saying that there's now an increased acreage that's possible.
MR. SABO: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it doesn't apply to any particular tract of land, except
the only tracts that are available for civic use is limited.
MR. SABO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The recharacterization -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. Let
me just finish.
Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The recharacterization of the mini-warehouse use from
industrial to mini-warehouse has the effect of freeing up the area for more industrial. And I just
want to be sure that that was contemplated by the people of Ave Maria and that they're comfortable
with more industrial.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, again, I'll speak for myself. I didn't hear anyone
objecting to that, you know, in my analysis. You know, I look at that as -- there are a lot of
limitations on what -- you know, to begin with, what kind of commercial and how much can be out
there.
And I don't think that this -- you know, I mean, it's after the fact. You know, they did
something and they said we want to tweak it and reconfigure it so that we can, you know, do
something different. I think what they put in there, you know, hasn't been objectionable, and I
don't foresee where it would -- you know, what it would be that would be that objectionable
because, again, I don't think the developer would ever feel like that could work for them because
February 4, 2021
Page 32 of 82
they still have 7,000 more houses to sell. So I'm not worried, and I haven't heard anybody else
express concern.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I needed to know.
Commissioner Schmitt, I'll call on you, and then I'll come back to myself.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just going back to the hospital. The only thing I
was concerned about is they have to go through, as you well know, the certificate of need and go
through the state and all the other requirements.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: They actually don't.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that has been repealed.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's been done away with legislatively.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: CONs are gone.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. I was just concerned if they had to do that
and then they changed it. But no, disregard.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see. Oh, on the TIS.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Please. TIS?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Traffic Impact Statement.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ah, sorry.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. The -- you know, I like to think that there is at least a
plausible scientific basis behind the calculations that are made for a TIS, but I frequently am
proven wrong in that sanguine assumption. And in this case the traffic consultant came in initially
at 4,697, I think, and then was trimmed back down to 43-and-something. So it sounds -- it sounds
less scientific and more like horse trading or negotiation. How would you characterize that
process, Mr. Sabo?
MR. SABO: I'm going to defer that question to our Transportation staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Mr. Walker's [sic].
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Sawyer.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sawyer, I mean. Excuse me.
MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. And I did walk
up here, so that gets you a bit towards "Walker."
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for covering for me.
MR. SAWYER: The issue that we had with Ave Maria is that we had a TIS that was
originally done as part of the original SRA. Subsequent to that, there was an amendment that was
done. And what we needed to do was to make sure that we were on an even playing field with our
current standards. That was accomplished. One of the other challenges that we had is that the
original SRA actually had a single category for residential. It didn't -- it basically lumped together
single-family and multifamily.
And so what we had to do, working with the consultant, was to figure out how we could
balance that out, split out the single-family, the multifamily, and then basically, again, get to that
firm basis. And, quite honestly, it took us a couple of iterations of the TIS to actually get there.
I think what we have is a good reflection of both what the original SRA trips would be,
according to current standards, as well as the amendment and then now what they're proposing to
do, which is basically to keep what those trips were, currently, and get that into a form that we can
actually start reviewing to. And keep in mind, the trips for Ave Maria are vested. They're
banked. So if you go into the AUIR, you'll see those numbers as part of those banked numbers.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else have questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, if those numbers are banked, then why -- and if I
understand this correctly, they're not asking for additional trips. They're saying -- they're basically
February 4, 2021
Page 33 of 82
formalizing a trip cap based on the utilization prior to this application, is that correct, and saying
that will exist in perpetuity and this will apply to it, or is that trip cap changing based on this
application? I'm unclear on that.
MR. SAWYER: The trip cap is remaining the same according to the -- again, the original
SRA and the amendment that was done.
The reason that we wanted to have the trip cap is that it allows staff to review to that
standard as the SDPs and the plats come in. Every time something comes in, Development
Services looks at those numbers, keeps track of them and, if you will, starts counting them down.
It also allows for the applicant to have a certain flexibility in the types of development that actually
occurs within the development itself. We've got a scenario that they presented this time that
shows the hospital and the other uses that you see. And that all works into those uses.
Ultimately, if you did all of them to the maximum number allowed, it would exceed that trip cap.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I see. So what you're saying is there really was never a formal
trip cap established for the SRA, so you went back and you calculated, based on the uses that had
already been approved, what that might be, and you're establishing that as a trip cap moving
forward, giving them flexibility in how they utilize that trip cap? Is that an accurate reproduction
of where we're at?
MR. SAWYER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else for traffic?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Mr. Sawyer.
MR. SABO: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo, I want to loop back if I can to be sure that I have gained
an accurate understanding from the dialogue that we had about four acres versus 25 acres and the
like.
I see that I had made an onerous assumption about buffering, that you can -- you could
have four-acre parcels together without a requirement of buffering between them, correct?
MR. SABO: That is my understanding, correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. But if you -- if you have a requirement that they come
in with an aggregation divided into four-acre parcels, at least you prevent the serpentine snake, the
long building that Commissioner Klucik was concerned about; am I correct?
MR. SABO: That is correct, it would prevent elongated buildings.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And they would be able to come in with one Site
Development Plan. It just would have to be divided into four-acre lots, and they couldn't have one
building crossing those lines?
MR. SABO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And the proposal at this point is that the applicant is
requesting that the 25 acres apply to the entire Ave Maria rather than just this project?
MR. SABO: That is correct. That's my understanding as well, correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: They could have -- they could have come in and asked that this
simply be applicable to the single project, right?
MR. SABO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What single project?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can we approve an amendment that puts that limitation on
it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we could.
COMMISSIONER FRY: What single project are we talking about?
February 4, 2021
Page 34 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The application that's before us as opposed to the entire --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Actually, no. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's true. I
think the application before us doesn't make any distinctions. This drawing happens to be an
example of the project that Lennar is doing, but I don't think any language in the application -- I
could be wrong. I don't think any application in the language [sic] specifies. I think we could
specify -- we would need to get staff to give us some input as to the specifics. We could specify
that it would be limited to this National PUD, or I don't know what it's called. You know,
whatever the designation is. But I don't -- am I right that right now application has no distinction
about this Lennar project?
MR. SABO: That is correct. So what you could do, what is in your purview, the Lennar
project was, obviously, developed with four-acre parcels. If you remove this deviation
completely, they would still continue to be able to develop four-acre parcels that are abutting and
aggregate them together but, Mr. Klucik is correct, if the deviation is allowed, they could create
25-acre parcels from now on.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think the distinction that I would make is, I do trust
both the market conditions and Lennar at this point, that I wouldn't expect them, for instance, to put
all those buildings together to make one long building, you know, if -- which is what they could do
if we made this change, you know, and limited it to this project. And so I'm not -- I'm satisfied
that I don't think that that will be a problem for this acreage, this project. And so I would be
willing to say for that project the 25 acres is not a problem for me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But we're concerned, I think, about having the 25 acres apply to
the entirety of Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, right, the other 7,000 units that are yet to be
developed, exactly.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That clarifies it.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: As I read this application, it is to amend the Town of Ave Maria
SRA and master plan with a basket of changes. It is not a single project that's being proposed
here. So I guess we keep talking about a project, but these are general changes to the master plan
for Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, that was my point, is that if we were going to say we
want to limit it, we would definitely need, you know, I think even legal input but certainly staff
input as to how we would amend what we would be approving to make sure that it's just applying
to -- at least certain portions. Maybe the 25-acre piece just applies to this one project.
COMMISSIONER FRY: To what one project?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, to the National Golf Course that Lennar is putting in
and that Planned Unit Development for the National. Now, I'm not saying that -- you know, that
that's the way to go. I'm saying that seems like it's worth looking at.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask the County Attorney if we would have it within our
power to recommend that all of these special provisions apply only to the current project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I talk?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to hear from the County Attorney first.
MR. KLATZKOW: Boy, I hate doing stuff piecemeal like this. I also hate deviations, by
the way, unless there's a substantial reason for it, because there's a reason why we have things in
the code. And you guys look at the code, and you are approving it, and the next thing you know,
somebody comes in, I need a deviation. Why? Because I need it. And the next thing you know,
you have crappy buildings all over the place.
You could do it but, honest to God, I mean, this was supposed to be -- the vision was
February 4, 2021
Page 35 of 82
supposed to be -- this was supposed to be a town, and the town was supposed to have a certain look
to it. It was supposed to be developed in a certain way. And, unfortunately, the residents don't
have, really, the input that they should have in this, to be quite blunt.
It's developing almost like a regular PUD, almost, where a developer comes in, and every
time he wants -- sees a market opportunity, he comes in and says, well, now I want to do this.
Now I want to do that, and -- rather than growing in an integrated manner, which was the whole
point of this, to get a town in an integrated manner and to have a certain look to it.
So, no, I'm not a big fan of deviations because it's, like, there's always a market reason for
it, and the market changes like this (indicating). And so a year from now there's another market
change, then the year after that there's another market change, and the next thing you know, you've
got this development that's not what everybody intended and certainly not what the people are
buying into.
But if you're asking me, do you have the power to do that, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to find our presentation so I can at least put the master
plan up and let's talk about -- is this it? Okay. Thank you.
So this is Ave Maria. It's roughly 5,000 acres. It's got a university in it. It's a big area.
It's a town. To expect us to know on the date we submitted the first SRA document that we knew
how every one of these roughly 4,000 acres was going to develop is an unfair burden when you put
together that SRA document.
The Land Development Code was specifically amended to allow for deviations in towns.
I know that because we did it because originally the way it was written is if you -- when you did
your first SRA document, you were married to it. You were never allowed to have flexibility to
whatever the Land Development Code said.
So we came in because things change over time. So the deviation process was specifically
added to address towns and for allowing us to do it as amendments to the SRA, because before a
few years ago, you couldn't even do that.
So I want to -- and I'm going to make sure -- Austin's going to correct me. I would -- and
can you come up real quick. What I think Mr. Klucik is saying for the Lennar development, not
just this one condominium portion within the development -- it's right here, right?
MR. HOWELL: Uh-huh.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We call that the National project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I want -- I just want the Planning Commission to understand
where that is, and I'm trying to figure out how I mark this. I don't think if I do this -- did I make a
mark? I did.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where Lennar's developing right now. That's their golf
course community. Actually, I missed it a little bit. It comes down here.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just -- let me just say, I think this is an older graphic, so it
doesn't really -- it portrays a prior --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It shows the land mass, but it doesn't show the actual buildout.
What I'm saying is the land mass where I think Mr. Klucik is saying he is comfortable with this
deviation applying is that land mass; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, that would be the footprint of what's being proposed
as the National -- Lennar's National Golf Course community.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we will come up with an appropriate descriptor of that land
mass before we get to the Board of County Commissioners to say the requested deviation to be able
to do 25-acre parcels will only apply to this land mass, so it will be a very limited deviation. We'll
February 4, 2021
Page 36 of 82
have to follow the other process that's in your code anywhere else in Ave Maria, but for the
deviation purposes, this land mass is where we would do the deviation. And I think that is -- is
that what you're --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I mean, that sounds appealing to me. I think that,
you know, the commissioners should all have a chance, you know, to ask more questions if we're
limiting it to that. I think that's a -- yes, I think you have summed up what I think I could support.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that works for us. I mean, we'll deal -- if we have
another master developer that comes in and decides they need an area-wide deviation, we'll come
in. I'm not going to come in for every SDP. I mean, that's -- and ask for a -- we're not going to do
that. But for this master development area, we'll limit the requested deviation to that area, and
hopefully that addresses the concern that some people have about a community-wide deviation and
the unknown that might occur through that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And while you're up here, I want to just say that I actually,
you know, would want to underscore what Attorney Klatzkow expressed, because I could have said
the exact same thing. The only thing I would add is that, you know, having lived there and been
there for 13 years from the very beginning, I would say that I'm very grateful that Ave Maria
Development and Barron Collier stuck with it. They came up with a plan to try to sell homes
when nobody was buying homes and, yes, it deviated from their original plan.
You know, when they did it, they didn't really have to make too many changes to do their
big Maple Ridge project, but they stuck with it. And I was wondering, you know, when are they
going to walk away because we were there for a long time, and there was nobody buying houses.
And I only make that point just to say that I really do -- you know, I don't just say these
things about our developer because I feel like I have to. Ave Maria Development does a great job.
And that doesn't mean that I won't continue to ask pesky questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It wouldn't be as much fun for me if you didn't.
And I just wanted to point out the evolution of the town, and, Mr. Klucik, you're aware of
this, Arthrex expanded greatly out there. It was never contemplated that Arthrex was going to be
there. So we came in and we gave them a bigger land mass, and we gave them more square
footage, because we didn't have enough square footage set aside for light industrial. So it did
evolve, and we've made changes based upon what's been for -- and I think they've all been positive
changes for the community. I mean, I think Ave Maria is a great community.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The reduced street trees, I don't like that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. We'll -- but anyway. Generally, I'd like to think -- so
hopefully that addresses the concern of some of the Planning Commissioners that have concerns
about the applicability of the deviation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Rich. Do you agree with staff's interpretation
that you can consolidate four-acre parcels into a single site plan and submission now that you've
had the chance to read?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The only thing I learned --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: The only reason I say that is you said you'd drop your request
for Deviation No. 1 if they were correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- it still is important for this piece of property to not have
to worry about those lot lines.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I don't want to totally eliminate it because it is
important for this, and I think the more limited application is a better application.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. And the other question is, do we have to act on this
February 4, 2021
Page 37 of 82
other -- why do we have to make -- we can vote to not approve the deviation, but it sounds like we
can -- why would we apply it to a project that's not even before us?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think you're correct, and as has been said by the County
Attorney numerous times, we can make whatever recommendation we wish. We're not limited by
what the application is. We can -- you know, we can either carve out in this particular case the
project and say that the deviation will apply there but not elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I'm concerned, and I share the County Attorney's concern that
that --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I'm not willing to do that, because I haven't seen
anything on that project other than Mr. Klucik's opinion that it's a good project. So I'm not willing
to vote to waive it on that one project.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I absolutely appreciate that point, which is why I was kind
of hesitant, you know, a little bit about it. My whole idea is that's how I would -- you know, that
was my first feedback. My very first feedback back before I was a planning commissioner to the
developer or, you know, to the -- even to the County Commissioner was that they should -- you
know, no one would -- you know, we would -- our fears would not be there, anyone who has fears
like me, but the concerns people have would disappear if you showed us the project, the project
that this deviation applies to, and then we can say, oh, okay, I can live with that; that's -- there's
no -- there's no reason to not give a deviation, or whatever the reason is, it's overcome by the
upside.
And I certainly understand Attorney Klatzkow's, you know, concern that we're just making
deviations all the time, but I think that's exactly what -- it's more appropriate to make a deviation
when we know what's before us, and then we can say, what is the downside, whatever. And I
would also say that the process -- you know, I agree with you that the process to approve
something like that, I don't think it's fair for all of you to just say, oh, well, Commissioner Klucik
thinks it's cool, so thumbs up. I agree with you. I just -- the reason I'm willing to be supportive
of it is because that's what I've been encouraging or hopeful that the developer would do all along
when they do things in Ave Maria.
MR. KLATZKOW: And if you guys want to see what it's actually going to look like, you
can say, come back and show us exactly the project that you need this deviation for.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's kind of where I'm headed, I think. Thank you.
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, the amendments before us is a basket of amendments.
This deviation applies to this particular project, but there is -- there's self-storage units in here.
There's the hospital use. There's signage, all that stuff. But am I correct that the only thing that
really applies directly to that project, maybe signage a little bit, too, is majorly this deviation?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That's the primary -- the primary -- one of the -- the primary
amendment that applies to this property is the deviation.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But we really are -- we're amending the overall SRA for
Ave Maria through this process.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Process, correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I will just say that we still -- you know, I don't
want -- what I don't want procedurally or due-process-wise, I don't want -- since we still don't have
an answer on the signage, you know, my question that the staff, I'm asking them to get back to us
on, I don't want to mess up the due process for the applicant, because I don't want to vote until I
know the answer to that question.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
February 4, 2021
Page 38 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, just so we know, this project that Mr. Klucik knows
what it is is a gated community and it's an enclave within Ave Maria. So the impacts of this
deviation are very limited and will only be felt, if you will, by the internal residents of that
community.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would say that I learned something at our last
district meeting on Monday, because we were looking at the bonds, you know, issuing the bonds.
It actually is not a gated community, because these are public -- those roads are going to end up
being publicly owned roads, and so there will be controlled access but anyone can actually enter
the property. They just -- there's some certain -- there's a gatehouse.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's true.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it actually is -- the government out there will own the
streets.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. It's controlled access through the gates.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure I understand all the ramifications of that nuanced
difference.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, simply that the public has a right to go there. So the
idea that it's restricted to the people that live there as far as having an interest would not actually be
accurate.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the gatehouse is a visual deterrent at most.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think they can -- yeah. I don't really know how it
works. It's a little strange to me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They can still ask you to present your identification, things like
that --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but they can't stop you, Mr. Fryer, from going through the gate
if you say I want to go through the gate.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's no different than a CDD. All our CDDs
are the same.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The gatehouses look nice. They can slow you down, but
everybody has a right, because -- to enter.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If those roads are built by the CDD.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If those roads are public.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because not all CDDs use --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can stop and validate your insurance, your license
and other type of things prior to entering the community, but it's -- the CDDs are the same
as -- same thing, because they used the public municipal bonds to pay for the infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say is the reason I bring that up, you
know, based on what Mr. Yovanovich said, is that it will be used for walking, biking. You know,
so the appearance, you know, the buffering, you know, the setbacks actually will matter to people
who do use that. You know, the public is free to go in there recreationally.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Yovanovich? And I'm going
to turn it back over to staff to see if they have anything further.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just as curious to see what staff's going to present on the
signs, because there's no pictures of signs in the development order, so...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins, do you want the floor?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. Anita Jenkins, for the record.
February 4, 2021
Page 39 of 82
I just wanted to make a correction. When I reported the height for multifamily at 3.5, that
is in accordance with the LDC. The Ave Maria SRA document allows four stories for multifamily
in neighborhood general. So I just wanted to make sure the record was correct on that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Mr. Sabo, anything further from you, sir?
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, no. Our recommendation is removal of Deviation No. 1 and
recommending approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
To Mr. Klucik's question, I put information or put requests out. I don't have an answer yet
for the signage. So I would just need either additional time -- I don't know how you want to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there may be a motion to table. I mean, that's how we
would --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I would -- I would make the motion to table it until
we get that question answered.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- that will be in order. After we ask for staff to complete
and then public input and then rebuttal, and then the motion to table would be in order.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're welcome to remind me when it's time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll do my best. Mr. Sabo, anything further, sir?
MR. SABO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much.
Mr. Frantz, do we have any registered speakers?
MR. FRANTZ: (Witness shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's -- you're nodding no?
MR. FRANTZ: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any member of the public who is present wish to be
heard on this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we'll ask the applicant to present rebuttal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to -- Mr. Chairman, can I have one minute to look
something up before I say something about signs under the RLSA program? I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly. Do you want a five-minute continuance or, rather,
recess?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. No more than five minutes. I just don't want you to all sit
here and watch me scroll.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're still going to watch you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll be in recess for five minutes until 11:26.
(A brief recess was had from 11:21 a.m. to 11:26 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene. And we'll ask
Mr. Yovanovich and his team to present rebuttal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: On the sign issue, under the county's Land Development Code
standards for -- for the RLSA, it specifically says that in the town core -- and then it incorporates
into the town center the standards that are in the town core. It specifically says we're to follow the
county's sign code.
So all we're asking you is to make us consistent with the Land Development Code to allow
us to use the sign code in the town center, because that's what the RLSA has always intended. So
we're just asking to let us go back to that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you point me to a page? Because I actually have that
document up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't point you to a page, but I can show you.
MR. BELLOWS: Do you want to put it on the visualizer?
February 4, 2021
Page 40 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: Will that work?
MR. BELLOWS: We'll try it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Klucik, under town core, that's what it says regarding
signs.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So this is section -- what is the actual document
we're looking at?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The Land Development Code and the MUNI code, 4.08.07.J.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is LDC; this is not the SRA?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the LDC. And what I'm asking you to do is put us back to
what the LDC -- that is really weird.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I guess my question is more what does -- I'm
assuming that, fine, this is -- you have to meet this, but if the SRA is more restrictive, then you also
have to meet the SRA. So that's really my concern.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm -- and I understand that. What I'm suggesting to you is
when Ave Maria came through, it was the very first town that came through the process. It may
have been close to or near the same time as the LDC. There are -- do you have the pictures,
Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: It's right behind you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how good that picture is. But when you look
through, you can see that the types of signs that they're showing work great in the core.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So this is the SRA?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the SRA. These work great on the core when you're
walking and up down the street, like 5th Avenue, when you have those signs. It doesn't work
when you get to the shopping centers that are also allowed in the town centers and you have
multiple tenants in a building, and they can't get the signage to let people know -- because of the
orientation of these town centers, to let them know who the vendors are in these shopping centers,
and we're just trying to give our tenants sign visibility so we can continue to attract providers in the
town.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So what -- other than this page, which I really can't
see that well, what is the -- can you actually give me the reference? Because I can pull at least that
page up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Page 40, the town plan.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then what is the -- what is the other language that
otherwise -- so it's saying you can do these things, and it gives examples, I'm assuming. But other
than that, what does the SRA actually say?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. These signs.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it says you're allowed to do this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. It doesn't let me go to the -- it doesn't let me go to the --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But what I would say is early on the developer put
up some commercial buildings and, you know, they knew -- you know, they knew they were going
to do that, and I think the whole idea of this -- you know, I mean, I realize now you're asking for a
change. The community now functions fine, and everyone knows where everything is and, you
know, and we can find things, and the expectation is that there's not a lot of signage.
Unfortunately, we have all the street signs on -- you know, on the subdistrict roads that I, you
know, kind of complained about already. We have pollution in that regard, sign pollution. But
there isn't -- you know, it's actually really nice. You can see what's there. You can see, oh, it's a
Mobil station. I mean, everybody knows there's a Mobil station. If you drive by, you see it.
Now, I understand you might have a situation where a building is not fronting the street
and then it would be more difficult for people to understand where that business is.
February 4, 2021
Page 41 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we cannot do -- we can do nothing to help that
businessperson know that their business is in that building because we don't have the appropriate
signage.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say is given -- you know, this is my
impression on this. If right now you're extremely restricted under the SRA, then simply adopting
what applies across the board, you know, to the county, I don't think is the appropriate solution. I
think some in between where you actually factor in the uniqueness of this community is the
appropriate change. And that -- that's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is, whatever the
county standard is applies to Ave Maria. We already heard about Ave Maria being unique.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ave Maria was first.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I assume --
MR. YOVANOVICH: And what -- with -- the one thing about Ave Maria is there's 20
years of lessons learned about tweaks that need to occur for Ave Maria to continue to thrive.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And what I just said is perhaps a tweak is
appropriate but simply adopting the countywide standard for signs I don't think is a tweak. I think
that's saying, oh, it's just like every community. And so what I'm -- you know, my thought is, I
welcome a sign change proposal, you know. I won't -- you know, I would make an amendment to
disapprove this one, you know, that portion of it precisely because I think something other than
simply adopting the county rule would be appropriate.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we respectfully disagree. We think that the county's sign
standards are very strenuous, and if they're good enough for the regular citizens of Collier County
and the restrictive nature, I don't think we're in any way harming the residents of Ave Maria by
applying those same standards. And we would request that you approve that deviation that we
requested, the limitation on the deviation, on the size and, again, with any -- any further questions
you may have...
I do want to point out that this has got to be the first time I've ever been accused of
overstating the amount of traffic, because my engineer came in with a number that staff -- we
worked through and realized that we had overstated the impact, and that was an honest discussion
back and forth, and we hope you'll approve that trip cap as well and every other amendment we're
requesting so we can go to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff has recommended approval of the sign. The only thing
that you've recommended denial of is Deviation 1, correct, Mr. Sabo, which had to do with the
4-acre to 25-acre increase for multifamily?
MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo. Yes, that is correct; however, I think
Mr. Klucik brings up a good point. There is a lot of uniqueness to Ave Maria, and part of their
problem is they don't have the ability to put up signs that -- you know, marquee type signs and gas
station signs and things like that. It may be appropriate for Ave Maria to have slightly different
standards. Maybe not as restrictive as the town core but not as liberal as the remainder of the
community. So Santa Barbara and Davis is different than an intersection in Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, and I think that's a great summary. And I am doing
my best, because I do work with the developer on a lot of things and I will be over the long haul.
And I'm trying to be very fair, and I'm not trying to just say no. I'm trying to suggest that there be
something that's appropriate for the community. I agree. I agree. If there's a business and it's
not, you know, doesn't have frontage, you know, on the street, nobody's going to know where it is.
What's the solution? I think there should be one. I just disagree that it should just be whatever is
allowed elsewhere in the county precisely because there's a reason the SRA has no -- you know,
limits the signs right now. So just saying, oh, whatever the -- whatever the county requirements
are is good enough. It's not that Ave Maria is better. It's that Ave Maria is different. That's all.
February 4, 2021
Page 42 of 82
And it's -- it definitely would be out of character. The signs that would be allowed under the code,
if we just adopted the code, would definitely be out of character and would change the character of
what's already established in Ave Maria.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Signs in the county have been a significant
emotional event for many years; it goes back almost 20 years when the sign code was changed.
We probably have the most restrictive sign code in the nation.
And when Ave Maria came out -- and some of the examples that were shown in the SRA
were examples that were submitted in the SRA because they wanted to exceed the county
standards. County standard does not allow neon lights, or neon -- signs require backlighting and
other type of requirements; height limitations.
So to be concerned -- just to ease your concern, the sign standards within the LDC are
very, very restrictive, and when the SRA was developed, the town wanted to exceed those
standards. That's why they developed the sign standards for the SRA. I don't think you're putting
yourself at risk in regards to complying with the LDC because it is very -- they are very restrictive.
But that's just -- just a little history on signs.
I'm sure, Jeff, you can highlight as well the history of signs in Collier County, and some of
it is probably even long before your time. Yeah, you were still on the county staff then when we --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I'm the guy -- I'm one of the guys who redid the sign code
once upon a time.
You're absolutely right, we have a very restrictive sign code. It's an aesthetics issue so
that -- the Board of County Commissioners wanted certain aesthetics for the community, and we
have our sign code.
So you go up -- I look at Lee County, because I drive a lot there, and I look at their
signage, and I think it's ghastly. And then I drive around Collier County and I look at our signage,
and it's just much nicer.
But, you know, if the people of Ave Maria are looking for something in between -- I mean,
I'm hearing from Mr. Klucik, but that's just one individual. I don't know what the community
wants. You may want to start thinking about some sort of advisory board, by the way, setting up
over there that could -- either an advisory board that's created by the Board of County
Commissioners or just a private advisory board that you can come and say, look, you know, we've
met and this is what the community feels like, because I think the Planning Commission could give
that far more weight with the Board of County Commissioners. How many people live in Ave
Maria now?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, there's 2,800 from what I understand; 2,800 homes
have been sold.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So you've probably got about 5-, 6,000 people there already.
And you might want to think about establishing it, because it's one thing to say that, you know, I
think the community should do this. It's another thing to say that, you know, we've met as
advisory board, that --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say to that specific issue is I don't think
anyone in town has any idea that this is even on the radar to be able to put up the kind of
commercial signs that you would find throughout the county. Nobody even understands that's
what this is before us.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But if you had your own advisory board that met on a regular
basis, these are the issues you can talk about.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Oh, absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: And then come back to the Planning Commission and the Board of
February 4, 2021
Page 43 of 82
County Commissioners: This is what our community wants.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. What I would say is I have a decent read on the
people that communicate with me, which are many, but I certainly am not going to say that
everybody agrees with me.
MR. KLATZKOW: The commissioner's absolutely right. We have a very tight sign
development code. But if you guys want something more, you need to tell the Board that. But
it's just you right now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, and other thing I would point out is that we're going
from something that's unique to Ave Maria to just saying, well, whatever the county comes up with
is good for us. And I think actually we should -- if we're going to change the signage, it should be
a specific signage not it just goes with the flow of whatever the county's going to do. And I
certainly don't discount that the county has -- you know, has done something good in its, you know,
limitations on signage.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there are a number of directions we could go on this. First
I want to ask Mr. Sabo, is staff's recommendation with respect to the signage the same as it was in
the written materials?
MR. SABO: Well -- all right. So can I change my mind?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh.
MR. SABO: All right. Since Mr. Klucik brought this up -- this is a good point -- the
option that you have is to remove that portion of it. They have lived with the signage thus far and
could potentially live with it another six months or whatever it is. That's one option. Or you
could simply approve it. Like Mr. Schmitt said, the sign code we have is very restrictive. That's
an option. So it's really up to you. I think he brings up a good point, I really do, and -- but
ultimately it's a policy decision recommendation on your part.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we understand. Thank you. I just -- I was looking for
something tangible, if you will, concrete example of language that we could -- that we could
embrace.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So, Mr. Chairman, what I would say is because this was
brought up at the information meetings that the developer had, when I asked staff about this
particular issue, they hadn't -- they weren't really that knowledgeable about it as if it wasn't on their
radar screen. And that's maybe because they were saying, oh, we want to adopt the county
standards, and so no one really thought too much about it. But that's all I'll say. And, you know,
I'm not -- certainly not trying to sell you out that you hadn't done your job, but it was foreign that it
was even part of the -- if you look at the staff recommendations, I don't even think it really
mentions the signage as an issue that they really had an opinion one way or the other on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have several options before us. One of them would be
to continue this matter to a date certain soon and ask staff to come back with a recommendation
that recognizes the uniqueness of Ave Maria and put that before us for consideration. Another
would be to take negative action on the request that's before us so that it could go on to the Board
of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm going to go ahead and make that first motion,
that we table this or we continue it to get more feedback on this signage.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're not going to agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll hear -- Commissioner Schmitt, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's look at the deviation, what it's asking for. It's
asking for one specific thing: Location of off-premises directional signs. Typically, it says no
more than 1,000 feet from the building. They're asking for 4,500 feet. So we're not changing in
any way, shape --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's not the one. There's two different sign issues.
February 4, 2021
Page 44 of 82
That's a specific sign issue, and then there's a sign issue for the town center.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The town center is clearly defined in the SRA. And it
probably -- has a greater flexibility than what's allowed in the current code.
MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, I put up the proposed amendment language.
Here at the bottom is signage. The new language is a strikethrough and the underline. So the
town core shall apply, the community general standards shall apply, and then where that doesn't or
where it's limited, they would rely on LDC Section 5.06.04.F., which is the county standards for
signage.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. SABO: So that's what Mr. Klucik is concerned about is the generalness of the
county's sign standards applied to Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So what I really see is that there -- we can ignore
the first two, town core and community general, and just apply the third one, because it's "or." So
there really is no specific sign standards for Ave Maria if we were to adopt this, and I don't think
that's the way to go.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's not the way it reads.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would argue that it does, but I certainly am open to
someone else --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It reads that you have the town core standards and the
community general standards or the LDC, so you've got three different standards.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you only have to comply with one of them. So if you
don't like or can't comply with the first two, you could -- because it's "or," you could comply with
the third.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Change it to "and."
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's kind of where we are now.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Where we are now is exactly that, because you
would still have the more restrictive pieces of the town and community.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to be heard on this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think at this point, I think it's only fair to let the
applicant -- you guys vote however you vote; make your recommendation. We've been in this
process for almost a year. I don't know how many months it's going to take Mr. Sabo to come up
with his newly designed potential sign that he wants to recommend that you guys approve for Ave
Maria.
I'll be honest with you, I'm a little taken aback at the change from the recommendation of
approval to maybe not a recommendation of approval from staff.
So I think it's only fair to have our amendments heard, voted on, and we can move forward
to the Board of County Commissioners with your recommendation on each of these individual --
MR. KLATZKOW: But the Board relies on your recommendation. You can make it,
you can not make it, you can continue it. If you feel the need to continue it to give the Board a
proper recommendation, then do so. If you feel you can make a recommendation to the Board
now, then do so.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo, how long would it take for you to bring something back
to us with respect to this signage question?
MR. SABO: This -- to clarify, for the record, I would not draft sign ordinance language.
I would put that to the applicant to come up with sign standards. They would have, you know,
however much time that they would need to develop standards specific to Ave Maria and then, you
know, whatever our hearing schedule would be.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there any reason why this would drag on longer than, like,
February 4, 2021
Page 45 of 82
between now and the 18th of February?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, you have our standard. We have given you the
standard that the developer would like to see happen, which is to follow the code.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So he's telling me to go back and bring something else to you in
order for you to make a decision. He's not going to come up with -- to anything else. He says
he's not doing anything other than shift it to me to try to figure out what I want the signs to look
like. We know what we want the signs to look like. They're the signs that are in the code.
There's no reason to continue me for me to come back and say, I really meant it when I said we
wanted to refer to the standards that are in the code.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We could -- we could ask for staff to draft sign language, and
particularly in consultation with Commissioner Klucik, that might be acceptable to us, and I think it
could be done in very short order and -- certainly within the next two weeks, and if that's the wish
of the Board, we've got -- we've got a motion. It hasn't been seconded yet.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that something we could review and pass on the consent
agenda if we --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- reviewed it in advance?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you can't. You can't do that, because I have to have some
input on that, on the sign. I mean --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you'd have input during the consent agenda.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't reconsider things on the consent agenda. The consent
agenda is to make sure that staff did what you directed them to do, and all you're directing staff to
do is to come up with something and present back to you for discussion, and you can't -- you can't
do that in the consent agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I would say is that I don't think the community has
any understanding that the -- that we would see different signage at this point based on what has
happened, because it's been undersold and underplayed as we're simply adopting the county
standards, and people -- that doesn't mean anything to anybody.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's my opinion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you -- Commissioner Schmitt, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. No disrespect to the Commissioner representing
the community, but that's one person. I don't -- we had nobody else from the public speak, we had
no concerns. They do have a board out there. And we're sort of recreating on the fly here, and
that -- it's really concerning to me that we have one outspoken commissioner, that we're sort of now
going back to the drawing board. I haven't heard from anybody else, and I -- this was not an issue
until discussed today. I'm just confused by this whole aspect of wanting to rewrite the sign code
which, frankly, when we did the sign code in this county, it took probably well over a year, and we
hired a consultant, we had community meetings, and it was a pretty extensive operation in order to
amend the LDC.
And then all of the nonconforming signs that were out there were noted, the code
enforcement issues. I mean, this is not something that can be done by the seat of the pants. So
I'm just questioning the whole process.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that what you could do is you could take the
existing code that does apply, this 5.06.04.F, and you could see if there's anything that would be
tweaked specific to Ave Maria. What we're saying is that Ave Maria should not have any specific
February 4, 2021
Page 46 of 82
sign standard that's different than anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can say that for the entire county. I mean, I know Ave
Maria's different, but do we want another sign code for each rural village? I mean, this, to me, is
going down a slippery slope.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, in this case, we already have something unique, and
we're saying let's do away with it, but there's really no good reason to do away with it. The
argument is, you know, we have a potential issue down the road with some shop owner, and there
is no current issue. And they're asking to get rid of something without a real grounding for it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So the concern is that where you have visible shopping centers
that have signs that are flush with the face of each storefront, this would introduce the possibility
that they could put a marquee sign out in front of all the shopping centers that shows Publix,
Bealls, so on so forth, and that's your concern; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's my concern. And I certainly don't think [sic] that
some form of that might be appropriate, but there's no -- right now it's whatever is allowed
throughout the county, and I don't even know what that is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just -- because I've got a process concern here. Mr. Sabo's
already said that he has no intention of having staff come back with anything. There is no
community organization --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- that can come up with something. There just isn't. I'm very
uncomfortable with a single person dictating new code that everybody has to live with. So if --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well -- and that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing
that we not approve this change --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. That's different.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and we work with what we've got, and if there -- if there
is, you know, some other way to go forward with it with a modification, then that's fine. But I'm
not proposing a modification. I'm trying to --
MR. KLATZKOW: May I finish?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. Mr. Attorney, I'm going to --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to wind up winning if you keep your mouth shut.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just want to explain that what I'm suggesting is to try to
accommodate a change that I think could be good, and I am agreeing with the applicant that maybe
a change is good. And so I'm trying to actually be very accommodating and open to the idea that
maybe we should change this. And what I'm saying is, you know, let's not go all the way to the
end. Let's go somewhere in the middle. And I apologize, I -- you know --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no middle to go to, because staff is not going to come up
with anything, all right. So if there's no middle to come up with from the signage standpoint, no
other issue, there's no point in continuing this.
It's not like we're going to have public hearings and hear from the people of Ave Maria as
to what kind of signage code you have. So the issue then comes down to, do we keep the
requirements as they are today, which is the SRA, or do we do away with the SRA requirements
and, oh, by the way, once you do that, those other towns are going to ask for "me too, me too," all
right. This is just not going to be limited to Ave Maria. I've seen this game work before.
So the questions are, are you going to get rid of the SRA requirements, or are you going to
keep them?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would --
February 4, 2021
Page 47 of 82
MR. KLATZKOW: And it's a yes/no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say if we say no, if we say we're not going to
get rid of them, then I think that, you know, the applicant is likely to come back with something
that, you know, maybe is in between. You know, and they can say they're not going to, they
refuse, they have it -- you know, I get that. That's their right to assert that they want all or nothing,
but at the same time, I think, you know -- and I also think couldn't we direct staff to come up with a
proposal to change this, to modify it?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We could, but as a practical matter -- and I'm trying to evolve here
as this develops. I'm sensitive to the right, if you will, of the applicant to get this resolved and for
it to get onto the Board of County Commissioners.
We have options in place where we can express our point of view with respect to the sign
issue and with respect to the acreage issue, Deviation 1. We could vote to approve the application
but deny those two pieces of it. And stating our reasons cogently, we would send it on to the
Board of County Commissioners. And if at that point, if there's a large assemblage of members of
Ave Maria or spokespeople who have been delegated the responsibility of speaking for a larger
group, they can appear before the Board of County Commissioners and make that case. So that's
my -- go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to clarify one thing. We are not trying to avoid the
Land Development Code RLSA sign requirements. You're not opening up Pandora's box. We're
saying we want to meet the Collier County established Land Development Code sign requirements
for SRAs. We want to meet the code. That's what we're asking for. We're not asking for an
exemption from the LDC. We are not -- so don't -- we're not opening a Pandora's -- we're not
asking for an exception. We want to meet the code. And I want to --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I want to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: One more thing.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Yovanovich --
MR. YOVANOVICH: My NIM, my NIM for this project was in August of 2019.
August of 2019 we had a follow-up voluntary -- 2019, sorry -- 2020, 2020.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Twenty.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wrong year. COVID's got me off by a year.
So from August until now, we haven't heard a peep from the residents of Ave Maria saying
we have a problem with these signs. We had a follow-up voluntary NIM; didn't hear a peep.
I respect Mr. Klucik's opinion. I'm not saying he doesn't have a very strong opinion, and
he's expressed them many times in the past. I'm fine with that. But we haven't heard from the
residents of Ave Maria saying we are opposed to what was requested. I don't know that
Mr. Klucik's read the sign code yet himself to know whether or not he has an objection to what the
county code is. But we haven't heard from the residents of Ave Maria opposing this sign -- our
request to be using the county code.
So I want to just put that in context, and I would hope that we can move forward with a
recommendation of approval of the modifications that we've requested and, obviously,
you'll -- somebody will make a motion, and we'll figure out what the will of the Board -- or the
Planning Commission is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have a motion before us, and --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to respond to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what I would say is, right now -- and you can answer
me if -- would you be able to put up a marquee type sign now? Would the applicant be able
to -- or in Ave Maria, in the area like, for instance, in front of a -- not in the town core but in the
town center.
February 4, 2021
Page 48 of 82
MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean a directory sign that lists the names of the tenants?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yeah. Like a lighted sign that has the
colored -- well, the colored plastic signs, that, you know -- or colored glass signs that are in front of
shopping centers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that there -- I don't know that the colored glass
signs --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the point of it is that you're asking that you would be
able to do that, and I get that, and I'm not opposed to some form of that.
What I'm saying is that I think it should be unique to the community that is unique, that has
also been sold to us as unique. And all I'm saying now is is you're right, the people have not
spoken because they have no idea -- they have no comprehension of what this proposal is because,
as I said, it was not really discussed that much and, as I said, the staff didn't even realize it was
something to really weigh in that much on about, because when I asked them specific questions,
they -- it was as if, what? That's not part of the -- you know, what are you talking about?
Okay. Now, I knew it was part of it because I had gone to the meetings. And so, you
know, to your credit, you never -- it's not that you didn't talk about it. It's that it didn't seem like it
was an issue, and if you recall, I thought you were suggesting that we were going to have signage
initially because of the way it was worded; it was incorrectly worded on your material that you
presented, and it was in -- where people would live. You wanted signs. That's how it was
worded, and it had to -- you know, you had to go on record and correct that, that that was not what
you were proposing. So there was some confusion here.
And I also will say, I'm an elected representative in that community. I was recommended
for appointment to this position because Commissioner McDaniel, who's also representing of
people of Ave Maria, thought that I had my finger on the pulse of the community. I am not saying
that everyone feels the way I do, but I certainly will tell you that I don't -- you know, I don't think
I'm off in being concerned about this.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for the Chair. What stage are we in? Are we in
deliberation here, or are we still in rebuttal? Are we in deliberation?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is still rebuttal. We have not moved to deliberation.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: We shouldn't be having motions made then.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no. You asked for the opinion of -- the input from
the staff, and I don't think we are in rebuttal.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry, of the community.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, how about can you put the motion up if we haven't gone
through the --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we haven't had a second, first of all, and I haven't heard
Mr. Yovanovich, basically, rest. So as far as I'm concerned, we're still in rebuttal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm only responding to comments that are occurring with regard to
questions.
And, you know, if you're going to stop asking staff questions and you're going to not -- I
just only request that I be given an opportunity to respond to staff comments that I may believe are
not totally accurate.
I'm done with my presentation. And I'm perfectly fine with resting and having you-all go
to a motion to deliberate, but I only ask is if you bring staff up and ask them questions, that I be
provided the same courtesy.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fair enough.
February 4, 2021
Page 49 of 82
Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, are you -- in this signage section, are you really trying to
address the situation where a non-street-facing business does not have adequate signage?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are trying to make sure that businesses that want to come to
Ave Maria stand a fighting chance of being successful. That's why we're making these changes
just to the town center. We're not doing anything in neighborhood general. It's just the business
districts, if you will, within Ave Maria. So we're not -- we're not making up a problem. We're
addressing a problem to bring businesses to Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I get it, but Robb's -- and I have to say, if they have flush signs
and this would open up the possibility that every commercial development, whether it faces a
collector road or an arterial, you could put up a marquee sign with all the businesses listed, and
that's against the vision of Ave Maria, and then I see that as a valid concern.
So that's simply -- my question is: Are we -- do we need to invoke the entire LDC when
we have an SRA signage, or are you really looking to address a specific situation that we could do
in a more limited fashion?
MR. ARNOLD: This is Wayne Arnold. If I might address that questions, please.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
MR. ARNOLD: The signage in the town core right now -- and I don't want to -- I need to
correct you. A marquee sign is not a multi-tenant sign.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. ARNOLD: That would be a directory sign --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: -- in the county's nomenclature. A marquee sign is specifically allowed
here, and it allows it to be attached to a theater to indicate the shows that are being played. That's
the limitation in the town core.
What it doesn't allow is a multi-tenant facility, if you go to a medical appointment, it
doesn't allow you have to directory sign where you can have multiple doctors' names listed on it.
It doesn't allow you to have a gas station sign. It doesn't make any provisions for those things.
And we have a -- we have other things outside the town core. But as your LDC even says,
it says, you go to the town core, if you're in any of the other context zones, but then at town core, if
you read the section that Rich put on the visualizer, it says per signage for the LDC.
So every other town that's out there, if they didn't come and ask for a specific standard,
they would defer back to the LDC, which I think we all agree is a fairly significant standard. But
here, just one example, Mr. Fry, was a directory sign that's not permitted.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it would -- even with this change it would not be permitted.
MR. ARNOLD: It would not with the change, yes.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I will ask, it says, signage within Town Center 1.
Town Center 1, is that where the Mobil station is, or what is Town Center 1? What -- I'm trying to
make sure that I know --
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Klucik, they all allow the same. Town Centers 1, 2, and 3 all refer
you back to town core.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But this particular deviation -- or change, excuse
me, is limited, is that correct, to Town Center 1? I mean, that's what I'm reading.
MR. ARNOLD: That's not my language. That is not the proposed change.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So then I'm not even looking at what
we're -- the commissioners aren't even looking at the language, so I have a problem with that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in your resolution.
MR. ARNOLD: It should be in your resolution if you're looking at that, Mr. Klucik.
February 4, 2021
Page 50 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And I'd like someone, if we could, have staff put
that up for us.
MR. SABO: The resolution is in front of you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That is the resolution, all right. So the resolution limits
these -- this change to Town Center 1, and I'm asking for someone to clarify, because there's more
than one town center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What you're not seeing, Mr. Klucik, is they didn't share with you
the language in Town Center 2 and 3. That says signage within Town Centers 2 and 3 shall
comply with the town core. So you have one page. You don't have the next page on there to
show you that it applies to all three town centers.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So -- okay. Well, can I see that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If it's town core -- I realize you could have
misspoken -- then if it refers to town core, then for 2 and 3 this new thing wouldn't apply.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The way it works is the town core is where you identify the
types of signs you're allowed to have. Then you go to Town Centers 2, 3 -- 1, 2, and 3, and it says,
refer back to town core for the types of signs you're allowed to have in Town Centers 1, 2, and 3.
What we've added to our language is the ability to do the town core signs that are in our
SRA document, or the LDC signs.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I'm saying is as written there that would be limited
to Town Center 1 unless -- unless the Town Center 2 standard says whatever applies for Town
Center 1 also applies to Town Center 2. What is it that you'd like me to look at?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the resolution that talks about the revisions we're making to
Town Center 2, which is the very same language.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Ah. So it's on a different page?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can keep that, but I need it back.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's very helpful. That's not the resolution you have?
MR. SABO: That is not the resolution that I have.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's the resolution that I printed from your website.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you have it up on yours?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, do you need --
MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't we take lunch, and we can figure out exactly what we're
talking about during the break.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what we'll do. Would anyone object if we came back a
little --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you want a full hour?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's 12:09.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So does Terri.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll stand in recess until 1:10, an hour and one minute.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:09 p.m. to 1:10 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please.
When last we were together, I believe the applicant had rested with the request that if we
then end public comment and call staff back, that we would give the applicant a chance to rebut.
So without objection, we will do that, but first Mr. Sabo has a clarification.
MR. SABO: Correct. James Sabo, for the county.
February 4, 2021
Page 51 of 82
Just to clarify, my recommendation to the Planning Commission has not changed. My
recommendation is approval with the removal of Deviation 1.
What I wanted to clarify is the information that Mr. Klucik brought up is information that
you could consider, but it is up to you. It's up to you to consider the information he brought up
regarding signage, so -- but my recommendation stands as presented.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that clarification, sir.
Commissioner Klucik.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I would basically withdraw my motion and replace
it with a motion to pass it in accordance with the staff's recommendation but without the
sign -- with the sign piece dropped that we discussed in detail for the commercial signs in Town
Center 1.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the motion would be that we accept staff's
recommendation on Deviation 1 but then add that we're going to keep the SRA signage.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sign for activity center the same.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a procedural --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to have lots of discussion, but we're going to put a --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But a procedural thing. Can you just make a motion before
you get to deliberation?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Any time you want?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just, procedurally, I'm trying to understand this.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. We will -- we will have lots of discussion on this, and we're
going to begin our discussion with a motion and possibly a second, but we're not going to end
deliberation or discussion until everybody has had everything to say that they wish.
County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ray, have we any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any registered. I'll check with online. No, no online.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to close the public portion?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to do that, yes. We will close the public portion on
the -- with the condition that if for some reason we asked staff to come back, we'll give the
applicant a chance to also rebut. But I'd hope that we can get through this without having to
reopen.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I thought we were already
at that point. So, obviously, without hearing from the public, my motion would have been
premature, and that certainly was not my intent because I thought we had already asked the public
for comment.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We did.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We did.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You were right, we did.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's moved and seconded, and we will now have a full and
complete discussion.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll kick it off.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do.
COMMISSIONER FRY: The reason I seconded the motion is I believe that -- I look at
February 4, 2021
Page 52 of 82
the justification to approve deviations to be that there is a demonstrated benefit to the deviation and
a significant benefit to it. We've established that the applicant is able to design all the same
similar communities with very, very minor differences with the four-acre limitation on multifamily
homes in place, so that's why I do support denying that deviation.
And to the signage, a similar viewpoint, I guess a similar framework in looking at it. My
concern with opening it up is that I think we have established, through testimony, that
including -- expanding it to include the LDC, while the LDC may be considered, quote, restrictive,
we have identified at least one area where it's less restrictive which would allow the addition of
directory signs to any commercial shopping center in Ave Maria, and that's not a -- that is an
expansion of the signage rules. And I get the impression that the people in Ave Maria maybe like
the flush mounted signs. And the client -- the applicant did present, I thought, a very reasonable
request, which you as well, Mr. Klucik, thought was reasonable, which is how do we let people
know that that those off-street businesses are there? So I do believe that an exception of some
kind would be justified there, but I do not believe that opening the entire less restrictive LDC, we
have enough information -- or I have enough information to support that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm really not clear on the motion regarding signs.
What was that meaning we will stay with the staff recommendation?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. The staff recommendation with the one change is
that, as to the addition or the change to adopt the LDC signage standard for Town Center 1 is -- we
approve it without that, without any change to the signage. We would -- we're approving the sign
that's off property, but we're not approving the internal signage standards change. That's what my
motion is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, I'm going back to the -- I'm looking at the
resolution. So how would that resolution read, so I'm clear?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. I'm sorry. I'll have to call it up. What page is
the resolution on?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's see. That section was -- James, you --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: 9A1C, attachment to your resolution, 100620?
MR. SABO: Page 75 and Page 96.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's not what I'm seeing here.
MR. SABO: Page 75. Page 96.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. Well, I'm opening up the agenda with all of the
information attached, and I'm trying to find a page number there. That's what I have.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Seventy-five and 96 of what packet that --
MR. SABO: The proposed resolution.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mine, I'm at Page 28 of 2, 448. But it says,
signage within Town Center 1 shall comply with town core standards, strike through the "and."
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Strike that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So community general standards or LDC. So you're
recommending that that -- basically the section that says LDC Section 5.06.04.F come out?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I believe the language that is currently in there is
the part that is not underscored, and so my amendment is removing the portion that is underscored,
which says "or LDC Section 5.06.04.F."
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in that regard, there's no change in the signage criteria
for Ave Maria other than the deviation for the off-premise sign?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
February 4, 2021
Page 53 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, of course, minus the 25, the increase to 25 acres.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's Deviation 1.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's Deviation 1.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the issue here is -- and I have to agree
with -- we've had two public hearings -- or two public meetings, none of which this was an issue,
and all of a sudden now it's an issue because, of course, you raised it as an issue. And as far as
with regards to the applicant, the purpose of this was to allow for businesses that don't front a
frontage street. So now we're basically saying they will not be able to put up any kind of --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Directory.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- directory sign or other type of sign. Even if they put
the hospital in or another type of facility, directional signs or multi signs for hospitals, doctors'
office locations, all those kinds of things, none of that can be done now.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, without them submitting something that -- for
instance, I would support -- well, not us. We make a recommendation, but that the commissioners
would support. I think that's the appropriate way to do it is to not -- to not bite this off now this
way. I don't think that that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So based on your recommendation, if the hospital goes in,
they're prohibited from putting any type of internal signage?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, they would be if they didn't ask for a deviation, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. So if we wanted to put any kind of directional
signs within, let's say, the interior portion of the hospital property for location to the emergency
room or doctors' offices or other type of things, in order to do that, they would have to come and
amend the SRA again.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't think that's the case, because right now we have so
many directional signs in town; then we must be breaking the code all over the place. So
that -- you know, certainly in Ave Maria there are a lot of directional signs that tell you how to get
to the doctor's office and how to get to the town center and how to get to the school and the
university.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I don't know, because I don't know if that is
basically part of the sign -- sign ordinance, and I don't have that in front of me.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
There, I believe, was an investigation of some of those signs, and a lot of those signs were
not permitted through the county.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that leaves -- it leaves a situation for the applicant
then. In order to put any type of signage, they would have to make that clear back to the residents
and come back in with another amendment.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And I think that you would get support from the
community, and I'm certainly -- I haven't represented that there's widespread disagreement with
that. What I've -- what I'm saying is I would -- if you went and polled the people in town, they
would have no idea that that's actually on the table.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Despite the fact that we've had two public meetings and --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I told you that when they couched it in the first
meeting, they actually had it -- actually, in the second meeting, I had to correct what they were
saying they were proposing in the second meeting. They actually -- so in both meetings they
actually had slides that said they were proposing that in the residential areas they could have
February 4, 2021
Page 54 of 82
commercial signs. Because it was a typo. I agree it was a typo.
Let me finish. So when I went into the meeting and when people went into the meeting,
we were concerned about that. And then the response was, oh, no, no, no, that's just in the town
center, in the commercial areas. And then because people were relieved that the big issue of
having those signs in residential areas, you know, was no longer an issue, there was not really a
discussion or an understanding of what the proposed change really was. And I'm quite confident
that there's a lack of knowledge that that's what this proposal is actually proposing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I agree. I'm just one guy, but I'm actually not just one
guy. I'm a guy that actually does have my finger on the pulse of the community.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I can't support the recommendation to eliminate this
request. I think that the LDC standards are very restrictive and certainly would not be abusive
or -- in any way to the Town of Ave Maria. In fact, I believe that the standards that are now
allowed within Ave Maria, frankly, exceed the LDC standards. So as proposed, I cannot support
the petition.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would support it -- the limit of the acreage, even though
I think it's sort of onerous. But the applicant's going to be able to do what they could even without
the limitation. So I would agree with the staff recommendation on that. But for the signage, I
think it ought to stay with the staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I was just thinking about your question, Joe, and not having the
background you do, if I simply see a reference to an LDC section and I'm in Ave Maria, even
sitting here, I would not know the full ramifications of that. So I'm thankful that that came up
today, because it would not have been included in the application had it not in some way expanded
what they could do sign-wise. And I -- my personal concern is not understanding exactly what the
ramifications are and knowing that there already is a sign ordinance or rules in place in Ave Maria
under the SRA, are we opening Pandora's box to some unintended consequences like directory
signs where they may not be desired. That was a concrete example, you know, throughout Ave
Maria. And I guess I feel, by having it on the record, if the applicant chooses to approach it or go
forward with the County Commission and have them vote differently, at least the issue is on the
table. So that is why I seconded the motion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Shea?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I support Joe's position. I support voting approval on the
staff's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there -- yeah, Vice Chair.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I will support Joe's view on the signage, too, because I sat
here through all the Land Development Code amendments, and it was very lengthy and very
thorough, and I don't see any reason for it not to apply here. There's no reason, because maybe
then your -- the Ave Maria has code violations.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, there probably are issues out there that are code
violations.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, we also have the ability to now -- if we do approve what
Joe's suggesting, to see if the public really is against it, and you have to get -- and get to the
commissioners' level as well, if you really have some good public views against the approval.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Chair would entertain a motion to amend the main motion if
someone wishes to make it.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we hear from Karen?
February 4, 2021
Page 55 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We did.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was me talking.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was, thank you, Karen, for
weighing in. I meant the Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have a motion and a second. Do we have to call the
question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, we can -- there could be a move -- a motion to amend the
main motion to express --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I make a motion to amend -- to approve as staff
proposed. I still believe that the 25 acres is certainly not -- would create a problem in any way,
shape, or form. But it's clear from the staff's position that the -- that the current design can
proceed with the four acres. So it does not create an undue hardship other than it does create
somewhat of an engineering and technical problem for the applicant, but it looks like it's easy
enough to get through it. So I would make a recommendation to support -- to amend and support
the staff recommendation as proposed that is denying the recommendation for the 25 acres but
keeping the sign language as stated --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and as proposed in the current recommendation from
staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I'd second that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's been moved and seconded to amend the main
motion by reverting to the proposal that staff has brought forward which is to deny Deviation 1 but
in all other respects to approve.
Is there any further discussion on the motion to amend?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not -- and this is just a -- this is a vote on the motion to amend,
not the main motion. All those in favor of amending the main motion, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It passes 4-2. Did I count that correctly? All right. So
now we have a main motion that is identical to staff's recommendation that we approve this but
with the exception of Deviation No. 1. Any other discussion on the main motion as amended?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll simply say that I'm going to vote no just because
of -- you know, I want the amendment that was amended out in, and that's the basis for my
objection.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I just --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would encourage that we go back to Ave Maria and get
their input prior to the Board of County Commissioners so that there's clarity so that the folks in
Ave Maria have a clear understanding of the -- both the pros and cons and, frankly, any second and
third order impacts this may have. My biggest concern is lack of directional signs and the inability
to do internal directional signs that they would now be allowed to do under the LDC.
February 4, 2021
Page 56 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say just to my neighbors, so that's -- you
know, if you feel strongly about this, then, you know, you've now been told that that would be the
way to -- you know, you have to make yourselves known, your voices heard. I certainly am not
going to, you know, run and act like this is a burning issue. I made my point, and I do think that
it's -- you know, it's -- something in between would be better than just adopting the -- you know,
the county's code, but obviously that, you know, hasn't persuaded this panel. But I just -- you
know, if people in town do feel strongly that they don't want to have commercial signs, then they
need to speak up between now and the commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. You didn't?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, he did.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
COMMISSIONER FRY: No. I just applaud what you said, Joe. I think we're doing our
job here. We're putting the issues on the table. In my opinion, yeah, maybe some analysis
between now and the County Commission meeting it would be helpful to know exactly what
ramifications there are from having the LDC sign ordinance brought in. You know, does it
actually create a problem or does it not? I feel similar on the four-acres to 25-acre discussion. It's
very possible that that really has no real negative ramifications on the intent, but I don't feel I have
enough now to say for sure that it doesn't, and that's why I voted to maintain the four-acre
limitation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then we have an amended main motion in front of us, which is to
accept the recommendation of staff, which was to recommend approval of the application with the
exception of Deviation 1, which we disapprove of.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those if favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 4-2. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chairman, just to clarify, the vote was to forward the
approval of the staff as proposed, which was denying recommendation -- deny the --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Deviation 1.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- deviation.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know that's what you meant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. The amendment -- the amendment reverted it back to
the --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would just like to say to my colleagues I really do
appreciate that you thought my contribution was helpful to understand Ave Maria better.
Obviously, the developer understands Ave Maria very well, too. And, you know, it's -- I was -- I
February 4, 2021
Page 57 of 82
enjoyed having the chance, you know, to weigh in, and I'm very proud of the community, and I'm
sure it will continue to be a great place regardless, you know, of how this ends up panning out.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you very much. And for my part, I'll simply say that
your contribution was very, very well received and appropriate, and we thank you, and Ave Maria's
lucky to have you out here carrying the flag.
All right. Anything else on this before we go on to the next one?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***The next one is a companion item. It is 9A2 and 9A3. And
these are -- these are, respectively, PL20200001448 and PL20200002056. They are City Gate
Commerce Park. It's a PUDA and a DOA, a development order amendment.
Without objection, we'll do as we usually do on these companions and we'll discuss them
together but vote on them separately.
And we will first ask all those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise and be sworn in
by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures beginning with Mr. Eastman,
please, sir.
MR. EASTMAN: None.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials and conversation with the engineering team for
the applicant.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. In my case, materials from an exhibit -- and
communications with staff and applicant's agents as well as a site visit.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I had a conference with Ms. Harrelson and her team,
because I can't remember who was there except for Josh.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Likewise, I had a conversation with Jessica and her team
regarding the petition.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Ms. Harrelson, you may proceed.
MS. HARRELSON: Good afternoon. Jessica Harrelson, certified planner with Davidson
Engineering here representing the applicants in the City Gate Commerce Park PUDA and DOA.
Here with me today is Josh Fruth, vice president of Davidson Engineering; Roger Rice,
representative for City Gate; Sean Callahan, representing Collier County; and Norm Trebilcock,
the traffic consultant.
We have a PowerPoint presentation prepared that Josh and I will run through and then
answer any questions that you have.
City Gate Commerce Park is depicted by the red dashed line that you see in this aerial here.
It is located in the northeast quadrant of the I-75 and Collier Boulevard intersection lying east of
Collier Boulevard. City Gate is an existing PUD and development order originally approved in
1988 and permits a variety of office, commercial, and industrial land uses.
Requested updates include the addition of medical office, 10,000 square feet, for essential
service personnel only to the sports complex extension that's located here in this hatched area. It's
128 acres. And pursuant to the addition of medical office, the two-way p.m. peak-hour trips have
been updated for the sports complex extension to a total of 345. This results in a total of 6,344
two-way p.m. peak-hour trips for City Gate overall.
Essential services are defined as those services and facilities including utilities, safety
services, and other government services necessary to promote and protect public health, safety, and
welfare, including but not limited to police, fire, emergency medical, public park, public library
February 4, 2021
Page 58 of 82
facilities, and all other services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas, telephone,
electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by providers that have been
approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate jurisdiction in government facilities.
Deviation No. 6 is an existing deviation within the PUD relating to directional signs
internal to the PUD. This deviation has been updated to increase the number of signs, the sign
area, and height. Again, these signs are internal to the PUD and are necessary for way finding.
Approval of this deviation has no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Existing Deviations 13, 15, 16 and 17 relating to grass parking for the sports complex
project has been updated to also include lots abutting the sports complex project that provide
overflow parking for the sports complex project.
The number of permitted caretaker units has been updated from seven to total of 10.
These are permitted east of the FPL easement. The reason for the increase is to address the needs
of large landowners within City Gate and also due to the requested decrease in minimum lot size
east of the FPL easement.
A deviation has been added to allow the South County Regional Water -- Water Treatment
Plant's directional sign to be located off site within Lot 11 of City Gate. This will allow the sign to
be placed on the exterior side of the fence and be visible to the public.
A deviation has been added to request a reduction in the number of required parking spaces
for a proposed warehouse facility that is planned west of the sports complex project known as
Uline. This will allow the facility to meet actual parking demands and allow more open space to
be provided on site. And as you may know, Uline and the Board entered into a contribution
agreement in October of 2020.
As I mentioned previously, the minimum parcel size for the lots east of the FPL easement
have been reduced from one acre to a quarter acre. Parcel width is being reduced from 150 feet to
50 feet. Lots that are one acre or greater will have a side yard requirement of 25 feet, and lots less
than an acre will have a side yard requirement of seven-and-a-half feet.
City Gate has a required yard plan which requires that native vegetation be retained in the
required yards for each lot or unified development. Language has been added to allow these lots
surrounding the lake and recreational tract known as the Tract RL campus to have the option to
provide required native vegetation within different lots located within the PUD. This will allow
for larger pockets of native vegetation to be provided.
The maximum zoned height for the sports complex project has been updated from 75 feet
to 90 feet and the actual height from 85 feet to 100 feet. This applies to lots west of the sports
complex project, east of the FPL easement, and south of City Gate Boulevard north, that includes
uses that are compatible and complementary to the sports complex project. The purpose of the
increase is to address the height needed for a tower element of a proposed resort that may be
located adjacent to the sports complex project, and the star is the location of the potential resort
location.
The master development plan has been updated to reflect the changes that I have gone
over, to update the current lot configuration, and to also show the relocation of City Gate
Boulevard south.
A neighborhood information meeting was held at the sports complex project on
December 17th. There were no objections from the public related to the updates being requested
with this amendment.
And now Josh Fruth will come up and finish.
MR. FRUTH: Hello, Commissioners. For the record, Josh Fruth, vice president,
Davidson Engineering.
A little history on City Gate. You guys have seen us quite often, but there are some new
board members, so we wanted to go through a few items. City Gate, as Jessica mentioned, was
February 4, 2021
Page 59 of 82
originally approved zoning in 1988, which predates the adoption of the Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan from Collier County in 1989.
In 2016, the Board of Commissioners started their site selection for what is now knowns as
the Paradise Coast Sports Complex. The original rezone came before this Planning Commission
in 2017 to update the PUD ordinance.
Preliminary site design also started in 2017, and in 2018 we had additional rezone updates
that came before the Board at the same time we started construction on Phase 1 of the sports
complex.
Last year we had some updates related to the overall PUD, and Phase 1 completion is
pushing towards -- was pushing towards the end, and today's application is -- that Jessica just
covered now.
The importance of the '88 application is the establishment of the zoning -- commercial and
industrial zoning for the MPUD. That PUD document was approved as 88-93 in 1988, as I
mentioned.
So part of the history, going towards the sports complex and the property in the overall
PUD, as you see on the screen here is some -- a little bit of history with the newspaper articles.
But the Board of County Commissioners, as I mentioned, in 2016 started the site selection.
On the right-hand side of your screen, in May of 2016, Commissioner Saunders had a town
hall to address what, at the time, the Hunden Strategic Partners had identified as 28 probable sites
for the sports complex for Collier County. That was whittled down to a handful and then again
reduced. Some of these sites are shown on the screen between North Collier Regional Park, the
Golden Gate Golf Course at the time, which the county did not own, East Naples, and Manatee
Park. Eventually reduced down to three sites: City Gate, the already owned county 305 parcel,
which is between City Gate and the landfill, and the Magnolia Pond site, which is across the street
from City Gate.
So as we roll through to 2017, the purchase and sale agreement between City Gate and
Collier County, and development happens, and we start pushing forward. The point of the site
selection is that we recently received a noise complaint unrelated to these applications, so on behalf
of Collier County, I'd like to address those, because we do want to be a good neighbor.
In 2016, part of those -- that site selection was listening to the neighbors and, as I
mentioned, the North Collier Regional Park was on the list, but that park, as you will see soon,
here, the proximity to the residential zoning was much closer than this site, and this site gave the
county a little bit more flexibility with the acreage of the 305 acres that the county already owned.
As you see on your screen here, we had originally placed a 3,000-seat stadium near the
right-of-way to the north, which would be close to the residential -- residentially zoned district.
We listened to the public. We shifted things around. In 2018, as the county moved forward and
into '19 and clearing, the design team, Collier County and the Board of Commissioners said, you
know, we're going to move forward with the City Gate property as noted.
We shifted, which you'll see here. This is an aerial of May. The four fields in Phase 1
were completed. The stadium construction continues, but we shifted that away from the
residentially zoned district for a reason, because we were listening to the public moving forward.
Here we are today. You can see the development in the foreground here. This is the
stadium, which will be plus or minus, hopefully, opening up here within a month-and-a-half.
And the importance here is that, again, remember, zoning was established for the City Gate
PUD in 1988. The noise complaint is coming from the parcel that is starred on your screen. This
is an aerial from 1993. The property is undeveloped.
In 2002, the property is now developed. The residential property was developed actually
in 2000. And on the screen here you can see the distances to the residentially zoned district to the
property line of the sports complex, which is within the PUD.
February 4, 2021
Page 60 of 82
The property in question is roughly 745 feet from the property, another 14 -- or total of
about 1,400 feet from what is now the food truck and bar pavilion area.
And as you guys probably know, the Collier County noise ordinance exempts parks from
being required to follow the overall noise decibels and items related to complaints; however, as I
mentioned, we want to be a good neighbor, so the property, which is industrial zoned, as you guys
know, is permitted to be up to 87 decibels. And so we started doing some sound testing. And for
point of reference, normal speaking volume is roughly 60 decibels; thunder is 120 decibels; your
refrigerator's 50; vacuum cleaner is 60 to 85; alarm clock, 65 to 80; chainsaw, 125; lawnmower and
rifle, handgun, shotgun, between 163 and 170 decibels.
So those sound readings are shown on the screen here. You have the yellow, red, green,
and blue. Again, we took the readings from the right-of-way, not from the actual property lines.
So we were a little bit away from the property closer to the residential. And the highest reading
we had was at 10:30 in the morning, and this is important to understand, that these readings
followed and started the day before the neighborhood information meeting. And the reason we
started this is because this complex was built mainly -- and one of the big events was the football
university, and that event takes place every Christmas -- every week before Christmas.
So we started on December 16th, had these readings through December 22nd. On
December 18th at 10:30 in the morning in yellow, which is the food truck bar area, there was a DJ
doing announcements of teams. That reading was at 88 decibels. However, the exact same time,
if you move to the red or blue or screen area, which is closer to the residentially zoned district,
those readings dropped to 52 to 55 decibels, which, as I mentioned, normal speaking volume is
60 decibels.
So the importance of this is, again, I've highlighted here the rifle, handgun, shotgun,
between 163 and 170 decibels.
As I mentioned, we had the reading at 10:30 at 88. The property in question, which is
starred on the screen, is a football throw's away from an active outdoor gun range, which is much
closer in proximity than the distances we've shown on the screen.
Also, for reference, North Collier Regional Park. The -- some of the fields as shown on
the screen to the right are just a little over 300 feet away from the residentially zoned district as
opposed to what the Paradise Coast complex is, 700 plus 230 rough [sic] or minus feet.
So with that, I will open it up for questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to go back, go back to -- and, Jessica, you
and I discussed this. And staff may be able to address this as well.
Please go back to the slide regarding essential services personnel, and let's talk about the
medical facility. Because my concern is -- I have no issue with the medical facility, but my issue
is, I believe this was a misrepresentation.
So who is building the medical facility?
MR. FRUTH: The medical facility was added -- again, Josh Fruth with Davidson -- was
added at the request of Collier County. There is 10,000 square feet of general office on the sports
complex extension already. The request was to -- for the medical office for -- as defined here for
the essential service governmental facilities. Since Collier County -- again, this is a request to get
it in there. This does not mean it's going to happen, but it is a request to give Collier County the
flexibility and option to have a medical office building since they are a self-insured company.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Okay. I have no issue with that, but it says for
essential services personnel. Who -- in our discussion on the phone yesterday, you classified -- or,
Jessica, you classified essential services personnel is, essentially, everybody that works for the
county. I think that's a very broad expansion of the term "essential services personnel."
My issue is, in the staff report and as publicly advertised, why not just have stated that it
February 4, 2021
Page 61 of 82
was a medical office facility to service government county employees? I disagree with classifying
essential services personnel. Everywhere else we talk about essential services personnel when we
talk about affordable housing, when we talk about availability of housing, essential services
personnel were typically, as classified, firemen, EMS, teachers, medical services, staff, and other
related fields.
This is, essentially, now for all county employees. I don't have an issue with that. But
why didn't we just state that and say it was for county employees? Why are we using the term
"essential services personnel" to classify -- to cover all government employees?
MR. FRUTH: Well --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And whose idea was that? Because I believe this was a
misrepresentation.
MR. FRUTH: I understand what you're stating, Commissioner. I think working with
staff and our client, which is the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager's
Office, we believe that those that we are representing would be the ones that would be using this
facility if the county did, you know, decide to move forward with a facility of this nature.
With that said, in coordinating with county staff at Growth Management, I think that, quite
honestly, we didn't even think twice about it because of the way this definition on the screen reads
today. Governmental facilities was our intent. It was the intent for those that are employed by
Collier County to use the facility. So it was not anybody's ill will to steer it in the wrong direction.
It was just, we agreed upon it and we moved on.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, again, to me it's a misrepresentation of
what's being asked for because -- is Mr. Bellows now deemed essential under this? Ray, no
disrespect, but you're now essential.
MR. FRUTH: Well, given the state of pandemic, you know, I think everybody's essential
in the county, right?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Given the way this is described, Jeff, are you essential,
too?
MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just have a real problem with the fact
that -- why not just have stated that this was for government and county employees? There's
nothing wrong with that. I just have a problem the way it was advertised and the way it is being
presented to this board.
MR. FRUTH: I understand, Commissioner, and I think, like I said, before it was not
intended to be that way. We agreed upon it, so we moved on. So there was actually no rebuttal
about it. It was just one of those things, as you know, when you agree, you move forward.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I note it for the record then.
Next thing, let's talk about the caretaker units. Put up the slide -- where are the location of
the caretaker units?
MR. FRUTH: Okay. So as Jessica mentioned, there are 10 proposed. We have seven
already in the PUD as approved from the 2020 ordinance.
Collier County has one caretaker right here that is -- right now is -- will be plus or minus
about five to six weeks away from being ready for CO and deliverable to the caretaker which will
be occupied by a deputy sheriff. It is very similar to the Collier County Public Schools. That is
the exact model that was adopted. I'm going to go to a few extra slides here so I can walk you
guys through this. Give me one second, please.
So the definition of the caretaker is an accessory use to the principal use exclusive to the
property owner, tenant, or designated employee, and any other requirement which the County
Manager or designee determines necessary to mitigate adverse impacts.
So in the case of Collier County for the sports complex, at the time of design and review,
February 4, 2021
Page 62 of 82
we wanted to adopt the Collier County's Public Schools' model, because we wanted to have
security on site, and the thought behind this, how do we make this happen and how and what do we
determine the caretaker and how many?
So fast forward to today and where we're at, take Golden Gate High School for instance,
69 acres on your screen right here. There is a caretaker. One caretaker on the property.
The new high school, which is in design right now, which Davidson Engineering is doing,
there is a proposed caretaker in the corner of the property, 61 acres. Mike Davis Elementary,
immediately east of Golden Gate High School, 17-and-a-half acres. If you take Mike Davis and
Golden Gate High School, you have roughly 80 acres. The sports complex project is 195 acres.
If you double Mike Davis and Golden Gate High School, that would mean we would have four
caretakers. We're asking for three.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right.
MR. FRUTH: Three because of where we're locating them --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're asking for 10.
MR. FRUTH: Three for the sports complex. I'll get to the 10. Yes, you are correct.
Three for the sports complex, one right here in Phase 1, we have two in Phase 2, and then the 10,
the additional seven, are because of what we just talked about Jessica presented with Uline and
entering into a contribution agreement with Collier County.
We have two large landowners in this PUD now. Collier County is one of those, and
Uline is one. Uline just closed on 102 acres, so they would have two caretakers as well. But with
these PUD revisions in front of you today, because of the land that remains since we had two big
chunks taken down, the land along the canal could be smaller lots, smaller businesses, business
caretakers. So we wanted to have that provision added to allow for some additional just in case
those businesses wanted them, and then also in case the distribution facility wanted to add some to
theirs as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So these caretaker units, are they residential units
where people actually live in them?
MR. FRUTH: They are. They are business -- they are tied to the businesses. And the
resident -- in Collier County's case, a sheriff deputy would be living in the unit.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tom, do -- the caretaker units, do they live in those units
on the schools?
MR. EASTMAN: Yes, they do live in the units. The school district does not charge rent
for that. And it's a long-standing program that we've had.
The idea is that you'll have less vandalism if there's a police presence there. And they've
also been helpful in terms of doing routine checks of the property to make sure that it's safe and
secure.
Another reason that we're in support of it at the school district is the Collier County
Sheriff's Office provides YRDs and a police presence in our school system during the school hours.
And it's a way to help with affordable housing to keep police officers in residence at a low cost.
So I guess one question would be, will -- the police that are living in this project, will they
be charged a rent, or will they be rent-free like with the school district?
MR. FRUTH: Sean Callahan is here. He'll speak on behalf of that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, because I have more questions about the caretaker
unit. I want to know -- go ahead and answer Tom's, because I want to follow up on some more
questions.
MR. CALLAHAN: For the record, Sean Callahan. I'm the Executive Director of
Corporate Business Operations in the County Manager's Office. I oversee the operational aspects
of the sports complex.
So with respect to the three caretakers residences, it is our intent to enter into an agreement
February 4, 2021
Page 63 of 82
with the Sheriff's Office. We haven't determined whether we would charge rent or not for the
division. My understanding is in the past that it's been done both ways.
MR. EASTMAN: Not at our -- not with respect to the school district. We've never
charged rent, so that would be a misunderstanding. They've always lived there rent-free.
And getting back to the medical office, will teachers be allowed to go to the medical office,
or is that just strictly county employees?
MR. CALLAHAN: I believe we've only looked at it strictly for county employees at this
point.
MR. EASTMAN: Then I would agree with Commissioner Schmitt's comments regarding
labeling that essential service personnel 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who's going to -- so who's in the other caretaker units?
Because caretaker -- again, the reason I asked Tom is because I know exactly what they're for at the
school.
MR. CALLAHAN: Sure. And, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is a -- it sounds like we're trying to put 10 units
into an area and calling it a caretaker when, in fact, they're really not a caretaker. You're providing
housing for 10 people within the county, maybe one or two sheriffs. And who's going to control
who goes into those units? Is that a county function? Is that your function?
MR. CALLAHAN: I can speak with respect to the three units that are assigned to the
sports complex. Those will be sheriff's deputies. I'll defer questions to Mr. Fruth on who goes in
the other ones.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And is that a requirement, or is that just how you're
choosing to use it? To you.
MR. CALLAHAN: The county has no intent to --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I know. And I guess what I'm saying is, it's a
caretaker residence. It's kind of a generic term, and it doesn't seem to require that any particular
person live there. And I guess -- and it might not even be something that this board, you know,
weighs in on, because it seems like it's something bigger than that, or maybe it is exactly what the
Planning Commission should be weighing in on.
I guess I'm trying to figure out, could you authorize your deputy to live there because
they've had, you know, a rough time finding housing that they can afford? You know, I'm just
throwing something out, you know. No, that's really for you, because you're the one that said
you've been the one that kind of determines -- manages these facilities.
MR. CALLAHAN: I can tell you that the sports complex has no intent to do it with
anybody except for a sheriff's deputy.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But you wouldn't be restricted?
MR. CALLAHAN: I don't believe so, the way it's currently written, no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me go back to the Uline facility. You said
they're going to have how many caretaker units? Were the --
MR. FRUTH: They have zero right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Zero, okay.
MR. FRUTH: Because they took down a large land chunk, they could have a couple if
they chose to do.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they're a private industry.
MR. FRUTH: They are.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And they're going to be a tenant on the property.
MR. FRUTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why would the county build them a caretaker facility?
February 4, 2021
Page 64 of 82
MR. FRUTH: The county is not building them a caretaker facility. I don't -- I never said
that. I don't know who said that. This would be -- the rest of the caretakers, the remainder, the
request is to increase it to 10. Collier County is using three of the 10 that will be -- that would be
within the PUD ordinance. The other seven would be private if a business chose to build a
caretaker.
One for such instance that you'll see around town is there are caretakers that live at storage
facilities. The guard at the gate will often live in a studio-style apartment at the entrance of a
storage facility. That's not uncommon.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But those are all private businesses.
MR. FRUTH: Correct. All the remainder of the caretakers would be private businesses.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would not be under county control?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct, yes. Collier County has an agreement to have three of the
10 that are within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And these are simply scattered throughout the complex.
They're not -- they're not in any central location?
MR. FRUTH: Yes. Right now the other seven are not spoken for. They're -- you know,
it may be built out with no more caretakers and Collier County is the only one that has three deputy
sheriffs living on their property. But to have the option, again, caretakers is a right within the
industrial district. We're just, you know, updating the way that it reads because of the lot sizes
with the two large landowners that are now there, Collier County and Uline, and then the smaller
lots that remain because it could be more businesses.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have one other point. Go back to the slide where
you showed the news articles. Yeah, can you go back the one off there, because I want to look
at -- I mean, this is just for general public consumption. And I know the bullet states -- right there.
The bullet states -- this is from 2016 -- 60 to $80 million. What's our total cost now for
construction? Somewhere in the neighborhood of, what, 140 million?
MR. FRUTH: Well, no. I would not say 140 million, but I believe if you go back on the
record from the December 8th Board of County Commissioner meeting, at the time Deputy County
Manager Nick Casalanguida stated that we would probably be around $100 million.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. I mean, just showing that number 60 to 80
is, again, a misrepresentation. I know it was 2016, but we ought to tell the truth and be factual and
note that it's well -- it's over $100,000 [sic] for that sports complex to date.
MR. FRUTH: Correct. The intent of this on the screen was to show that town hall
meeting that was held on May 17th, 2016, and the sites that were whittled down from the 28th that
I mentioned. It was no intent to mislead any of this information. Again, this is taken from my
2018 presentation to this board, which is why I wanted to show it because, again, we have new
board members. I wanted to bring you guys up to speed with some of the history.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only other comment -- and I'll raise it with Nancy.
It's just an issue of when we make a bullet statement and we go an increased number, I would have
preferred we had identified from two. And I had to ask Jessica that in regards to the height, but I
got the impression we were coming in for after the fact.
But, Nancy, you don't have to answer it now. I'll just point it out when you're up there.
But it -- I did ask the question, because I thought you were coming in for an after-the-fact height
limitation. I have no issue with it. I just didn't know what the height was. It would have been a
lot easier for us on the Board when we have a statement and it's increased from 75 feet to 100 feet.
Okay. Thanks. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry.
February 4, 2021
Page 65 of 82
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious, the other seven caretaker cottages or
residences, those would be designed, built, paid for by the businesses that they support?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. So we're not -- Collier County's not paying for those?
MR. FRUTH: Collier County's not responsible for any other caretaker units.
COMMISSIONER FRY: You alluded to the relocation of City Gate Boulevard, was it
south, or was it north?
MR. FRUTH: City Gate Boulevard South, you are correct.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- is that -- is there a slide that shows exactly how it's
being relocated? I guess that's it. It's moved to the north now?
MR. FRUTH: Yeah. Actually, let me go to the end of this presentation where I was so I
can show you the rendering. It's directly related to the October 2020 contribution agreement that
Jessica mentioned between the Board and Uline. In that agreement, Uline is making, roughly,
six-and-a-half million dollars worth of contributions, including relocating the roadway. In the
agreement, Collier County agreed to allow for the location of the roadway because the plat comes
before the Board of County Commissioners and that roadway, as you can see here, is aligned
roughly plus-or-minus 300 feet off of the southern property line of the PUD. Going to this slide,
you can see the roadway moves to so -- it's roughly about 50 feet off of the property line.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Last question: This includes a reduction in the
side yard setbacks, the properties over one acre and then those under an acre. What is the reason
for that? What's the vision?
MR. FRUTH: So the reduction is because the lot is getting smaller. If we still had the
25-foot-wide side yards and you have a property that is a quarter acre, 25 feet on each side, you
pretty much leave yourself with nothing to build.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So, I guess, why are the lots getting smaller? What are you
envisioning changes -- what will go in now that wouldn't have gone in?
MR. FRUTH: That's a good question. So as I mentioned, we have two large landowners
now which have taken down, combined, 100 and -- plus or minus 170 acres of the 419, but
remember that 419 also includes the sports complex extension.
The only land that is remaining in the PUD is the land that is along the canal, the northern
limits of the PUD. It would be these lots up here north of the sports complex and west of Big
Cypress Basin's emergency operations field station. These are smaller lots, obviously. So you're
not going to have another distribution center. You're not going to build another sports complex.
So the thought there is that there's probably going to be businesses that come in that complement
Collier County Sports Complex. So if it's a complement, they're not going to be building, you
know, 10, 15-acre businesses. They're probably going to be the smaller quarter-acre to two-acre
type facilities.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So that applies only to the leftover lots to the -- lots to the north,
is what you're saying?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct, yes. So it applies to everything east of the FPL easement,
but there's only this land remaining for sale.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: Just going back to the caretaker units, we don't use that term at the
school district. We just call them police residential trailers. And I also wanted to get this on the
record. The school district does not pay for those trailers to be constructed or purchased. We
simply supply a cement pad, and the police officers purchase their own trailers, and they can
remove them when they're no longer living there. So the school district does not pay for their
actual living unit, but they let them live on that cement pad on the school site free of charge,
February 4, 2021
Page 66 of 82
rent-free, and in exchange for their sort of keeping an eye out on the place and to help our local
police with their housing situation.
MR. FRUTH: Correct. Mr. Eastman, as you noted, here is the Triple G site, we call it, as
a future sheriff's residence.
In the case of Collier County, I will say for the record that the cost savings for the county,
what we did was a direct material purchase for this caretaker unit. It was double-dipped. It was
used as a caretaker -- as a construction trailer, and then it is converted to the caretaker.
So instead of Collier County renting or building into the contractor's model to rent a
construction trailer for three years, the direct material purchase was part of the guaranteed
maximum price, and then it's converted to a caretaker in the end. So it was a dual purpose, and
actually Collier County saved money by doing it that way.
MR. EASTMAN: Would you say that you had three construction trailers or 10
potentially, or how many construction trailers were there?
MR. FRUTH: So there is -- there is one construction trailer right now, and the other two
have not been built because Phase 2 is just starting clearing right now. But the contractor does
have for this phase planned for a doublewide which would be equal to two trailers.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just, you know, to make me better informed, I thought I
heard you say that there's a right for industrial property to have caretaker facilities; is that what you
said?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct. The Land Development Code allows for industrial zoning
to have caretakers.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so then this Uline would otherwise have an ability to
have some sort of a caretaker facility?
MR. FRUTH: Well, they fall into the PUD zoning district now, so it --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it wouldn't.
MR. FRUTH: In effect, if it's silent in the PUD, it would revert back to the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So there would be some provision where they would be
able to have these caretaker cottages even without saying we're going to have seven.
MR. FRUTH: That's correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it would be a lesser number, or how does that work?
MS. HARRELSON: Jessica Harrelson. I believe it's one per principal use.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. All right. Well, I just wanted to -- you know, I
mean, that was something that's novel to my knowledge, and that's interesting. I'd never even
thought about that before, so I learned something today.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, on the caretaker line again, it's authorized in
industrial zoning but, of course, this is a PUD, and your statement that since the PUD is silent, it
reverts back to the industrial zoning criteria?
MR. FRUTH: If the PUD was silent, it would revert back to the Land Development Code.
But our PUD is not silent. Again, it is already approved to have seven. We're asking --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, it has seven.
MR. FRUTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in your justification -- and I'm reading the staff
report -- it's sort of like we would like three more; we really can't justify why we need three more.
MR. FRUTH: Well, as I mentioned already, the justification is because of the two large
February 4, 2021
Page 67 of 82
landowners and then the additional application request before you today to reduce the minimum lot
width, lot acreage, and coverage because we feel that there are businesses that will be coming to
support Collier County's Paradise Coast Sports Complex. With the smaller businesses, we do not
know if they're going to ask for a caretaker. We just want to plan for the future.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if -- and it's public knowledge because I think it's
already been advertised that they're looking at a major hotel or some other type of recreational
facility coming in. Is the thought that one of these caretaker units will be to support that operation
as well?
MR. FRUTH: As of right now, no, the resort has not asked for a caretaker unit.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else for Mr. Fruth or Ms. Harrelson?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have more for us?
MR. FRUTH: No, we will rest.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. So am I now to understand that we will
now hear from staff's employees? Ms. Gundlach.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal
Planner.
And staff is recommending approval of the proposed City Gate PUD amendment and
development order amendment. And if you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to
answer them today.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nancy, I would just ask for future reference -- and this
was an existing PUD. And it says, you know, increase the number of caretaker units to a
maximum of 10. It would have been nice to have said, to increase from seven to 10. Likewise,
for the maximum height, increase -- and I had to ask Jessica this because I did not go back and look
at the original ordinance, the maximum zoned height, and you're going from an actual height of 85
to 100. So just for future reference, if we do that type of -- it just makes our job a little easier to
understand what you're presenting, because I immediately highlighted that saying, well, why are
they asking for this? And my question to Jessica was, is this something for after the fact or some
other requirement? I understand now what it's for, and I don't have an issue with it. It just makes
it easier.
MS. GUNDLACH: Sure, I can do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else for Ms. Gundlach?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will say that I'm fully supportive of this application. The one
concern I had was adequately addressed in my meeting with staff on Tuesday; I'll just bring that
forward so that people can be aware of it. But there is a -- there's a deficient road segment in
question here, and it's Segment 33 of Collier Boulevard/951, and the minimum -- the existing
AUIR LOS is F, and the minimum standard, I believe, is E.
So that was a red flag. But I've now been informed that FDOT has some scheduled
improvements and, according to staff, these improvements, once they're in place, will alleviate the
concern that we would otherwise have as a result of this segment being deficient. Did I say that
right?
MS. GUNDLACH: Mike, can you confirm that?
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation planning. Yes --
February 4, 2021
Page 68 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead, Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: -- you're correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thanks. You're going to be Mike Walker again if
you keep walking up here.
So I just wanted to make that -- make that point clear because, you know, deficient roads
are of concern to us, but since that is going to be adequately dealt with, I am fully supportive of this
application.
Anybody else have any questions or comments for staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Ms. Gundlach.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public speakers registered?
MR. FRANTZ: We have one registered public speaker. I'm going to say the name
wrong, but Ulrike Uncle.
MS. UNCLE: That's me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you please spell your name for us, ma'am.
MS. UNCLE: U-l-r-i-k-e. It's a German name. It's Ulrike. And my name is Ulrike
Uncle, and I am the yellow star on your little map, which I think it's more like a black star when
you don't want me there.
I'm coming before you because I'm the resident who had the noise complaint. And even
though I understand that everybody plays by the rules and everything is to code, it still doesn't
comply to what I'm going through, and it is that I now have -- I feel like I live on a football field all
day long, and the -- and the decibels are all fine. They're all not above anything, but there are
tournaments Friday, Saturdays. Now they started concerts. So when I go home to my home I
wanted to have my peace and quiet and read my book on the porch, I hear screaming, yelling,
whistleblowing, which is all normal for that facility, so nobody does anything wrong.
But when you hear that 12 hours a day all weekend long and during the week at the
evenings because there's training going on, it is very -- I don't know. I want to compare it to -- we
all had that flight, three-hour flight where the baby cries in the rear, and everybody gets so annoyed
and nobody can do anything. That's how I feel. I feel -- even though everybody does everything
right and I want to be a good neighbor, I want to voice my discomfort of what is there. And what
I'm asking for is the PUD shows that there are some sound vegetation walls, something that would
at least make it less.
And so even what you did was the buffer, which is there at the moment, which will go
away because these are the only properties that are going to be sold, has -- yeah, that's a picture
from my backyard.
So this is my backyard. I see the football stadium. I can tell you the color of the jerseys.
And, yeah, the distances are all correct to your -- whatever the regulations are. It is very, very
annoying. And I sent in some sound bites just to let them hear.
You mentioned the shooting range which is next to me. That's 20 minutes a day. I can
live with that. You know, if somebody trains to shoot, that's a 20-minute thing I can live with.
But every weekend or almost every weekend -- and it will be every weekend, there will be games.
There will be whistling, and there will be screaming and yelling of cheering parents, which is
normal. So I've just tried to find some relief that I can have my peace and quiet when I go home.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
From the applicant, then, are there plans for berms or other barriers to mitigate the noise
from escaping?
February 4, 2021
Page 69 of 82
MR. FRUTH: Again, Josh Fruth with Davidson Engineering.
The photo on the screen is from 2018 prior to any improvements being completed. We
have completed. It has not gone through CO yet. So, again, this will eventually mature and grow
up.
I explained at the neighborhood information meeting that at maturity this -- plus one of the
issues is we are required by code to remove exotics. Fortunately for this property, City Gate does
have a required yard plan versus a preserve, so we have strategically placed those required yards
along the City Gate Boulevard north corridor north of those fields, but we had to remove the
exotics. We did replant, as part of the code. Another item that the Board of County
Commissioners approved as a new pilot program for landscaping we've been working with the
Naples Botanical Gardens for more resiliency, more native vegetation, and those plants are in the
ground. So the views will change. It just will take some time, obviously, for resiliency, not
planting 20-, 30-foot-tall trees.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the lady is talking more about noise than views.
MS. UNCLE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are berms being employed in this?
MS. UNCLE: We do not have berms planned along the buffer. This, as you see here, is
along the canal on the south side of the canal. For noise purposes there are no planned noise walls
or berms because, in reality, including I-75, those walls -- they don't block 100 percent of the noise,
so that was not planned in this PUD.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there anything within reasonable economic parameters that
could be done to mitigate this problem somewhat for the lady?
MR. FRUTH: Can you give me five minutes to discuss?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. In fact, we'll take our midafternoon break and give
you -- we'll take --
COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask her one question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I think he's going to release you, so I wanted to just ask you a
quick question. So you're here, you are the one star. Nobody else is here. But how do your
neighbors feel? You live in a line of homes, correct? I know they're large lots.
MS. UNCLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But how do they feel? Are there other people that share your
sentiments?
MS. UNCLE: Well, everybody said, well, if you can get something, we all sign it. I
think my unique situation is that my house is at the back. I have like, what, 30 feet to the canal.
Everybody else's house is on the street, and they have some sort of greenery in their backyard,
which is my front yard. So the neighbor next to me, which is the shooting range, is quiet because
he has a shooting range. So he doesn't -- and I might not should have said that, but he is the one
who -- who is happy that he can do what he does. So people tell me -- yeah, you know, I'm the
bad guy, and I'm coming forward to voice my opinion, and everybody would sign afterwards.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're in a unique situation, meaning you are more
impacted than your neighbors are.
MS. UNCLE: Yes. Especially now since all the green area -- and that will go away
anyway. So I can -- like I said, I have straight view to the -- to the facility and to the games and to
the property.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But I think Josh is saying that that is temporary; that will
change over time.
MR. FRUTH: Yeah, that is correct. It will change.
MS. UNCLE: But they're little -- at the moment, they're planted hedges. They are four
February 4, 2021
Page 70 of 82
feet tall. They don't do much, and I don't think they're ever going to be bigger and more dense to
somewhat block the noise. And the view is not -- is not the issue at all. It's really --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Noise.
MS. UNCLE: -- the continuous noise all day long. That's what goes on. It's the crying
baby in the three-hour flight. That's what it is.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll take a 10-minute break until 2:33, and then we'll hear back
from the applicant.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: In recess.
(A brief recess was had from 2:23 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. Before we
continue with this matter, there are a couple of things that I want to address, and the first one was
the absence of Commissioner Chris Vernon. I'm kind of out of the loop now. It used to be, and I
think the way Mark had it as well, that commissioners would contact me and let me know if they
were not available, and I would ask for a reason and, really, any reason would do. But we don't
want to leave it out there as an unexcused absence. So what do we know?
MR. BELLOWS: We did have a conversation with him yesterday, and he said he had a
conflict with a prior appointment that he couldn't get out of.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Then that will go down as an excused absence. Thank
you very much.
The other thing is is I've spoken with Mr. Yovanovich and his client, IRRV. Realizing the
lateness of the hour and that we're going to review -- we're going to reserve 30 minutes or so to talk
about agendas, would prefer -- he would prefer not to start and then be interrupted. So without
objection from the Planning Commission, we will simply make note that this -- that his matter,
IRRV, is continued until the 18th. It will be the first item on the agenda for February 18th.
There's no objection, so that's how that will go.
Mr. Fruth.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're going to get into the discussion of what we're
going to do on the 18th.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, yeah, by all means.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That complicates issues.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It does complicate it a bit, and we're absolutely going to get into
that. Thank you.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, Josh Fruth.
So I have talked to both of our -- of the applicants, Collier County and City Gate, and I
have also talked to the neighbor represented here on the map in front of you.
I explained where we're at and what we can do. The -- I'm showing you this map again
because through here, as part of the development of the sports complex and the master stormwater
system for the PUD, we have a cleared drainage easement that is in line of sight of the resident in
question. We are offering to work with the resident to do a dense landscape buffer, not canopy
trees but landscape buffer, within this drainage easement area, which is approximately 50 feet
wide, because there will be development on that property in the future, and then that canopy -- or
that hedge would be maintained to opaqueness and levels that will assist with views and sound.
We cannot build a wall. We can't do anything like that, but that's the best we can offer and, as I
explained to the property owner and -- where we're at, and we're willing to commit to that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much.
February 4, 2021
Page 71 of 82
Ms. Uncle, would you like to respond to that? Is that satisfactory to you? I think it
shows a level of responsiveness on the part of the county.
MS. UNCLE: First of all, I want to thank you that so much time got into my little
complaint. I didn't know that when I complained for the first time that this much study has been
done, and I appreciate your willingness to help me. And I will do what I can do on my side. I
don't know if that alleviates the problem, but at least we have something to move forward and for
me to hope that it will get better.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I thank you, applicant, for your
willingness to --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, of course, Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I know I might be kicking a dead horse. But I live about
a mile from Gulf Coast High School. I don't think sound barriers will make a difference,
my -- because it doesn't. And we have acres of trees between -- and I'm not complaining about it.
I'm fine with it because it's periodic, not continuance like hers. But don't they make some kind of
more directional speakers that don't have to fill the neighborhood with that noise? I think that
would help her more than a buffer. I don't think the buffer's going to do anything for her sound
issue, because it doesn't for us.
MR. FRUTH: Good point, Commissioner Shea.
So I mentioned on the record already about the I-75 walls. We agree. I told her that. I
said, one thing that will help her as part of this PUD to make these lots smaller, we will have more
buildings and businesses that come in. Those hardened surfaces will help reflect that sound. But
to answer your question directly, there's already a provision that we put in the PUD in 2018 to have
the sound amplified and directed to the south.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: The direction's important.
MR. FRUTH: Away from the residents, yes.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: The 60 dBs is like we're talking now, and I can sit a mile
away, and it sounds just like we're talking now, and it can be irritating. So it's direction.
MR. FRUTH: It's in the PUD already. There's already a provision in there for that. We
acknowledge that.
Again, an hour ago when I was going through this, history was important because we
listened to the public. North Collier said too close to the residents. Whittled down to a site of
this size because the county owned land, but we put in those provisions listening to the
commissioners and the residents to, you know, amplify any sound, direct it to the south.
So, for instance, the stadium, the north deck, if you look at the PUD, the videotronics board
there that's there and the sound that is there, it's on the north end for a reason, because you can still
have an event and amplify sound to the south.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you'll continue to work with Ms. Uncle --
MR. FRUTH: We will.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and keep her apprised of what's being done and receive her
input?
MR. FRUTH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am.
MS. UNCLE: Maybe just one more thing.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead.
MS. UNCLE: What you said is -- the direction doesn't matter, because screaming and
yelling kids are screaming and yelling kids. They're -- or cheering parents. That is the noise
that's annoying. It's -- right now there's no speaker system. And that -- there was one day, and
that was shut down, I guess, by the police or so.
February 4, 2021
Page 72 of 82
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, wow.
MS. UNCLE: My concern, or my future concern will be we have that football stadium,
and I think there will be concerts every weekend. And I saw that the provision was that it will
face to the south. But it's so close that it doesn't matter what direction it goes. A concert is a
concert, and it will be loud. And if that's another thing I need to look forward to -- I mean, I'm just
looking down -- we are just in the beginning of this development. And I hope it will be
successful, but I'll go down with it; that's how I feel. So I wanted to just voice that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. UNCLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thanks very much.
Any further discussion? Oh, are there any more speakers registered, Mr. Frantz?
MR. FRANTZ: There are no more speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any member of the public who's present wishes to be
heard on this, now would be the time.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, and without objection, we'll close the public comment
portion and open it up for deliberation, discussion, and vote by the Planning Commission. Who'd
like to lead off?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval with the additional condition, the offer
from Mr. Fruth to build a dense hedge buffer to benefit this nearby resident.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this for the PUDA, because there's --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're starting with the PUDA --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a comment.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would support the motion, but I'm going to make two
provisions. One is that staff make a correction when this goes before the Board of County
Commissioners that they delete any reference to the term "essential services personnel." If the
intent is to open it to the entire Collier County staff, then they identify it as such, because essential
services personnel, like I said, is a definition that is different. You had the definition, and I think
it's a broad stretch to say that everybody in the county staff is essential. If they were, none of them
would have been laid off during the pandemic.
But the second one is, I'm still having a tough time justifying, just because we're
asking -- we already have seven caretaker units and we'd like three more just because we think we
may need three more, I just don't find that to be justification to ask for that change in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. On the first point, with respect to essential services
personnel, would the applicant be willing to revise that?
MR. FRUTH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. How would you -- what would you propose to say
instead?
MR. FRUTH: Well, we'll work with county staff with Ray and Nancy to come up with
the correct language before it goes --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's Collier County employees, right?
MR. FRUTH: That is correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your phrase.
MR. FRUTH: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would amend the motion to include the first item. The
February 4, 2021
Page 73 of 82
second item I'm not sure I see the ramifications one way or the other enough to know on that one.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it's been moved, and we need a second. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? This is
on the PUDA. All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You convinced me.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes -- it passes unanimously, 6-0.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I feel beat.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then we have the DOA. Would there be a motion on that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion on the DOA?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
MR. FRUTH: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I was not objecting to your -- I just did not know in my own
mind whether it's something worth pursuing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It just was kind of like we want this because we want it.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But today everything is --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't want it to become a -- you know, a -- kind of a
trailer park back there, is what I --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got at least one matter to discuss. I don't know whether
it's under old business or new business. By the way, though, I'll raise this for discussion. It has to
do with our template, agenda template. Right now it has new business coming before old
business, and I'm accustomed under Robert's Rules of seeing -- we deal with old business before
we come to new business. And so it seems to me that we should reverse the order in the template
unless -- does anybody have an objection to us doing that?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What would be the order, then?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the template agenda that we use, after we go through our
scheduled hearings, it then goes to new business and then after that old business. And it seems to
February 4, 2021
Page 74 of 82
me that those two should be reversed.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then without objection, we'll ask staff to change the template so
that we deal with old business first and then new business.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm just imagining the last time it was moved that they
swap them the other way; when that was.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, not within my tenure, but that's -- well, who knows.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a similar request regarding the agenda.
If it's timely --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER FRY: -- I'll introduce it. I really appreciate the additional bookmarks
that have been added to the agenda, to the packet. I wanted to request one additional one which
would be a book -- a specific bookmark for the NIM synopsis for each item; would that be
possible? I don't see any bookmarks for the NIMs, but that's one of the things that I think we all
want to refer to.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I just want to make sure I understand. So in your electronic agenda, you want a bookmark
where it solely says neighborhood information meeting, or in the hard copy packets you get?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't get a hard copy. So it's the digital, yes. You always
have the NIM synopsis in there. It just would be great to have a direct bookmark for it so we can
refer to it because we often refer to it in the meeting as well; we go back and recite something that
was said in the NIM.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you're talking about a bookmark within that
action -- that agenda item?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Within the PDF.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But with -- like -- so there would be -- if we were hearing
three items, there would be three NIM summaries.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: This would be a subset of the item that we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I'm glad you clarified that. So --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Throwing a bookmark in.
MR. BELLOWS: It's separate where all the NIMs are under one category; you can just go
check it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: City Gate had it.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So when you look at the agenda item that we're hearing --
MR. BELLOWS: You want to see NIM.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- within that there would be a sub-element for the NIM.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's been in there anyway.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's my understanding that most of the time we get this from the
applicant. It's part of their scanned packet. So we'd have to figure out a way to separate them
because they come as -- with the rest of their backup material.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you see?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I do now.
February 4, 2021
Page 75 of 82
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He found it. He's --
COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak --
MR. KLATZKOW: Make it a condition for the applicant to have it separate. That takes
the work off staff.
COMMISSIONER FRY: That would be great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excellent. Okay. This is under old business, which I think is
where we should be before we get to new business. And I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are we going to talk about the next item -- did we vote on
continuing the next item or not?
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I thought we did without objection.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I thought we did.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The -- I'm just going to ask for a brief status report from staff
on -- and I'm not necessarily pushing for a hurry, but when might staff have a recommendation to
us about how to decide whether a matter comes before the HEX or the CCPC? Have you had
meetings on that, or it's in progress?
MR. BELLOWS: It's in progress. We have been communicating amongst staff and with
the Hearing Examiner as well, so we will at some point come back to you with some proposals.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In that regard, could you come up with some kind of a
decision matrix where you show what the item is and -- you know what I mean as far as a decision
tree? Do you know what I'm talking about? How you would say yes or no?
MR. BELLOWS: In the earlier discussion today.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just so it graphically portrays where you make
the decision and the criteria for that decision and as to whether it comes -- goes to the Hearing
Examiner or the Planning Commission.
I'm comfortable with what we've been doing, quite honestly, because I'm well aware of the
issues that the Hearing Examiner has been entertaining.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. One of the options that I was thinking of is that we take out any
discretion and just say, these are the items that are going to the HEX, period.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine.
MR. BELLOWS: But we're evaluating all those options, and we'll be able to respond at
some point.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be sure it hadn't been lost.
Appreciate that.
All right. Any other old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: New business? I had mentioned as a tease, sort of, that I'm
concerned about our workload, and I want to be sure that we remain in charge of our own workload
to the extent that it's at all practicable.
And February 18's coming up. We had two RLSA villages scheduled to be heard on that
day, and now we've got an RFMUD rural village that will begin to be heard on that day. And it's
obvious that we -- you know, those are all matters of considerable importance and consequence,
and we're not -- we're not going to get to a point of voting on all three of those. One, maybe.
So I would like us to consider having a continuance now on the second of the two RLSA
villages so that we as Planning Commissioners don't need to be fully prepared on something there's
just no reasonable likelihood that we're going to get to on the 18th. Any comments on that?
COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious if those were presented on the same day
because the intent was to present them as companion items. They're totally unique, I understand.
February 4, 2021
Page 76 of 82
But was there -- was there intent in having them on the agenda for the same day that we might not
be aware of in making this decision?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there are some things that are floating around and about,
and I don't believe staff is ready to make a formal comment on it. But I will simply say to you that
it has been brought to my attention unofficially that there are discussions ongoing about possibly
wrapping the three RLSA villages together into a town. And that may or may not happen, and
staff is not in a position to say anything on it, but I'm just telling you that I've heard that through the
grapevine.
But from my point of view, whether that happens or not, these are -- these are -- the two
coming up, just like the first one we heard, these are separate and distinct matters, and they would
not be heard, in my judgment at least, as if they were companions like if we have a GMPA and a
PUD or the very same facts. These are entirely separate facts.
COMMISSIONER FRY: So they would be single threaded. We do one, finish it, and
then do the next.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think so.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is the idea, though, that if this change were to happen, then
what we do might end up being moot?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It might.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we wouldn't necessarily make that call to not do it
because the applicant has put their application in and we need to just move forward?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't know whether anything is going to come to fruition with
respect to what we'll call aggregation. And I don't want the decision that we make or that I'm
asking that we might consider making today to be dependent upon whether we're going to be
deciding on an aggregated entity of some kind or individually. I'm assuming it's going to be
individual.
And all I'm trying to do -- it's very, very narrow. I'm just trying to protect ourselves from
having to prepare fully for something that there's just no likelihood we're going to have to vote on
on the 18th. So what -- what do the other Planning Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I appreciate that you're, you know, being forward thinking
so that, you know, we don't -- plus, I think that helps the applicants as well. They don't -- they're
not here ready to present something that they're not going to present.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. And I think staff -- staff has already flagged
March 4th, where I don't think there's anything yet on, for a continuation of what we have for
February 18. So the natural way of dealing with this, in my view -- and I want to hear what others
have to say -- would be that we take the second -- the second scheduled RLSA. Was it Longwater,
or was it Bellmar? I don't know. But the one --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Bellmar.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bellmar is the second one?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, then we would continue Bellmar to March 4. Now, we
may not reach it on March 4, but at least we, as a Planning Commission, would know that we
would not have to be prepared to make a final recommendation on that on February 18th.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Me, too; I agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Have you had a chance to talk to the applicant and get their position
with respect to the change you're making?
February 4, 2021
Page 77 of 82
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Only preliminarily, but I see that Mr. Yovanovich is here, and
he'd certainly be -- we'd welcome his input.
MR. EASTMAN: And I certainly appreciate what you're trying to do, and I think it's
smart. I just think that knowing the applicant's position is an important factor in making the
decision.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's hear from Mr. Yovanovich, who's approaching.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's good afternoon, right? For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We had already planned on our calendar that there was a
likelihood that you would not finish both villages on -- is it the 18th?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that one would probably get continued to the 4th, so we've
already blocked out those days. I do think that -- I think the second village will go a little quicker.
I know they're separate and distinct, but once you get the rhythm of understanding what you're
reviewing for the first one, hopefully the second presentation will go a lot quicker; we won't have
to repeat ourselves. But I know there will be big issues, but we anticipate -- we're hopeful that
you'll complete the review of both villages by the 4th. And, so with that -- and I think what you're
proposing will more likely get us to there, so...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So any further comment on any of this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we would hear Longwater on the 18th and Bellmar --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We would hear Longwater first presumably on the 18th after we
finish with IRRV.
MR. YOVANOVICH: IRRV?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Irvo (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then Bellmar after that. But, undoubtedly, that will go to
March 4, and Longwater may also. Hope not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Hope not.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So, Ray, you'll note on the agenda, because they've both
been advertised for the 18th, right?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we'll have to make a note of the continuance.
MR. KLATZKOW: On the agenda so they don't have to readvertise.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I have a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Moved.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just to restate what I believe we're doing is we are going to
continue Bellmar to a date certain, namely March 4, but -- and we will leave Longwater on the
February 18 agenda and hoping that we will reach it on that time. But the first item on the
February 18 agenda will be IRRV.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And am I right that on the 4th we would hear -- if we didn't
finish with Longwater, then we would hear that before Bellmar --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- on the 4th?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And Ms. Jenkins provided me with a list of dates when
February 4, 2021
Page 78 of 82
this room is available if we want to put on a special meeting. They are Friday, February 19;
Monday, March 15; Tuesday, March 16. It may be premature for us to do that, but if we don't do
it, we may lose those dates, so just --
MS. JENKINS: Commissioner, if I may, Anita Jenkins.
You may consider the 19th as an alternative or an extra day for the 18th in case you don't
finish the Immokalee Road Rural Village and you want to get the other villages started. You do
have that availability on Friday, February 19th, for this room.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: What does the Planning Commission think about, then, us
reserving February 19 for either a start or a continuation of Longwater?
COMMISSIONER FRY: With my business, I cannot commit to two days in a row.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I would try to make it work, but I cannot commit to it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would certainly likely want to attend at least one of
those sessions virtually.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I can't make the 19th.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let's -- then we'll hear these, you know, as we can,
and we may have to bump things back. But we'll move with all deliberate speed, and we'll go in
that order.
So it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of
that action, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are you on new business still?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I have a -- since we don't chat much, I have a dilemma.
This is related to One Naples. We've already heard on it, and I don't even know if I'm allowed to
talk about it anymore. But in reading the newspaper, in talking to staff, and in talking with one of
the commissioners, I think there's a big misunderstanding of what we did at that meeting, and I'm
worried that it's going to be presented by -- and staff report is -- as I see that it happened here.
How do we request that we have the ability or suggest maybe the Chair has the ability to review
staff's report to the commissioners before it's issued particularly as it reflects upon what happened
here?
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just short-circuit this. The staff report's going to be
published in the electronic agenda, so you'll have access to it approximately a week before the
matter is heard.
If upon your reading it you believe that there is anything that is in error about that, you can
talk to the staff, and if they disagree with you, then you're free to talk to the individual
commissioners and just let them know what you think happened.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is the nature of the concern that you have as to what
February 4, 2021
Page 79 of 82
will be presented --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- or how it will be summarized?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: How it will be summarized as what actually happened.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that's what I'm saying. Do you have an indicator of
what you think is going to be the misunderstanding?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think when you read the newspaper, you talk to staff and you
talk to the commissioners, then think that the application as proposed was voted at a draw, 3-3, and
the application as proposed was never voted on. So, in essence, nobody supported the basic
application.
So they don't really understand -- and the newspaper was very misleading in that sense as
well -- that the commissioners here, nobody would make a motion to support it, which to me is
basically a 7-nothing defeat of the proposal.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. I'm getting really nervous --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I'm talking. I don't have to hold on. All I'm saying is
there was not a draw in the vote. We voted on a modified proposal which the applicant said he
would not accept.
So to picture -- or to visualize what we did as a draw is wrong since he's going -- they're
going to the Board or the commissioners with the full application again, not the modified one.
That's all I'm saying. I just want it represented properly what happened here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Since we're talking about an item that's very important to one of
my clients --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- can I please say something?
MR. KLATZKOW: Go ahead.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Shea --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You know what, I'm going to object to that. I don't think
this is the time for hearing from -- you know, from others. I think this is a discussion amongst --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think you should be discussing this petition outside of an
advertised public hearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is an advertised public hearing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My item. My item was not specifically noticed, and I'm a little
concerned about the record.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I just want to address one comment that Mr. Shea made about
what's being presented.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment here. I'm going to make a ruling, and then if the
Planning Commission wants to overrule me, they can. We're not going to talk about the
substance --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- the issues of One Naples. We're going to talk about how we
proceed and how we assure that our point of view as a Planning Commission is fairly and
accurately represented in staff material.
And so on that basis, and in keeping -- I hope we'll all be in keeping with that, I'm going to
rule that it's out of order for Mr. Yovanovich to address the Planning Commission at this time.
Now, if anybody wants to make a motion to overrule me, the floor is yours. If not, there we have
February 4, 2021
Page 80 of 82
it.
All right. I'd like to comment on what Commissioner Shea has said, because I happen to
agree with him. And I don't believe that we as a Planning Commission should be having input on
any aspect of the staff report except that part that deals with what the Planning Commission said
and did.
(Commissioner Schmitt left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I'm not looking for, certainly, a role for myself or for the
Planning Commission in looking over the shoulders of staff as they prepare their own staff report.
But there have been times -- and I don't believe that staff is at all ill-motivated or acting
improperly. It's just, naturally, if you get a situation, let's say, where -- well, I'll mention Heritage
Bay even though we're not going to be talking about it, but it was an example of where the
Planning Commission ruled in a way that was contrary to staff. Now, we haven't seen the staff
report yet on Heritage Bay, but it puts staff in a position where they have to be very careful to fairly
represent the -- and in full -- fully and fairly represent what the Planning Commission said and
why. And that's asking an awful lot of an entity who has -- whose recommendation has not been
followed.
And so that is -- that's something that I would -- I would like us to perhaps talk about and
think about. And in those cases where the Planning Commission has gone in a direction that's
different from staff, that there might be some intermediate oversight. And I would be glad to play
that role. And not to grind my own axe, but just to be sure that someone who's looking
exclusively after what the Planning Commission said and did, that such a person had looked at that
language and had some input in it before it goes out in the staff report.
The problem is that if -- that if it's not in the staff report, it's going to be given second
shrift. Even if you stand up and speak -- even a Planning Commissioner were to stand up and
speak at a BCC meeting, it's just not going to have the same imprimatur as if it had been included
in the staff report.
So that's my two cents. I'd like to hear from -- what others have to say on that point.
COMMISSIONER FRY: I think what Jeff said is the appropriate way for us to move
forward is to -- is to take the initiative to review what was written, and then if we feel it's not
accurate, we -- I guess you're saying we could call or email the elected commissioners?
MR. KLATZKOW: Keep in mind the material thing that staff looks at is what did the
motion say and what were their votes, okay. You could have four days of discussions prior to that.
They don't matter. What staff is going to report to the Board is what was the motion and what was
the vote, okay. That motion is in the transcript. Court reporter's very good with that; gets the
transcript pretty quick.
And if you think that the staff report is inaccurate, the first thing I would suggest is you
look at the actual motion that was made, all right, and what the vote was, and then if you think staff
made an error, by all means you've got -- you've got some time between the published agenda and
when it gets to the Board, and staff can make the change, all right. They have no agenda, all right.
But I will tell you that a lot of times you think you know what you voted on, but then when
you look at the motion, it's like, oh, which sometimes is why I interject and I try to get more
clarification on the motion, because you've got like, multiple days of hearings, and in your head
you think you know what you've ruled, but sometimes that's not really what happened.
So that's what I would suggest, that if you're concerned about One Naples -- and don't trust
anything you read in Naples Daily News. If you're concerned about One Naples, by all means,
look at the staff report, and if you think it's wrong, first look at the actual motion that you made.
And if staff is wrong, they will correct it, or you can call me, and I'll make sure that they correct it,
all right? But you may be surprised that your memory as to what you thought you voted on,
because I'm pretty sure what staff does is they actually look at what -- the motion that was made
February 4, 2021
Page 81 of 82
when they're doing the staff report.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have not ever seen a revision that has been publicly posted to an
agenda packet, but are you saying --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we can do that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and we've done that not necessarily for a staff recommendation,
but we've done it in the past where we fixed the record. It's not rare.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: But I'm pretty sure -- and, Ray, correct me if I'm wrong, but they
look at the actual motion that was made, and that's what's in the staff report.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We view the video of the meeting or we
get the transcript and look at that as well. But the combination of the two, we verify everything
and make sure we get it right, because we don't want it to go before the Board with an incorrect
representation of the Planning Commission vote.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Does the Planning Commission -- or does -- the County
Commission, do they get to see the original draft that was presented to us? So a lot of times
we're -- you know, in this case for sure, we were modifying the ordinance that was drafted for us,
and we decided to amend that draft ordinance, correct, and that's what we ended up passing. Did
they see the -- you know, the unadulterated initial piece that would have been in accord with staff
recommendation, or is it in accord -- is that original ordinance in accord with the applicant? You
know, how is -- and if they don't see the original, then it doesn't matter. If they only see what we
voted on then --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Normally what happens -- and Ray will correct me -- is that
there are changes that are made during the discussions, the applicant makes those changes, staff
ensures that the changes were made, and that the planning -- so to the planning board
recommendation is on that amended item, and that's what the Board sees.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And they don't really know what the original looked like?
They just see what we ended up voting on?
MR. KLATZKOW: They just see what -- because the applicant's agreed, yeah, I'll change
the ordinance, so boom, boom, boom, so that's what they're seeing. They're seeing the ordinance
as amended by mutual agreement between the Planning Commission and the applicant, and then
the staff report on that.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it's not necessarily always by mutual agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no, it's always by mutual agreement; otherwise, you don't
have -- otherwise, you don't really have a recommendation. If you --
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. Like today we voted, and it was -- it wasn't what the
applicant agreed to. We decided to modify.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And so they'll -- they'll see what was presented here -- and
you're right on this particular case -- and then the Planning Commission -- it will be part of the
recommendation is the Planning Commission voted but they wanted to see this change or they
wanted to see that change.
COMMISSIONER FRY: But the applicant has the ability to modify the application
between now and when it goes to the County Commission, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, because at the end of the day the applicant's looking for four
votes, and at the end of the day, the applicant may decide that it's in their best interest to abide by
the Planning Commission vote so that they can get their item passed.
February 4, 2021
Page 82 of 82
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Now I understand what you were saying as far as
when it ends up going to the county commissioners, it generally is going to be amended by the
applicant --
MR. KLATZKOW: Generally, yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- for that reason, and if not, then it won't be.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You get items like One Naples which is an outlier. It just is.
But, you know, we'll deal with it when it gets to the Board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I suggest we do this -- because I think Commissioner Shea's
point is well taken. But I don't want to anticipate a shortcoming on the part of staff when they
haven't -- when they haven't prepared their report yet. But I'm going to be looking carefully at
what is submitted to the BCC on One Naples and Heritage Bay and see how that is -- how that is
handled. It's sometimes a daunting task to represent a point of view that you officially as staff
don't share, didn't embrace, but it can be done. It's just it takes some careful drafting and some
objectivity.
So I suggest that we table this and see how things come out on those two and see if we're
comfortable. There may not be a problem. But I'm glad you brought that up. Anybody else
want to weigh in on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
I don't have anything further to talk about under new business. Does anybody else have
any new business they want to bring up?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, public comment, any member of the public wish to be
heard on any item that was not on our agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, and without objection, we're adjourned.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 3:11 p.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.