Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/20/2021TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 20, 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 Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (attended remotely) Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney May 20, 2021 Page 1 of 80 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Greetings everyone. Welcome to the May 20, 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.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik has requested that we vote to permit him to participate remotely. And, Mr. County Attorney, I think we're still within the bounds of -- MR. KLATZKOW: As long as we're under the local and state emergency orders, it will be permissible. Once the orders expire, that will be the end of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. May I have a motion to allow Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Good morning, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is where you say hello, Robb. MR. SUMMERS: We've got some audio issues. Hold on one second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we've got a quorum. Will the 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? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Still working on Robb. Okay. We have four in person and I believe one virtual, to be confirmed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And Mr. Vernon and Mr. Schmitt both have excused absences. May 20, 2021 Page 2 of 80 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any changes to the current agenda as it's been provided to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: I do. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, we do have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Good morning. Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We do have one item that we would like to add under new business, and that is to discuss the evening meetings for the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I was going to talk about them at the next item, if that's all right with you. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Anywhere you would like to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. In line with what we talked about on Tuesday. Well, thank you. MS. JENKINS: That's my entry music. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's late. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, our next meeting is Wednesday, May 26th. It's a special meeting. As I will say more about in a moment, we will not be here for the evening portion, but we will be here -- we are requested to be here for the daytime portion of that special meeting on the 26th. Does anyone know if he or she cannot be in attendance? COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that at 9:00 a.m.? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 9:00 a.m., yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot tell you at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Business commitments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we will hope that we have a quorum. I don't believe Commissioner Schmitt is going to be here on the 26th. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, he is. He said the 26th meeting was a day he was going to be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He did? All right. Okay, good. Okay. Our minutes to be approved. First we have those of our attempted April 15, 2021. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ah, good morning, Mr. Klucik. We were worried about you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I've been connected. I'm sorry. I didn't hear any -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you've been approved for participation, so we're delighted to have you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, great. I'm sorry. I caught you right when you just said we're having a problem with Robb, and that was the first I heard, you know, even though I've been logged in. So there you go. So I guess I really haven't missed anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, you haven't. COMMISSIONER FRY: That was a rhetorical statement, Robb. Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Quorum of five. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. So our attempted minutes of April 15, and that meeting, as you know, failed for a lack of May 20, 2021 Page 3 of 80 quorum, but we need to take action on those minutes to create a record of why there was no substantive meeting and that it was at that time continued to a later date. So may I have a -- any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Then we have the minutes of the meeting to which the 15 April meeting was continued, and that's April 19. Any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (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 KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: On the May 11th Board of County Commissioners there were no land-use items presented at that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Now let's -- before we get into our substantive agenda, let's talk about the need for an evening meeting to deal with certain LDC amendments, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Again, Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We are requesting an evening meeting to hear those LDC amendments either June 3rd, is the preference for that date, or the second meeting in June, which I think is June 17th. So we needed to continue those items from your special meeting on the 26th, and hopefully we can get those scheduled for you on the 3rd. Currently, our projections are only to have one other item on the meeting of the 3rd, so we could start that later, but on the 26th we can see how we're going and how many items maybe continue, what kind of time you may need, but we'd like to request for an evening meeting on June 3rd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Commissioners, anyone have a conflict, inability to May 20, 2021 Page 4 of 80 be there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Everybody seems to be willing and able to be there on June 3rd. So by consensus our evening meeting will be on June 3rd beginning at five minutes after 5:00. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask for a clarification? Are you saying that if there are only one or two items on the normal meeting for the 3rd, we might start later in the day rather than 9:00 a.m.? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I think that you would want to consider, you know, starting in the afternoon if you only have a couple items, because we do have to start the meeting at 5:05 for the LDC amendment. So we wouldn't want to have to bring you in and then have a break. And so we'll just help you work through that as we get closer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be welcome. Thank you very much. MS. JENKINS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***We're going to public hearings. And the first matter is PL20200002234. It's the RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments here to us for recommendation on transmittal. And the Chair recognizes Ms. Mosca. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with Zoning Division staff. And I'm not sure how to get the screen turned over. Thank you. Okay. So, Commissioners, this is the fourth restudy. There were four directed by the Board of County Commissioners, and this is the fourth. The other three have all been approved. The last you heard was the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and that's been approved as well moving forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By the way, during this pause I'll just indicate that the reason we didn't ask for witnesses to be sworn in or for disclosures is because this is legislative in nature. Sorry. Go ahead. MS. MOSCA: No, that's correct. And this is the transmittal hearing so, Commissioners, you'll have another shot at this after it goes to the state agencies for review and their comment. So what I'd like to say, this review and preparation of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Districts, this has been a team approach. You'll see on the screen multiple disciplines were involved including Planning, Transportation, Stormwater, Housing, and Planning. I think I said that. So today -- I know that Commissioner Homiak was here when we had the approval, I believe, of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, you know, at the beginning with the plan amendments, but I think for the rest of you, you may or may not be familiar with them. So what I'd like to do in today's presentation is to include an overview and a history of the existing Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District of the Future Land Use Element, take you to the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments, a transfer of development rights, or what we call TDRs. So you'll hear that acronym, so Transfer of Development Rights means TDRs. So we'll take you through a credit analysis based on the proposed amendments. Future development, we'll talk about the future development and infrastructure needs in the North Belle Meade, and that's NBM on the screen in the Belle Meade area. We'll also talk about some general discussion items, and those will include public comment. We had a period of time, approximately two weeks, when these amendments were drafted and sent out for comment. Then, finally, we'll talk about staff recommendations. So just to give everyone an idea of where these -- where the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is located, it's generally located -- and I'm trying to get this mouse to work. Yep, here we May 20, 2021 Page 5 of 80 go. So it's generally located east of the urban area, and that's those areas in yellow right here, and west of Golden Gate, Golden Gate Estates, and that's that area here. So the rural fringe is approximately 73,000 acres in size. The receiving areas noted here in this teal color, that consists of approximately 22,000 acres. And so here is the receiving areas, these areas here. And we'll go into further detail and discussion about those areas. Your sending areas, which are identified here in orange, here's the Belle Meade area, and that's south of I-75, and then your North Belle Meade area here, and then you have some other smaller sending areas throughout here. And these are approximately 45,000 acres in size with more than half of the acreage in private ownership and the remaining acreage in public ownership. And the neutral areas or these hatched areas that you can see here, there's some throughout, those consist of approximately 9,500 acres, and we'll talk about all of those areas as we move forward through the presentation. I just want to let everyone know, we probably have somewhere around 28 to 30 slides. Not all substantive information, but just wanted to give you an idea of where we're headed. So let's talk a little bit about the history of the RFMUD, Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. If you could just switch to the slide -- previous slide. I have one quick question. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So if you're on Immokalee Road, you have a tan or peach colored box. MS. MOSCA: This here? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. What is that? MS. MOSCA: That's Orangetree. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's Orangetree, okay. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's just an existing development. That's why that's highlighted? MS. MOSCA: Yes. It's a settlement area, yes. It has higher densities -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Oh, sure. Okay. So back to the history. So in the 1990s, there was a requirement to conduct a comprehensive study of our Comprehensive Plan or our Growth Management Plan, and that occurred every seven years under state law. The evaluation would typically result in amendments to the plan. In 1997, the county adopted these amendments based on this evaluation which were ultimately found to not be in compliance with state laws. So after administrative law hearings in 1999, the Governor and cabinet issued a final order which included a requirement for, within a three-year period the county had to address deficiencies within the final order for the rural lands. So these are listed on the slide, and they include protections of prime agricultural land, direct incompatible land uses away from -- and their habitat -- and their listed species away from development, habitat, and protect the environmental lands, and also provide measures to curtail urban sprawl. So to address some of these deficiencies, the county adopted the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, which includes both regulations that restrict uses and residential density on sending lands, and there's a voluntary TDR program or, again, the Transfer of Development Rights program that provides for residential development rights to be transferred from sending lands. These areas, again, in orange. So to transfer the development rights from these areas to receiving areas. So these areas in this bluish color here, which is the compensation mechanism for sending landowners May 20, 2021 Page 6 of 80 for their presumed loss in property value caused by the reduction in density as well as the land uses. So for owners of sending lands that choose to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights program, here is a sample calculation of the potential TDRs that can be generated from a 40-acre sending-lands parcel. There are four potential TDR credits. The base credit, calculated at one TDR per five acres, an early-entry credit to encourage participation in the program, restoration and maintenance credit for creating and implementing a plan to restore the property's environmental integrity, and the conveyance credit for the property to be conveyed to an approved agency for long-term maintenance. So all these credits are calculated at a rate of one TDR for each five acres or legal lot of record. So in this scenario, an example of a 40-acre parcel utilizing all TDR credits, it would generate 32 Transfer of Development Rights credits. MR. EASTMAN: Michele, do you know how much a credit goes for, roughly? MS. MOSCA: It ranges. The base credit is still required to be 25,000. A lot of times they are a package deal, so an individual credit could come anywhere from 15- and I heard as high as 18,000. So 15,000 to 18,000 is what I've heard. So I don't know definitively, but I'm sure when someone gets up as a member of the public, they may be able to give you some additional information, but we do have record of the 25,000 requirement. So looking at the receiving lands, at a landscape scale, receiving lands have the least environmental value and, therefore, suitable or most appropriate areas to receive density that may be transferred from these sending lands. Again, so these are these areas here, so we have four of them. So the four receiving areas are labeled on the map, and they're going to be very relevant when we're discussing the proposed amendments. Agricultural uses within these areas have been expanded and density increased to one dwelling unit per acre for parcels 40 acres in size or larger. So there are three development scenarios on receiving lands. You can have your baseline conditions, and that's one dwelling unit per five acres. You can participate in the TDR program at one dwelling unit per acre via TDR credits, and a mixed-use development called a rural village. So the rural village can be developed in each one of these four receiving areas. So, again, these areas here. The villages must be a mixed-use development. Rural villages development allows for the highest density, roughly -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If you would, the technical folks -- yes, I haven't been able to see it. So if our speaker is, you know, referencing her presentation, if you could please have it up at that time. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I'm not clear what he's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, are you able to see what's on the screen? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I was, and then for the last 30 seconds or one minute I wasn't just because they just had it -- I got to see all of my fellow commissioners' shiny faces, and then as soon as I started speaking, someone switched it to the view of the presentation. So that's all. If you could just make sure, if our speaker's referencing their presentation, just make sure it's on the screen so I can see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Let me just go back over the density for the rural village. So the rural village development allows for the highest density. That's two to three dwelling units per acre and various intensity of uses allowing a full range of commercial, industrial, and business uses. May 20, 2021 Page 7 of 80 For owners of receiving lands that choose to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights program, here is a sample TDR redemption calculation on a 40-acre receiving lands parcel and a 1,500-acre rural village. Thirty-two TDRs would be needed to develop a 40 -- I'm sorry -- 40 residential units on a 40-acre parcel. A maximum -- and you can look at the math. The maximum of 2,700 TDRs would be required to develop a 1,500-acre rural village. So there's going to be no difference. You'll see the two -- sorry. You'll see the two DUs per acre and the three DUs per acre. So there's no difference in those calculations for TDRs because if you're a rural village, there's a density bonus that's granted for each TDR that's acquired to achieve the minimum density of two dwelling units per acre. So, really, you get the third dwelling unit as a freebie. So let's talk a little bit about neutral lands, the hatched areas. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't know if it's just me, but I did not -- I understood the first half of that slide, but I didn't understand the bottom portion. I understand there was a way to get the third unit per acre, but I didn't catch the jump from the 40-acre example down to the 1,500-acre example. So the 40-acre example is just showing that right now they could do eight if they didn't participate, because that's their base density? MS. MOSCA: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then if they used the credits, they could go up to 40 units on those 40 acres, one per acre? MS. MOSCA: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But if you have the same -- if you want to do a bigger project, that's how the density increases. MS. MOSCA: Through the rural village, correct. And so it's the same calculation. It's just at a higher rate and a higher density. So you'd still have -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that -- is that density, then, for all 1,500 acres you're able to build three homes? MS. MOSCA: Three dwelling units per acre, so 4,500 dwelling units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Homes, okay. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. Next, we'll talk about the neutral lands. So from an environmental perspective at the landscape scale, again, the neutral lands have native vegetation habitat for listed species but do not have the same value as sending lands. Neutral lands are what we call neutral to the TDR program. Currently, TDR credits cannot be sent or received. Density is allowed at one unit per five acre, and the permitted and conditional uses of the agricultural zoning district remain unchanged. So now we're going to switch over to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District amendments, or the acronym RFMUD. So in 2015, the Board directed staff to conduct a restudy of four program areas of which the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is one. The Board appointed a citizen committee to have a high-level oversight of the restudy process. The Board identified the four listed objectives for the restudy, and these are addressed: Complementary land uses, economic vitality, transportation mobility, and environmental stewardship. The restudy included community outreach. It included a website and workshops within the community. The restudy process culminated with staff preparing a white paper that included a summary of public comments and a summary of recommendations from both the staff and the public. The white paper was presented to the Board, and the Board of County Commissioners gave staff direction to proceed with certain amendments. These are the amendments that are in your resolution, Exhibit A, with some exceptions, and we'll go over those later. May 20, 2021 Page 8 of 80 So for the sending lands, some of the most significant amendments include providing additional TDR credits to sending lands owners, replacing early-entry bonus with two base credits, allowing sending lands owners to participate in program changes if the land has not yet been conveyed, provide conveyance of land to a not-for-profit or land trust by board approval, provide clustering provision for large sending land parcels, and implement the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay, and this is a comprehensive watershed improvement plan program. So some of the most significant amendments for the receiving lands was to eliminate development standard requirements in the rural village for research and technology parks; providing TDRs for existing agricultural uses and preservation; providing new mixed-use standards for rural villages, and this is similar to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area standards; require all projects greater than or equal to 300 acres utilize rural village provisions to incentivize rural village development; provide greater opportunities for affordable housing projects at higher densities; and the opportunity to include commercial component to the project; and, finally, incentivizing employment centers outside rural villages by allowing business industrial uses identified as Florida qualified target industries. And you probably remember that from the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. These are your manufacturing, trade, finance and insurance, and some of those, and corporate headquarters. For neutral lands, currently owners cannot participate in the TDR program. This amendment would allow participation for existing agriculture and conservation uses. Clustering would also be allowed by this amendment without an acreage threshold. Currently it's 40 acres. For urban designated lands, the amendments would eliminate the requirement to use TDRs for infill properties, and that's a provision within the Future Land Use Element; eliminate the requirement for sending lands' TDRs for development of those properties to be located within one mile of the urban area; and then increase residential density in the urban fringe and require TDRs to be used to increase density through a Growth Management Plan amendment. Rural Fringe Mixed-Use amendments that were not proposed by staff, increase density from one dwelling unit per two dwelling unit per acre outside rural villages and all receiving areas. So if you remember, there were four receiving areas. The original proposal or direction was to provide two dwelling units per acre within all of those receiving areas outside of rural villages, and we'll discuss that further as we go along. Another one was to increase rural village density. Staff recommended that the density in the rural villages remain at two to three dwelling units per acre, and this will allow for additional study within the Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade areas where we'll see the majority of growth in the future. Eliminate the size of the rural village; staff recommended retaining the existing size of these villages for further study. And the elimination of the greenbelt; so staff recommended reducing the greenbelt to maintain the transition of uses and maintain the rural character of the area. So now we'll shift to supply and demand of TDRs based on the proposed amendments. Now, this is one scenario. I mean, there's multiple scenarios based on participation. So in the north receiving area -- let me see if I can -- this area here, this currently is the site of the Immokalee Road Rural Village. That came before you-all. If adopted, it will encompass the entirety of the privately owned receiving areas, so all of -- I'm losing my mouse here -- all of these areas. This area now outside of this sending area just north and south, those are now owned by the state, and so that color on the map will be changing. For the northwest receiving area, this area within here, staff believes it's unlikely that a rural village will be developed based on ownership patterns and existing development. So for a rural village, no TDRs will be counted in that scenario. Now, for nonrural village development, the assumptions are based on the white paper, that there's possibly 60 percent of the landowners would participate, and, again, this could be higher or May 20, 2021 Page 9 of 80 lower. So let's talk a little bit about the North Belle Meade area in here. This is the receiving area in the North Belle Meade area, and this is north of I-75. And then this is the Belle Meade area south that abuts Tamiami Trail East. The North Belle Meade area in here, the assumption is that one rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 1,500 acres, so that would be up to 4,500 dwelling units, and 2,700 TDRs would be needed for that. For the Belle Meade area the assumption is that the rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 2,500 acres, right in through here, and up to 7,500 dwelling units and 4,500 TDRs would be needed to entitle development. So for nonrural village development -- that's the development outside of the rural villages -- the assumption, once again, for this scenario was based on 60 percent of the landowners participating, and we retained the 40-acre threshold. And so the north would be roughly 1,103 dwelling units, and the south would be approximately 2,514 units. So the total -- based on this particular scenario, there would be a total of 20,530 dwelling units in all of these areas and possibly 11,139 TDRs to entitle that development. Shifting to the supply side. The existing sending lands database that's maintained by staff at the county was used to determine the supply. The participation rate of plus or minus 50 percent was applied to the total possible TDRs. That was for the base, the early entry, environmental restoration, and maintenance and conveyance TDR bonus credits, and these are, again, consistent with the assumptions in the white paper. The total yields approximately 6,278 TDRs based on that applied assumption. And, again, this could be higher or lower depending on the participation rate. Now we want to look at supply of new credits through these abatements. So the new supply is based on the proposed amendments, and they include the Belle Meade flowway TDR bonus credit, and this is for the Belle Meade area. This is south of I-75 for that Belle Meade hydraulic enhancement overlay, and we'll discuss that further as well. And we assumed 100 percent participation or 560 new TDRs coming online. So the next one is sending lands existing agricultural TDR bonus. We assumed 80 percent in the north sending lands where there -- excuse me -- where there are existing groves, 30 percent in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas where there's a limited amount of lands in agricultural use. So this is the calculation here, so that would be roughly 446 new TDRs coming online from an estimated 1,407. The neutral lands existing agricultural TDR bonus, staff assumed 10 percent utilization, and that would come online at approximately 126 TDRs. So you see that staff was very conservative going through these additional TDR credits. And then the final one is the receiving lands existing agricultural TDR credit. Staff assumed 50 percent of the 6L Farms, and that's on the Belle Meade side and that -- again, that area is located at Tamiami Trail East. So we're looking at the total supply, then, of 8,021 TDRs, and the TDR potential demand of 11,139 TDRs. So the estimated deficit, again, based on this scenario would be roughly 3,000 TDRs. I know that's a lot of information; we can discuss that further if you'd like. So the next area we'd like to talk about is the North Belle Meade or NBM and the Belle Meade areas. Again, north of I-75 is the North Belle Meade. South of 75 is the Belle Meade area. So staff mentioned early in the presentation that we're not recommending amendments to be applicable to the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas due primarily to infrastructure concerns. Existing development is and has been on Immokalee Road where infrastructure is available or planned. The greatest future development demand will be in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade receiving areas. May 20, 2021 Page 10 of 80 Again, this map identifies the two areas, so here's the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas. So I believe, Eric Fey is here. Eric Fey from the utility staff will talk about water and sewer availability, followed by Michael Sawyer who will talk about the transportation network that's available in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas. MR. FEY: Thank you, Michele. For the record Eric Fey, principal project manager, Public Utilities. The slide on screen here presents an overview of the RFMUD along with our existing treatment plant and major structure facilities within the water/sewer district. The table represents the potable water and waste wastewater demands, respectively, for each of the four receiving areas. Underneath those demands -- and that is -- by the way, those numbers are the additional demand from what exists today, not the totals. The percentages, on the other hand, underneath those demands are the impacts of the staff-proposed amendments on those demand forecasts. As you can see, with the northwest receiving area being the only one with the density increase, we're looking -- using the assumptions beneath the table, and some of the assumptions Michele stated earlier in her presentation, we're anticipating a 10 percent impact to that receiving area overall, which would be a 35 percent increase in forecasted demand. And some of those assumptions, as she stated, include a 60 percent participation rate. And I think she identified 788 eligible acreage -- acres within receiving area. I want to just go ahead and discuss briefly how we intend to serve these various receiving areas. As you know, the north receiving area is Immokalee Road Rural Village. We are already in the process of extending services, including potable water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water services to that anticipated village. There are existing mains already along 39th Avenue Northeast, and we do anticipate extending new mains up Immokalee Road to their entrance. The next receiving area, the northwest receiving area, is, you know, partially developed today, and the existing developments all receive service from large transmission mains that we extended along Immokalee Road somewhere around 2005, and those mains are of adequate size to serve the increased density in the northwest receiving area. The North Belle Meade receiving area, as you can see from the yellow arrow, that's the original route that was anticipated to extend water and wastewater services to North Belle Meade. In 2003 the Board passed a resolution expanding the water/sewer district to serve all of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, and that was the anticipated route. Unfortunately, we do not have a force main along Collier Boulevard. So it would be necessary, if we take that route, to extend wastewater services down to the Golden Gate wastewater treatment plant. Because of that, another alternative that we would prefer is to extend services along Wilson Boulevard. As I'm sure you're aware, that roadway is anticipated for widening and improvement in the Long-Range Transportation Plan, I believe, in the CIP. Trinity Scott could speak to that. But when that road is expanded, we'll look at the possibility of extending mains along with that roadway project. The last receiving area is the Belle Meade in the south part of the water/sewer district. We presently have a 40-acre site on Manatee Road that was contemplated for the southeast regional water treatment plant, and new mains would be extended down Tamiami Trail to serve the Belle Meade receiving area. We're also in the process now of doing a real estate search for a future southeast regional water reclamation facility. Based on our master planning efforts, we're not the sure that those are the best alternatives, but, you know, we will serve the Belle Meade area either with those new plants or with our existing plants and extending or expanding our transmission mains accordingly when Six L's Farm starts to develop in the next 10 to 20 years. May 20, 2021 Page 11 of 80 So that concludes my presentation. Any questions for Utilities before I walk away? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. Are you providing service to the rural fringe areas by bringing the water and wastewater back into the main system, or are you using any of the new facilities on Oil Well? MR. FEY: Not on Oil Well, but the Immokalee Road Rural Village will be served by the new northeast utility facilities. The other receiving areas, northwest and North Belle Meade, you know, those would be served from our existing plants with -- in the case of the northwest, existing pipelines. In the case of North Belle Meade, we'd have to extend new pipelines from our existing facilities. And the Belle Meade area's a bit of a toss-up. You know, we have contemplated new facilities in the southeast part of our service area to serve that future development. That's not a certainty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Eric, are you confident that, from the standpoint of water and reclaimed water, that the infrastructure will be available, that it will not be an issue to serve these areas, these receiving areas? MR. FEY: It will not be an issue. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. On your North Belle Meade, you showed a possible route, and then you showed an alternative route which you preferred, which was an expanded Wilson Boulevard. Where is that -- it just showed an arrow. It ended at Immokalee Road. Where is it actually ending up? MR. FEY: Like I mentioned for the northwest receiving area, we've got large-diameter transmission mains, including a 36-inch water main and a 16-inch water main that were designed to serve all of the northeast service area in combination with the northeast utility facilities, so there's plenty of capacity in the northeast to provide service to North Belle Meade. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you're hooking up to the northeast going up Wilson -- MR. FEY: At Immokalee Road, correct. If we go that route instead of going west, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. FEY: Thank you. Michele is just suggesting that I clarify the timing. You know, we're doing our master planning effort right now. It should be done next month, and when we provide the 2021 AUIR, that master plan will be an attachment, and we'll address timing of those improvements in the master plan. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fey, you may not know, because it's not really directly in your area, but what about electrical service out there? MR. FEY: Yeah, I can't speak to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll ask Ms. Mosca. Thank you. Mr. Sawyer. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. In front of you, you see the 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan. Just as a refresher -- and you've heard this a number of times more recently -- but the MPO bases the future population growth on the median population estimate. That population is distributed around the county based on the county's interactive growth model. And we do understand that the world doesn't end in 2045. That's one of Trinity's lines. But that is how far out we work with our transportation plan. The model runs that are used, those are what are reviewed, and that is what we use to come May 20, 2021 Page 12 of 80 up with our cost feasible plans which, again, is what you've got in front of you, and that is what is adopted by the MPO board and incorporated into the county's planning process. We can go over the specifics as far as potential roadway improvements that would be feeding into the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade areas that we've been talking about. It is our -- it is Transportation Planning's position that any further addition of density should be thoroughly studied to determine the impacts to the transportation network and what additional facilities might be necessary as well as a proper mix use -- proper mix of uses that will support a maximum internal capture and shorter trip lengths. What that's basically trying to say is that we -- any additional density that we would be looking at in, again, the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade area really needs to be looked at from a transportation standpoint, the infrastructure. If we properly plan it so that we have requirements that have implications where we have fewer trips out onto our road networks, in other words, we try and capture as much of those internal trips as we possibly can, the better we're going to be. COMMISSIONER FRY: By that you mean having sufficient commercial services in those areas so the people don't have to leave the area? MR. SAWYER: Absolutely, yes. I do have information as far as specific links that we could possibly talk to. I don't know how far you want to get into that. Mostly what we're talking about as far as servicing these two areas is going to be the extension of Wilson. And I can give you time frames if you really want those. They are within the 2045. We also have Benfield/Wilson, which would be serving further south into the Belle Meade area. And, again, I've got time frames on those. The other issue is certainly 41. And there are plans within the 2045 from FDOT to make improvements in a stretch that would be right in front of the Belle Meade area. But, certainly, we would want, if we're looking at additional densities, to certainly bring in -- FDOT into those discussions. Because right now their plans are just like ours. They're looking at the current densities that have been proposed previously. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is FDOT -- what do they have in mind in that section of 41? Expanding it? MR. SAWYER: It would be expanding from two lanes to four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Similar to what they've already done further north and west. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: That's all I've got. I believe Michele is next. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a quick question? Maybe it's for ourselves. I assume we have a fiscal-neutrality requirement on the receiving areas as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the RFMUD materials, they're there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's the same, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would also tag onto that, if I may. There are provisions elsewhere in the Growth Management Plan calling for self-sufficiency, which points to the need to look at and to try to regulate the nature of the commercial uses being deployed within developments like these. What is your take on the importance of us considering self-sufficiency and the particular commercial uses in developments -- villages and other developments? MR. SAWYER: From a transportation standpoint, as many trips as we can contain within individual developments is a direction that we would want to go, because that means we don't have May 20, 2021 Page 13 of 80 to make as many or as large of improvements into our existing facilities. We may be able to do additional lanes on existing segments on existing corridors instead of looking at new corridors, for instance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: I apologize. Michele also wanted me to point out that Benfield is not fully funded at this point, even in the 2045. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But this gets back to the same issue we have every time something comes up. So you're planning for growth, and you're building it into our capital budget. So the only way you can prove fiscal neutrality -- we've already paid for it and built it into our budget. So if our impact fees cover the costs, I guess that's the only way that it's fiscally neutral. It just gets very complicated, because we're doing all the planning right now for this growth, and now they're going to come in as individual developments, and we have to look at them as to whether they're fiscally neutral or not, but yet we've already put in the budget the highway system to support them. It's confusing to me as a commissioner as to how you get to fiscal neutrality when we're planning for that growth and the residents are paying that money now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Impact fees are certainly an important part of that, but so is property taxes, gas taxes, and other user fees. They never really quite add up, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, can you show us on that, I'll call it small and, on my monitor, blurry map, Benfield. Is it Benfield/Wilson? Is it a hyphenated name that's anticipated? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's current nomenclature that we're using, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where that would actually -- MR. SAWYER: We're kind of just calling it Benfield currently. That would be this link through here. That is the portion that is projected as far as being funded, 2045. It would also extend further south basically along that line right there. COMMISSIONER FRY: To serve Belle Meade? MR. SAWYER: It is serving future growth, yes, at the estimates that we currently have, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Mr. Sawyer? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Mosca, could I begin by asking you the same question I asked of Mr. Fey. Florida Power & Light, are they in the process of getting electricity out there, or is it already there? MS. MOSCA: Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that, but we could get you the answer, and we could send an e-mail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I don't know the status. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's a private undertaking. It's not part of the Public Utilities, but it's certainly very important in the totality of infrastructure that we would be providing to new occupants. MS. MOSCA: Sure. I'll find that out for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So the next area I'd like to talk about, and I'll have Liz Goslin from stormwater staff just come up and tell you about this exciting project that's just south of I-75. Again, I've mentioned it earlier. It's the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay and that, May 20, 2021 Page 14 of 80 again, has that TDR credit attached to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: Commissioners, good morning. Jamie French. I'm your deputy department head for Growth Management. Very quickly, on your electric utility, that service territory is defined and decided by the Florida Public Service Commission. The area's currently under Florida Power & Light, but you do have a privately owned utility that acts as a co-op. That's Lee County Electric Co-op. That area -- and I just looked at the map from the Florida Public Service Commission. I believe the area's going to be served by LCEC on that one, but that is defined by the Florida Public Service Commission. It's not done on a local government level. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Recognizing that we don't have control over that, should we, nonetheless, be making our decisions about new growth based upon when these other entities can come forward with the resources that we need? MR. KLATZKOW: No. No. MR. FRENCH: Right. There's statutory language that defines that, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: We've got criteria. That's the criteria that the Planning Commission weighs. If the state elects not to provide electricity, which is what the southerner states, quite frankly, and how the state killed the southerner states, that's a state issue, not ours. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Good morning. For the record, Liz Goslin with Stormwater Management. So the comprehensive and watershed improvement plan is a very large project that proposes enhancements of hydraulic conditions to the natural areas immediately east of Naples between U.S. 41 and I-75. This project will be restoring natural flows to rehydrate approximately 9,000 acres in the Picayune Strand Forest area. Again, the project will provide an opportunity to balance freshwater flows to Naples Bay and Rookery Bay. Freshwater flows will be reduced in Naples Bay, which will provide additional water quality. The project will increase freshwater flows into Rookery Bay, which will help to rehydrate those habitats. So the overall project, in summary, it will withdraw water from the Golden Gate Main Canal and then discharge it into I-75 canal and then picking it up again from I-75 and making it flow south through the green area on the screen. Eventually, after some infiltration and evaporation losses, the remaining flow will keep flowing south through some residential communities and eventually reaching the Rookery Bay at the very south of the -- of the project -- of the project area. That's a very general summary of the project. If you have questions about this project, I can answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I'm confused. Technically, where's the water coming from, say, for the I-75 pump station? I didn't quite get where you're pulling water from, and then you're pumping it down the hydraulic area -- hydrologic area. MS. GOSLIN: On the little -- on the map you have a northern pump. Do you see it on the map? You have a northern pump station. So we will have a pump station there that will pump water from the Golden Gate Canal, and then we're going to dump it into I-75 and then picking it up again south of I-75, making it flow south. We'll have another pump station just south of I-75. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're moving it from one canal over into the hydrologic -- MS. GOSLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. May 20, 2021 Page 15 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that all within the -- is the yellow boundary on the outside of that, is that generally the Belle Meade area, or is -- is this just -- this is a part of the Belle Meade -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- receiving area. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Right here. MS. GOSLIN: Yes. I'm assuming, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the green area, is that now -- is it saw grass? Is it -- what is it? Is it Everglades? MS. GOSLIN: That's the Picayune Strand Forest. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. GOSLIN: And about 9,000 acres of that forest will be rehydrated with this project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. It's exciting. Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But there will be homes in the areas, too, right? MS. GOSLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: There are homes in those areas. They're just at a very low density. MS. GOSLIN: Right. Yes, and that's why the project is asking to provide one TDR bonus for those affected property owners so they can have some balance. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Michele Mosca, again, for the record. So now we want to get into talking about some of the -- before we get into the public comment, talk about some of the outstanding issues that we've heard. We've talked to the development community. We've talked to sending lands owners. Some of the concerns that keep coming up as part of the rural fringe program. So, again, there's three outstanding issues, and staff believes it requires further evaluation and study. And this would also include the study of the TDR credit analysis as well, because there's that fine balance. So you always want more demand than you do the supply. So these include sending lands restoration and maintenance credit, the conveyance TDR credit, and a mechanism in which to connect the buyers and sellers. So those sellers of the sending lands, we're trying to compensate them for the loss of uses and intensity on their property. So when the base, early entry, and TDR credits are severed, the property is protected from development but doesn't result in the management of the property, such as maintaining the property free of exotics. The restoration and maintenance credit provides for a plan to restore these properties; however, at times it's expensive and not financially feasible for the one TDR credit per the five acres. So those landowners that have a five-acre piece. Additionally -- and this is a big one -- the long-term maintenance is at issue if the property is not conveyed to an entity to manage that property long term. So the North Belle Meade area, again, that area north of I-75, there's very limited entities accepting properties. So there have been suggestions to increase restoration TDRs, those are the restoration maintenance TDRs, from two to even three credits per five acres. But staff believes, again, this will require further study on the credit system and the discussion of long-term maintenance of these properties. The third issue is connecting the buyers and sellers of these TDRs. Currently, the county maintains a buyers and sellers list, and we roughly have maybe 4- to 500 TDRs available on that list now. We need to adjust that for changes in the last year or so. And the community has suggested a single entity be responsible for those transactions such as a Transfer of Development Rights bank, and many of you may have heard of that; however, the May 20, 2021 Page 16 of 80 Board did not direct staff to pursue that as an option. So we believe that we need further study and discussion on that topic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Within that time frame -- and it's undoubtedly going to take some time -- there will be applications filed for development, and once they're filed, presumably, the developer would have a vested right in being able to proceed under the current rules rather than what might be more restrictive. Would you indicate what, if anything, you know about the future timeline and whether these studies could come forward before rights get vested in the more relaxed rules. MS. MOSCA: Well, what we've done by, you know, retaining the existing conditions for the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade, again, those are the areas we're going to see the greatest development possible. What we've done as part of these amendments is to suggest that we initiate a study within two years. So we're really looking at a comprehensive approach to planning these areas so we can address infrastructure, we can address the mix of uses, and that includes the capture rate that Michael talked about. So we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be, like -- I know you all don't maybe perhaps like the term "smart growth," but you want to offer multiple modes of transportation. We want to look at the possibility of increasing residential density, for example, what was proposed as part of these amendments, four to seven dwelling units per acre. And it may be, in fact, doable, but we would really rather include all the stakeholders in that process and plan it correctly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm one who likes the term "smart growth." Of course, I have my own definition of it, as we're all entitled to. And it seems to me that the restudy recommendation of four to seven would have been optimal. And I understand staff's response that we don't have the infrastructure yet to serve that kind of density. I just -- I'm thinking out loud here. Maybe it's a legal question. Is there some way to lay down a zoning in progress so that -- so that if the rules are changed after someone files an application they would be subject to those new rules? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Unless you're expanding their development rights. It's like the conversation we had at the last meeting where Mr. Yovanovich is asking to be excluded from this but allowed to do that. If you want vested rights, you can have vested rights, and they're determined at the time of the application. But afterwards it's -- unless you're expanding developmental rights, no, it's -- you can't limit people. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it's a conundrum. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's an economic investment. I mean, I make an investment in a parcel of land based on the developmental rights. The government can't come in and then just, like, strip me of my benefit of that investment. That's what Bert Harris is all about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood completely. It's just a point of frustration for me, and I think the solution is for our already overburdened staff to work even harder to get this study completed so that we can put the new rules in place with respect to smart growth, and in this case density, in time to catch all the new developments that are going to come in. Just an expression of hope. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, it's, I think, a good time to take this to a point of being less esoteric to being a real-life example. So let's say that I'm a -- first of all, I guess in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area there are eight main property owners that own a lot of that land. What is the makeup of the ownership of the sending lands in the RFMUD? Is it a small group of people, or is it a very large diverse group of people? MS. MOSCA: It's actually a very large group of people. A lot of the property owners have five acres, less than five acres, 10 acres, and then you have your trusts that have multiple five-acre parcels. So there's many, many, many more property owners in the sending lands. And May 20, 2021 Page 17 of 80 I thought I had that number for you as an estimate, but I don't have it in front of me; whereas, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area has few. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're talking about a lot of individual decisions by property owners to participate in this program. So we started with an example of a 40-acre parcel that generated 32 TDR credits. So maybe a -- maybe a more realistic example is a five-acre parcel -- you said there are a lot of those -- that's owned by one person. So they have the opportunity to earn four TDR credits. So I want to just go through what this actually looks likes in real life. So I have a piece of land. I haven't built on it, but it's got preservation value, so we want to preserve it, and I'm willing not to build on it. So I do the -- I can earn a base credit. I can earn a credit for early entry currently. MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Or it will be two in the future -- MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for base credits. Then I have to create a plan to restore it if I have nonnative vegetation on it and to maintain it, and then I get another credit for that. And then if I convey, which means -- I guess I want to know exactly what that means. I'm going to say, okay, Collier County or somebody else is going to take care of it into perpetuity. So I really have no more use of the land. Do I even own the land anymore? MS. MOSCA: If you convey it, no, you don't own it. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're actually giving up ownership of the land? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I've got these four credits. I have invested some money for a maintenance and restoration plan, I would assume, and I'm going to sell these for 15- to $18,000 each? Is that the -- is that the current -- MS. MOSCA: Whatever the market rate is, the first -- again, the base credit right now is 25,000, but part of these amendments, the proposal has been to eliminate that, and that's in the Land Development Code only. It does not appear in the Growth Management Plan. So there is that proposal currently to eliminate that base credit cost. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it becomes market rate? MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Market rate on that? MS. MOSCA: Yes. I do want to make one point of clarification. So, for example, if you have the restoration and maintenance credit that you want to achieve, let's say you're in the Belle Meade area south of I-75. The state is, in fact, purchasing or seeking properties. So the state already has a restoration and maintenance plan. So what I've been told is that the individual would not have to create that restoration and maintenance plan. That would go under the state plan, and they would convey that property to the state. So it really depends on the area. The biggest challenge, what I've been told, is the North Belle Meade area, those areas north of I-75, and the limitation on the number of entities accepting conveyance. So that was what I said in the last slide, some of those challenges with the program. So looking at the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade area as a whole, how do we address those? And that's something we really need to target and process and get through and understand how we can help that five-acre-parcel owner get those benefits. That's what the program's about. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we had -- I've been here two-and-a-half years, I think, and we've had one RFMUD development come through where a developer had to go out and buy TDRs for -- and I can't remember the name of the development, but it was Immokalee. MS. MOSCA: Ventana? May 20, 2021 Page 18 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: Ventana Pointe. And I remember in speaking with him that it was an arduous process to find and buy those credits. And that was, as I understood, the only time we actually had a different entity that was buying the credits and supplying the credits; that the other developments in the RFMUD had all been the same property owner, had the sending land and had the receiving land, and they just -- so it was an easy transfer. Do we have evidence that this program has actually worked to date or is workable in its current form or even the modified form? MS. MOSCA: We do. I mean, I don't have the map in front of me -- and I can provide that to you all -- but there have been transfer of smaller properties to other areas along Immokalee Road. I'm trying to think of some of the names. Ray, maybe you can help me out. They're just escaping me. Do you recall? Bent Creek, right. So some of those properties in that area have utilized TDRs. So it -- I mean, to say -- I mean, it is working. A TDR program takes a long period of time. This is not something that happens overnight. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe with Ventana Pointe we had to actually make some concessions in terms of density to make it work for the developer in that case. So as a property owner that had five acres, I'm really looking at more or less selling that property for whatever I can get for four TDR credits. Is that -- MS. MOSCA: You can do that, or you can retain the property and have the existing -- let's say you have an agricultural use on the property, so you can do that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MOSCA: But the objective really is to compensate those sending lands owners. So the receiving lands owners are receiving that benefit of increased density. So I mean, really, we need to target those sending lands owners and connecting those buyers -- I mean, those sellers with the buyers in the receiving land, and that's another issue that I mentioned identified that we really need to kind of target as one of our objectives during that additional study. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're here today saying -- you're recommending that we approve these current amendments while saying that there are areas that need to be addressed with further study, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: And there is a base level of development, right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So this is just like RLSA. If the program works, and we're trying to make it work, mazel tov. If the program doesn't work, you still have the base density for people to develop. In the RLSA you've got large property owners, so it's much more easier to accumulate the different rights than it is here where you have five-acre, five-acre, five-acre, five-acre. The worst that happens is the program fails, which is okay because you've still get the base density that hasn't been changed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. But it's got to make economical sense for the property owner that has a five-acre parcel. MR. KLATZKOW: And it may not. It may not. I mean, we're going through condemnation proceedings along the VBR corridor and, you know, acreage is going in excess of $100,000 an acre. So if that starts getting there, you know, and these acreages start getting towards, like, a half a million dollars for five acres down the line, I don't know how you separate. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, 100,000 in TDR credits is not going to -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not going to happen. It's just a question of economics. But that's okay. I mean, we do have the base density. We're just trying to create a smart growth alternative for the area that may not work because of just the ownership pattern. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. May 20, 2021 Page 19 of 80 MS. MOSCA: So Anita placed the spaghetti map strap -- map -- that's a tough one to say. So here are all of the TDR severances that have entitled. So here are your severances here and here that have been entitled development, right. They're along Immokalee Road. So you can see that the program is working. People are severing their TDRs. So I just want to provide that additional information. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's a bit of a miscellaneous assortment of properties that are dispersed all over the place that are being -- their credits are being aggregated into these receiving lands. MS. MOSCA: True. Yeah. What I've noticed just from the short time that I've been working on this program is that there are a lot of land trusts out there that seem to be doing a lot of the transactions. Again, that's why I wanted to bring to the forefront that there is that need to address those property owners that have just the five acres. So they don't hold, you know, hundreds and hundreds of acres. So I just wanted to mention that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, what is the general nature of these land trusts that you're referring to? Tell me how they come about and who owns them. MS. MOSCA: We have a database of all of the sending lands properties. We have a couple of land trusts that own, you know, five-acre parcels, 10-acre parcels, and so forth. And what they do is they either sever the TDRs themselves, or they sell the property, such in the case of Ventana. That was through a trust, and that trust owns many parcels throughout the sending lands in the North Belle Meade area, and that's how Ventana Pointe was able to acquire the TDRs to entitle their development. COMMISSIONER FRY: So these are business ventures where they are acquiring properties with the intention of severing rights and selling the TDRs? MS. MOSCA: Well, I think some of the trusts have owned the properties for a long period of time, so I can't say that is necessarily true. I just don't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: A combination of the value of the land plus severing TDRs when strategically profitable for them. MS. MOSCA: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So what I'd like to address now are the stakeholder comments. And I know we have a couple members of the public that will likely want to discuss these as well. We had a two-week period after staff prepared these amendments, sent them out for review by the stakeholders, and they provided us some comments. Some of these comments include increasing -- and I mentioned this earlier, increasing TDRs for restoration and maintenance. And, again, the concern from staff would be, sure, we could increase those TDRs, two TDRs, three TDRs, four TDRs per five acres. The property owner's required to move -- let's say, remove the exotics, okay. So they achieve that level, and then what happens a year from now? Two years from now? Sometimes those exotics -- I mean, they have a restoration maintenance plan. They have to come in and, you know, address the removal and so forth. But from a staff perspective, we're really looking at the long-term maintenance, and if we just throw out three TDRs for restoration, we really need to make sure we have the correct balance in the TDR system. Another one is to increase density outside of rural villages from one unit to two units per acre. So where we have the infrastructure is in the north part of the county. So in the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area, we have the infrastructure. So we have suggested going ahead and allowing the two dwelling units per acre outside of those rural villages. And there's not a lot of development that can occur in here. So from a staff perspective, transportation, utilities, and so forth, it's something that is, in fact, doable. But then we look down here in the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade, we don't have the infrastructure; we just don't. So to increase to two dwelling units per acre, that May 20, 2021 Page 20 of 80 potentially could impact the infrastructure. And we don't want to put that on the books until we fully study those two areas. Then another was expand affordable housing opportunities to neutral lands. We all like affordable housing, but the intent was never to increase residential density within the neutral lands. So we are proposing an increase in the receiving lands where we feel it's appropriate. So I'll leave it at that. And then provide TDR incentives for public benefit. Certainly, that's something that we can think about, but we do need to address the overall TDR system and make sure we have a balance, and that's supply and demand. And then we had another individual that wanted to expand industrial uses along the East Trail. So right now we have this area right here. It's rural industrial, and it's outside of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. And, sure, you know, we're looking at opportunities to increase employment. I spoke with the gentleman that owns property here. I'm not sure exactly what he'd like to do with the property. He did mention outside storage. Now, we've recently gone through -- and I don't know if you-all are familiar with the East Naples Community Development Plan. They're opposed to any new outdoor storage. So we have concerns about expanding this. It might be necessary for the individual to come in with a Comprehensive Plan change so they can identify the types of uses or if, in fact, an expansion in this location of industrial uses is appropriate. We just don't know that at this point. Is there a demand for industrial uses? Probably. But is this the location for that? Okay. And then we also have -- one of the other ones was eliminate TDR usage for increased densities with the Growth Management Plan amendments. So you'll see that in the resolution itself. So in order to create a market for additional TDRs, there's a recommendation to require TDR usage if, in fact, a developer comes in and says, I want to increase residential density. So we could keep that, and we could make exceptions to the rule as projects come in. I mean, that can be done a number of ways. Finally, let's talk about some of the recommendations. So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward these amendments to the Board with a recommendation to transmit to the state as provided in the resolution, Exhibit A, adding the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement map and text to initiate the Belle Meade study within the two-year period, and that's identified on Page 8 of the staff report. And I know, Mr. Chairman, we had some additional discussions. I wasn't sure how -- we're supportive of those recommendations. I wasn't sure if you wanted to go through the resolution itself, or do you want to make those recommendations now, or would you like staff to bring them up? I don't want to put you on the spot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. I was prepared to bring them up when we ask our questions, but if staff would prefer to address them proactively, that would be fine with me as well. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I can do that. So we met with Commissioner Fryer. He had an exception to the usage of TDRs for Growth Management Plan amendments to increase residential density. He asked about affordable housing. So within the urban area currently we have the density bonus provision that would allow for increased affordable housing opportunities. So we can make that exception to affordable housing. So if, in effect, a developer wanted to come in and increase that above 12, we would make that exception. And then on Page 22 -- I'm sorry. This is on the resolution. I'm going back and forth. So with the greenbelt, as part of these amendments, there was a recommendation from the public, I believe, to eliminate the greenbelt. What staff did, because we believe that it's necessary to May 20, 2021 Page 21 of 80 provide that transition, that we would add an averaging, which is -- and we can get to the resolution, which we would ask to put 100 feet in there, and then there was some additional language -- Commissioner Fryer, if you can help me out, there was some language in that same paragraph that was incorrectly struck through, so we need to add that back in. And, again, if you-all want to go to your resolution, or we can go to that afterwards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. When I have my comments, we'll cover it. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So in addition to the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments, staff will also be preparing Land Development Code amendments following the adoption hearings to implement the Growth Management Plan amendments and to improve program processes and procedures. After that, here are our next steps. So these transmittal amendments will be going to the Board in September. They'll be transmitted to the state, and typically that's a 30-day review period. Then you'll get a second look at these amendments. And we're hoping to get those to you by the end of the year, and then the Board of County Commissioner adoption hearings likely at the beginning of next year, and then we'll see a compliance finding, hopefully, by the state. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why so long to go to the county commissioners; four months? MS. MOSCA: Well, we talked about -- there's, obviously, the month off in August. We do have a backlog of planning petitions. So if we can get to them sooner -- there's only one meeting in July and there's no meeting in August. And so we're kind of trying to address the petitions that are in the pipeline now. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So with that, that completes or concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Who has questions? Comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'll go through mine. Overall, I'm quite pleased with this work. I think it's a significantly -- significant improvement over what we have now, and I commend staff for your work. My first question is on Page 3 -- I'm going to use the numbering of the staff report, because my other numbering, I've got Packet Page 2482, but that's a previous packet, because the current packet only goes up to 2208. So on Page 3 -- MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Is this Page 3 of the staff report or the resolution? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And it's Roman IIB, captioned Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. And this is just a point of clarification. It was answered to my satisfaction on Tuesday, but I wanted to raise it so that we make a public record of it, the reason why the 93,000 acres was reduced to 77- and some change. And if you could just give us a short reply to that, Ms. Mosca, along the lines of what you told me, that would suffice. MS. MOSCA: Happy to. So the original study area was over -- what was it, over 90,000-some-odd acres. There were some areas around, for example, Corkscrew that are not included in the actual district. So it's just the difference of the original study area versus the actual Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District acreage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Were there some state lands that were -- MS. MOSCA: There are some state lands within there as well, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But that's what accounts for the difference in the acreage. MS. MOSCA: Yes. And, you know, Commissioner Fryer, I'm sorry. My numbering is different, so I'm going to sort of struggle through this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I apologize. MS. MOSCA: Nope. That's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then my next one is on, I guess it's Page 4, the very next page of May 20, 2021 Page 22 of 80 the staff report where the language currently says, any Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase residential density within any of the subdistricts in this district shall only provide for that density increase via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program. And I think it's your intent to also include the opportunity to increase density through affordable housing. And I just wanted to be sure that we made that clarifying point. And it could be made in a variety of language changes, very simple things, which I'd be happy to suggest one. That's the intent of staff, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That affordability also be among the roster of things that would lead to increased density. And a way of -- perhaps the easiest way of accomplishing this is just putting the phrase, except as otherwise provided elsewhere, comma, or elsewhere herein. MS. MOSCA: I just have a clarification. So when you say "except as otherwise provided herein," so there's already the exception for up to 12. Were you proposing -- maybe I misunderstood yesterday -- or Tuesday. Were you proposing to increase affordable housing beyond 12 without the utilization of TDRs? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. I'm trying to cure what I see as a conflict in the language. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it could also be addressed -- excuse me. I'm losing my voice. It could also be addressed by adding the expression at the end, "via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program or through affordable housing." Maybe that's an easier way; fewer words. MS. MOSCA: I understand your objective. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody have an objection to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Hearing none. All right. Then -- and it should be pointed out -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to see exactly where that's inserted -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and what the insertion is going to be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: Is it -- Commissioner Fryer, is it easier to go to the resolution, maybe, where we had the strikethrough and underline? Would that be easier to follow? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, yeah. Let's do it that way. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is that in our agenda packet? MS. MOSCA: It should be under the resolution in Exhibit A. Does anyone have the full agenda packet that could provide a number? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Conceptually, Commissioner, it says that -- right now in this discrete section it says, the only way that you can get additional density is through transfer of TDRs, and I want to add "and affordable housing," because the plan provides for that in other provisions, but it is contradictory when it says "the only way." MS. MOSCA: Well, I actually liked your verbiage where you said, except as otherwise provided herein. I think that's clear and succinct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine, too. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. That makes sense "except as provided," because then it -- whatever it is that we put in there, we're not limiting that, so that makes sense. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. May 20, 2021 Page 23 of 80 MS. MOSCA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's fine. I mean, I don't need to see more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. It's 10:28. Let's take a 10-minute -- let's take a 12-minute break to 20 minutes of 11:00, and maybe we can find that citation at that point. Thank you. We're in recess. (A brief recess was had from 10:28 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's reconvene, please. And where we were is I was asking questions and so, by your leave, I'll continue doing that. There is a reference -- and this is on Page 22 of the staff material. And it has to do with the deletion of the greenbelt. I, for one, would prefer to see that language remain in there, but I don't know how others feel. MS. MOSCA: Well, what staff has done -- and we've worked with environmental staff, and we think it's reasonable that the greenbelt not be less than 200 feet, averaging 100 feet in width, and then the struck-through language on Page 22 to add that back in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does anyone object to that? COMMISSIONER FRY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Which one are we at; the open space environmental protection? CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is E1 on Page 22. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I go back. I'm backtracking a little bit. Also at the top of Page 22 in little Arabic B it says, goods and services required, minimum of 53-square-feet gross building area per dwelling unit. I mean, I think quantitatively, that's good. I mentioned self-sufficiency a little while ago. And I'm not sure whether this commission or staff or the BCC would have any appetite for expanding this substantively, but I wanted to raise the point anyway and see what people thought. When we require commercial uses, right now we don't require specific commercial uses or we don't say commercial uses in order to enable the village or town or whatever to be reasonably self-sufficient. And knowing the problems we have on our roads, the concept of self-sufficiency, I think, is important and I, for one, would like to see a reference to some language in Sub B or elsewhere that would require a developer to give some thought -- and I know I've got to be careful because it could be a slippery slope. And I'm not saying that every development should have its own Publix or whatever, but I just think the concept of self-sufficiency is already embedded in other places in this -- in the Growth Management Plan. And I'd like to see some words dedicated to it in this. What do other commissioners think? COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess my question is, the term "self-sufficiency" means different things to different people. So can we give it -- how do we give it some teeth? You're looking for what exactly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: My objective is to get more cars off the street so that people can satisfy their basic commercial needs to a greater degree, not completely, but to a greater degree, within their community. And I don't have exact language to offer, and I recognize the slippery slopes and the ambiguity, but I just thought I would speak out for the concept, maybe not here, maybe not now. But in so many cases, our roads, we are constrained. We can't -- you know, it's impossible -- it would be impossible to widen roads. Eminent domain would be ridiculously expensive. We couldn't do it. So we have to find other ways to get people off the road. And that's where I'm coming from. Yes, ma'am. May 20, 2021 Page 24 of 80 MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, what I was going to say, if it's a recommendation of this commission, what we could do, as part of the Land Development Code amendments, define that term, and you'll see that again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that would be -- that would be quite satisfactory to me. What do others think? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I think your idea is excellent about having more commercial and more business options available so that people don't -- we reduce vehicle miles traveled. I think the use of the term "self-sufficiency" is potentially dangerous. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's already in the Growth Management Plan elsewhere, but I'm not embracing it. MR. EASTMAN: It seems like a tab to pull on for this, like economically viable for people objecting to the development or whatever. And it may be -- it may be better to just allow greater options for commercial and business uses and go that path because, ultimately, your goal is an excellent goal, to reduce the vehicle miles traveled, and when these new developments happen people can get goods and services closer to them is really what you're saying, in essence. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a consensus that we ask staff to consider putting this in the LDC? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, when Mike Sawyer was up there, he expressed for Belle Meade and North Belle Meade especially that internal capture be maximized for exactly that purpose, because we didn't necessarily have the road infrastructure available. He didn't seem as concerned for the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area. But would the term internal -- "maxing internal capture" or something like that be kind of a little more succinct? He's talking about -- and I guess self-sufficiency, to me, seems to be a rather general term. But I'd like it also to be something that we can really work with in the future and have some teeth. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Two communities. You have a community. It's the same thing. One -- in the first situation, it's all populated by retired folk. It's easier to keep them there if you provide essential goods and service near by. If that same community is with working people, they've got to commute to work. So here you are planning the same community not knowing who's actually going to buy a house in there, and you will have two completely opposite results depending upon who moves in there. So I really don't know how a plan for 2045 we can figure out how we're going to put in any factor that will affect the commutability of this thing, impact on roads, or anything else. Those are going to have to be measured at the time we get development orders. And, again, it's going to depend upon who's living there, modes of transportation, 2045. I mean, I get 90 percent of my stuff off of Amazon now. I can't remember the last time I went out to a department store. That's changed. It's -- I would caution to put -- be very careful about defining these things at this point in time from a planning perspective. We just don't know what the world's going to be like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I take your point. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: More deliveries. More warehousing. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're talking about essential services. You can't plan for whether people will be commuting to work or not, because that depends on who buys. But all people do share certain basic needs for groceries and basic services, which would be a little bit more of a finite list that you might work with. I don't know the answer, but I'm just thinking out loud. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would it be acceptable to the Planning Commission if we asked staff to think about this and see if there might be language that would accomplish the objective sought without creating unintended consequences? And it may well be that there is no such May 20, 2021 Page 25 of 80 language. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You can't force commercial, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's market driven. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's market driven. That's it. If nobody's going to support it, it's not going to be there. MR. EASTMAN: But if it were just an option. Greater choices available. MS. MOSCA: Well, staff can look at that. We'll work with Transportation staff, and we can come back to you with something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I went into this knowing that there were potential pitfalls, so I -- but I wanted to mention it and see what others thought and see whether we couldn't -- MR. KLATZKOW: The key focus is to figure out how many people we want here, right? We're at that early enough stage of development. So how many people do we want populated here, all right, understanding that you've got a base density? And once you figure out how many people are going to be here, we start planning for the infrastructure: The water, the roads, everything else. That's where we are right now. And the focus should be is how many people do we want here, all right, and then we can plan everything else around that. Tom can plan the schools, you know. Eric can plan his water and sewer facilities. So how many people do we want out here? And where we run into problems is that -- and I've seen it in the RLSA -- we keep increasing and increasing the density there, and you can't plan when you do that. It just falls apart because you can only put in so many roads, you can only put in so much infrastructure to begin with, and you come up with plan. How many people do you want? And then stick with it. The commercial will come. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point taken. Thank you. Anything further, ma'am? MS. MOSCA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything -- any further questions from staff? I really do believe that this is an excellent piece of work that you've brought forward, and thank you for that. If staff has presented all it wants to in its initial presentation, it would be time for us to hear from the public, I believe. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers from the public. The first one is Bob Mulhere followed by David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. And Mr. Mulhere has requested additional time, and I have granted it because he's representing several owners. Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Don't start the clock yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a brief presentation. Michele has answered some of the questions, so I won't spend a lot of time on those where I've gotten some answers. I just wanted to say at the outset that, I don't know, I think it was in 2012 or 2013 I and Bruce Anderson -- some of you know Bruce -- we worked together on behalf of a Rural Fringe Coalition, that was a group of landowners, to prepare a white paper. Not the white paper Michele referred to, but a white paper on behalf of those landowners. We made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. They accepted the white paper. Didn't really address any of the 24 recommendations we made. They supported some verbally but said, look, we accept this, and we think we should do a restudy. That restudy on the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District morphed into four restudies, and here we are at the end of the May 20, 2021 Page 26 of 80 line -- even though we started the process -- seven years later now finally looking at the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. So I thought I'd give you a little bit of history. When we talk about doing a study in two years, add 10 to it, unless it's very specific. So let me just say, I represent a number of landowners out there. Some of these I'll tell you who I'm specifically representing, because they really apply. For example, Lipman Family Farms; Jamie Weisinger is in attendance. And in other cases, I do want to disclose that there actually is -- the county has hired Tindale Oliver to do an assessment of alignment and land uses and other planning issues in the North Belle Meade. So where Wilson Boulevard will come down, it had been planned to come straight down. Perhaps it may go further west at an earlier point to serve that area. And I am a sub-consultant to Tindale Oliver. So I won't speak to any of those issues because, obviously, I'm working on behalf of Tindale Oliver who's working on behalf of the county, but I did want to disclose that. So the first recommendation that concerns me is this limitation on private-property rights here, which is this policy that says any comprehensive plan amendment to increase residential density within the subdistricts in this district shall only provide for that density increase through the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights. I think that that is -- that can be decided as a particular GMP amendment is submitted. If there is a proposal to not use TDRs, you can make a decision -- a recommendation, and the Board can make a decision not to support that; however, if we look at one that you've looked at for transmittal recently, which was the Immokalee Road Rural Village, the environmental -- the nongovernmental environmental groups have supported a bonus for restoring the farm fields, the 80 or 90 acres of farm fields, which you agreed with and which the Board agreed with, at least at transmittal. So there are going to be examples where there are public benefits, significant public benefits, that may warrant some density increase that may not be exactly tied to a TDR. So I think this is an overreach in my opinion. And you can look at it on a case-by-case basis. This is another, I think, potentially problematic recommendation which is the requirement that -- well, I mean, it depends on whether or not there's support to really look at in a relatively short period of time or to commence a restudy or a further study -- excuse me. I don't want to overuse that term "restudy" -- in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas. So to suggest that you start that study maybe in two years means we're talking five to seven years. I can tell you that Lipman Family Farms is interested in moving forward on an expeditious path. Now, sure, they may continue to farm for some period of time, but they also may elect to convert some of their land to another use that's allowed for under the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. They are willing to participate if the county is interested in sharing the cost for that assessment. You heard Eric Fey say the county will provide water and sewer. They have to plan for it. That's what we do. That's what the county always does. They look at where -- as Jeff said, they look at where the population's going to go, and then they plan for that. And there is always an opportunity for a public/private partnership in that -- at least in my opinion, in that process. Whether it's fronting some of the costs for the infrastructure improvements, whether it's providing for stormwater management within the system for roadway widening, but you see that all the time, so there is that opportunity. So if that's going to happen expeditiously, we would more than willing -- I'm speaking now on behalf of Lipman Family Farms -- to participate in that process either financially -- certainly we'll participate, but even financially, because there will be some costs for that assessment. COMMISSIONER FRY: What are you asking for specifically, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I'm just asking for a very certain time frame to commence that, and I think two years is too long. I think commence it within 12 months, and let's get moving on it, May 20, 2021 Page 27 of 80 because what was two years before has turned in -- to be seven or eight or nine years now. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you're addressing that to North Belle Meade? MR. MULHERE: I'm addressing that to the Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade. They've already started a study in the North Belle Meade. As I said, Tindale Oliver's been engaged to do that study. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The language that you quoted is the same language that I had -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- raised with respect to affordable housing and -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we added a proviso for that. What if -- and this may not work legally, and so, obviously, I want to know what the County Attorney says as well as other commissioners, but what about adding language that would say, except as otherwise provided herein or in furtherance of public benefit or something like that? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I suggested. And I have a slide that talks to that. There are -- I'll show it to you in just a minute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, staff's recommendation not to increase the non-village density from one to two except along Immokalee Road, I see no reason why you couldn't increase it to two. You must demonstrate that there's adequate infrastructure. We have a process for that. That's what we go through. That's either a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a rezone. If there isn't adequate infrastructure, you can't go forward. You can entitle your land. You simply can't go forward. It's called concurrency. So, I mean, I do understand the recommendation that we don't have enough information and we should do a restudy but, again, that goes back to my suggestion that that be in a time-certain and it be done pretty quickly, not extend it out over a long period of time. It will take a couple years to do that analysis, which I understand, but let's start it sooner than two years. This is, I think -- this recommendation, I think, has a lot of potential unintended consequences. So the idea that anything that's 300 acres or greater must be a rural village means that anything that's 300 acres or greater will have to have commercial uses, and I understand the basis for that. But you could have -- you could have a commercial -- a neighborhood commercial development that was always intended to serve the surrounding lands as well. If you look at the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and you see the locations of those receiving lands, they are surrounded by -- on the east by Golden Gate Estates, and those were always intended to serve those communities as well. So there's not going to be a market for the requirement of neighborhood commercial in every single development in the RFMUD that's 300 -- that's 300 acres or greater. It makes no sense. You could certainly require it for a higher number, maybe 1,000 acres. Right now there's no requirement. It's a voluntary program. But if you want to require a project of a certain size be required to provide commercial, 300 acres is too small. So you're not going to get what you want. And if you did get it, it likely would not succeed in the marketplace, which was already mentioned by some of you. You know, there has to be demand for that use; otherwise, you're asking somebody to build something that's not going to succeed, and then you're forcing them to come in and develop a whole bunch of 299-acre non-village developments as opposed to maybe a larger development that could be served by some commercial that's in that area. So 300 acres is way too small in my opinion. I could support looking at providing commercial services for projects that exceed 300 acres, but requiring it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe that becomes an item that you can consider on a project that's 300 acres or greater. So just looking at this map here, I think as Michele said, you know, the northernmost May 20, 2021 Page 28 of 80 receiving lands, assuming that the Immokalee Road Rural Village goes through and that's, you know, still in the works, it's still being reviewed, it will have to come back for adoption and rezone, that whole receiving area will be spoken for. And the next one, which is -- let's see. I can't find the -- well, right here, that one has been developed through the use of TDRs, and it's been developed in other than a village. There's really no room left to develop that, so you won't get one there. You will get one here potentially in the North Belle Meade. But, again, I agree, there has to be further assessment because right -- and that's going on right now, again. The initial part is going on with the county's engaging Tindale Oliver to look at corridors and land use in that area. So down here, again, if we're going to look at that, it's a very large area, thousands of acres. And if you require a minimum of 300 acres to have commercial uses, you're probably going to have a whole bunch of projects in here that will be -- that will not be sustainable in the marketplace at that 300-acre level. Better to plan it more holistically. You're still going to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and external trips, but you can't be completely self-sufficient. As Jeff said, people have to work. Maybe not everybody, but a lot of people have to work. And they're going to leave the development for various reasons, unless you can import the beach and all the employment into one location. Let's talk about this ag preservation TDR bonus. I think that requires a lot more assessment. One TDR per five acres. Would you give up perpetually all of your future development rights for $20,000 on five acres? No one's going to use this. It's not sufficient. If you want someone to agree to do an ag easement and limit the use of land, you either need to consider, which is done in some places, a time frame -- it's not perpetual; 20 years -- or there has to be more than one TDR per five acres. You might as well not -- it's not going to happen. There's not enough value in 20- or- 22- or 25,000 on a five-acre ag parcel. In sending, because of the environmental value, you're giving up to four TDRs. So, you know, ag has a lot more economic generation of value to the landowner. So there's not enough incentive there. It's not going to happen. It needs more study. Come up with something that works. MR. KLATZKOW: What you're saying is it needs more density. MR. MULHERE: Or some other value, yes, yes. I mean, it's -- if we want to preserve ag, it's a worthwhile policy objective, but if it's not going to work, then we're going to be back here in five years saying, how come this didn't work? Let's do a little more time to analyze that. So this slide here -- unfortunately, I haven't done a good job. I did this last night at 4:00. But the ag -- the rural industrial area that Michele references right here and, technically, that's not part of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, because it's designated industrial. And as Michele said, she's got language to encourage locating targeted industries in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. But I'm here to tell you there are a ton of small businesses that can't find place to locate their business that aren't qualified uses under the state statute definition: Subcontractors, contractors landscape companies. All of these people, they call my office all the time. This is anecdotal, I realize, but for the last 20 or 30 years, we've been talking about expanding industrial-zoned land in this county, and it hasn't happened. So the proposal here was to allow in the Comp Plan a policy that would allow for expansion of this rural industrial area to adjacent lands. Michele's concern is a valid one. It has to be compatible with the other adjacent lands if you're going to expand it. My point is, why not put a policy in that allows for that? You're still going to have to -- and require a PUD zone or a rezone to industrial. May 20, 2021 Page 29 of 80 You're still going to have the opportunity to look at that as part of the rezone. You're going to be able to determine whether or not that rezone has appropriate uses and has other elements that will make that expansion of the industrial area through a PUD or straight industrial zoning compatible with surrounding lands. The property owner still has to go through a rezone. It still requires a supermajority vote at the Board of County Commissioners. It just doesn't take as long as a full-blown Comprehensive Plan amendment to do that. And right now you're probably talking about 12 to 15 months to get a rezone. If you're doing a Comp Plan, it's probably two years. So I don't know why we wouldn't allow that when you have the ability to look at that on a site-specific basis. And this is the only place where you have that rural industrial in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. This is the only location. The client that I represent, Keith Basic, owns this TTRBC zoning right here and would like to expand that. Now, sure, he can submit his own Comprehensive Plan amendment, but I don't know why -- it doesn't make sense to allow that by policy in the Comprehensive Plan and then look at the details of compatibility of uses. That's what you do during the rezone process. So some general considerations or concerns that I have -- and I think the staff did a very good job. It's comprehensive. You know, there are things that are difficult. That's why they haven't been addressed. There are some issues that are very difficult to get your arms around. For example, the balance of sending credits and receiving. Look, if in the marketplace a developer, if you want to use that term, wants to develop land in the rural fringe but he can't make it work because he has to acquire these TDRs and the cost of that just doesn't make sense at one unit per acre outside of a village -- we know that's the case -- and you increase the density, then you also need to increase the amount of credits, of sending credits. You have to remember that a principal objective of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District was to make the sending landowners whole to compensate them for the loss of value. I don't know -- it wasn't said, but sending landowners had their density reduced from one per five to one per 40 as part of this process. They lost significant value, except that if you owned a parcel that was less than -- or five acres or -- it was less than 40 acres, you could still develop, you know, one unit per acre even if you had two acres or five acres. But the density was reduced to one per 40. And to compensate in a legally supportable fashion, the county adopted the TDR program. So if there's no demand for these TDRs, then you are not compensating those sending landowners. They've lost value, and they haven't been compensated. So really the -- MR. KLATZKOW: How have they lost value if they retained the base development rights? MR. MULHERE: They don't retain the base. They went from one per five to one per 40, Jeff. They lost value. That's why the TDR program was adopted. So there was a loss of value. That's why it was adopted. So it has to be -- it has to work. And it's a difficult -- it is a difficult thing to consider; whereas, in the RLSA you're 100 percent correct; it's purely voluntarily. This was labeled as a voluntary, too. Well, it wasn't voluntary to reduce the density on sending lands. It was mandated. And I was involved and part of the process to write those. So I can tell you, it was a reduction in density and uses; a lot of uses were taken away as well. And it's appropriate because that's highly valuable environmentally sensitive land. You saw the map. Those are protected. But if it doesn't work -- if there's not interest in the receiving lands to acquire those TDRs, then they will not -- they will not be compensated. So I think there's a little bit more in terms of understanding how many TDRs will be necessary. The staff evaluation of how many will be necessary assumed that only 60 percent of, for example, the Belle Meade -- which is not only the Lipman family, but there are other significant landholders in the Belle Meade. I disagree with that. Over the long period of time, it will be 100 percent -- a desire to use 100 percent, whether that's to entitle 100 percent of that land. That's May 20, 2021 Page 30 of 80 going to require a lot more TDRs than are available. So I think that there needs to be a little bit more study in the amount of TDRs. You know, keep in mind, we keep saying that you can get four TDRs, but right now it's very difficult to get four. That fourth TDR, that conveyance credit, is very difficult to get. Now, there are some locations where the state is willing to acquire the land, and there's some locations where the county even has acquired the land but, for the most part, it's difficult, especially on the smaller parcels. Nobody's interested in buying five acres isolated here or even having it gifted, because they have, then, the ongoing maintenance costs. So that -- I don't think you can -- when you do an assessment, you can't count, you know, that fourth TDR as something that's even achievable. So I do think -- you know, and I'm happy to get with staff between now and the next meeting or even between now and adoption. I don't know if you'll approve these today. If you do, then I'll be happy to get with them before the BCC meeting. Let's see. I'm closing up now. I appreciate the extra time. Mr. Chairman, you asked about the public benefits. I said here in the second bullet, why not include TDR incentives for significant public benefits? I say, regardless of the designation, really, it mainly applies to the receiving lands. Some examples include providing easements or fee simple title to land that can be used for public benefits such as flowways. There's long been a desire to have some flowway improvements in that Belle Meade to let that water that traditionally runs north to south go under Tamiami Trail, and that could have habitat value as well, depending on the width of it. So that's one. Restoring disturbed lands. We talked about the farm fields in the Immokalee Road Rural Village as an example. You have that situation. Maybe -- when the Belle Meade develops, maybe there's an opportunity to create some sending lands, to create some lands that -- it's a very large -- it's 10 or 12 sections of land, maybe more. Providing public trails, pathways. There's enumerable possibilities. So I think there should be a policy added and quantified that talks about providing TDRs for public benefits and enumerates what that is. And maybe you do that through the LDC, but you just have a policy that says, you know, you're going to provide TDR incentives for public benefits. COMMISSIONER FRY: Additional credits, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes, yeah. I've suggested increasing that environmental restoration bonus. I just want to make sure you're aware, if I own five acres or 10 acres or 15 or 20, I come in, first of all, I've got to pay for the application to have the TDRs severed, reviewed, and there is a legal review. There's a staff review. You've got to pay for that. And then I have to pay to have that land, you know, restored, and then there's a maintenance cost to that. So I'm a small landowner. I've got to spend some money. How much? I don't know. Minimally 20,000; probably quite a bit more. Now, what am I getting back? Let's say it's a five-acre parcel. It costs me maybe $20,000 to do the environmental restoration, and I can generate probably only three credits. So let's say -- let's just give 20,000 a credit. That's 60,000. It cost me 20,000, minimally. So now I have a return of 40,000. There isn't -- people are not seeing a perceived value there. They'd rather hold onto their five acres and maybe build something or sell it for more value other than the 40,000 net gain that I might get through this TDR process. So we have to look at increasing the number of credits, because even though the value may come down -- if you increase the number of credits, the value per credit may come down, but if I can get more, what I get as a return will be higher. That concludes my presentation. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for a little bit extra time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you might stay up here while we decide how May 20, 2021 Page 31 of 80 we're going to deal with this. You raised a half a dozen points or so. My first question is, have you discussed these with staff? Has this been fully -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. I actually sent a letter. Everything I raised here, I believe -- Michele will correct me if I'm wrong -- but I think everything that I raised here, other than suggesting to you -- because we just discussed it. I just discussed it with Jamie Weisinger from Lipman Farm -- the willingness to participate in this process now and to have a certain time frame within which that study should commence, and participation -- and we can figure that out. Whether it's helping to offset the cost of that assessment -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- that was new. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to ask a member of staff to come up as we attempt to decide how we're going to proceed with this. One thing we could do is -- Mr. Mulhere's raised about six points. We could hear from staff on each of those or if -- COMMISSIONER FRY: What about the other public speaker? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I know. I know. But just dealing with these points for now. Also, another way that we could approach this is if we don't believe that it's been fully thought out and talked through, if there could be progress made by having staff sit down with Mr. Mulhere and his clients and bring something back to us that would reduce the number of these objections or concerns, that's a possibility, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, I just have a question. There's only one other public speaker registered, I believe. And I'm wondering if we let him speak and then we kind of have all the public comment. Maybe he had something that we want to bring staff in, and we could do it all at once after this one other person speaks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm fine with that, yeah. Okay. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have a question. I mean, just before you move on, but that's fine. I don't want to interrupt what you're discussing now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we just have one more public speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our final speaker on this item is David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So I just have a real basic question, and I don't think, you know, our last speaker mentioned this. But I'm trying to figure out, so I thought this was kind of a long process, and we're near the end of it, and I'm just trying to figure out why -- why is this coming up now as, like, an addenda that we're patching onto something? And, fine, maybe it has been something that was raised all along and, you know, the staff has just, you know, chosen to not include it in their recommendation. But I would like to know -- you know, to have staff answer that question as well as the last speaker. You know, I don't understand why we're patching something onto something that seems like it was already in a form that had been vetted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's exactly why I wanted to get staff up here and find out to what extent, if any, these issues have been fully argued and it's coming to us now in a point of clarity where we can see the differences and make decisions or whether we need to send it back for some more discussion, but we haven't heard from staff yet. MR. MULHERE: So, Mr. Klucik, it's Bob Mulhere. I was the previous speaker. I'll give you my perspective, and then staff can give you theirs. You know, we received the draft -- the proposed draft amendments, I don't know, several months ago, two months ago. There May 20, 2021 Page 32 of 80 was about a two-week period to reply, and I think Michele mentioned that. There were a bunch of public meetings -- when you say it was a long time, yeah, there was four or five years of -- you may recall Kris Van Lengen who was with the county doing public meetings and having studies. But we did not receive these draft amendments until about two months ago. I replied on behalf of several clients in writing to Michele, which was requested within that two-week period. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Just let me, like, ask a real basic question. So are you saying that what you're presenting today is really -- you wouldn't have had a reason to present it previously; it really is -- it's responsive to the draft? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's correct. And I did have a couple a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Full disclosure, I did have a couple of conversations with staff, telephone conversations, maybe a couple of chitchats in the hallway. I mean, there wasn't any real discussion or change or opportunity to further discuss. There was basically "thanks for your input." So, obviously, I have an obligation on behalf of my clients to raise these issues at this public forum. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did your client participate in the process and, you know, did they go to all those meetings? MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. We were the ones that started the process seven years ago with the white paper that we presented to the Board of County Commissioners with 24 recommendations. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But are you saying that what we have in front of us today as the recommendation, you know, was novel, and so you wouldn't have known that this was going to be in there and these weren't issues that had been discussed? Because what's not fair to us, in my view, to me, as a commissioner, is to have a process come forward -- and we did it last -- at our last meeting, and I don't like the idea that that's a regular thing, because then it -- then we're passing something on, and it just doesn't seem like the process is supposed to work that way, and that's all. And it doesn't allow us to make, you know, a prudent and measured analysis. You know, we're voting on the fly on something that you're bringing before us. I mean, I realize, you know, you put stuff in, and, you know, you submitted it -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And that's -- it's just frustrating to me as someone who is then asked to vote on this. I just -- I don't appreciate -- and I'm not saying that it's your fault. I'm just saying I don't appreciate that this is the process, because I don't think it's fair to us. You know, we're supposed to be making wise decisions, and I don't know as this is a process that leads to wise decisions. MR. MULHERE: And I don't disagree with your comments, but the -- there were some -- I wouldn't say everything is novel, and I don't have problems with everything. In fact, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'm offering what I believe, on behalf of my clients, would be better solutions to some of the recommendations. So, I mean, before I saw those draft recommendations, I never saw a proposal to require a rural village for any project over 300 acres. Before I saw those recommendations, there was always, leading up to this since Ventana was approved, an agreement on the part of staff and a suggestion by the Board that two units per acre would be appropriate. Now, I fully understand staff's suggestion that they would withhold that in a couple of areas until there is an assessment of the necessary infrastructure to support that. What I'm suggesting is that should be more defined and more expeditious. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to go back to my original idea, if I may, Planning Commission, and ask for Mrs. Mosca to come up and give us the -- we're at a process point here. May 20, 2021 Page 33 of 80 We're not ready to decide what to do with the substantive issues. But I just want to know, you know, to what degree staff had a full conversation with Mr. Mulhere and his clients on all of these points. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, just to Mr. Mulhere, I certainly am not impugning Mr. Mulhere or his client as the reason, you know, for the frustration. I'm just expressing that, you know -- and I don't know if fellow commissioners share the concern. I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think we do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This seems to be the point to bring -- at which -- you know, it would be appropriate to bring up the frustration, and I certainly -- it does not at all mean that I think it's Mr. Mulhere's fault or his client's fault. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And so we'll hear from Ms. Mosca, and we'll certainly get to the other speaker before we get into doing anything substantive. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. So I just want to address a few of Bob's points, and he does have some valid points. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, first of all, I want to step up a few thousand feet and look down. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the question is, is have you had full discussions with him and his clients on these very issues? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have? MS. MOSCA: Yes, except for Bob mentioning the shared expense of an assessment. We haven't discussed that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All the other -- MS. MOSCA: But we've had discussions in the past, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And in the course of those discussions, did you make any changes that were favorable to his client that are baked into what you brought forward? MS. MOSCA: We did not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But it was based upon the thoughtful consideration that after hearing him you were satisfied with what you had? MS. MOSCA: Well, I believe so. But to take it a step further, I think with that recommendation to study the area further, both the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas, I think we can address a lot of those concerns. Again, most of the development is, in fact, going to occur in the future in those two areas. So I think we can address that. If the Board provides for that year time frame, staff is okay with that time frame. We'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, again, I'm groping for the way -- the best way to proceed here. And if -- I see two possibilities. One is is that we continue this for further discussions at the staff level, but that may be duplicative of discussions that have already been had. And if that's the case, if things are fully baked, we could get the staff representative and Mr. Mulhere up here and do a point and counterpoint and hear his objection and hear the response and try to make a decision on these issues and try to get it resolved today. Obviously, after hearing the other speaker. So what do you all want to do? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like what you said, point/counterpoint while we're here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So we'll ask you, then, ma'am, to stand down for the moment -- May 20, 2021 Page 34 of 80 MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we'll bring you back up. And now we'll hear from the other speaker. MR. TORRES: Hi. I'm David Torres with Hacienda Lakes of Naples. We are a large landowner in the program areas. I would guess that we are probably the largest company that has severed TDRs and that has used them. So we've been participants of the program. You know, I'd like to start saying, I mean, I thank Michele and Anita for driving this forward. I mean, it's been a long time. I mean, I served as president of the Rural Fringe Coalition that Bob referred to before. I mean, that it's been seven, eight years. So I'm glad that we're here; however, I'm not glad with what we're coming out. You know, the program has -- it has no liquidity. I mean, there's not enough TDRs. There's not enough demand. I mean, there's got to be more demand and more supply. It's just difficult to get things done. I mean, like you said, the guys at Ventana Pointe, it's true. I mean, anybody who's kind of used the program, it's been like our situation. We have both sides of it. So, I mean, I am not a fan of another study. I mean, I don't think we need it. I don't think we need an outside consultant. I think Eric is fully capable. There's a lot of staff that's capable on the infrastructure side. If staff would only kind of listen to the owners, I mean, we could get something better done now without having to hope that another study gets done and we wait another five, six years. And it's not that -- we've sent comments as well. It's not that they haven't been talked to with staff. It's more that I think staff decided this is the way they're going forward, and they're going forward without any changes. And I truly believe that some of these things can be talked to. The Belle Meade cannot wait. I mean, it's ready to get developed now. I mean, it would be a big miss to wait; another study, wait for years. And even though on the sending side it's difficult that you have a lot of small owners, you know, those owners want more TDRs. They want more value. You know, they feel -- that's when they're going to go into the program. On the other side, the receiving side is easy. The Belle Meade has two big guys, the Lipmans and another company called Agri Serves (phonetic), and then there is some scattered acreage. But for the most part, it's not that hard to get a couple people in a room and see if something can be vetted out with staff without having to do another study. So I guess that's my comment. My comment would be, it would be nice if we could -- if we could talk for the next 45 days and try to come up with something without really having to wait for another study that is going to turn into another set of changes five years from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm curious about your response -- your level of agreement or disagreement with the points made by Mr. Mulhere as representing another ownership group. MR. TORRES: Yeah. I'm in agreement with many of the comments that Bob's brought to the table, but I don't want to say that I'm not in agreement with some of the programs that the county wants to put in place. I mean, I think some of them are good. I think we just have to go the whole way is what I mean. I think it's just -- we've waited too long to do these too small of changes in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Your main point is you'd like to see the -- Belle Meade or North Belle Meade? MR. TORRES: I'd like to see a resolution on the Belle Meade, personally. I think the study's a mistake. I see us creating this two classes of receiving lands now. The guys on May 20, 2021 Page 35 of 80 Immokalee Road got preferential treatment. They get to go to two, and the guys on 41 get to stay at one per acre. I don't see it. And traffic's worse up there. I don't see -- yeah, maybe utilities and stuff for the south side, but I would say the road infrastructure's better on the south part of the county. I may be mistaken, but -- And then on the other side, I think we just need -- we need a lot more TDRs. I don't buy this whole basis that we create the program with less supply in the TDRs than there is demand. It's just too hard to get them. And there are some good programs that they need. I mean, if they truly need this Belle Meade flowway and everybody's excited about it, then give more TDRs for it. And then give more for the exotic removal. It costs money. It doesn't make sense currently right now, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm going to ask now for staff in the person, I guess, of Ms. Mosca or Ms. Jenkins, and Mr. Mulhere take the other mic. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, may I interrupt, because we've got people outside waiting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. KLATZKOW: Richard has a request to make. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. The Comp Plan amendment and the zone requests for the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, there's a lot of people here who are interested in that petition. We have met with them outside. We would like the opportunity -- we have some proposed changes to the petition, but I think it would be more effective if we can meet with them. And so we're asking for a continuation -- or a continuance to the second meeting in June. We may -- they want to have some time to analyze what we're proposing. We may come back to you and say we still need a couple more weeks, but we're asking for a continuance till the second meeting in June so we don't have to sit around, and I don't think it's fair to them or us to drop this on you-all for the first time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That makes sense. Any objections to a continuance for the Santa Barbara -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's a great idea. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why would we ever reject a request like that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, continuance granted. COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to say thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we need a motion? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I am on the board. MR. KLATZKOW: Could we make a motion, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. Is there a motion for continuance? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to continue those two items till -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second meeting in June. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. May 20, 2021 Page 36 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Perhaps if we could start, Mr. Mulhere, by going back, and I think there were about six of them, roughly, to -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. JENKINS: Mr. Chair, before we do that, Anita Jenkins, for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, ma'am. MS. JENKINS: I just wanted to clarify that this process is no different than all the other restudy processes that you've had before you in that you have other interested parties providing different ideas to you. So this is no different. And I wouldn't suggest that we need to continue this to work things out. I think that we can do that here today and work through these. But this process is no different. It's just a -- it's not an environmental concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I agree insofar as what you're saying is that we ought to get this resolved today. And I'm hopeful that your responses to his issues can be succinct and stated in a brief and clear and persuasive fashion so that we can deal with them and get to a point where we can vote. MS. JENKINS: Will do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Yep. So I think the first thing I raised was the outright prohibition on any Comprehensive Plan coming forward to increase density unless it utilizes the TDR program, which I think is fine. We do want to use the TDR program, but I think that there are going to be unintended consequences. I just -- I just don't know that that's necessary. You know, a property owner has a right to come in and ask for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and they can amend the language that prohibits them from doing this. So, really, those things are addressed on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I interrupt in the name of brevity? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think you're suggesting that in addition to the affordable housing method of getting TDRs that I suggested that there also be language that provides for an applicant the privilege of arguing for a public benefit. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there objection to that? MS. MOSCA: There's no objection, because the Board will look at that anyway with a Comprehensive Plan change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: So I don't object to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Next point. MS. MOSCA: The next point is the minimum size of 300 acres. If you're 300 acres or greater, you must be a rural village. Now, what that means is that you must then provide -- you absolutely must then provide neighborhood commercial and other uses based on the formulas that are in here: 53 square feet per dwelling unit. And I do understand that, but -- the benefits from a traffic perspective of internal capture and of reducing demand, but I don't think it's going to make May 20, 2021 Page 37 of 80 sense in every circumstance. So my suggestion is you increase that acreage to 1,000 but you allow for consideration of whether or not that makes sense on projects between 300 and 999 acres. So you are going to look at it. If it makes sense, it can be requested or even required but not absolutely required on projects that are 300 acres or above. It just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Bob, you're saying there are -- what percentage of cases do you think a 300-acre development would come in without commercial by preference? MR. MULHERE: By preference? Most. COMMISSIONER FRY: Most? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But I think a 500- or 600-acre or 700-acre project or 1,000 or 2,500 or 3,000, those will have the benefit. They can serve those smaller -- you're going to have a bunch of 299-acre non-village developments, two or three right next to each other with no commercial. It does not make sense. COMMISSIONER FRY: We've experienced that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we have. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- in the RLSA with villages versus towns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I ask Ms. Jenkins to reply, any other planning commissioners want to weigh in? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: So when we first started looking at this, the requirement right now provides for a village from 300 acres to 1,500 acres or 2,500 acres in some cases, but that's the standard now. So a minimum to 300 and a maximum to 1,500 -- or 2,500. So that's what we were looking at. So the establishment was already there. So when we looked at the restudy, we said, well, does 300 really work? We were asking the same question. So the research that we did led us to what you see on your screen right now as one example, and that's Habersham, South Carolina, and it's exactly 300 acres, and it's been nominated as, you know, one of the best neighborhoods in America by the National Builders Association, and it is a 300-acre development that does provide commercial and a multitude of different types of residences. I will also say that that thought of requiring 300 acres was tied back to the white paper where we were suggesting an increase of density, right. So I think when we're saying that if we're not increasing the density until we look at this more specifically to look at the internal captures, then maybe that requirement doesn't happen until we get to the more specific of the receiving areas, because those two things were tied together; that if you are going to do a receiving area and if you are going to do four to seven units, then you could support more neighborhood commercial in 300 acres. But if we're not changing the density right now and we're leaving it at one unit per acre, then that's, you know, 300 or 600 units in a 300-unit -- or 300-acre project. So I think that we need to consider if we're going to increase density, 300 acres may work. If we're not going to increase density right now, that amendment might be more acceptable during the re -- or during the study of the specific areas for receiving and how that would all shape out at that time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: May I just respond very quickly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. MULHERE: I have no doubt that you can design and develop an award-winning mixed-use project on 300 acres. That's not my point. My point is that requiring every project that's 300 acres does not make sense. You can May 20, 2021 Page 38 of 80 look at it on a case-by-case basis. I think over a larger minimum size probably does make sense. I agree with Anita. What she said makes sense. Since we're not going to -- we're not going to increase the density as part of this and we're going to look at that, if this policy is removed and we look at it as part of this next assessment, that works, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: This next assessment being the one that starts -- MR. MULHERE: In a year. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- within a year -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We hope. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- partly funded by the Lipman Family Farms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that, actually, was your next point, was it not? MR. MULHERE: Well -- yeah. I mean, I heard what David said, and I think -- and I think Anita agreed, too, that we don't necessarily -- that we can hash these things out now. But I agree this is the process. You know, the staff gives us a draft. We review the draft. We make comments. They don't have to agree to them. I mean, we know that, and that's what we come here for, to discuss why we think one idea's better than maybe what they've suggested, and it's not -- it's not that -- I think they've done a great job, as David said, moving these things forward. The majority of it is fine. There are just a few points that we disagree with. So, I think -- you know, again, if the Board, Planning Commission and the BCC, is inclined to go with this process of looking at those two areas differently, which they've already commenced in the one area, North Belle Meade, again, Tindale Oliver, it should be an expedited; very time-certain to get started. I mean, you can't predict when you'll be done, but you can certainly predict when you'll get started. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we establish a sooner start date? MS. MOSCA: Yes. We'll bring that forward to the Board. The Board will have to agree to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Really? MS. MOSCA: As a recommendation? Sure. We'll bring the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff is in support of the 12-month period, but the Board will have to fund it, provide funding for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Okay, all right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that a 12-month period to bring this to a conclusion -- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Start. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- or just to start it? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: It's my understanding. MR. MULHERE: It's going to take longer. It will take longer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. MR. MULHERE: Look, the wheels of government move slowly, but a couple of years -- it may take -- to start it. It could take year to complete it, maybe a little bit longer. I mean, to get it right, it's worth the time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why can't we start it next week? MR. MULHERE: Well, I've got to defer to -- it says within a year. It doesn't say you couldn't start it sooner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It needs funding, and that's why it's got to go to the BCC. MS. MOSCA: Staff will support the 12-month initiation, so that's not at issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Next point, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Well, I do have a concern. I think it was very good to have the May 20, 2021 Page 39 of 80 ag -- because part of the state's final order was to look at ag preservation. They used the word "prime agriculture," which actually is tied to soils. We don't have prime agriculture. You find that in deltas. But we do have unique agriculture, and we all eat, so I understand, you know. But I don't know if it just was, sort of, let's throw out one TDR and see what we get. My opinion is that requires a little more consideration, because I don't think you're going to get anybody giving up their perpetual development rights for $20,000 for five areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that part of the 12-month -- is that part of this restudy we're talking about that starts within 12 months? MS. MOSCA: I think it should be. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess I'm trying to be clear on which of Bob's points are covered under this -- MS. MOSCA: I think all of them. I think Bob agreed to the 12-month for all of them. I mean, it seems appropriate that we would. As you can recall, as I went through some of the tables, even staff's evaluation of the Board-directed amendment for the additional credit. We were concerned who really would use it, we were very conservative, and it was a very low number, if you can recall going through that table. MR. MULHERE: So, you know, one thought. Really, the largest agricultural production area of all of this, assuming you recommend and the Board agrees they're going to do an assessment, is the Belle Meade by far. I mean, it's not even close. And as David said, there's just a few landowners in there that have the largest amount of those holdings. So if we're going to look at an ag preservation TDR bonus and whether it should be perpetual or for some period of time and what the numbers should be, why adopt something like this right now? Why not let that be part of this assessment as well, you know? And I think that's what Michele said, in fewer words. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's something that is going to take place in the next restudy. Okay. All right. Next point. MR. MULHERE: I'm just looking right now. MS. MOSCA: I think it was rural industrial. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well -- and, again, that also is surrounded. So that rural industrial designated area, there's a -- three's a road aggregate. My client doesn't own that portion, but there's a portion that has some road aggregate construction type stuff out there, and then there's a lot of these smaller business owners that are leasing space in the current area that have these kinds of uses that aren't targeted industries by definition. And so perhaps, because it is surrounded by the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, we could, you know, consider that. I mean, I still think it makes sense to allow an expansion to the adjacent parcel within -- and within 300 feet of the existing boundary. You're going to get the more thorough review as part of the rezone. You're going to get the traffic analysis. You're going to get the compatibility. You're going to get the use analysis, and you're going to require a supermajority vote. So what are you doing by putting this policy in there? The only thing you're doing is you are making that process a little faster and a little more supportable as part of that rezone process. So, I mean, I know staff is not supportive of it, and I just think that it would make sense to put it in as a policy. MS. MOSCA: And Bob's correct; staff's not supportive of that. In the past there were two previous Comprehensive Plan amendments requesting for some additional uses in that area. And I think as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, this is really site specific. And the May 20, 2021 Page 40 of 80 residents around that area who opposed the expansion in the past really should be able to provide input as part of that process. So to me this is not really part of the amendments to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. It's more in line with a site-specific Comp Plan amendment. MR. MULHERE: And I understand. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: -- the one piece of good news is there is a proposed bill in the legislature to increase the size -- minimum size for small-scale amendments. So that might make it a little less painful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Those are all the points that I recorded. MR. MULHERE: That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I got it? Okay. Planning Commission, any comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just clarifying one of his points was the limitation of expanding to two dwelling units per acre only along Immokalee Road. The decision on that is part of this restudy, or -- MS. MOSCA: For the expansion to the -- to allow that within the one to two dwelling units per acre. To allow that within the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas would be part of that assessment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But the current amendments would allow that, but that was only -- that's along Immokalee Road outside of rural villages only. MS. MOSCA: Right. And it's minimal. Unless the Immokalee Road Rural Village comes in, they don't do a village, then you're talking about, what, 4,000 units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Commissioner Shea, do you have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just have -- there was a discussion -- I think Bob mentioned something about public benefits, TDRs for that. Is that something we already agreed would go -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to categorize where I think we are. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I didn't hear him talk about that or increased credits on the maintenance side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to deal with that when I summarize. Anything else? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Here's where I think we are. And please correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe, first of all, we agreed to add the affordability and the public benefit language for the increase in TDRs. Second, I think we want to recommend that the next study or restudy commence within 12 months and that it include reexamination of the 300-acre minimum, and the ag preservation of one TDR per five acres, and other issues that are to be discussed. And so I think that's really where we've come down. MS. MOSCA: I just have a point of clarification, if you wouldn't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: On that first one, that was related to increased density for using a -- utilizing TDRs through a Comprehensive Plan amendment, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So unless I've misstated it, are we ready for a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Would anyone care to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So let me ask a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the motion is to approve staff's recommendation subject to May 20, 2021 Page 41 of 80 these conditions or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and that's a good point. This would be action on recommendation for transmittal, because it's coming back. And we need to ask ourselves, do we want -- do we want to put this on consent for our meeting on the 26th so we see how the language has been prepared, or simply rely on staff to get it right? I think it's pretty straightforward: Affordability and public benefit. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, one more point of clarification before you provide for your vote. So you also had a few recommended changes regarding the greenbelt and so forth, so that would be incorporated into all of that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Yes, it would. Good point. Thank you. Should we bring this back on consent, or should we let it go? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think we need to bring it back. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I agree. Let it go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So we're ready for a motion, then. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to recommend transmittal with all the changes that you just listed and Michele just spoke of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we -- are we satisfied that we have clarity? COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, do you feel we have clarity on what exactly -- the changes and verbiage you're going to generate? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Any further discussion? (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 KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is nine minutes of noon. It seems to me we'd be best served by starting our lunch a little earlier than starting another matter. Without objection, we will take an hour and nine minutes for lunch and return at 1:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, that means Karl might make it back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're in recess until 1:00. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:51 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, it's 1:00. Let's reconvene, please. ***Our second petition today is PL20190001489, the Lawmetka Plaza CPUDA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. May 20, 2021 Page 42 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record, meetings with staff, communications with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing for me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Meeting with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. All right. The applicant is here. MS. CLARK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, ma'am. MS. CLARK: Thank you. My name is Kellie Clark. I'm a civil engineer with Kimley-Horn, and I'm here to speak today to Lawmetka Plaza. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you might want to pull that -- if you're going to speak -- yeah, either speak into the mic or move the mic to yourself. MS. CLARK: Do you want me to repeat that for the record? THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) MS. CLARK: Okay. You got it. All right. This is the project location. It's located along Wiggins Pass and 41. This lists the applicant and agent, which is myself, and the property location. Before I go any further, I'd also like to note that we did have a neighborhood informational meeting, and we did have public participation in that and have had public comments. And we've reviewed those, and we do have our transportation engineer here today to speak to some of those items as well. So I'd just like to walk through some of the proposed changes -- or the proposed changes that were -- that are in front of you. The first is regarding the property ownership. This is more of a cleanup item as it relates to changing the name from Benderson Development Company to Benderson Properties, Inc. So more of an initial name change. The next is regarding the access. So this is proposed to go from two access points along Wiggins Pass Road to three, which would then change the total access points from four to five. With this change, there's also the proposed language to limit the eastern access to right-in, right-out only and the western access to service and delivery vehicles only, and also there's the language at the last sentence in this that talks to Collier County reserving the right to install, modify, or close medians in its sole discretion for road safety and capacity. I'd also like to hit on one additional -- or one deviation at this time, because it's also related to the transportation item, and then I'd like to turn it over to our transportation engineer. So this is the first deviation, Signage Deviation No. 1, which is seeking relief from the LDC to allow one additional directory sign, and this one would be located at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Christopher Hatton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. HATTON: Thank you, Kellie. Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Hatton. I'm a registered professional traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn. I have been conducting traffic studies and operational analyses for over 29 years and conducted the traffic analysis that resulted in these improvements. I'll go ahead and turn it to here. These improvements consist of, as Kellie had mentioned, adding a third driveway, which is going to be a right-in, right-out only onto Wiggins Pass Road while limiting the existing driveway to be used by service vehicles and delivery vehicles only. And this is an important point. The right-turn deceleration lanes will be constructed at both the new driveway as well as the middle project drive, which is the main driveway. As Kellie mentioned, we did have a neighborhood information meeting. There were some safety questions that were brought up by some of the folks there, so I'm going to try to point out May 20, 2021 Page 43 of 80 how our improvements -- try to address those safety concerns. So let's take a quick look at each of these improvements and see how these enhance the safety operations along Wiggins Pass Road in regard to the proposed project. First, the addition of a right-in, right-out only driveway as you could see up here -- it's not showing with the pointer, but I think you see it's located on the slide very easily. And this will be located east of the full access driveway, and this provides for project dispersion of project traffic into the development and actually reduces the amount of turning traffic at the main project driveway which subsequently helps reduce both conflicts and delay. Secondly, by providing the right-turn deceleration lanes at both the new proposed driveway as well as the main driveway, safety is going to be enhanced by removing turning vehicles from the through-lane traffic. So that, therefore, you're removing the vehicle friction as we call it, which would -- which had previously been there, which reduced the capacity of Wiggins Pass Road when vehicles had to slow down in the through lane to turn into the project. They will now have their own individual turn lane from which to do that. And, lastly, separating out the service volumes or the service and delivery vehicles to a specific driveway to the west, this, obviously, improves safety by separating out the service and delivery trucks keeping them separate from the smaller passenger vehicles. But as Kellie mentioned as well and as always is the consideration, in the event of an unforeseen issue, Collier County reserves the right to either install, modify, or close medians based upon the road safety and capacity and, of course, this provides an extra layer of safety coverage for citizens. Now, as Kellie mentioned also, the first deviation -- in regards to this Deviation 1, as you can see, for the addition of additional signage at the corner of 41 and Wiggins Pass, which is shown on the slide now. And then, really, the main justification for this is to alert patrons that were traveling northbound on U.S. 41 of the new driveway so that they may position themselves in that easternmost northbound left-turn lane so that they can have easy, convenient, and safe maneuvering into that driveway so they basically position themselves ahead of time. And this sign deviation addresses some of the safety concerns that we heard at the neighborhood information meeting regarding kind of the positioning and the location of the new driveway and some of the benefits that are seen by alerting them to the project driveway, and it's one of the things in my -- in all my years, that effective signage can always play a role in improving safety, so -- and I'll turn it over to Kellie. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hatton before he steps down? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the middle driveway there, or the one that says right-in, right-out only, that was formerly a full, all directional -- no? MR. HATTON: No, there's just two -- well, unfortunately, this doesn't show that well. The one on the west was existing, and that's now just going to be only for service and delivery, and the one that's right in the middle between the right-in, right-out, that is the main driveway. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the new one. MR. HATTON: Well, no. The new one is actually the one that's got the right-in, right-out. That is the new one on the east. I'm sorry. I should have kind of given that as an overview before I started. COMMISSIONER FRY: So there's a median in Wiggins Pass Road so you cannot turn left out of there. MR. HATTON: Yes, there will be one constructed as well as with the deceleration lanes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And then is it easy -- so if you want to exit on Wiggins Pass May 20, 2021 Page 44 of 80 Road but you want to go back to the light and head north or south, you have to go and make a U-turn, make a right out and then -- MR. HATTON: Well, basically what I would do -- and it's certainly driver -- you know, either -- you know, expectancy would be knowing that if you're shopping in the shopping center, that the full -- basically, you would see the median, so you would probably do it -- I would do it in the shopping center. I would go to the main driveway and take a left just so you don't have to do a U-turn from that perspective. COMMISSIONER FRY: Main driveway being the one that says service -- no, main driveway on the other -- on the U.S. 41 side? MR. HATTON: This right here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. MR. HATTON: This one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That one wasn't marked, so I missed it entirely in that exhibit. MR. HATTON: Yeah. I apologize. I noticed that. I tried to use the laser pointer, but it's not showing up on that, so -- and I could have done that better, so sorry about that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That clears it up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. HATTON: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Our next item is regarding the landscape deviation, and this is seeking relief from the requirement of a 20-foot-wide Type D buffer down to the minimum 10-foot-wide Type D buffer, and because there is the reduction, we are proposing enhanced landscaping at this location. This is due to compensating right-of-way that occurred at this location, so an existing condition that exists in this location. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jen to speak a little bit more about what that enhancement looks like and what that Type D buffer would look like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Daoulas. I'm a professional landscape architect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your last name again? MS. DAOULAS: Daoulas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Spell, please. MS. DAOULAS: D-a-o-u-l-a-s. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. As Kellie mentioned, we're seeking deviation from a typical Type D buffer. The Type D buffer is specified to be 20 feet per the width of the existing right-of-way. A Type D does allow for a 10-foot. It would just -- we're minimizing, and that's what we're asking in the deviation. It doesn't minimize the amount of planting that we're proposing. We'll still be meeting the Type D buffer requirements, and the deviation actually exceeds those requirements by adding taller trees five feet taller than the required 10, and then from a 30-foot on-center spacing to a 25-foot on-center spacing. The existing material out there, there are some existing oak trees and royals that count towards those shade requirements that meet that height, and then we would come in and supplement as required per the deviation along that buffer. Do you-all have any questions? May 20, 2021 Page 45 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: There's one thing I didn't pick up on in the packet is why -- so you have an existing 20-foot buffer now? MS. DAOULAS: Yes, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you want to reduce it to 10 feet but make it more dense? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why do you -- why are you doing that? MS. DAOULAS: Because we're adding the turn lane in, and so adding the turn lane would move that sidewalk over. It would move it right on the edge of the -- I guess I can't move the mouse, huh? COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's to accommodate the turn lanes? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah, and it would move the sidewalk on the edge of that existing hedge row. So the goal is to maintain the existing hedge. We'll supplement as needed with any impacts from construction or any, you know, vegetation decline to bring the buffer back up to the required plus the deviation requirements. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for Ms. Daoulas? (No response.) MS. DAOULAS: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. MS. CLARK: And then the last part of our amendment is regarding the master concept plan, and these -- this master concept plan is being updated to reflect the items that we've gone through, so it's to show that third access point as well as to show those deviations on the master concept plan. So it's related directly to everything that we've already covered. And that is it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Ms. Clark? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you so much. MS. CLARK: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff presentation, please. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner. And staff is recommending approval of the Lawmetka PUD amendment, as it is consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. So if you have any questions, it would certainly be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions for Ms. Gundlach? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nicely done. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER FRY: A bit wordy. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I love Nancy's reports. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have the actual applicant that is present that filled out a speaker form. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does the applicant wish to be heard? MS. CLARK: I think they asked us to fill out those forms because we were upstairs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other speakers? May 20, 2021 Page 46 of 80 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. We have Doug Fee. He will be our only speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fee, and I live up in the Wiggins Pass area. I've lived up there for around 20 years. And there's a lot on this PUD change, okay. On the surface it sounds pretty easy; just add an access. One of the things that we have to look at is the safety of the roadway and what you are approving. This right-in, right-out entrance, which will be the third one on Wiggins Pass Road, it's confusing right now as it is. There's two entrances already; one on the back of the building, which is supposed to be for trucks but, in fact, lots of people go through there. You could go this way and this way and exit, and there's no ability to stop the traffic. Two, you have the second entrance which was built not long ago that -- there was a proposed market, Lucky's Market. It went out. It's no longer there, although it has Lucky's on top. And there -- you also have two lanes that come off of 41 and go down the street, Wiggins Pass, you have a north and a south. And, in fact, the northbound lane is the turning lane to go into the plaza, okay. So you have vehicles that are having to go into a single lane, and they will race down the road, and one will try to get in front of the other. There's no medians. And I appreciate that Mr. Fry asked the applicant on the record, how are you going to make it a right-in, right-out? Because that is one of the keys to this. In the deviation language, in the transportation language, in fact, it says it's a right-in, right-out. Today, if that were built, lots of the people could come out with a right-out and circle back around and go out to 41. So be careful, because they're suggesting that you make it a right-in, right-out, but they're also saying in the language that the county has or the applicant has 24 months to do those improvements, make the turn lanes, and whatever the county decides on its policing powers, that's what's being decided, unless you as Planning Commission say, in order to approve this entrance, we want a median, okay. Now, what I'd like to do, if you'll give me just a moment, is I have two pictures that I'd like to put up here that are from the county's traffic camera. The camera looks west from 41. I don't know if you can see it. What you're viewing is from the light pole of 41 looking west. What I want to point out is there are three lanes that come east, and many times the northbound lane, you can see, it stacks. It goes way down and, in fact, shuts off traffic to go over 41 to the east side of Wiggins Pass, and it also stops southbound traffic. Now, what you're also seeing here, in the sidewalk you can see the little bend. Well, right there is where the new entrance will be. It may be safe to do this if you put a median so that, in fact, you don't get traffic that circles back around. But right now you have to say whether this applicant is involved in putting a median, because right now there is not, okay. The other thing I'll point out, okay, this is another picture of that same, and in season it is amazingly busy. And I know all intersections in the county are busy. But when it backs up, you really have a hard time. There are some communities that have streets, Center Street, West Street. They're on the south side. They do not have turn lanes. There are people that have to turn. And when you are in the double lane and you're turning, they will stop and, in fact, the through traffic that comes off 41, they have to maneuver around because there's no turn lanes, okay. Germain has trucks. They unload their vehicles in the middle stripe of this section. There's no median. It happens on a daily basis. It's not monthly. And, in fact, in their PUD, which is on the south side of the road, they have loading zones. The neighborhood has contacted May 20, 2021 Page 47 of 80 Germain numerous times, and their answer is, we don't direct the carriers who drop off the cars. So not only do you have 30,000 cars or 20,000 cars going through intersection -- mind you it's an activity center -- they're -- these people don't know. So it's already an unsafe condition, okay. What I'm saying to you is, you need to look at a median that separates out the traffic. There should have been a median a long time ago when they built the two. The applicant has asked the county in a separate process, a Site Development Plan, to approve the turn lanes and sidewalks, bike shoulders. That's in a separate application. And, in fact, when I went to the neighborhood information meeting and the applicant themselves mentioned this Site Development Plan, the staff member at the county said, stop, we can't go into that. That's something down the road. Well, you have to go into it because it's part of the PUD language that you are approving today, which is right-in, right-out. So you have to figure -- and I'm telling you the people up at Wiggins Pass, though they may not be here, in fact, they know this is an extremely risky situation, okay. So we're relying on you. The turn lanes would help to go in. But with the turn lanes and the compensating right-of-way, what you will find is right now, as it's been built, the sidewalk is only, like, five feet off of Wiggins Pass Road. So you have dual lanes coming. There is no setback to the current sidewalk that's there. So when they put their turn lanes, how are they going to put the sidewalk to make it safe for the pedestrians? That's got to be a consideration. The landscape deviation. I'm not in favor of reducing a 20-foot at an activity center. We at Wiggins Pass have a neighborhood, and we like the aesthetics. I understand why they need to do it, okay, but this -- I don't know how many acres. It might be 34 acres. So why would you reduce the buffer to a big plaza like this? So please consider that. The signage that they are suggesting out at Wiggins Pass and 41, originally they had a main sign, at that second main entrance and also at 41, so there were two main signs, and those signs are big. They're regulated. They took down the one sign on Wiggins Pass Road, and now there isn't one. So I can understand having it at the corner of Wiggins Pass and 41. But I don't know if they're planning to put another big sign on Wiggins Pass, meaning three large signs. Most developments have them at the main entrance, or they'll have it at the intersection corner. Question would be, could you do a smaller sign at one location and not have the -- I don't know how tall they are, but they're a regular plaza sign, okay. Mike Sawyer, the transportation person, I directly e-mailed him a few months ago, and I said, is it your requirement in the PUD that the developer do the turn lanes and make it right-in, right-out, and he said -- I said, is the reason because of safety? Why are you doing that? And he said, yes, we are making the developer do that. But at the same time in the e-mail he said; however, it's the policing powers of the county to decide whether or not they will put a median or do any of that and that we don't put it in the PUD language, okay. Now, I've been involved with PUD amendments for many, many years. In fact, with this one, 20 years ago or 15 years ago, there's specificity in that the developer had to build turn lanes off of 41. There's a turn -- there's actually two turn lanes, one to the main and one to the middle, and that was in the PUD. It was very specific. I'm not sure why one would go away from that. If you feel it's a safety issue and, in fact, this landowner should put those turn lanes -- and to be honest with you, it's already in there. It was from the original. But the way they did the turn lane was they said, well, we'll make two lanes go around the corner, and that northern lane will be the one that is considered the turn lane in. So imagine you driving around the corner and you're in the northbound, and you don't realize that in order to go west you've got to get in the southbound, because eventually it goes into one lane. So you're in this second, and you stop, and it confuses the traffic that's coming out of the May 20, 2021 Page 48 of 80 plaza. It wants to turn right going out towards 41, and a lot of times the older folks -- and I mean that with respect -- they'll drive right into that second lane, and you have to stop, okay. So this is a section of road -- and in activity centers, many times you have medians. I can point to Immokalee/111, where there's a McDonald's and the Walmart. In fact, at that corner is a median that I cannot come out of the plaza. I have to go down to the Walgreens -- or the Walmart entrance way down, and be able to turn. It stops that traffic pattern, and it makes it safer, okay. I just want you-all to understand that the residents of Wiggins Pass might support a third entrance, but we're not going to be supportive of the safety issues if you do not do something on this straightaway, and I say that with all sincerity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you very much. I'm going to want to hear from Mr. Hatton and Ms. Gundlach or staff but first, before that, does any commissioner wish to ask a question of the gentleman who just spoke? COMMISSIONER FRY: I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Would you return, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The podium right here. Just making sure I understand. I see looking at it, with the information I have, pluses -- maybe a positive and a negative to you. A positive being that you have two lanes, and the right one is a turn lane, and now you'll have three lanes and the right one will be a turn lane. So you'll actually have two lanes going straight. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Of course, you will have to merge, I'm sure. It still will go down to one, but you won't be competing in that second lane with the turn traffic. MR. FEE: I totally agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: So to me that would be a plus. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm also sensitive to the fact that you think a median would be important to ensure and cement the safety benefit from a right-in, right-out. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct? MR. FEE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The buffer -- I guess they're giving up some land for the turn lane, so they want to put the same amount of vegetation in a narrow buffer which, I guess that aesthetically affects you a little bit but not functionally the way the traffic moves, correct? MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not a deal killer, okay. MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to make sure I have an accurate understanding of your perceptions of how this whole thing works. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that accurate? MR. FEE: And if you don't mind, can I just give to the court reporter these pictures so they can be submitted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You may. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. MR. FEE: Okay. I just have one more picture to give. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And stand down, sir, but don't go too far, because we might want you to speak again. Mr. Hatton, go ahead. MR. HATTON: Yes. And I appreciate all the information and, certainly, we had a really good conversation with Doug as part of the neighborhood information meeting. So some of May 20, 2021 Page 49 of 80 these -- just like, Commissioner, you had mentioned in terms of where -- and I think this hopefully is a very good diagram of, again, the two lanes that are now headed westbound enable -- which I think was a big, you know, part of the improvements -- those dual northbound lefts to now travel in a through lane, and if you are going into the actual development, you now can just easily move into the right-turn lane. So that was a big improvement. But this also addresses, you know, the issue of the median, and that is being proposed. Now, Kellie can address why it's not officially in this language, but it is being proposed. We've got plans that we're already doing, so it's going to be done just as the turn lanes are going to be done. So that safety issue in terms of right-in, right-out where it's being positioned because of the traffic, when you have a right-in, right-out, if you put one in and you do a deceleration lane, you basically -- again, we're enhancing the safety or moving the turn lanes out of the -- or the turning vehicles out of the through lane. So that's what we're doing here. So hopefully this graphic can show it a little. And I can answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's going to take some time for a median to be put in and, in the meantime, what do we do for safety? MR. HATTON: I mean, from a perspective, I'm not sure exactly of the timing of all of this with the PDI and stuff like that. MS. CLARK: Yeah. The median would be put in at the same time as that eastern entrance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. MS. CLARK: So these improvement plans that are shown here, they're the proposed plans that would occur if we get approval of this third entrance, and it shows the right-turn lanes in as well as that median, and that would all occur at once. So the third entrance will not be constructed without these additional improvements, because we agree those are safety concerns and that they need to be addressed to be able to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Good. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach, you, our staff. Is Mr. Sawyer here? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My main concern, sir, is safety issues, but speak to whatever you would like to speak to. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. We have worked with the applicant on both the turn lanes as well as the other, as you're requesting, the safety concerns. The reason that you have the turn lane specifically spelled out in the PUD language is because those are what we were actually looking for. When you add an access point to an existing PUD, what makes part of the requirement for a PUD amendment is if you're increasing access points, which is what's being proposed. So in a nutshell, one of the reasons that this is coming in as an amendment as opposed to an insubstantial change is because they're adding the access. That's why we've got -- again, that's why we've got the language that outlines the turn lanes. As far as a median separator in this particular area, that requires an operational analysis, and that comes in with the SDP itself to make sure that we're looking at the entire operation of the improvements being proposed. We certainly don't have any problem. In fact, we would certainly endorse having the median separator in there. You're so close to 41 in this location, and we do know that we do have challenges in this particular intersection. We would want to have that median separator to prevent any left-outs at the first access point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're satisfied that what we have before us will be May 20, 2021 Page 50 of 80 safe? MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you're able to look Mr. Fee in the eye and say, you'll have your median when these improvements are made? MR. SAWYER: I can look anybody in the eye and say, yes, it will happen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a question. Are you comfortable with, on that drawing, the location of the median? Is it long enough? I see the service entrance still is left-out. If you're coming out of that entrance with a truck, you can still take a left, right, which I assume is why the median stops short of that entrance? MR. SAWYER: Correct. And you also have the middle access point which is the full opening. That also is -- you don't want to have the median in that location; otherwise, you would be forcing all of the traffic to go west instead of allowing potentially some of that traffic to go back east again. Hopefully that makes sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, do you have something? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it just looks like there is a -- am I seeing a driveway from the south right at the right edge of the median that could go left or right? Am I interpreting that correctly? MR. FEE: That's Germain. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's Germain. So that's actually -- is that a painted stripe to the right of the median? Is that just simply a marking on the road? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's the case currently, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So someone could exit Germain and make a left turn across the eastbound lanes to go west on Wiggins Pass. MR. SAWYER: To go west, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. Any other public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any persons who are present who haven't signed up but wish to be heard on this matter, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If not, Planning Commission, are we ready to close public comment? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public comment is closed. And we will deliberate. Who would like to start? COMMISSIONER FRY: I will. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think -- for Mr. Fee, I mean, I think when people come and speak at these meetings -- you said you've done this before -- you know, you want to hear that you're listened to and not just discarded and the residents' and the neighbors' viewpoints don't matter. And so I think from my standpoint, definitely, I came from a neighborhood association, so I do want to listen. But when I look at all the facts here, it seems to me that this is actually a safer system for you and a more efficient system for you, the residents to the west, because now you have two lanes to go straight, and the turn lanes are segregated, and you will have a median. I think we've established that. So I guess I'm -- and I don't know if you can -- I don't feel like there are any May 20, 2021 Page 51 of 80 major unaddressed issues that you presented that have not been addressed through this -- through this presentation, and I don't know what you're holding up there, but -- MR. FEE: Just language. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just the language. Oh, okay. Your concern was the language of the timing of the median, I believe. Can we clean that up? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like the median will go in at the same time that the right-in, right-out goes in. COMMISSIONER FRY: But according to Mike, that's part of the SDP, not the PUD? Can we address his concerns with the language in this in a way that is not out of character with the process? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can throw a condition in to that effect. MR. SAWYER: What will be required as part of SDP -- because they'll need to get that SDP done as soon as the PUD amendment is finished and approved. They'll need to do the SDP. Part of the SDP requires a right-of-way permit. That right-of-way permit will require all of those improvements to be done at the same time; otherwise, the access itself won't be able to be opened. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you telling us that there is no need -- no point in adding a condition at this point simply stipulating that the median will go in at the same time as the improvements? MR. SAWYER: I don't believe so, but perhaps Matt McLean would want to weigh in on that from the SDP standpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, Jesus, just put it in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What? MR. KLATZKOW: Just put it in, and we're done. COMMISSIONER FRY: When Jeff speaks, I tend to listen. So how about we just put it in? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll just add that condition, if you don't mind. MR. SAWYER: Not a problem by me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Jeff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. McLean, did you want to be heard? MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, director of Development Review. It's very easy if you guys, as Jeff said, put that condition in that at the first Site Development Plan all this will be taken into consideration and put in that permit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, if you just spoke up earlier at every meeting, we'd be out of here by noon every day. MR. KLATZKOW: But I like your company so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd entertain a motion at this point. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll move that we approve for transmittal. Oh, not -- it's a PUD, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it's a PUD. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval with the additional condition that the median be part that -- the median be implemented at the same time as the improvements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) May 20, 2021 Page 52 of 80 CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. MR. BELLOWS: Is Mr. Klucik participating this afternoon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Commissioner Klucik, did you vote on that, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. Okay. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ***All right. The next two applications are companions under the heading of Blue Coral. And I'm not sure if it's Blue Coral or Coral Blue, so my first question is going to be, which do you want to be? Because I saw it both ways in the material. These are companion items. PL20190001620, the small-scale Growth Management Plan, and that's here for transmittal and adoption, and its companion PL20190001600, which is an RPUDZ. So, Mr. Wright, let me first ask, if there are any persons who are wishing to be heard 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: Disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, meetings with staff, and communications with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. -- I spoke to Patrick, Greg, and Jeff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff materials, staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Wright, you have the floor. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin law firm here on behalf of the applicant. We have our team with us. With the applicant representative, Gregg Fusaro is here; Patrick Vanasse with RWA is our planner; we have Ciprian with Trebilcock; and Bethany Brosius with Passarella here today. We are here seeking your recommendation of approval of an application to rezone property from ag to residential PUD to allow the construction of an apartment complex with 280 units on 9.35 acres. The property is on the south side of Immokalee Road east of the Livingston Road intersection about 2,500 feet from I-75, and it's between commercial uses to the east, along with I-75, and residential uses to the west. There's a look at the situation of the adjacent properties. You see that Bermuda Palms, that's a residential development to the west, and Germain, the auto dealership, to the east. We have reviewed the staff reports, and we agree with their recommendations of approval. There's two staff reports, obviously, because we have companion items. Staff is recommending approval on both. We agree with them. We agree with all the conditions of approval that they've May 20, 2021 Page 53 of 80 proposed, and we're not proposing any deviations from the LDC. But as to the Growth Management Plan amendment, we do agree with staff's recommendation of approval, but there's one very important point of disagreement I want to highlight, and that's the density. Growth management staff's recommendation related to the density is 20 units an acre, and our project as proposed is 30 units an acre. So there's a delta there. Even though they're recommending approval, we are off on that number. So we have recently talked to staff today, and we're trying to reach a point that we can get an agreement with them on that density number. And one thing that came up today is, as proposed and as it's presented in the staff report right now, there would be 10 out of the 280 units devoted to low-income housing. We've since bumped that number up by 350 percent to 35 would be dedicated to low, 80 percent or below AMI. So we have 35 units that we're willing to commit to low, 80 percent or less, and 35 additional affordable units between 80 and 100 percent of AMI. So that is something that we just presented to staff today, and I wanted to make clear on the front end that the numbers that you see, we're willing to make a greater commitment than is maybe written in front of you today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask you to repeat the second 35? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. The second 35 would be that AMI between 80 percent and 100 percent of AMI. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: So together, 35 plus 35 is 70. That's a quarter of the project with a firm commitment to affordable, less than 100 percent of the AMI. Now, staff -- right now there's an LDC amendment going through relating to density in interchange activity centers, and this is very close to an activity center, and Patrick will get into some of that. But it's literally one parcel away from the activity center. So the new LDC amendments that are coming through would allow for 25 units per acre. Like I said, we're looking for 30; staff's saying 20. We feel like being so close to this activity center is a real plus for us because there's an LDC amendment in the works to change the number to 25 there. And, obviously, it's -- there's some hoops you have to jump through to get that maximum number. But that's kind of what's guiding us. Really important, we feel that the unique location of the project -- it's close to I-75. There's a smooth -- what we're proposing is a smooth graduation of intensity as you go from the residential to the intersection of I-75. So we have, as you can see from this picture, apartments, residential to west and commercial to the east. And as you got closer to the highway it gets more intense, and as you get farther away from the highway, as we're proposing it, it would get less intense. And we would be, essentially, the buffer between Germain, the commercial, and the existing residential. The property right now is vacant. And it's always possible that somebody could come in there and put commercial. We feel like our project is more compatible with the neighbors, particularly to the west where there's residential. And we always hear about the demand for housing, and the market's been crazy over the last year or so, as we all know. We feel like this project meets a critical demand for housing. We've heard Naples and Collier County say that a lot of their employees get on the highway and move up to Lee County or live in Lee County because they can't afford to live here. So this does meet a critical demand for housing, a commitment to affordable housing, and we'll put housing within reach for essential services personnel. We also have a commitment for all of those 70 affordable units to be offered to essential services personnel, put the housing within reach for lower income residents, and will allow Collier workers to stay in Collier. As I mentioned, I have Patrick and our team with me today. Patrick's going to focus on the planning considerations. And I'll turn it over to him next. We also have Bethany Brosius for our environmental issues; Ciprian with traffic; and Gregg, our project manager, is here to address May 20, 2021 Page 54 of 80 the project itself and economics, if that does come up and if there are any questions in relation to that. We appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I'll -- at this point I'll turn it over to Patrick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Wright. Commissioner Shea first. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- I'm looking at, what is the density of the Bermuda Palms? MR. WRIGHT: Between 10 and 11 units per acre. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And what's the density of Windsong Apartments? MR. WRIGHT: We have this all on a chart. 16.8 for Bermuda Palms. MR. VANASSE: Windsong. MR. WRIGHT: Windsong, excuse me, 16.8, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're not really transitioning to a higher density back towards the activity center. You're actually reversing it. You're going to a higher density as you move away from the activity center. MR. WRIGHT: Well, there's no residential up to where we're proposing. So the idea there was it's commercial -- the highway, you have a bunch of commercial, and then you have us, and then you have those two residential to the west of us. If that answers your question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's more of an observation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So did staff concur with 25 as a compromise, or where are you at with that discussion? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm encouraged by how it went, but I don't want to speak for them. I think there's probably a pretty good chance, if we're willing to put that commitment in writing, that they would be willing to change their number, but I don't want speak for them -- Michele to make that call. COMMISSIONER FRY: The justification for 30 units or 25 is what? MR. WRIGHT: Well, originally -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The affordable housing, is that -- MR. WRIGHT: Pretty much. You know, we could say it's good planning and the graduation of uses, but the bottom line here -- and we've heard this before -- that in order to get an increased density, you've got to give up something. You've got to provide a public benefit. And so what we did, between yesterday and today, is we focused specifically on that public benefit we were looking to provide, and we fattened it up, and hopefully that will be enough to make staff and the commission pleased with our project. COMMISSIONER FRY: What if you only got approval for 20 or 25 units, what would that do to your affordable housing commitment? Would it still be 25 percent of the total units? Is that the idea? MR. WRIGHT: Well, we're willing to, you know, work within this process as it goes along. For example, if you just recommended approval at 20, we would probably -- we would probably move forward with that and continue to seek a higher number, but really, in order to make the project economics work, we've really tweaked all the numbers in the different categories of AMI to make it work. It's pretty close and we don't -- 20 -- 20 won't work. Thirty is the number that everything that we've done for the last two years has been based on, and 30 is the number that our affordable commitment is based on. So unless we have some sort of a major change, that's really what we're looking to do, 30. If you were to recommend approval of 25, we would move straight ahead, and we would be very happy to get your recommendation of approval in any event. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Wright, there's a 30-day provision that would be offered to May 20, 2021 Page 55 of 80 the certain categories of tenants. Would you be willing to consider 60? MR. WRIGHT: Is that the one where the essential services personnel are given the offer first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: I am -- I'd be willing to consider that. This is -- I want to pull up the specific language that they had in the staff recommendation. And this is just for your reference. I'm reading from Packet Page 1261 where it says there's an essential services personnel commitment, and it says in the event that no ESP rents available within 30 days of advertisement of its availability, then it's offered to non-ESPs. Is that the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the provision I'm talking about, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: And I'm not -- I'm going to ask Gregg real quick, if I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WRIGHT: It's not a showstopper, but we'd like to, you know, be able to advertise before we open to make sure that we get a jump on that if we are going to give a 60-day window. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do the other members of the Planning Commission think about an increased period of time? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think 60 days is kind of too long, when you're a rental, to wait. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other thoughts? MR. EASTMAN: It's certainly appreciated by the school district, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could we -- could we close it out at 45 days? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any objections from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Good afternoon. For the record, Patrick Vanasse with RWA. It's a pleasure to be here to talk about this project with you. We're excited about this project for several reasons. One of the things is, it's providing a unique new offering to this market. They're providing rental apartments that are a very high quality, and the level of amenities that they're providing within this complex is above and beyond anything I've seen locally. And we have pictures of projects, one that they just finished building in Orlando, and you'll see the great pictures of the amenities that they do provide. So they're providing a high-quality property, but you've got a private market-rate developer coming forward and making a commitment, a solid commitment to provide true affordable housing. And what I mean by true affordable housing is a lot of the projects we see in Collier County when they're asking for additional density tend to be what we call gap or workforce housing, and those tend to be 100 percent of AMI or above. And what is being offered here is affordable housing that falls within the moderate and low categories. So, again, a private developer coming forward with no government subsidies and making that commitment. And, again, it's a very site specific Comp Plan amendment, very site specific rezone with a lot of detail. So this is not going to be speculative. We're not asking for multiple use. It's not going to change. We're only asking for multifamily rental units. So from that standpoint, we think it's a great project. We also think the location is an ideal location. And what I mean by that is if you look at that quadrant of this activity center, this is the last remaining 10 acres that are undeveloped or unentitled. And we know exactly what's in that area and what to expect. We know that next door to us on the east is going to be a Germain car dealership approved for up to 60 feet. We also know that you've got intense commercial activity where the Walmart center is. There's a hotel there. There's a self-storage there. And we are creating that transition between higher intensity May 20, 2021 Page 56 of 80 commercial and lower intensity residential. And, again, I don't think it's all that important that we look at the exact number of density. It's more of we've got an apartment use that fits really well between commercial and residential and creates that transition. And we've worked very hard to develop a site plan and to develop a building that creates the biggest setbacks that we can, that minimizes the massing and is at a scale and at an architectural look and feel that is in keeping with the area and fits well with the area. We're asking for a maximum of four stories. Staff has asked us to reduce the overall height, the actual height to 50 feet. When we started this project, we had no architects, we had no engineers that had actually looked at ground elevation, how much fill would be needed, how much of a box we would need to fit those four stories. We have done that in the last few months. We know that we can fit within the 50 feet, so we are pleased to say, yes, we can accept that condition. And also with regards to density, some of the comments that were made, the reason why we went from what we were initially offering to what we have offered now is we talked to staff and we talked to some of the Planning Commission members. We were asked to revisit that. The pro formas that the applicant put together were six months to a year old, and they were really looking more so at the construction costs escalating and what they could possibly do. But what they've done just in the last week is go back and look at other rental communities close by and what those rents were, and they've been amazed at how quickly the rents have gone up elsewhere at, you know, 10 to 15 percent increases. So what that does for them is the portion that is not affordable, that they're not setting aside for affordable, that's where they can make a nicer margin and then provide more affordable. But the only way the amount of affordable works is predicated on that 30 units per acre. Anything less than 30 units per acre makes it that they can provide less of that affordable. So that's why, even though staff is recommending 25 -- and we're very happy -- well, I'm not going to speak for them. I think -- I think we have support from them at 25, I will say -- we'd still like to pursue 30 because, again, the more we get on the density, the more affordable we can provide, and there's a direct relation there. So that is -- that is why we're going to keep asking for the 30, and we think there's some enormous benefits from quality of project and also the affordable housing component. And as you'll see from the pictures, when we're talking about the quality of project, I would like to talk about the project a little bit. So it's luxury apartments. They're going to very well-appointed units, highly amenitized, parking garage on site. They are targeting young professionals and empty nesters. The units tend to be smaller units but of a much higher quality so they can still get the rents that they would like, but it's a smaller envelope, and it allows them also to keep their buildings at a scale that is appropriate for the area where they can keep the buildings a little smaller. We think it's a great location. And when we started this, the intent was to try to look at what the ULI housing study had put forward and to develop a project that was consistent with some of those recommendations. And the ULI study talks about finding appropriate places along major thoroughfares, activity centers. So these -- we're just outside an existing interchange activity center. So if we look at landscape-wide for Collier County, those nodes are the nodes that we've identified as the areas where we see the highest intensities and densities in the county. The infrastructure's there, the roadway system is there, and we've identified those areas as mixed use. So people that buy there or live there know that these are mixed-use activity centers. Higher intensity, higher density is expected. So we think that's a great location. It's right by I-75, provides easy access for Southwest Florida, and we believe that location, again, with this idea that we're an infill project in an area May 20, 2021 Page 57 of 80 where we know exactly what the uses are around, it makes it where it's a great location. So some of the GMP amendments and LDC amendments related to housing affordability that are going to be coming forward, staff has taken some of the ULI recommendations. And ULI was recommending possibly up to 30 units per acre, and the ULI folks have seen this in resort communities throughout the U.S. that, yes, you need higher densities for market-rate developers to be willing to build and offer affordable housing. So those experts provided 30. The recommendation right now that staff is putting forward is 25. But the 25 would apply to all activity centers throughout the county, and some activity centers may have more residential, a little less diversity when it comes to commercial, maybe a little less intensity. This one is a major interchange. We know exactly what's there. So while 25 units per acre in some places might be more appropriate, we think that this one, knowing exactly what those uses are and what the compatibility issues are, I think it's an appropriate place for 30 units per acre. And the other thing is, as you went through your hearing this morning about the rural fringe, these amendments sometimes take a very long time to be heard and get approved. You have someone today willing to make that commitment. So moving on, I'll talk about compatibility issues. I'll try to keep it brief. I know that our biggest issue here is density. But I do want to touch upon the design and the compatibility concerns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. VANASSE: So as I said, when it comes to the quality and the luxury, these were renderings that were in the application when we started the project. You'll see we have pictures of the actual built project in Lake Mary outside of Orlando, and the final product is even better than the renderings are. But this is a level of amenity, as you can see, dog park, high-quality finishes in the units, internal/external recreation, gyms, that type of activity. This just touches upon the ULI study. And one of the things that I want to point out is when it comes to housing affordability, ULI makes a very important point that transportation combined with price of housing is crucial. And you've all heard about driving to qualify, that type of thing. So being in a good area close to transit is very important. Walmart has a transit stop. The regional park, very close by, has another big transit spot right there. So we have shopping, we have services, we have recreation, we have all the amenities close by, which will promote walkability and transit use. This was the initial commitment. As Jeff mentioned, we are upping this, and the full 70 units would be in the affordable category. That talks about the unique location that we have. Again, infill project, very site specific. This does not set a precedent for other properties throughout the county. Another important issue that we are proposing is when it comes to transportation, we've done our TIS, we have no significant impact on the adjacent roadway system. But what we've done is we've teamed up with Germain next door, and we're providing one access point for both projects, limiting the curb cuts and access points along Immokalee, creating a safer configuration having one turn lane for both projects, that type of thing. One thing that I'd like to point out also is the folks at Bermuda Palms, we're showing a potential interconnection. That's completely up to them if they want that connection or not. We think it could be a benefit to the residents because we're going to have a frontage road leading to Juliet Street [sic] and leading to the commercial activity center there so they wouldn't have to go back onto Immokalee to just go for errands, or when it comes to going west, they could go straight to Juliet Street where it's a signalized intersection to get to Immokalee and go west. So we think it's a great benefit. One thing that we hadn't committed to in our writeup or our application initially, and it's a May 20, 2021 Page 58 of 80 no brainer for us, is that if they want to connect, we'll make -- they can make that a gated access point, and it can be one way. So none of our traffic would use their entrance, but they could completely go through our project and use that frontage road all the way to the Walmart Super Center, for example. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vanasse, do you know how far along Germain is? Have they broken ground? MR. VANASSE: I drive by it. The only thing I can tell you is I haven't seen anything driving by. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Next slide shows that frontage road. So as you can see in blue, the gray area is our subject property showing the building footprint, and that frontage road crosses our property, crosses the future Germain auto dealer, connects to Useppa and goes to Juliet Street. Juliet is where the signalized intersection is. So not only is that going to create a better configuration for traffic, but it's also going to promote bike/ped activity. All these folks, once they come home, if they need to run a quick errand or if they want to go to Seed to Table to have a drink and have dinner, they can easily walk there or bike there. Again, I think that's a great benefit to our transportation system. We promote that, but we see very little of that in Collier County. And, again, you're seeing private developers willing to do the right thing and commit to this. COMMISSIONER FRY: Patrick, can you leave that slide up for a second. A couple questions. MR. VANASSE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the access road you're showing, looking at your property, you actually showed going up to Immokalee and then back down to connect to Germain, but you don't really have to do that, correct? MR. VANASSE: So our access point is right here, if you see my cursor. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. MR. VANASSE: That's a joint access point. We're showing that should Bermuda Palms want to connect, this is their access point. They could connect through our project and make it all the way to Juliet Street. COMMISSIONER FRY: So they can -- where that line goes across your -- that line right there, that goes right ahead into Germain's property? MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. All right. That was Question No. 1. Question No. 2, is there a crosswalk at Livingston to go north across Immokalee Road to Seed to Table? You mentioned it's easy for them to get there, but that's six lanes plus -- MR. VANASSE: The easiest thing in my mind would be to cross at Juliet, go to the other side of the road. COMMISSIONER FRY: Then walk back? MR. VANASSE: Then walk along the northern side along the canal. I'm not exactly sure what the crosswalk configuration is there. Maybe transportation staff would know, or Ciprian. There's a -- so Ciprian, who's our transportation consultant, will answer the question. I think he's saying there is a crosswalk. MR. MALAESCU: Good afternoon. Ciprian Malaescu, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. There is a crosswalk -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Can you speak into the microphone? MR. MALAESCU: I'm sorry. There's a crosswalk over there. It's a signal at Livingston and Immokalee Road, signalized intersection. May 20, 2021 Page 59 of 80 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What was your name again, sir? MR. MALAESCU: Ciprian Malaescu. MR. VANASSE: So he works with Norm Trebilcock. Norm, unfortunately, this week is out of the area. So Ciprian has decided to chip in and help us out, and if you've got some more transportation questions, he can address those. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. MALAESCU: Thank you. MR. VANASSE: So when it comes to density, again, I think, you know, I made it clear that it's crucial for the provision of affordable housing and also to provide the quality project that they want to provide. But when it comes to density -- and as planners we talk about this all the time -- that people react to form, and what I mean by that is how buildings look, the scale, the aesthetics, and they don't necessarily react to numbers. So if you tell someone 16 units per acre or 20 or 30 units per acre, it's such a nebulous term that people have trouble understanding what that means. And every project is a little different. So sometimes you're going to get a little more open space or you're going to get a little more landscaping, and people are really swayed by the aesthetics and the feel and how it looks. So there's a lot of things that we can do to make a project compatible and to basically mitigate for our density and our intensity of use. So, obviously, the aesthetics are important, the massing is important, and what we've done with this building -- and I've got an exhibit showing that -- is we've broken up the building where it faces Bermuda Palms creating courtyards so they don't see one big, massive building. They see just kind of the ends of some of the wings, and they see a lot more landscaping, a lot more courtyard, greenery, and the recreational areas. We've also enhanced the buffer. So where we abut residential, we enhanced the buffer along Bermuda Palms. And where we abut Livingston Lakes on our backside, that's where we've located our preserve, and that's 100 feet -- 150 feet wide plus or minus, which creates a significant buffer. So the setbacks, the buffering, the aesthetics are all things that we really considered, and I'll go into that with some exhibits. And then the other thing was, I've got this slide kind of showing that, you know, we've got higher-density projects in Collier County. We don't have a ton of them, but we have them. And typically those higher-density projects are from existing larger planned -- PUDs where there was some density left over and they clustered it, and they typically clustered it along a major thoroughfare, and that came on the tail end of the project. But what I've got here is pictures of Orchid Run. It's been an extremely successful project. This is the -- it's a residential rental multifamily project that I believe, from the applicant's research, has probability the highest rents right now in Collier County, and it's higher density, it's clustered density that was part of the PUD, and it's very attractive and very popular. But we've got other examples. Bayfront, Naples Square, Magnolia Square, Addie's Corner, and Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks. And I know that Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks is assisted living mostly, so that's a bit of a different animal. But I'm sure you've all driven by it. With the right landscaping and the right architecture, it's a great looking project, and it's a benefit to this community. So this is what I meant by the massing and where we've located the building. So as you can see, we put the majority of the building as close as we could to our eastern boundary, really, where that's where the commercial use is and the more intense use, to provide separation, as much separation as we could to the residential. And then we've broken up the building where we provide courtyards, and there in the May 20, 2021 Page 60 of 80 middle is a parking garage, and the parking garage is going to be lower than the rest of the building. The parking garage is going to be three stories. The rest of the building is four stories. So we've very carefully designed this, and we provided those enhanced buffers. And just to give you some examples here, with the current LDC, I believe that required buffers between industrial and residential use with straight zoning is 50-foot setbacks. And on here, I think the closest we have from a separation to a residential building is 190 feet. And our setback on our property, we have 80 feet. So they have some space on their side, and we have space on our side, but we far exceed any code requirements. And if you look where we abut Livingston Lakes, where our preserve is on the backside, we have over 270 feet to the closest residence. So we've put a lot of care into making this compatible. And as staff indicated in their staff report, they feel that from a compatibility standpoint we're pretty much there. They just wanted to reduce the height, and we've agreed to that. We can reduce the height. So from that standpoint, we think we have staff support from a compatibility standpoint. We've gone through great efforts to make it compatible from a design standpoint. So we think it's in keeping with the area. It's not going to impact the neighbors. And the 30 units per acre, again, being 25 units per acre or being 30 units per acre is not going to change the way the building looks or how it feels. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Patrick, I can appreciate the U-shaped buildings and what impact that -- how that minimizes impact to the Bermuda Palms people. Can you go back one slide? MR. VANASSE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the center you mentioned it's a parking garage. I mean, either that's the top level of a parking garage, or that is a parking lot. It looks to me like it's a parking lot. MR. VANASSE: It's the top level. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the top level. So that's actually a solid building there. So they do see a solid structure throughout the entire center of that -- of your development. Do you have elevations showing what they would see from there? MR. VANASSE: Not from that side. We do -- I believe I may have had. In your packet -- I don't have it as a slide, but in your packet, we have a rendering that was taken from this Lake Mary project that has a parking garage as part of it. So in that packet -- and I think I put a note on there that that would be subject to change, and the design would be slightly different for this project. But that rendering kind of gives you a bit of a feel of what that parking garage would look like. So -- and I'm not going to belabor this. I can go back to any of those line-of-sights exhibits. But we looked at the massing and the size of our project versus other projects, the separation, the distance. Again, I think from a massing standpoint, we fit in very well. We create a good transition. The only thing to point out is adjacent to us on the eastern side, we have vegetation here. That's going to be that auto dealership at 60 feet. So -- and we dropped down to 50. And then from a line-of-sight, this is from Livingston Lakes. What this line-of-sight rendering shows you is that they should just see our preserve and not see our building on the other side. This is from Carlton Lakes across Immokalee. Closest homes are at about 630 feet, I believe, away. Again, very long distance. They're going to see a lot of roadway, median landscaping, and they might get a glimpse of our top -- the top of our project. And keep in mind, all those renderings were done at maximum 60-foot actual height, which, again, that's going to be May 20, 2021 Page 61 of 80 brought down to 50 feet. And this, the closest folks to us is Bermuda Palms, and this is a rendering from Bermuda Palms. Again, as I mentioned, we kept as much separation as we could from them. We're providing that enhanced buffer. We talked to staff about looking at existing vegetation along the boundary and trying to save some of the mature trees that are there. That's certainly something we'll go back and look and talk to our environmental and engineering folks, but trying to keep as much of that mature vegetation as we can. I've got -- the two next slides are just associated with trip data but, basically, unless you've got questions, I'm just going to go real quickly through those. The TIS conclusion is we have no significant impact on the roadway system and that for most segments we actually have a de minimus impact and that our project will not negatively affect Immokalee in front of our project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody want to hear more about traffic? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. VANASSE: So with that being said, I'll turn things over to the applicant. He will tell you a little bit about what their intent is, why they do this, what they have to contend with when it comes to cost and market demand, and he'll show you that great project in Orlando that I mentioned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. FUSARO: Good afternoon. I know you guys have been here a long time. I appreciate the time. My name is Gregg Fusaro. I'm with Capital Investment Group. I'm a partner with the company. We're actually headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, but we've realized over the last few years that it's a lot nicer here in the winter. So that's why we've been actually focused on a lot of different developments in different Florida markets. I wanted to let you know a couple of things about us is that we are generally -- we build, we develop, we own and manage our assets. So, historically, we have been long-term holders of properties, and we manage everything that we build. So it's us. It's not -- we don't turn it over to a third party. We manage all of our assets. More recently, we have sold some properties just because the market has -- the markets have been just crazy. But historically, we put long-term debt on our properties, and we hold them for the long-term. I just wanted to point out a couple of things, I think, and that is that one of the exercises that we've been going through in the last few days related to affordability, and the reason that we're able to kind of upgrade the number of units that we can provide at a lower -- to lower median incomes is based on just kind of continually researching what's going on in the marketplace, and what's happening here is that because of the lack of supply, rental rates across the board, but particularly in the higher end, which almost everybody has to build today, those rates have gone up extreme -- I mean, I was shocked at how quickly they've gone up. And one of the ways to work with that supply-and-demand issue, if the supply continues to be limited, demand continues to go up, which is happening in this market, prices have to go up. If you add some more supply, it will have a mitigating effect on overall rental rates. We've seen that in Cincinnati in a big way, not necessarily for the good of folks like us who have properties and modeled certain rents, and we've seen those rents, you know, go up very quickly and then kind of tail back down as more and more product has come on the market. So in our urban core downtown, we had rents that, in some new projects three or four years ago, started out about $1.90 a square foot and ramped up to about 2.30 a square foot, and everybody thought, well, gee whiz, I can come in and do that, too, and get those rents. Well, the additional supply has actually pushed rents back down, and so that average now is around 2.05 a square foot, so it has mitigated because of the additional supply. May 20, 2021 Page 62 of 80 In terms of this site and this location, one of the reasons that it's -- it's great, not only for us but we feel for the neighborhood and the immediate market area, is because it does provide what we always look for, which is walkability. And it's not maybe the same as being right downtown on Fifth Avenue or something like that, but you've got walkability to the Strand, you've got walkability to the hotel, you've got walkability to the bank, to Seed to Table and, just as importantly for our residents, is the park that's right around the corner. And so, you know, those are the kinds of things that we look for in development sites and one of the reasons -- one of the reasons why we think this is a great site for this product. The other being that we do feel it's just a great transition from the car dealership to the residential to the west. And as Patrick said, we've tried to push everything away from the residential as much as possible. In terms of rental rates versus mortgage rates to our neighbors to the west, the rents at this development will be comparable or more than a mortgage payment would be today if you purchased one of the units in Bermuda Palms. So there's, I think, great compatibility there in terms of not only cost but the kind of resident that you'll have in the makeup of that neighborhood. But the walkability is very important to us. We also are pleasantly surprised at the -- while, again, we know we're adding traffic, the impact is minimal. And I think our team did a great job in working with the Germain group to provide one access point for both developments and to provide the service road through to Juliet, which is a big plus for our residents. So we're really excited about that. We believe that -- and where do we go here? So this is a project that we just finished in the Lake Mary area of Orlando, and I just wanted to show these to you because it's -- while no two projects that we do are identical, it conveys kind of the concept that we would envision here. This is a four-story building, all elevator served, and it does have a parking garage. This slide shows some of the interior finishes in the common areas, so all of our developments have very extensive common areas and really recreation opportunities for our residents. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, sir. You said a parking garage is below ground? MR. FUSARO: No, no, no. I'll show you. This is an aboveground garage similar to what we would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is four stories over parking? MR. FUSARO: No, no. This is four-story with an attached parking garage, excuse me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gotcha. Thank you. MR. FUSARO: I'm sorry. This just shows you some of the interior features that we try to incorporate into every development. The one on the left is our -- is part of the clubroom, pool table area. We have a fitness center, obviously, in every development that we do. This is one of the courtyards in that development with putting green, jacuzzi, swimming pool. Every property we do today has a pet spa, and generally we have a golf simulator room in every development, and we really encourage that interaction between residents on site. This just shows you the interiors of some of the units. They're condominium quality. Everything we do today is like that. And the summary, basically, I've already talked about. One thing I do want to make sure that I mention is this development has a two-level garage, not four or five. I think Patrick said three. It's actually just two levels; on grade and one level above that, and there's actually no roof on that building, so that will be open on the second floor. So it's not a three-story structure. It's actually one story above grade. COMMISSIONER FRY: So from Bermuda Palms as they look across at your development, they will see the ends of the U-shaped buildings, and then in between those two buildings they will see a two-story parking garage that fills kind of a central courtyard area. May 20, 2021 Page 63 of 80 MR. FUSARO: Correct, correct, yeah. So I appreciate your time. Happy to answer any questions if I can. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. No one has lit up on their deliberator. Therefore, seeing as it's 25 minutes after 2:00 -- well, before we recess, let me ask how many, if any, registered speakers do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody in the room? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then, of course, we have staff. All right. So let's take a 14-minute break to 20 minutes of 3:00. We're in recess till 20 minutes of 3:00. (A brief recess was had from 2:26 p.m. to 2:41 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's return to session. Mr. Wright, anything further from the applicant? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir. That concludes our presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. WRIGHT: We're here if there's questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission, any questions for the applicant? It appears not. Thank you. All right. We'll hear from staff. Is this going to be Mr. Sabo? No. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with Zoning Division staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: You look familiar. MS. MOSCA: Maybe from this morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe. MS. MOSCA: Okay. So before we start talking about the zoning petition, we're going to address the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and it is a small-scale, so this will be an adoption ordinance, so you won't have a second shot at this one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. MS. MOSCA: So when Comprehensive Planning looks at a petition, we always ask, should this plan amendment be approved? Because without the plan amendment, you can't get the zoning. So just make sure everybody's aware of that. So there's always a lot of focus given to the zoning petition without a lot of discussion about the county's vision for the growth plan as well as its policies. So what are these policies? The first policy within the urban area, the vision and the plan is to allow a maximum density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre except in the mini-triangle area of the Gateway/Bayshore CRA. One area of the plan that allows 16 dwelling units per acre is the activity center, and you heard the applicant mention the activity center. Density provisions of the plan provide a transition, that is the higher densities in the activity center in intensities to the lower densities to be further removed from the activity center. The subject property is not within an activity center nor is the Germain Immokalee property to the east, which was subject to a recent Growth Management Plan amendment. The second policy, as mentioned by the applicant, is the proposed affordable housing initiatives. So you all haven't seen those initiatives yet, but those provisions will be reviewed by the Board, most likely reviewed by the Planning Commission. But those are to allow a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre, and these are specific provisions for affordable housing, a targeted type of development. I'm going to skip this slide. We know about the site conditions already from the applicant. So two areas of concern that Comp Planning staff has with this petition: Density as well May 20, 2021 Page 64 of 80 as compatibility. The eligible density under the existing plan provision is 16 dwelling units per acre. The base eligible density is four dwelling units per acre, and the eligible bonuses to target certain types of development, such as affordable housing, is available up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is requesting 30 dwelling units per acre. That's 14 more dwelling units per acre than what the plan allows currently. The density is out of character with the surrounding densities on adjacent properties, and you can tell in the slide; take a look around the surrounding areas. So as you can see from the activity center far over to the east, you see that the densities gradually go down. They go up a little bit by the -- I'm sorry -- the intersection of Livingston and Immokalee Road, and those all received eligible bonuses for either infill or affordable housing or residential density band, because that's the intention, to transition. So in the activity center, 16 dwelling units per acre. As you go further out, there's that opportunity for the residential density band of up to three additional dwelling units per acre. So the project is requesting a higher density than what is being proposed by the affordable housing amendments that you'll see in the future. It does not provide the number and type of affordable units identified in those affordable housing provisions. The second area of concern is compatibility. And the applicant has done a significant -- tremendous job to address compatibility with adjacent properties. They have done that. Comprehensive Planning staff typically defers the compatibility analysis and review to Zoning staff so they can review the project in its entirety. But what I've provided here is Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6. And, again, this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This is not a project that can come in today and request the 30 dwelling units per acre. So what we look for is that any new land uses be compatible and complementary to the surrounding land use. The evaluation typically looks at the building location, orientation, height, buffering, and other factors to determine compatibility. So I'm going to show you the different heights in the area. So to the west is a 34-foot two-story building; to the south they're 35-feet two-story buildings; to the west, that's the undeveloped Germain Immokalee project, and that's 55 to 60 feet; and then to the north, 35 feet, two-story buildings. Now, I want to state that the applicant has provided a greater buffer than required on the western side, I believe also on the southern side, which goes a long way to addressing compatibility; however, we do recommend that the Type B buffer that they're proposing, that perhaps maybe they can add enhanced buffering, maybe some mature trees or retain the trees that are in that area presently. Additionally, perhaps enhanced building perimeter plantings to soften the look of the garage structure as well as the building itself. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask a question on that last slide? MS. MOSCA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where is Germain's at 55 to 60 feet? It seems like that would be pretty compatible with what they're asking for. MS. MOSCA: Right. And, typically -- and typically we would require a transition downward. Maybe that got in under the radar; I don't know. But typically we would have suggested a lower height, and perhaps they won't come in at 55 feet, 60 feet. I'm not sure what they've developed in the past for, you know, the heights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That came before us, and we granted it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's that? We did? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: These are actual heights, right? We're not getting into the May 20, 2021 Page 65 of 80 zoned height? MS. MOSCA: No, those are actual heights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sixty is actual. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actual. MS. MOSCA: Right. For the surrounding properties, those are the actual heights of those two-story buildings. So I just wanted to address the project justification. So the applicant's justification for the 30 dwelling units per acre were the commitments for essential service personnel. And, again, the discussion staff had with the applicant during the lunch hour, they go a long way to addressing the affordability portion. So now they've increased the 35 rent-restricted to 70 for ESP, as they mentioned. So 35 of the units will be 80 percent and lower, and 35 units will be greater than 80 percent to 100 of the AMI. And for those of you who are not aware of the 2021 AMI, that's 84,300. So just to keep that in perspective. So the proposals under the affordable housing amendments, those are the initiatives that the applicant has talked about, the initiatives that I spoke about earlier. Initiative 3, which is affordable housing in the activity center, that requires two-thirds of the bonus, so that's two-thirds of the bonus between 16 and 25 would be the proposal to be available to low and very low income. Now, they haven't proposed any low income in this project. That would mean 88 out of the 280 units would need to be affordable. Initiative 5, which increases density along transit routes, again, requires two-thirds of the bonus, and in this case above 13 dwelling units to be available to low and very low. Again, the project is not proposing any very low. And that would require 106 of the 280 units. So let's talk about some of the density that they believe is comparable to the other projects. So we take a look at the pictures. There's three examples here that the density is not comparable, and context is different. So we'll look at -- first we'll look at -- the top right corner is Magnolia Square. It's at Goodlette-Frank Road. This is actually -- and I believe Patrick had mentioned this. This is part of a larger Planned Unit Development, although the density itself, the 10.5 acres, roughly 290 units at, again, roughly 30 DUs per acre. But this is a very different project. This project is in a mixed-use development. So surrounding it are commercial. To the north, there's office buildings, to the east, industrial, and the school and some additional retail, and then across Goodlette-Frank Road to the west, Pine Ridge Road Estates, and those are hundreds of feet away. So just a different context to keep in mind. The Orchid Run development, which Patrick mentioned, at Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway, both of those are six-lane divided highways. This piece is part of a larger Planned Unit Development, Grey Oaks, and it's an isolated piece. So there really isn't any additional residential around them. There is a golf course and some units further away. And this is at a density of 12.87 dwelling units per acre, roughly 21.91 acres. And then lastly is Addison Place. That's at Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. And, again, that's at 15 dwelling units per acre. The next item is demand for rentals units in the market. There is, based on their market study, a demand in the area. Additionally, within this same market area, you'll see another apartment complex coming forward, and this is at the corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road, and they're asking for an approval of 30.3 dwelling units per acre. So the concern here would be this approval could be the new level of accepted density at 30 dwelling units per acre. So staff is recommending from the Comp Planning side that we reduce the density to 20 dwelling units per acre for a total of 187 dwelling units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you say 20 or 25? May 20, 2021 Page 66 of 80 MS. MOSCA: Twenty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Twenty. MS. MOSCA: I'll touch on that in a moment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And then also reduce the building height in the PUD rezoning petition and require taller plantings in the Type B buffer along the western property line. Given all the information that we received at lunchtime, they are -- the applicant is getting closer to the initiatives that are being proposed by the Housing Department, and so staff would be able to support 25 even though it's not comparable to all of the requirements of those initiatives. So with that, I conclude, and I will have Josie talk about the zoning portion. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're basing our recommendation based on an LDC amendment that the Board hasn't approved yet? MS. MOSCA: Yes. But it's -- you know, it's consistent with the direction that we're moving forward with. So we can get to that level. Right now it's 16 dwelling units per acre, and staff could, in fact, justify the 20 because they were providing affordable housing, and they were making a commitment for 30 years. So that's why we were able to support 20. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. MS. MEDINA: Josephine Medina, principal planner with Zoning Division, for the record. So when staff is evaluating RPUD, residential -- or any PUD rezone, to echo what Michele was saying, we do evaluate FLUE Policy 5.6, development compatibility and complementary surrounding land uses. We also review LDC Section 10.02.08.F for rezoning -- for our rezoning findings as well as for the PUD findings, LDC Section 10.02.15.B.5, which I'm sure you guys are aware of. So we evaluate this based on the maximum and minimum development standards that the -- and development commitments. This evaluation, I guess I should have mentioned as well, was also based on the reduced -- the recommendation of reduced density to 20, when I was looking at the compatibility extent. So the main portion that -- the main property that would be affected is definitely, as mentioned, Bermuda Palms Condominiums. This is the one that we've also received 27 signed petitions in opposition as well as one letter requesting a reduction in density. So if we look at the property itself, what the developer is proposing is 80 feet setback from their property line as well as a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer which, as they mentioned, is enhanced because the LDC would require only a 10-foot Type A buffer. And we are also looking at the 35-foot two-story building right here to the right. If you look to the left, then you would see what you -- from the second story, what Bermuda Palms actually is looking towards. Right now, obviously the undeveloped property, I believe the agent said that the trees about -- are about 65 feet tall. And this is an estimate, so it obviously might not be the exact height. But I just wanted to get you an idea of what they would be looking at. COMMISSIONER FRY: If the building is 50 feet tall, as we discussed, and these trees are 65, are you saying that the Bermuda Palms people would not see? MS. MEDINA: Well, these trees are what are existing on the undeveloped. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh. So those are coming down, replaced with a Type B buffer? MS. MEDINA: I guess it would depend on what's exotic, what's not, and if they're willing or able to save. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So it's really not -- I wouldn't be able to say. But just kind of a feel, because since it hasn't been built, I can't really say. May 20, 2021 Page 67 of 80 And to the north, Carlton Lakes -- Carlton Lakes. Minimum 150-foot setback from Immokalee Road is what's being proposed, LDC required Type B buffer. The amount of impact, especially with the reduced height, I don't think it would be as much. Like I said, mostly what we're seeing and how the site is located with it being long, it would definitely be more towards the west where you're seeing the majority of the impact. To the south, as you can see, this is what's, again, existing. There is a commitment to 1.18 acres designated along the southern side of this. And so if you can see, these are two-story -- I believe they're condominiums on the south. Depending on what happens with the amount of exotics that are there in the preserve, we don't see much of an impact also with the degree of -- I believe they said about 150-foot setback. I don't see much of an impact as well. They are required -- they can use the preserve as their landscape buffer, but it if there are a degree of exotics that are found, they do also have to meet the LDC requirements to beef that up a little bit. And, Commissioner Fryer, to answer your question about where Germain Immokalee is right now, right now the last -- I think Tuesday they had a pre-app for SDP. We didn't learn much from that, so that's where we are. So this is why I'm showing you what was approved in the ordinance as their master plan so you can kind of get an idea. Proposed setback from Immokalee -- from Germain Immokalee is that 25-foot setback and the required Type B 15-foot-wide buffer and, again, that ingress and ability to access Juliet through the site. And to address the why we went to -- requested a reduction in height, so staff reviewed the surrounding heights just to get an idea of what the impacts would be. So I think Michele went over this, two-story, 35 to the north; 30 feet, two-story Windsong; and then Eboli (phonetic) -- or Bermuda Palms is 34 feet. There was an approval to the south, it could either be multifamily or an ALF. It was approved for a zoned -- for, I'm sorry, an actual height of -- and that's wrong right there, but an actual height of 47 feet and a zoned height of 40 feet. And then we have to the south two stories, 35 feet. And then Germain Immokalee 60 feet and 55 and we -- as the applicant had said. The point was for this to be a transition, and usually transitions you don't go neck and neck. It's something where we want there to actually be a visual transition as you're going down the road, even for Carlton Lakes, something like that. So the other point I wanted to make is these are two-story structures but they're also divided into various buildings. So all of the multi-families we have around here are not just -- and, yes, there has been some work to allow for the courtyards and the smaller parking garages, but there's still something to do with being able to divide a building and letting that light truly come in. So the areas of concern that staff had when reviewing the evaluation criteria were the proposed change that would seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. That being said, the applicant did mention that it's a visual thing for density, but when you're living next to something, it's also more noise and more light. More people creates that. So I just wanted you to keep that in mind as well. So -- but they did really work on creating orientation where their setback was beyond what is permitted -- what is required for MF -- RMF-16, and their conceptual building envelope identified in the master plan definitely showed their concern with being able to break up the massing. They also identified the preserve location for that south -- southern portion to mitigate. They also had the buffer increase from a Type A to a Type B, which did mitigate to some extent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. So are you saying that you have a concern about the massing of the building? It's really one -- you have the -- it's really one long, continuous building not with the parking garage in the middle. So from Bermuda Palms, you're seeing a long, massive building with no gaps in between, or am I -- am I missing something? May 20, 2021 Page 68 of 80 MS. MEDINA: I mean, yes, there is some concern with that, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So -- and there was a request for a reduction to the actual -- maximum actual height to help with that. But, again, as density increases, you get more light; you get more activity happening. We were also -- I was also concerned with the request being out of scale for what the neighborhood needs. Again, it's surrounded by two-story multi-families to the north, south, and west. So a reduction to the maximum actual height would create more of an appropriate transition from the commercial to the east. So staff went ahead and did a whole bunch of field surveys. I wanted to get an idea of what the actual impact might be. There's not really something in the county where I could compare as much just because of how tight this site is. The best width I could find of comparability was Orchid Run. It's 351 feet wide, four stories, density of about 2.87 [sic] dwelling units per acre. Obviously not the same density. Also, they have different stories. So if you go towards Golden Gate Parkway, they actually have two-story buildings/apartments instead of the four-story over here. So also different context along major thoroughfares. They have a canal. They have industrial zoning over here. Livingston Road divides them from Estates zoning. They also have a golf course where the major impact really is. Another field study survey that was done was Addison Place Apartments. As you can see, again, a little bit more isolated, have more preserves and dry retention areas as well as to the south will be commercial. And it's a big -- bit wider site. It has less of -- it's divided into multiple buildings as well. And they do also have enhanced buffers along the eastern portion of it; Type B buffers that have been enhanced with more mature trees. They've also made them different widths, depending where it is. If it's the amenity center, they have increased the width to 20-foot or 20-foot-wide. So they have varying degrees of Type B buffers depending on what type of use is at the location. And they are at about 15 dwelling units per acre, 51 feet actual, and four stories. With that, staff recommends approval subject to the following: Reduction to the maximum actual building height to 50 feet, and a revision to the master plan -- and this is just a correction for cleanup -- to identify a 25-foot setback along the eastern property line as has been identified in the residential PUD development standards. Other than that, I guess, like Michele, since there were changes that might increase the density, staff does have some concern with the amount of light and noise that might come from the development with a higher density, so it's in agreement with Michele regarding her request for an enhanced buffer facing Bermuda Palms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Those three examples you showed, do they do anything with affordable housing? MS. MEDINA: I do not believe so. I don't -- I didn't research that, to be honest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What is staff's official recommendation with respect to dwelling units per acre? MS. MOSCA: I would defer to Michele. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. It's really challenging for staff to go from 20 to 25 and then up to 30, again, with the proposal for the additional affordable housing at those lower levels. It's ultimately a Board policy decision, but staff could be supportive of the 25 dwelling units per acre if, in fact, they provide for the mature trees and the Type B buffer, just so you provide those safeguards and protections for the adjacent property to the west. May 20, 2021 Page 69 of 80 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And are you talking about if they do the 35 and 35 on the affordable? MS. MOSCA: Yes. Now, mind you, that second tier, 80 percent and below, likely you'll get 80 percent. So you may not see all the way down to the 50 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: At 187 -- oh, what would 25 units per acre be, then; 235 or so? MS. MOSCA: Is your math better than mine? COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I don't know. So we're now above 25 percent. We're now at 30 percent or so affordable units out of the total if we did 25; seventy units out. MS. MOSCA: Two eighty. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it's not 280 at 25 units. It would be 235 or so. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Is there a way to quantify the additional buffering request that you're making? Meaning Type -- you know, we have Type A, B, C, and D. You're talking about mature trees. Is that a -- is there a more tangible or quantifiable way of requesting the additional buffering? MS. MOSCA: Patrick has a good idea. Because, you know, we were just thinking mature trees. So at time of planting, Patrick is saying that they could provide for certain diameter, and I guess it would be. I'm sorry. MR. VANASSE: So in talking with -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name, sir. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. In talking with the applicant, I think his intentions are very good. He was saying, well, we could possibly tag existing trees and keep them there. Part of the complication is when we develop a site in Southwest Florida, most of the site has to be filled, and we have to put berms. So it makes it very difficult to preserve existing trees. What we can commit to -- and I'm not a landscape architect. But before we go to the Board of County Commissioners, we can have something very specific as to size of tree. So minimum planting height and minimum caliber, so how big around the tree would be. So that's not a problem. We'll get our landscape architect to give us some advice on that, and we can certainly have a solid commitment by the time we get to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from staff? MS. MEDINA: Well -- and I'm not sure if this is -- just to make sure the commitment for the two-story parking garage and four-story principal building is also something that the applicant's willing to commit to. It is not on the development standards and was one of the letters that we received that there wasn't clarity in that from -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty feet and four stories, right? MS. MEDINA: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that's what I heard them say. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, again, Jeff Wright, for the record. I think Mr. Fusaro has a comment that he would like to make on that particular commitment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By all means. MR. FUSARO: Thank you. For the record, Gregg Fusaro. So I guess from our perspective, if we can make 25 units per acre work, without giving you any detail, because I haven't really thought through it, but with the less units we can either reduce the height of part of the building or all of it. We can probably reduce the number of parking May 20, 2021 Page 70 of 80 spaces in a parking garage. Whether that means a whole level comes off, I don't know. But either way, the reduction in units from 30 to 25 gives us flexibility to create, I'll say, just a better outcome visually in terms of building height either for part of it or all of it, and as far as structured parking goes. And so we would do that, you know, whatever would work the best from a feasibility standpoint. But either way, it will be a reduction in mass. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you still commit to the 70 affordable units at 25 units per acre? MR. FUSARO: I haven't run those numbers, but I'll say, yes, we'll figure out a way to get it done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else from the applicant? MR. WRIGHT: Well, first of all, I want to thank staff, because they put in a lot of time and effort, and they have truly worked with us on this one. I don't think that our project presents a new level. We've set forth reasons why. It's a unique location and graduation of uses and also the ULI and Board of County Commissioners policy makers have kind of encouraged this type of density on these major arterial roadways that are near intersections. So we don't feel like that's a new level we're creating. One thing I owed you, Mr. Chairman, it is Blue Coral. I know that's clear now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Blue Coral, not Coral Blue. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. We ran into a problem with addressing, because Coral is a very common way to name a development, but blue is not, surprisingly. And as far as the -- well, we agree with staff's conditions -- proposed conditions of approval, and thank you for your time. Here for any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We'll hear from staff, unless there are questions -- not staff, public. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, I think, for the applicant team is, with the reduction in units, we talked a little bit about massing and having one continuous building that entire length of the building. Is it -- do you think the reduction in units might allow a break between buildings to allow some light through? MR. FUSARO: Sure. I think we can look at that. The -- part of the concept initially was that those units that are kind of in the center, which gives you on the east side a continuous building face, would have direct access to the garage, but there may be a way to -- assuming that those were the units that we kind of got rid of, then we could look at a way to have the two buildings on the end kind of on the end of the barbell have direct access into the garage and maybe those units along the east side that are against the garage aren't there. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess, putting myself in the shoes of Bermuda Palms people, I'm not sure whether they would prefer -- if that reduction in units allowed a reduction of a story from four to three, my opinion is they probably would prefer that over a break in the center of the structure. But do you have a -- do you have a sense of that from past experience and what they might appreciate most? MR. FUSARO: It's -- yeah, that's a tough one. I think if we asked 10 people we'll get five one way and five the other. I think that probably what we ought to do is just go back and maybe look at a couple of different options and see what just works the best overall and achieves -- again, yes, based on the actual setback from that property, I don't think the four stories is really going to be an issue. I mean, that's a lot. But I think we can certainly look at both options, because it's a finite number of units that May 20, 2021 Page 71 of 80 we have to reduce. So the question is maybe -- I think one of you might have mentioned or somebody mentioned earlier a building that's maybe three stories with a four-story section, we're doing that on a development right now, or do you just try to take -- open up that center area so that you have a direct line of sight, and you're only looking at a story-and-a-half, really, that you have to look over to see, you know, further to the east. Now, you might be looking at Germain's building when you look through there. But that's a valid question, and I think we would go back and play around with a couple of different options. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think we have, what, three speakers virtually for this or am I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Three or four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Three or four virtual speakers, and I don't know what the neighborhood sentiment is yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we may hear. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I would think before the County Commission the more you can walk in with agreement with your neighbors in terms of the aesthetics of it and -- MR. FUSARO: And I did speak with the woman who's president of the HOA association the other day. We had a good conversation. I just wanted to clarify the issue with respect to us having access into Bermuda Palms, which we had -- we do not want or need, but I said if they wanted it, great, or some kind of, you know, situation there. And then somebody had indicated that they thought we were tapping into their private water system, which was misinformation that came from somewhere, and I assured her that we were not doing that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Registered speakers. Who's first? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, for Item 9A5 we have Mr. David Jordan. Mr. Jordan, are you with us, sir? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Jordan, if you could unmute yourself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe we come back to him. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yeah. For Item 9A6, we have two speakers. First one is Diane Daugherty followed by Charles Berry. Ms. Daugherty, are you with us. Can you unmute your microphone for us, please. (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. We'll come back to Ms. Daugherty. Mr. Berry, are you with us, sir? MR. BERRY: I'm on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Berry? MR. BERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, sir. You have five minutes. MR. BERRY: Thank you very much. I am a resident of Bermuda Palms, and I have several questions. I was curious as to the proposed breakdown between one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. And the reason for that question was that if we don't have an accurate headcount, how can you do an effective traffic study? May I go on to my second point? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. BERRY: Is the developer -- and I think the question was answered. But is the developer using totally private funds, or does he have some subsidiary money coming from government that might support the low-income housing? And third question: The stated area is 9.35 acres. If they took away 15 percent of the May 20, 2021 Page 72 of 80 available land as proposed for use as buffering, this leaves them 7.9 acres. Does that really work into the dwelling-units-per-acre calculation? Fourth question is, there was no report from the school district, and I'm wondering if this ultimately has an effect on what we're doing here. And my fifth question, which is more a concern, is if this goes through with the acceptance of the ratios of low-income and essential service personnel housing, how does that get policed in the future? If this is a 30-year commitment, who's watching all of this? And my final comment is: I hear them suggesting that this development will provide a nice buffer between us and the commercial areas, and we think the green trees and the nine acres that are there now present a pretty nice buffer for us as it is. And that concludes my comments and my questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. We can get answers to those questions right now, and I think it's kind of a blend of staff and the petitioner. Question about the TIS calculation, let's start with that one. MR. MALAESCU: Good afternoon, again. My name is Ciprian. I'm with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions on behalf of Norm Trebilcock in support of the project. I think the question was if the TIS was based on the number of persons living on the project. We follow a national standard in ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers. It's an accepted standard in Collier County. And we have data that show number of units. So the ITE does not have a headcount for a development. They do traffic surveys all over the country. In this particular case, multifamily, they have many studies, over 50 I would say, for each time period they studied. So basic analysis -- basic traffic analysis is really based on the number of units for the development. That's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And that has always been a point of frustration for me, but you don't use persons per household when you're calculating; you use the ITE number. MR. MALAESCU: That is correct, but the data should be the same, because it refers to the number of units. It is covered in the ITE. So the number of units are the same. ITE covers the number. In our case, 280. So it's within the range of data that ITE has. So it really doesn't matter how many people are living there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I anticipated your answer. I was just pointing out that it's a point of frustration for me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, as an engineer, I don't understand that. I mean, if you had 280 three-bedroom units, you're going to have a lot more traffic than 280 one-bedroom units. MR. MALAESCU: And there will be more traffic for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But your study won't reflect that. MR. MALAESCU: It will, absolutely. If it's one unit more, we'll have more traffic. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No -- yeah, but if they're both 280 and one is all one-bedroom and one's all three-bedroom, you're saying they're the same, and I don't agree with that whether it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think so. The IT associates a number of automobiles to the size of the unit. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say the "size," you mean the square footage or you mean the number of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bedrooms. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Bedrooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isn't that right? MR. MALAESCU: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So bedrooms are taken into account? MR. MALAESCU: Not in the ITE perspective, no. May 20, 2021 Page 73 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: But you just said -- MR. MALAESCU: It's based on the number of units -- it's based on the number of units. There's no difference between a one-bedroom or two-bedroom. They have their own. Maybe -- MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. I think from a non-transportation engineer's perspective, my understanding of ITE manuals is they do studies and they look at comparable projects, and they take averages. So the one thing that we have going for us in Collier County is their persons per household tends to be lower than a lot of places in the country, but it doesn't -- like I said, it's an average of multiple projects and multiple locations throughout the country. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Regardless of number of bedrooms? MR. VANASSE: Correct. MR. FUSARO: For the record, Gregg Fusaro. Let me clarify just to answer your question a little bit. Our unit breakdown is about 9 percent studios, 51 percent one-bedrooms, about 31 percent two-bedrooms, and just under 9 percent three-bedrooms. So we're 60 percent one-bedroom or less. So from a traffic perspective, actually, the traffic studies generally, based on this type of unit, proportion mix, don't do us any favors, because it shows more traffic generation than we actually generate. The other comment, just as a point of fact from the developments that we've done in the last three or four years, they're mostly like this. They're kind of an urban landscape development within the suburb -- you know, very kind of urbanized suburban environment. And I won't say that we don't have any, but we have very, very few school-aged children in our developments. And based on that, the traffic that we actually generate is significantly lower than their studies will show, because with fewer school age, you just have fewer trips; not going to the soccer field three times a day, you know, that kind of thing. There was a question with respect to the buffer that's there now, and we get that, but if not us, probably commercial development on that site, and that's, you know, why, from our perspective, this is a great transition from that more intense development to the residential. What was the other question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The caller asked about a government subsidy. MR. FUSARO: Oh. No, I haven't -- nobody from Collier County has volunteered any dollars. No, we don't have any government subsidy. It's all conventionally financed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thanks. MR. FUSARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then the question about the reduction in acreage. You calculated it at seven acres and some change. MR. FUSARO: But I believe, and the staff may correct me, density's always calculated on total acreage. But I will point out that the 1.18-acre is a -- is required in the development, and that is a pretty substantial buffer between us and Livingston Lakes to the south, and that's a required untouched area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And his final question, I believe, had to do with who polices. MR. FUSARO: So I don't know the answer to that 100 percent, but I believe there are reporting requirements for Collier County with the neighborhood housing folks. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff does. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney, thank you. MR. FUSARO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. May 20, 2021 Page 74 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: When we were reviewing an apartment proposal for Courthouse Shadows, the developer said that they developed studio units in other areas but that they could not develop studio units in Collier County because they were too small; that Collier County had a minimum square-footage requirement per unit. And I just wondered, is that -- that was an issue for them, and that's why they weren't building studios. But we have studios proposed here. Is there any -- what is the minimum square footage of your units? MR. VANASSE: I'll have to pull that from my binder and the minimum size that we have identified. But with regards to PUDs, you have the flexibility of asking for a certain minimum size. So I don't know if that really applies to us, and I don't know the circumstances of that project. COMMISSIONER FRY: I hope not because, personally, I believe there are a lot of young professionals that would live in a studio in order to have affordability, especially in nice luxury units. So I hope it's not a limitation. I just brought it up because it was an issue on that other development. Maybe, Ray, you can talk to it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There were a couple sites in that area where they were proposing some studio. One was in a PUD that had existing larger unit developments, and they were opposed to the studio being part of that community, so that was an issue. There was an issue in Bayshore with another apartment-type complex where the residents there didn't want a studio associated with an affordable housing project as well. And I think there was one other one with court -- or, yeah, Courthouse, but I wasn't -- I'm not sure what the reasoning was on that case. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any other public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have one more speaker. We'll go back to Mr. David Jordan. Mr. Jordan, are you with us, sir? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't think Mr. Jordan is with us anymore. That concludes our speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Does anyone object to us closing public comment? Well, I'll ask the applicant if he has a rebuttal. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. Just to answer the question, our Development Standards Table does provide minimum floor area for a studio, we are at 450; for one-bedroom, 600 feet; and two-plus bedrooms, 750 square feet minimum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: As long as that's okay with the county, it's certainly fine with me. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The staff doesn't object. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Closing public comment. It's now time for us to deliberate on this application. Who'd like to start? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I guess at this point I could see moving forward with -- since we've come to an agreement, I think the affordable housing is always an appealable part of it for me, and the staff being willing to accept the higher density, I would recommend -- I would approve that modified application. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thirty or 25? May 20, 2021 Page 75 of 80 COMMISSIONER SHEA: I wasn't making -- I was just giving comments. I wasn't making -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I can if that's what you want. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it would be nice, if you wouldn't mind. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I propose that we accept the modified proposal that the staff has concurred with for the lower density and -- MR. BELLOWS: At 25? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess we don't need to address -- excuse me? MR. BELLOWS: At 25 units per acre? COMMISSIONER SHEA: At 25 units. And we don't have to address the percentages committed to on the affordable housing; is that something we have to put in it or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we do. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's in the record, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: It seems to me that these are the factors that we need to deal with: First of all, the number of units that will be offered for less than 80 percent of AMI; the number of units for 80 to 100 percent of AMI; then the DUAs; and the building height. I think those are the -- and the buffering. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the buffering. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those are the four features that I think need to find their way into our -- COMMISSIONER FRY: It was 35 units at 80 percent and below; 35 units at 80 to 100. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Thirty-five units below 80, and 35 units 80 to 100 percent. COMMISSIONER FRY: Twenty-five dwelling units per acre. MS. MOSCA: Twenty-five DUs per acre, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And actual height of 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Fifty feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And more dense -- B buffering plus more density. MS. MOSCA: Those would be mature trees, and we'll have to come up with some language. COMMISSIONER FRY: To be defined and presented to the BCC. MS. MOSCA: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we permit a little bit more discussion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRY: I feel like in a way -- and I think Jeff made a point -- that they have not approved these new development standards for the 25 units for affordable housing. We've said we've come a little bit short of what they were requesting as part of what they're considering; however, we have -- to your point, Mr. Vanasse, we have had -- most applications that have any affordable housing are that gap -- have been that gap. So here we are really in the city -- or in the main area of Collier County we have some really, you know, affordable moderate and low affordable housing. So I feel like in a way we're kicking the can down the road to the BCC to have them more or less confirm that intention of the 25 dwelling units per acre. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. This is still a GMP amendment. So they're establishing the density through the GMP amendment. And I also want to clarify you were talking about lower the actual height, but we also want May 20, 2021 Page 76 of 80 to make sure we address the zoned height as well. And I think, Josie, do we have a reduced zoned height as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Forty-five, maybe? MS. MEDINA: Yeah. They were requesting 55. I'm not sure what -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, 50. MS. MEDINA: For the zoned height? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty actual. MS. MEDINA: No. They were requesting 55 previously -- well, all right. Fifty is actual. Previously they were requesting 60 actual and 55 zoned is what I was saying. MR. BELLOWS: So do we want 45 zoned? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty actual, 45 zoned. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. We looked at both the actual height and the zoned height. Like I said, we had our engineers look at the fill requirements and where our finished floor would be. We also looked at the adjacent roadway for actual height; that's how it's measured what the height was and differential with us. What staff was suggesting to us was 50 zoned height and 50 actual height. And we can make it work within that envelope, but 45 zoned height, I don't know if we can -- if we can completely make it work at this time. That's not something we studied. We looked at 50 and 50 for zoned and actual, and we can live with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone object to 50 and 50? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's what it is. Someone from staff, is there clarity on what our -- what we're about to vote on? MS. MEDINA: Yes, I believe so, because there is also, as far as when we're looking at the parking structure, should they desire to put something underneath, there is a note that I believe we will change as well to be two stories, and also, should they desire to put under -- parking underneath, then it would still be limited to that actual height of 50 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, absolutely. MS. MEDINA: -- which we did address in one of the notes in the development standards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to bring up one other issue just to put it on the table is the -- with the reduction in density, the possibility of reducing it from four stories to three stories, and I wondered how my fellow commissioners feel about that as a condition for approval. MR. KLATZKOW: No, you already approved 50 feet, right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I think the height -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let them do what they want within -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Let them do what they want with 50 feet? MR. KLATZKOW: What's the difference if it's three stories of 50 feet or four stories of 50 feet? COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a reasonable point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Last point I'd like to make, to compliment the applicant. This is, I think, a great proposal from the standpoint of affordability, and you're to be thanked and complimented. I think this is absolutely in line with what the Board of County Commissioners has been looking for. And so I'm delighted to be able to support this. So thank you very much. Any further comments? (No response.) May 20, 2021 Page 77 of 80 CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wait. We have to do the Growth Management Plan first. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we'll do GMP first. On the Growth Management Plan -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's changes to it. MS. MOSCA: Yes, and I'm clear on the changes to the subdistrict text with the limitations that were already provided by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you have clarity, Vice Chair? Do we have clarity? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm looking. So you're just changing the 30 to 25. Well, 25 percent won't be -- MS. MOSCA: So it's going to be 70 rent-restricted, and then we'll list the categories in the subdistrict text. So it will be 35 units less than 80 percent and then 35 units above 80 to 100 percent for the ESP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right? Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is on the GMP. All in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You didn't hear who? THE COURT REPORTER: Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Klucik, we didn't hear you vote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I said "aye." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Is there a motion on the -- MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, I apologize. We -- actually, the number of days that the public notice ESP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. MS. MOSCA: That's also -- and I apologize. That's also within the subdistrict text of the Growth Management Plan amendment. So we need to address that going from 30 days to 45 days, which was recommended by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Without objection, can that be part of the motion that we just passed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's unanimously approved. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I wouldn't think we would need a roll call on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, will you please call the roll? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Not a roll call, but a vote, you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All those in favor of the original motion and the conditions and then the additional condition with respect to 45 days, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. May 20, 2021 Page 78 of 80 COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Now, on the Land Development Code -- rather the PUD, may I have a motion on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Move for approval subject to the conditions that have been discussed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: All the conditions that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. MR. VANASSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just add, I think, I appreciate just the flexibility, kind of on-the-run, very fair, I think, responses from the applicant and flexibility and concessions while we were in the meeting. So I do wish it worked like this more often. MR. VANASSE: Well, thank you very much. I told you we had a good project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you. Well done. Well done by all. Okay. That takes us to old business. I don't believe we have any. New business, one small matter. Let's discuss the need for a July 1st meeting. I've consulted with Ms. Jenkins, and she tells me there is nothing scheduled for that day. I think for our planning purposes, it would be nice if we could give ourselves a day off on July 1st. What's the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would that have been a formal normally scheduled meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, anybody object to that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Without objection, then -- unless a vote is demanded, without objection, we will cancel our July 1st meeting. Obviously, if emergencies come up, then we have to reconsider, but the record will show going forward that our July 1 meeting has been canceled. Any further business? Any public comment to come before the meeting before we May 20, 2021 Page 79 of 80 adjourn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:43 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. May 20, 2021 Page 80 of 80 6/17/21 ✔