Loading...
CCPC Agenda 08/19/2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 8/12/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 August 19, 2021 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry- Secretary Christopher Vernon Paul Shea, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Robert Klucik, Jr. Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selecte d to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. August 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 8/12/2021 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes B. May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes C. June 17, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20210000093 PUDZ - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Soluna RPUD, to allow construction of up to 130 dwelling units on property located southwest of the intersection of Tree Farm Road and Massey Street, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18.5± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 2. PL20210001793 - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, to create the Private Property Rights Element as required by state law; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (Coordinator Mike Bosi, Division Director, Planning and Zoning) August 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 8/12/2021 3. PL20210001271 - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, proposing Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) based amendments to Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to address sea level rise, and update nomenclature, and furthermore directing transmittal of the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (Coordinator: James Sabo, Planning Manager) B. Noticed 10. Old Business 11. New Business A. Proposed Collier County Planning Commission Continuation Resolution 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 08/19/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 08/19/2021 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 06/17/2021 3:31 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 06/17/2021 3:31 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/17/2021 3:32 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/21/2021 1:14 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 06/22/2021 11:12 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 06/22/2021 3:23 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/19/2021 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 June 3, 2021 Page 1 of 49 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 3, 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 2:30 p.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. (participating remotely) Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Derek D. Perry, Assistant County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 2 of 49 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. HENDERLONG: We're good to go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Good morning -- afternoon, excuse me. Time flies. This is the first or regular session of the June 3rd, 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: For those of you watching this either in person or on TV and notice that we started late, we had some technical difficulties, but we seem to be up and running at this time. With that, I'll ask the secretary to please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe I was one of the technical difficulties. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You were. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Eastman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead. Oh, we need to approve you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would ask my fellow commissioners to please allow me to participate remotely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we like you pretty much, so I think it's going to go okay, but I'll ask for a motion. May I have a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion that he -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any 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 VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Welcome to our meeting, Commissioner. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 3 of 49 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're welcome. Commissioner Schmitt's absence is excused, and Mr. Eastman's absence has also been excused. Let's see. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: We have no changes to the 2:30 agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on June 17, 2021. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sounds like we're going to be good to go for a quorum. That is a good thing. Approval of minutes. We have one set of minutes before us, and those are our minutes of May 6th, 2021. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second? Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any 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 VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They pass unanimously. Thank you very much. Let's see. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the May 25th Board of County Commissioners meeting, they heard the presentation for the villages, the SRA villages. We got through the applicant's presentation, staff presentations, and the public's questioning. The vote was deferred or moved to the first meeting in June to allow for a commissioner to participate who was out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bellows. Chairman's report. I'm going to cede my time to Ms. Jenkins, and I'd ask her to provide us with a brief explanation of why we must hear certain matters in the evening, such as the privately initiated text amendment that's coming before us this evening. And our newer commissioners may find this explanation helpful. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Anita Jenkins, the zoning director. So Collier County follows the state statute on these requirements. The state statute requires that anytime we add a permitted use or a conditional use to a list of uses in any zoning district, that that must be heard by the Board at 5:00 or after 5:00 unless they defer it to a different time. So the Board can elect to hear that at a different time, and then our code would ask that the Planning Commission hears it after 5:00 on a basis so participation can be had by those that are working in the evening. So it's only for those items that are changing a use in the Land Development Code. That's why you're going to hear some Land Development Code amendments today, this afternoon, that are not changing, specifically, any permitted or conditional uses but are just changing; other 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 4 of 49 notifications requirements, for example. So that's the difference of why we hear things at night because we feel that -- and the state feels that it's more important for people to be able to participate when we're actually adding different uses to different zoning districts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I appreciate the explanation. Does anybody have any questions of Ms. Jenkins about that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's why we're here -- we're going to be here at five after 5:00. All right. For this afternoon's agenda, 9A, advertised, we have three staff-initiated LDC text amendments today. They are PL20190002818, PL20200002505, and PL20200002512. Respectively, they are, number one, to clarify the density calculation for single-family and two-family or duplex dwelling units on legal nonconforming lots of record in the RMF-6 district; second is to increase the public notification of distances for land-use petitions within the rural and urban Golden Gate Estates; and, third, to clarify soil and groundwater sampling requirements in the development review process for the conversion of golf courses. And all items that we have both this afternoon and evening are legislative in nature, and thus we may dispense with the need for swearing in witnesses and making ex parte disclosures. So with that, we'll begin with staff's presentation. Mr. Henderlong, it's yours, sir. MR. HENDERLONG: Good afternoon, sir, Commissioners. Rich Henderlong, principal planner with the Land Development Code section. ***This first item is a calculation of density, and it should be on your screen there, for legal conforming lots of record in the RMF-6 district, and it also clarifies the definitions for nonconforming lots of record and lot of record. The purpose of this amendment, as earlier stated, is to clarify how to resolve the calculation of the density for single-family, two-family, or duplex dwelling unit for legally platted nonconforming lots of record in the RMF-6 district. Further, it clarifies the definition of lot of record and nonconforming lots of record. The amendment seeks to achieve the following: One, resolve the prior administrative staff memorandums and reduce staff time in determination of nonconforming lots of record for RMF -- for the RMF-6 district. And this has been going on for some time since -- oh, several decades. Third, clarify that the type of the nonconformity for this amendment is limited to just the RMF-6 district, and that's where it appears as a new section in LDC Section 9.03.03.A.86. And, lastly, is to allow the staff reviewer to use a precalculated minimum lot area of 9,750 square feet to determine if a duplex or two-family unit could be built on a particular nonconforming -- legally platted nonconforming lot. This next slide is taken directly from the LDC code for the definition of residential density. This is why we're here. Basically, the bottom line, which is highlighted in yellow, is for the purpose of calculating distance that the number of dwelling units can be rounded up to a whole number of up to .5 or greater. So building upon that, what we have here is -- and I'll see if I can work -- I don't know how to expand that. But this is an example of one of the zoning letters of verification that staff would undertake. And midway down you'll see -- I think I can try -- I'm learning how to work this. Yeah, I just need the line, right? There. How about that? I'm learning. This is my first shot at this. As you can see in this letter, it's a very complicated formula to try and figure out how to do that density. We've been able to mathematically figure out, rather than the 1.26, he's using the lot areas of 9,147 here and divided by the seventy-two six -- 7,260 and nets out to 1.26. The bottom line is that the duplex could not be constructed on that subject property. So what -- the new standard of the calculation will allow them -- they'll just be looking for that number, 9,750, and they know they would get that extra unit. So that's what we're trying to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 5 of 49 resolve here. And that basically concludes the presentation for the LDC amendment. If you've got any questions, I'm happy to go over it with you, or it starts on Page 109 of your packet and 110. If you look on Line 9 for 109, you'll see that, for which an agreement for deed was executed prior to October 14, 1974. If it's within the Coastal Planning District and it's different, it would be for an agreement for deed prior to January 5, 1982, if it's within the former Immokalee Area Planning District. Let's see if I can get the text up here. That probably would be better for you to display the text. There we are. On the screen this is where we're clarifying the definition for lot of record. We struck the prior May 1, 1979, because there's no nexus that ties any ordinance to code. Why that's there, we could not, in our research, find any code of law that basically addressed or an ordinance that addressed that period, so that's been deleted. Nonconforming lots of record, we're clarifying that the Coastal Area Planning Commission is 1982, and then for the nonconforming lots of record, we're cross-referencing the brand-new section, 9.03.03.A. So as we scroll down, you will find -- so, again, this is under types of nonconformity. It's limited to just the RMF-6, single-family, two-family duplex, and this is how it reads: A two-family duplex may be constructed on a legal nonconforming lot of record when a minimum area is 9,750 square feet or greater and agreement for deed or deed was executed prior to January 5, 1982. And it's a different date for the single-family dwelling unit, January 5, 1982. And this historical table is pretty comprehensive. It starts all the way back in '74. It covers a lot of -- the main bottom line here in 04-41 is you'll see, the current dimensional stance for a single-family is 6,500, for a two-family it's 1,200 [sic], and it's 5,500 for single-family -- multifamily units per unit. I also have prepared a list of -- there's about 11 subdivisions that are being affected by this that would help clarify that are on the book for nonconforming -- legal nonconforming lots of record or platted lots of record. And if you have any questions, happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did you say you had a list of 11 developments? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. Would you like to see it? COMMISSIONER FRY: Absolutely, sure. My main question is, I've read the materials and heard your description. So we seem to be just cleaning up something that's been an irritation for staff. And has it created significant issues with the public in terms of lawsuits, major conflicts, disputes over what a person could build on their property? Is it just, really, a minor cleanup item -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- or is it more? MR. BELLOWS: -- Ray Bellows. The staff has been relying on a staff clarification memorandum in helping the public determine what they're eligible for on their RMF-6 zoned properties. And it has become an arduous task to go through all these various memorandums and clarifications to make sure we've got the latest one. And we certainly don't want to keep regulating through memorandums and staff clarifications. We should amend the code to fix it, and that's what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So those are the developments? MR. HENDERLONG: The yellow highlight shows the nonconforming, the ones that we're having the problems with because of the lower interior lot dimensions. You'll see the first one was in 1957. They go back in times. But these are 11 subdivisions we've identified. Two of them are in Immokalee where staff would see nonconforming lots of record coming in seeking 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 6 of 49 redevelopment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where did the 97 -- was it 9,725; where did that come from? Is that 1.5 of the 7,200 number in that? MR. HENDERLONG: It's 1.5. On the screen here, the lot area right here, 6,500, 1.5. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's -- okay. MR. HENDERLONG: Times 1.5. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just an educational question. What's a nonconforming lot of record in your terms? MR. HENDERLONG: When zoning ordinances set the side-yard setbacks, every -- depending upon the year, if they change from previous zoning ordinances, they're either increased or decreased, or the lot area got changed. So, for example, in 1982, the county had an old -- two zoning ordinances, Immokalee and coastal. They combined them in 82-02. At that time, they changed the nomenclature for the districts. The densities were higher back prior to 82-02. Some 12 units as opposed to which is now down to six units to an acre. So the dimensional standards for both the lot area and the setbacks can change over time. MR. BELLOWS: And lot width. MR. HENDERLONG: And lot width; I apologize. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So these are areas that were built according to the codes at the time and now are grandfathered because they don't comply with the updated codes? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. KLATZKOW: And if they burn down, they've got to rebuild to code. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: If they burn down or are destroyed in a hurricane, at that time they typically have to rebuild to code. COMMISSIONER SHEA: New code. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's where the problems come in. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRY: On a somewhat related matter, but just a matter of interest, in Golden Gate Estates, one dwelling unit per two-and-a-quarter acres minimum but there are a lot of lots that were split in half at some point and they have a home on half that, basically. MR. BELLOWS: Seventy-five-foot-wide lot. MR. HENDERLONG: Seventy-five-foot-wide lot. COMMISSIONER FRY: Seventy-five-foot-wide lot. MR. HENDERLONG: That's a good example. COMMISSIONER FRY: They -- as Jeff said, if they burn down, are they able to be rebuilt? Those are nonconforming lots, correct, under today's rules? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I wanted to make the distinction between a nonconforming -- legal nonconforming lot and a nonconforming structure. Nonconforming lot -- a legal nonconforming lot can be rebuilt on. It's a buildable lot. But a structure on it that's nonconforming, if it's damaged, it has to be rebuilt to current setbacks. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the matter that is before us today is a nonconforming lot? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, and how density's calculated. MR. HENDERLONG: Just a lot area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I have a question, and it has to do with what may not be legally possible. And we discussed this at our staff meeting on Tuesday, and the question goes 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 7 of 49 to the agreement for deed. Now, if you have a deed, it's going to be recorded, and the time for grandfathering starts when it's recorded, but if it's an agreement for deed, the time for grandfathering, the way this is written, starts when it's executed. Now, it may be that since that's the way the language has been, that the people have vested rights in that, but it also -- it opens the door potentially for fraud. And so I guess my question may be for the County Attorney. Are we bound by this language as a result of vested rights? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't understand the question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The language says that the grandfathering time for a deed begins when it's recorded, filed for record so the public knows when that happens. But the grandfathering for an agreement for deed that might not have been recorded starts potentially at a much earlier time when it was executed, and it could have been executed fraudulently dated back. But since this language has been here for a while, the executed part I'm thinking we probably can't change it to "recorded" for agreements for deed as a result of vested rights arguments. Am I correct or incorrect? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know why we're doing this, to be frank with you, because it does raise that issue, and it does raise the issue of people creating fraud. I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I understand staff is concerned because they've got some old interpretations here, but every time you change the code, you get these unintended consequences. And, you know, I just -- if it's a significant problem, that's one thing, but if this is just a cleanup, sometimes you get these unintended consequences. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would we be out of line if we -- if we did the grandfathering start clock at recording an agreement for deed the way we -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how many people don't record their deeds. I mean, you know, my entire time practicing law, I've never seen anybody deed property and not record it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, this is an agreement for deed. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, okay. And, again, I've never seen that not recorded. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would you advise us against changing "executed" to "recorded," because that's what I'd like to do? Because it would remove the potential for fraud, but I don't want to get us into a situation -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm okay with that, because if somebody happens to come along and finds one of those things, they can bring it up, and we'll look at it at any point in time. You know, back in the 1980s, we used typewriters and, you know, you could sort of see if something's been frauded. But, again, I've never seen an instance of that. Everybody records their deeds -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- or your agreements and deeds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I, then, am going to ask the Planning Commission if it would entertain a change to this language so as to require agreements for deed, for them to start the grandfather clock, that they would have to be actually recorded rather than just executed. Does anyone -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, I like the idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I've got some language here that -- MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, I've got it highlighted for you, Line Item 9 on the screen, where it uses -- which an agreement's in the definition. You want to strike "was executed" and just say "was recorded" prior to that date? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is one place where -- MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- it would be done. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. You're at Line 9. Yeah, that would be an easy way to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 8 of 49 change it. But then also in Line 13 we have the same problem; any lawful lot or parcel which was recorded or for which an agreement for deed was executed, and so I think we want to say an agreement for deed or a deed was recorded. MR. HENDERLONG: Agreement for deed or a deed -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. An agreement for deed or deed was recorded, and just not use the word "executed." MR. HENDERLONG: Got it. And we would do that in both the highlighted text on the screen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: In both places? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Very good. Anybody want to comment on that or -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was just going to see if the staff has any concerns about that change. I know it's kind of on the spot here. But does that bother you, that change? MS. JENKINS: I have no concerns. MR. KLATZKOW: Have you ever had, in all these years, somebody come forward with an unrecorded agreement for deed? MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge. For the record, Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon, I did speak with staff about this last Tuesday, but it's a good -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a good question -- good point to make. MR. KLATZKOW: Just real quick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Does this affect Naples Park? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it does. MR. HENDERLONG: It would affect all those subdivisions we have up on the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Because right now Naples Park is going through a transformation where people are trying to convert these into short-term rentals, and it's been a problem for the neighborhood. And is this going to make it easy for people to put duplexes in there that they can then rent out? MR. HENDERLONG: No. The rounding up is a matter of calculation based upon that lot area, and that's how -- it does not entitle them to a duplex or to -- it's just when the lot -- say you've got a 6,000-square-foot lot, two lots are combined, it makes 6,000, and we use the 9,750. You divide that math. If it goes 1.5 feet, one-and-a-half times that, above that, they can get the duplex; otherwise, I have a letter here where they rejected one in the Naples Park area, the other particular division. MR. KLATZKOW: Ray understands the issue. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I think what the question is -- MR. KLATZKOW: I've got a lot -- MR. BELLOWS: -- we are not doing anything with this amendment that creates a better opportunity to get a duplex. It's a just an easier way for staff to calculate. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So, fine. So this is not going to make it easier for somebody to knock down a single-family house and put up a duplex? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. It's just for staff to understand that if they qualify. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion on this first of three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Henderlong, I think maybe we should probably vote on these one at a time -- MR. HENDERLONG: I think that's great. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 9 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- since we've got it fresh in our minds. MR. HENDERLONG: I think that's great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd entertain a motion to approve with the proposed amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move to approve with the change stipulated by the Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. 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 VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Henderlong. THE COURT REPORTER: Hold on. I'm not hearing Mr. Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Klucik, would you cast your vote again, please, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's quite a delay from Immokalee -- I mean from Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What? COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you on the surface of the sun, Robb, or are you in Ave Maria? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we like to think of ourselves as the center of the universe. COMMISSIONER FRY: Good comeback. MR. HENDERLONG: ***This next amendment pertains to the public notice distance requirements for the urban and the rural Golden Gate Estates area as designated by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The GMAP policy states the following: The goal is to implement this policy for the rural and, as I mentioned, the urban area. Specifically, the policy has been -- reads accordingly. Recognizing the low density in rural and urban Golden Gate Estates, the county will initiate a review of written notifications in the Land Development Code and the administrative code related to land-use petitions in the Golden Gate Estates within one year of adoption and consider increasing the specified distance with particular attention to properties located on dead-end streets. So given that directive, staff undertook a comprehensive -- it's the second bullet there -- of four Golden Gate Estates designated areas under the master plan. We used various notification distances. There were two components to it. One was the rural area, and the three areas that were selected, we took their subdistrict area plus the respective transitional conditional-use zone that abuts that particular subdistrict and, from there, drew the lines out to figure out what would be the notification distances as well as how they intersected dead-end streets. So there are three designated areas for the rural area and one for the urban area. The last one indicates on the bullet that that is the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict located in the Urban Golden Gate Estates. That's in your packet. So the results of the property notification study indicated that when we were combining that with designating the zones, we used 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 2,500. It's important to understand that currently how it works is the 500 feet for the urban area of the Estates, it is 1,000 feet for the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 10 of 49 rural area of the Golden Gate Estates, and it is also -- 1,500 was recently codified for golf courses once they intend to convert. Those are the three current LDC notification distances that the county consistently has used. So this is going beyond the 1,500, 1,000. So Exhibit A in your packet lists the number of all the parcels that are on a dead-end street that was traversed by the related polygon distance and the percentage of those parcels for each of the dead-end-street segments. The percentage of the dead-end-street segments located within 1,000 versus 2,500 resulted in an increase from 12-and-a-half percent to 52.4 percent for the Golden Gate Estates Boulevard center; 43.9 percent to 94.8 percent for the Parkway institutional subdistrict; 22.2 to 54.8 for the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict and, finally, 16.2 to 54.1 for the Wilson/Golden Gate Boulevard. So based upon that, the recommendation is that the analysis indicated that more than 50 percent of the dead-end parcels could be captured within that notification distance for 2,500. Without having to perform a manual review of the dead-end streets, staff was recommending the 2,500 for the entire text for both the rural and the urban area. This recommendation was modified by the subcommittee, DSAC subcommittee, and DSAC consequently approved it to reduce the mail notification in the Golden Gate Estates area to 1,500. That effect would show a mail notification reduction from 94.8 percent to 72.3 percent for dead-end parcels. Since that time, we've been directed to -- upper management has brought it to their attention, and some people in the Estates have talked about extending it beyond the 2,500. So we were requested to take a look at a notification distance for one mile versus three miles and five miles. So in the shortness of time, we quickly put together -- we instructed our GIS staff to go back and take the parameters in your packets where you see those -- and I can put a color chart up on the visualizer to give you an idea. So before I get into this slide, let me switch to the visualizer. Oh, you just did. All right, thanks. The different colors here show the inner ring is 1,000 feet, 1,500, 2,000, and that outer bright green is 2,500. This was the one urban area that the subcommittee had problems because they felt, as you can see, the green area here -- I guess I can move my hand around. There you have a ring. Basically, it was going over the interstate, and it was clipping the City of Golden Gate which added quite a few more parcels. That's why they reduced it from 2,500 to 1,500. If you were to go one mile, using this example, we would be way over here on the right-hand side, and you'll be over here. You would capture all of that. If we go three miles out to the west, we're going to be connecting a portion of the City of Naples, and three miles to the east you get all of the City of Golden Gate in it. So let me go back -- switch back to the podium. There we go. Okay. So the highlighted area shows the 2,500. This is just for the rural area. And you can see the amount of parcels tripled. For the one mile -- they increase by at least three times more on the one mile, and then it really jumps, almost quadruples, if not, goes up to 7,000, gets you into some pretty heavy mailed notices for three miles and five miles. So we've been asked to present this to you and also indicate whether -- and I've got, I think, one more slide here to help you make a decision as to whether you're going to accept the recommendation of DSAC or modify it to address either the one-mile, three-mile, or five-mile radius which were being asked to be considered. So to help in that deliberation with the Planning Commission, we took a quick look at other Florida community distances analyses and found that Sarasota has a rural -- semi rural criteria of 1,500; the Miami-Dade County has a one-mile requirement for mail notices for a DRI, but applications -- it reduces to half a mile for all other applications other than a DRI, and it does a unique thing. For residential uses less than 10 units, it would be 500 feet. Alachua County has, for designated rural agriculture, 1,320 feet. So, this gives you just a comparative analysis to let you know what these other Florida 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 11 of 49 communities are doing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So no matter what distance you choose, depending on the location, you could be notifying a neighborhood that isn't attached that is adjacent to it, correct? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So in a way it's arbitrary regardless of where you draw the line. It's just a question of getting enough homes to create a reasonable amount of notice, correct? MR. HENDERLONG: Well, it is, but to the extent that it's limited to all the Golden Gate Estates platted properties, as Commissioner Fryer -- or Commissioner Fryer indicated, when you look at the lots, they're two and a quarter for those five-acre lots to get out there. They're not getting -- that's been the residents' concerns. They're not getting notice with the 500-foot or even the 1,500-foot. So that's why we needed to expand it and pick up those larger areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, you know, I live in an area where the spine road is two miles long, and the streets are nine-tenths of a mile long, which is 4,600 feet or so, 4,700 feet. If you did 2,500 feet -- and I'll use Naples Senior Center as an example. That's at the north end of our neighborhood. It affects the entire neighborhood and also some neighborhoods that come through our neighborhood. So if you go to 2,500 feet, you go -- that's roughly half a mile; it's not quite half a mile. You'd go halfway down Oakes and you'd go halfway down some of the northern streets, basically. Is that a reasonable notice for something like that? I mean, I don't see how you can make an arbitrary judgment without the context of where the application is and what actual areas are impacted. So maybe just walk me through why it has to be this way. So I understand it would be hard to do it subjectively, but it seems like you are missing a lot of potentially impacted people with 2,500 feet, and you also may be extending into a neighborhood that isn't impacted at all across the boundary, even in Golden Gate Estates. If I go 2,500 feet and I go from Naples Senior Center, I'm getting Huntington Lakes, Tarpon Bay. It may not be affected by them at all. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. And I'll show you an example on this table why there's parcel versus owners. If you look at the far right-hand column, you'll see the numbers jump higher for owners. The reason that's there is because you're capturing multifamily units and condos. Now, when we did the study, I asked the GIS to eliminate condos out of this so that it didn't get convoluted. But we brought it back in to just help you clarify and understand that it really reaches out quite a bit if you go beyond the one-mile radius. So -- and also keep in mind the City of Golden Gate isn't in the Urban Estates or the rural area. That would still fall within the 500 rule. So if there's a rezoning within the city, more intense urban area, it would use the 500-foot parameter. COMMISSIONER FRY: But in Golden Gate Estates, a lot of the roads are nine-tenths of a mile or longer -- MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- correct? So you're going to -- even with 2,500 feet, you're going to go partway down the road. MR. HENDERLONG: Right. It's getting back half a mile of it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that -- does that meet the objective of the public notice? MR. HENDERLONG: Keep in mind that it's the perimeter of the subject parcel being rezoned. That's where it's being measured from. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. HENDERLONG: So the center, it could be even greater if -- when we're dealing with 30, 40 acres, which are what these examples are. There's 20 -- there's a 60-acre Randall commercial district, so it's going to capture more using the 2,500 or the one-mile. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you might -- let's say that you get half the people down a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 12 of 49 dead-end street. You mentioned that the goal of this is to provide better notice for people on dead-end streets especially. MR. HENDERLONG: Well, yes, and one of the problems that staff struggled with is if we took a dead-end street where is traverses at -- let's say the line, whatever it is, say 1,500, it traverses at, and let's say that was the other table that showed your percentages, that up there we're only capturing -- we wanted to get more than 50 percent of all the property owners on that intersecting dead-end street. That was a criteria we looked at. Then we says, can we bump it higher? How do we get to a number that makes sense to get higher as opposed to asking staff to take all the property owners on the entire dead-end street and intersecting? Even though those residents will drive by, let's say it's a shopping center and you've got a dead-end street, it comes in there, and it captures in there, they're going to be driving by that center or on the edge of that center, okay. They would have to basically be concerned about the traffic impact. So it was a balancing act trying to figure out what's a reasonable distance to come up, and this is a result of our study. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess when you say "balancing act," you have the people that are not getting noticed on half the street that are just as impacted as the people that are within 2,500 feet. MR. HENDERLONG: Can be, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're trying to find a sweet spot of what's realistic cost-wise and just how far you should reach out to hit 50 percent of the people down a dead-end street on average; is that how you drew the line? MR. HENDERLONG: As far as the cost, the cost was not a consideration as a criteria. The expense is always for the applicant to pay these mailing notices, just to let you know that. But that was never a consideration. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But right now 2,500 is highlighted, and you think staff believes that's the sweet spot? MR. HENDERLONG: That's -- that was our initial -- yes, that was our recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think they've come off of that a little bit, but it I'll say more in a moment. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just to make sure -- I mean, the driver for this, for changing it at all, is just people are complaining they're not being notified of hearings that they should be notified of? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. Let me go back to the beginning and -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's okay. MR. HENDERLONG: This is it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: To me, there's no downside of making it bigger. MR. HENDERLONG: During the three years of vetting the master plan, this was a primary concern that came out from the residents of Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the only downside of making it bigger is more people get invited, and if they're interested, they come. So it seems like the bigger we can make it, the better it is, other than there is an expense associated when you triple the number of invites. But my experience would be, if you're not interested in it, even though you get an invite, you're probably not going to go anyway, so I would rather err on the side of bigger diameter; make sure we get the notice out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I agree. Mr. French, did you want to say something, sir? MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jamie French, deputy department head for the department. This really came out -- I hate to say it, but I'm back, and I'm three weeks on the job, Week No. 4. And so I've attended a slew of meetings, especially in the eastern lands, and I will tell you 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 13 of 49 that in the Golden Gate Estates, there's a difference. We've got an urbanized -- we're starting to see an urbanized area start to formulate as you get closer to the coastline, and you still have that rural area. And so those that are in the rural area, they're fine. This works. They may have some comment that they didn't get notice, but for the most part, these are for our rural area visitors and also our occupants, and when -- they come in and they see all this new construction, and nobody heard anything, nobody knew anything. And, typically, what you have out there is you've got one-mile dead-end streets. Now, clearly, within the villages that we'll -- that, you know, we may see come forward, and those that have already been approved, as well as some of those already developed communities, Orange Tree, Orange Blossom Ranch, those types of areas, they're pretty compact as far as the development, and those HOAs are very well involved. But if I live at the end of one of these roads, I'm already a mile away. And if this happens just two miles up the road from that dead-end road, I'm better -- from a GIS layer, as you can see, I'm probably better than three or four miles from it now. So this is the type of feedback we are getting from both -- the constituents in the area, and we've heard it through the neighborhood information meetings, and you've probably seen it from time to time, especially when you see the churches that would come forward and ask to develop out there. Many of the neighbors say, I didn't know but I came because someone told me, but I wasn't officially noticed. So we're trying to find that balance. And it's fair to our citizens out there and to our property owners to understand what's going on. And it has been discussion that we've had or that I've had with both staff as well as the manager's office and the staff there with how do we approach this. So, again, we may be back. And the great thing about our Land Development Code is it's dynamic in nature, and we come back and we amend it often, or as often as we're asked to, as often as we feel are best planning principles. So again, this the -- this is the reason, and I'm probably the fault for staff's last-minute audible, because I'm asking questions. And as you've -- most of you know that work with me, I typically don't ask questions that I don't already know the answer. So I've witnessed this in the community and, clearly, we think it's worth some consideration. So thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, Jamie, before you take off, your analysis makes perfect sense, but I think you guys have landed on 2,500 as the recommendation; that's the change, right? MR. FRENCH: I think that's where our study has led us up to, but we do believe that once we get this to the Board of County Commissioners that there may be some interest -- and I don't know this, so I'm only speaking for me. I'm not speaking for the agency nor am I speaking for the board. But we believe, or at least I believe, this will come up, and there will be some community members that will come up and question that at the Board level. So whatever this number is set at today, whatever your recommendation is, clearly, the Board may adopt something that may be a little bit larger of a distance. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. But it sounds like two of my colleagues at least, or maybe three, are already thinking we ought to propose something bigger rather than put this through at 2,500. So it sounds like you don't disagree with that. MR. FRENCH: I do not. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And so the notice is -- I guess it's a mailer. MR. FRENCH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right? And the cost of the mailer -- who sends -- we send out the mailer? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 14 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: Correct. For the record, Ray Bellows. We work through a company. We provide them with the names based on the distance measurement. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So we outsource it, and then we charge it to the developer? MR. BELLOWS: The applicant, correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The applicant. MR. BELLOWS: Along with two other forms of advertising. The applicant is responsible for placing a sign on the property plus a newspaper notification. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So we really don't even have any staff cost and sort of internal cost. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: A little bit, but not a lot. Okay. And then also at the end of the street, they get notice -- let's say they're at the end of the street and they're further than 2,500 feet, they will get -- if they drive by it every day, they'll see a big sign, so they'll get notice that way. MR. HENDERLONG: We just want to also bring to your attention, this does not apply to a variance. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do what? COMMISSIONER FRY: Could you say that again. MR. HENDERLONG: It does not apply for variances. It's for rezone applications. MR. FRENCH: So if you've got a setback violation where you encroached into the easement or into the setback, this is -- we keep it within that property. This is not -- we're talking, we've got an intensity change of use or an amendment to the GMP or something much more use intensive. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So as I see it, the only harm would be the cost to the applicant. We're increasing the cost to the applicant, but we're really not increasing the cost to the county. And -- okay. So I get it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are there any downsides the staff can tell us if we increase, let's say, to a mile rather than 2,500 feet, that we're not -- that we haven't discussed? MR. HENDERLONG: That is not a consideration for us to make that determination. You're the policy commissioners to make that recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRY: I simply -- MR. HENDERLONG: We've had no objection internal regardless of what the decision is by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRY: And it's not an exorbitant amount of money for the applicant, additional funds to go the additional -- MR. HENDERLONG: We don't think so. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess since a lot of the -- as Commissioner Fry said, most of these dead-end streets are nine-tenths of a mile. To me, why don't we just make it a mile. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's, frankly, where I am. And unless someone else wants to speak first, I've got a few comments I'd like to make. The sense I got from my meeting with staff on Tuesday was that there are voices in the community. A member of the Board of County Commissioners, perhaps the Chairman of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, echoing the concerns that I know I've heard sitting up here over the years from people who stand up and say, why didn't I get notice of this, and the reason is is the relatively short distance. And I believe that there is a sufficient concern on the part of folks, particularly in the Fifth District where there is less density than elsewhere for more notifications to be sent out and to be received by people who are affected by this and believe they're affected by it and want to weigh in 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 15 of 49 on it. And I want to say one other thing. Without, in any respect, meaning to cast aspersions on DSAC, it's an organization, a committee that was appointed pursuant to an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners so that, frankly, the members of the development community in this county can have a strong voice. And they are, like us, an advisory committee, but they're not a quasi-judicial group. They are an advocacy group, and their members represent the development community. So when, you know, they take the recommendation from staff of 2,500 and 2,500 and reduce it to 1,500 and 2,500, I think they're effectively representing their members who want not to incur the additional costs. So I get that, and that's certainly their role. But from our perspective, I think we need to sit in a more disinterested fashion and hear the voices of the residents in the community, many of whom, over the years that I've been hearing this stuff, believe that the notice radius should be larger. And staff has provided us with the numbers for one mile, three miles, and five miles. Where I am on this is I would recommend that we send to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation at the one-mile level recognizing that they can do really whatever they want, but at least we've shown sensitivity to the members of the community who believe that they're not getting sufficient notice. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh. I was just going to say that I was going to bring up the point, and I'm glad you did, and that's just simply that the Fifth District is definitely -- it's just different because it's -- you know, things are spaced out more, and the lots are bigger and, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So I think that makes sense, you know, precisely the point you made and, you know, I'm falling in line with that as far as that recommendation to increase the distance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling right now. Does anyone else wish to be heard? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry. Thank you. I would just -- I do want to weigh the cost to the applicant, but I did, and in the end, I think the mile is a better place to be given what I've heard from my colleagues and what I've heard from the staff. MR. KLATZKOW: There's two ways to skin this cat. What's the minimum number of time that a developer has the posted sign on the property itself? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There's one posting of a sign, and that's prior to the Planning Commission meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But how long? MR. BELLOWS: It's no earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, therein's your problem, because if you required, like, I don't know, two months, everybody in the neighborhood eventually is going to drive by it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the other way to solve this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it seems to me maybe we want to lengthen that time as well. Fifteen days isn't very long. MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's the minimum. They usually go up, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, maybe we ought to raise the minimum. I don't know -- other members of the Planning Commission want to weigh in on that thought? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff want to be heard? MR. HENDERLONG: Would you want to isolate that just to the Fifth District or the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 16 of 49 urban rural area Estates? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's a good question. Certainly -- Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: Thank you. Again, Jamie French, for the record. The only consideration that I would bring -- and, you know, I'm trying to balance in both representing our partners that we're bound to serve but also the community that we do serve. So both in the industry as well as the community. It's going to delay the timing of permitting -- MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. The development community is not our partners. MR. FRENCH: Well, they're -- what I'm saying, Jeff, is that we're bound to serve them by statute. That's what I did put on the record. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, but they're not our partner. MR. FRENCH: I look at all of our customers that come in -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. MR. FRENCH: And, again, I'm speaking for me. But they're a customer. So thank you. But nonetheless, it is going to -- it is going to change our timing because there's a minimum time period that it has to be. So you're asking for considerations. Just from the application side, it would push that back by that addition -- that additional time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, 15 days seems to me to be too short. Mr. French, what do you think would be a longer period that's still reasonable, if any? MR. FRENCH: Sir, you're asking -- 30 days is fine. You just asked for considerations, so staff is fine with that as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fine with 30? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission? Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I just have a little bit of a concern that we're going to possible vote on something that, really, I'm not sure we've fully thought through. It's not that I'm against it, but I kind of really don't -- I prefer not to vote on it. It may be a great idea, but just -- nobody's raised this issue. Nobody from Golden Gate, to my knowledge, has said, hey, that sign needs to be up longer. So we may be solving a problem that doesn't exist. If we're going to move it to a mile, I think that's a good idea, there seems to be a lot of consensus around that, and I'm certainly not opposed -- because to me 15 days does seem kind of short, but I'm concerned about taking a vote to switch it to 30 days on -- without any staff report. I mean, Jamie gave some good insight, but I'd say let's come back and do that later if we want to do it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think there might be some unintended consequences in regards to an applicant trying to make a certain specific Planning Commission agenda where staff review is done, we've got this staff report ready, but in order to make the 30 days, it's pushing them to a later Planning Commission date than they had anticipated. So I think there might be some issues with timing, you know, because everybody's used to the current timelines in regards to scheduling, and if they're pushing it out another 15 days earlier than they're currently used to, they might be forced to hit a later Planning Commission date. So I would recommend that we allow us to come back with this at a subsequent Planning Commission when we analyze the possible impacts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I concur with that and with Commissioner Vernon in that you -- obviously, if you look at the research you've done on this issue, you've vetted, you probably have opened the ability for the developer community to weigh in as well -- they are aware of this -- and we haven't done that in terms of the notice requirement. So I would definitely support waiting on that until you guys have a chance to vet the issue better. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 17 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We should run it by our Development Services Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I echo the same thing. I wouldn't touch the notice by -- if we're going to increase it to a mile, I think anybody that's interested will get a personal invitation, and doing both is not necessary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds to me like -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Whatever we do, though, I guess this can be heard -- this doesn't have to be an evening meeting, so this can be heard as an agenda item if it comes back to us during a regular meeting? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I think there are two possible ways we could move forward. One would be to continue this matter so that staff can test out the consequences, intended and unintended, on a lengthier notice period and then have the whole thing come back to us. Well, actually, there are three. The second thing we could do is we could approve it at a mile and then ask staff to come back on the notice period, and the third thing we could do is simply approve it at a mile and see what happens. So does anybody have strong feelings on how we should proceed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would vote for No. 3 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Number 3 -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Me, too. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- which is approve the mile and stay away from the 15-day notice. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Other planning commissioners? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I feel the same way. Do we have speakers? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I don't know. Do we have any speakers? Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, there are no speakers for this item or any of these items for today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. And we'll take a vote on it, but before we do, just a test vote. Does anybody object to us going with the Option No. 3, which is the mile only? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: At a mile. COMMISSIONER FRY: With the one mile, at one mile. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously as amended. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 18 of 49 Mr. Henderlong. MR. HENDERLONG: ***Okay. The next item on your agenda is the soil and groundwater sampling Land Development Code amendment. Basically, I'm going to let -- do you want to cover this or -- I was going to introduce to you Sean Kingston. Sean worked on this, and I'll let him give you an overview on it. MR. KINGSTON: Good afternoon. Sean Kingston, senior planner of the Land Development Code section of the Planning and Zoning Division. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good afternoon to you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sean, that would be an excellent name for a hip-hop artist, by the way. MR. KINGSTON: It just happens to be the case, yeah. I'm more of a singer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sean Puffy Kingston. MR. KINGSTON: So this amendment shall clarify when soil and/or groundwater sampling is required in the development review process for the conversion of golf courses to non-golf-course uses. The purpose of this LDC amendment is to allow an applicant flexibility in the development review process by deferring the timing of required soil and/or groundwater sampling. There's two parts to this amendment. The Land Development Code amendment as proposed, as described, allows deferral from original timing of sampling, and the second part is that it relocates additional sampling requirements from the "conversion of golf courses" section to the "general environmental requirements" section. In addition to this Land Development Code amendment, a companion administrative code amendment is required. So part one -- there's two parts to part one. The first part is to change Land Development Code Section 5.05.15, which means you may by deferred from the time of application for the intent to convert, whichever comes first of these three things: Early work authorization, Site Development Plan, and subdivision plat submittal. The same thing is currently required at the time of application of all zoning actions, Stewardship Receiving Area amendments and compatibility design review applications which are processed subsequently to completing the requirements of the intent to convert application from a golf course to a non-golf-course use. So for this section only -- section of code only, it's noted that it may be deferred so long as it hasn't already been completed in rezoning, SRA amendment, or compatibility design review public hearings. The second part is the -- there's a deferral from the first development order to the first of the -- either of the three, EWA, SDP, or PPL for the LDC Section 3.08.00. The second part of the amendment is to relocate text of the additional sampling for golf course conversions. It's being moved from Section 5.05.15 to Section 3.08.00. Section 3.08.00 is the environmental section which has the soil and/or groundwater sampling. So we're moving from Section 5.05.15, which has the sampling for golf courses, to 3.08 so all the sampling is in one section. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. I don't have a clue what you're doing here. MR. KINGSTON: I'm happy to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So additional sampling -- MR. KINGSTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- for golf courses only? What about regular sampling? I'm confused. I mean, if you're going to build something, you're going to do soil samples. So are we talking about that, or are we talking about contaminated soils? MR. KINGSTON: There's two changes. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 19 of 49 MR. HENDERLONG: Soil sampling right now does occur, okay. It's in the LDC code. What we're doing is removing the materials up to when does that soil sampling occur, okay. Right now in the LDC it says that if you come in -- you're going to convert a golf course. If a buyer's buying it -- and we're all familiar with the fact that you have environmental audits that go in there. What we're looking for is that environmental audit, staff is, from the soil samplings to look at whether there's any hazardous materials or contaminates related to it, and come up with a mitigation plan at that time. This amendment is designed to deal with the timing of when that information has to be conveyed to the staff. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Am I reading it right that one of the options was before you begin earthwork? They're ready to put a dozer out there and start moving dirt, and then they're going to go sample. It would seem like you'd want to sample that way sooner. MR. HENDERLONG: No, we're saying just the opposite. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: We're just saying that if you come in and you want to do early work, we're going to require that sample then. If you're going to come in for an SDP, we're going to require it at that time. If you come in for a rezone on the golf course, that's the time we're going to look for it for a conversion process for a golf course. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And this only applies to golf courses? MR. HENDERLONG: No, it does not. It's just reclassifying it in terms of the timing for all soil sampling. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. But it is the -- it is contamination-type samples rather than structural geo tech samples? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: As a practical matter, you're trying to get this testing done sooner than currently done; is that right? MR. KINGSTON: No. This is to allow more flexibility in the development process so they can have it later than it already is. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So then my question is: Why are we doing this? Why are we having the contamination sampling done as a practical matter a little later than current? MR. HENDERLONG: My understanding is twofold. One, you can have an audit done on a sample. And I'm coming from my own experience when I used to be in land acquisitions. Naples Drive was a good example. You get in under due diligence. You're working towards the process, but you want to get an early work permit, a portion of the site can go forward with an early work. It may not be in the contaminated area, so you would go ahead and start early work, but you've got to have the soil sample in place to get that done. That's what this is encapsulating, okay. There's added expense. Normally, you would do it for the whole site, right? You'd come up with what that is. I've had experience at Kensington where that was a problem. When I came in, development had been fully underway. When we went to the third phase of the development of the project, that's when the sampling showed up. So what we're trying to do is accelerate that, get it up earlier. When you come in for the early work for that phase of that development, they're going to have to have the samples and materials in place. It's also so we can get that to DEP and the state agencies for them to look at, and for both parties to come down and come up with a mitigation plan before they begin to either do earthwork, start digging down, and where's that material going to go. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So we're trying to get the sampling done sooner? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, sir. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 20 of 49 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And we still have no registered speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct, no registered speakers. Thank you. That being the case, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I move we approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Fry seconds. 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 VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, staff. At this point, we've completed our afternoon agenda. And we've got about an hour and 20 minutes until we reconvene for our evening session. I know there are snacks available, and grateful thanks to our court reporter. Any further business? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you get those out to -- someone send one out to me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We'll put one in a cannon and shoot it out your way. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I have to say, this is either the best seat in the house or the worst because if I lean over this way, all I do is smell brownies. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. There being nothing further to come before the Planning Commission for this afternoon session, we stand in recess until 5:05 p.m. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. (A recess was had from 3:40 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good evening. Welcome to the second or special session of the June 3rd, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We do have a change to the agenda, a continuance of Item 3A2, which is the LDC amendment for Goodland with regards to oyster processing. The reason for the request is co-counsel has been newly engaged to represent the petitioner as an applicant before the Planning Commission, and they are requesting time for the new co-counsel to be brought up to speed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is the applicant present? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I just wanted to, you know, make sure that I'm here. I don't know if you have -- we don't take roll or anything? We're just continuing -- considering this a continuation of what we -- of our prior meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 21 of 49 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there anyone representing the applicant here at this time? MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins, for the record. No, sir, there's no one representing the applicant. They did e-mail us to ensure that we did receive, and we will enter into the record a written request for the continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. JENKINS: They did, Mr. Chair, ask for a continuance to June 17th at 5:05, and we were able to tell them that we couldn't guarantee that time, but we would ask and poll the Commission to see if that time would be available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I know that there are some members of the public here for this matter. May I ask first all the people who are here with respect to this matter, please raise your hand. Okay. Do you have a representative by chance, someone who could speak? Would you mind approaching, then, please. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just say -- I mean, right now what we have is this continuance request. You know, my first thought is, I don't understand -- you know, first of all, it's an LDC amendment. It's not really a petitioner. It's -- you know, someone has made a request, you know, that we can consider. And I just find it a little frustrating that we have a special session, which is fine. I mean, I'm not frustrated by that. But now this person, you know, who wants this, wants this to be heard, you know, has basically just decided that, yeah, they can't -- you know, I don't know what the reasons are, but the bottom line is, it wasn't important enough to them to make sure that they were here for this. And I, for one, I don't think we should -- you know, my first thought is, I don't think a continuance is in order for that reason alone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I share some of the concerns you just expressed, Commissioner Klucik. I certainly don't think we should consider ourselves wed to the June 17th evening date. That may simply not be convenient for the Planning Commission, and we'll come to that in a moment. But first I do want to hear from and have a word or two with the representative of the people who did come in, so I'm going to ask that individual to please approach. MR. KLATZKOW: Before we do that, I think you need to make a decision whether you're going to continue the item or hear it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and I -- I want to hear from this gentleman before I do that. I've got a question -- approach, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, your speaker is Jim Inglis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, my -- go over to a microphone. Sir, here's what I wanted to -- here is what I wanted to know from you, sir. We're not going to get into the merits of this right now, but I have a sensitivity about anyone who was not informed of the fact that this was going to be continued. And I believe most of your representatives knew in advance that it was going to be continued and, nonetheless, decided to come here this evening which, of course, is fine, but I want to be sure that that applies to everyone. And is there someone who came in from out of town without notice of the -- who would that be? MR. INGLIS: Jim Seegers. He's in the back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. The conundrum here -- this is a gentleman, I believe, who came in from out of town for -- MR. INGLIS: Wisconsin. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- from Wisconsin for the purpose of speaking and did not know 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 22 of 49 that a continuance was on our agenda until he got off of the plane here in Florida. MR. INGLIS: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What does the Planning Commission -- well, let me just frame it here. I think one thing we could consider doing -- and the County Attorney, please, correct me if I'm wrong but -- well, of course, the petitioner's not even here. But I think it's inequitable if we simply don't allow this gentleman to speak who came in from Milwaukee, but I want to hear what others have to say. So Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, my thought is, I want to defer to Jeff, because I don't want to do anything procedurally inappropriate. But it seems to me that we should be able to figure out a way to hear from everybody who's here. And there will be a record that the applicant can read. And if these people want to come back and haven't spoken, they can come back, or if they want to be heard today. I just don't like having 12 -- 12 people sitting here -- and some of them, I've seen them, because I was curious on what they were here for, for several hours. And -- but I definitely want to give the applicant a chance to respond. So I don't know that we can open the hearing, hear from them, leave it open, provide the applicant a chance to come back and present. So that would be my thoughts, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, before I ask you to speak, I'm going to ask the County Attorney to tell us what our legal obligations are. MR. KLATZKOW: It's been the custom of the Planning Commission that when people show up to an item that is to be continued they be allowed to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. MR. INGLIS: Am I speaking into the microphone now? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. MR. INGLIS: My name is Jim Inglis. I'm the treasurer of the Goodland Civic Association. Our president was not able to come, so he asked me to speak. I've been coming to Goodland since 19 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to stop you, sir. You're going to have an opportunity. I think the Planning Commission is going to allow the people who are here to speak, and you will have your turn, but you're second on the agenda for this evening. The reason I asked you up here is because I wanted to find out about people who didn't know that this had been continued. I think -- and I'll just put it up to a vote. Is there a motion about whether we hear the people who are present? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. 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 VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That carries unanimously. Then we will -- we will hear from the people on the second agenda item who have presented themselves here this afternoon. And when the time comes, sir, we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. INGLIS: Okay. Awesome. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 23 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Will we hear from staff, too? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we need to talk about that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I would rather hear from staff first and get a little background on it before we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Again, I need help from the County Attorney. The fact is is that the applicant is not here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is staff prepared? Because -- MS. JENKINS: Well, we're not because we have accepted a continuance on the item. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And in all fairness to the applicant, we weren't prepared to open this item today. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. In all fairness, it is the decision of the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, when somebody asks for a continuance, whether or not they're going to be granted. You do not get a continuance as of right. So in the future staff should be prepared to move ahead if that's what the decision of the Board of County Commissioners or Planning Commission is. The fact that they are not here right now I find to be insulting. I've never seen an applicant ask for a continuance and not show up, and they always show up because of the chance that the relevant board may say no to the continuance. This is an evening hearing, a Planning Commission of volunteers, all right. We don't have very many hearings in the evening. And, you know, I find this entire thing at this late in time, especially with people in the background, quite frankly, to be insulting on a lot of different levels. Planning Commission has a couple of options. You could decide to hear this item right now, or you could decide to continue this item right now. You have complete discretion. I would recommend if you decide to continue the item, that you do hear from the public. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I thank, you know, Attorney Klatzkow for that, you know, information. What I would say is, I -- you know, I think Mr. Bellows certainly -- you know, he was there with the gentleman who, you know, was -- I don't know, if he's not here, on behalf of the county, I certainly would hope that Mr. Bellows, you know, would be able to speak on behalf of -- you know, of the county on this item. I don't think that should be a reason that we don't go forward. And, you know, I feel very strongly that, you know, that we should not be giving a continuance just because, you know, someone is asking -- basically, you know, we don't give favors to anybody, but someone is asking for something that they don't have a right to, and they have -- a mechanism of the county has jumped through hoops, members of the public have jumped through hoops to make sure that we're all following the procedures and that we're all ready to hear this. And I feel just so strongly for any [sic] other reason to make sure that nobody else -- everyone realizes, send a message, that that's not how we do business. And I actually am going to move right now that we not grant a continuance and that we do hear from the members of the public who are here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon? Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I think it's a close call. So, you know, I really 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 24 of 49 appreciate what Jeff, our County Attorney, just said. And I guess if it were up to me, I would -- and just to be clear, I would give the people who are here a chance to speak now or to speak later. Some of them may prefer to come back. And because the staff is not ready to speak on this issue, I'd sort of lean towards letting them speak but grant the continuance, but I think -- you know, big picture, we all agree with Jeff and Commissioner Klucik -- or I shouldn't say we all agree. I agree that we don't want this to happen again. We want the staff to be prepared, and we're going to be inclined to decline a continuance if there's not a good reason and they don't even show up to explain themselves. But for today, I guess if I was voting I would say -- but I'm -- it's a close call -- but I would vote to allow the continuance and allow them to be heard if they want to be heard today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: I would also like to add that the continuance was to allow the applicant time to work with the residents to modify the request if they would seek some consensus on what changes need to be made. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a fair point. All right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just say, you know, having said all that, you know, I am inclined, based on, you know, the information I have now to vote in favor, you know, of this -- you know, of this change that they're asking for. So, you know, it isn't in any way an animus against, you know, the party that's -- you know, I don't think they're an applicant. I think they're an interested party who's asked for this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Actually, they're an applicant, I think. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, they're an applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Applying for a change, okay, yeah. But the whole point of it is is that, you know, I don't have any animus against them or even their petition or their request. I am just -- I just -- I find it fascinating that the whole mechanism is all set up at their request, and now we're not -- you know, basically they're asking us to, you know, go out of our way and schedule another -- you know, a special hearing, and I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And further to that concern, which I share, generally speaking, staff would make an effort. They do make an effort to bundle these together, to bunch them together so that if we have multiple evening hearings or multiple matters that we have to hear in the evening, they wait until they accumulate more than just one and then put it on the docket so that we're coming in in the evening for more than just one matter. And with that in mind -- and I want to hear any comments that are made and maybe a motion. Did you want to speak, Mr. Henderlong? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner Fryer, I have an e-mail from Mr. Inglis, which I'd like to put on the visualizer for you. He -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does it have to do with the merits, or does it have to do with this -- MR. HENDERLONG: It's about the continuance. They'd also like to be speaking at the June 17th. And my understanding is that they were -- they were in the process of getting their materials together and so forth for a fuller presentation and that they were not opposed to the continuance. But he's here today, and I don't want to steer you incorrectly, but I'm happy to put this e-mail up on the visualizer if you want to see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is an e-mail from a resident who is not opposing the continuance? MR. HENDERLONG: No. This is from Mr. Inglis here, who's here today. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 25 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: The applicant. MR. HENDERLONG: Public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He's a resident? MR. HENDERLONG: The public. He's not a resident. He's public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Got it. MR. HENDERLONG: He may be a resident on Goodland Island. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, since he's here, I don't think we need to look at his letter. He'll have an opportunity to speak. All right. Let me make a suggestion. And if the Planning Commission thinks this makes sense, perhaps we can entertain a motion. But I believe that we should permit everyone who wants to speak on this matter and who's here today to be heard at the time when this item is called, and that after that, we continue it. Now, whether we continue it to June 17 or to some other date -- I would prefer to continue it to a date uncertain and let staff accumulate more than just one of these and then put it on so that when we come in, we come in for more than just one item. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Agreed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that sound right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: It sound great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would entertain -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, yeah, that certainly -- you know, the idea that we would have a meeting just for this item, it just makes my -- make me simmer a little bit, or even go beyond simmering. So yes, you know, if this means they have to wait until we have -- you know, several items, then that makes a lot more sense, and my simmering maybe will go back down where I'm okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. May I have a motion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I would adopt your statement as a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I'll say is I'll withdraw my prior motion to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. HENDERLONG: I was just going to let you know that the applicant for the first item, Mr. Wester, said that he's willing to let this go forward if you-all want to resolve that. So, procedurally, if they want to have a discussion with them beforehand, he'll yield to them, and then we can take his application afterwards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What's the Planning Commission say? COMMISSIONER FRY: Are there speakers on the second issue -- on the first issue, the one that officially comes before this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Chokoloskee? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, we have four registered speakers present with us, and we have two online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think we ought to stick with the numbered agenda, then. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there a second to that motion, or was there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions about what we're going to be voting on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 26 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, could I make -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It didn't fit within the motion, but I think it's a good idea, if anybody requests a continuance, that the staff tell them that staff does not make that decision, and I'd tell them that it's expected that they show up and explain the basis for the continuance so we don't have this confusion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point well taken. Thank you. ***All right. So the first item that we will hear in this second session is PL20200002306. It's the Chokoloskee Island privately initiated LDC text amendment to allow, by conditional use, for certain waterfront sporting and recreational camps. Please note that this LDC amendment proposal would be available to all properties zoned VR, and that that extends beyond just Chokoloskee Island to Goodland Island, Immokalee, and Copeland areas, so it has broad reach. And there is no need for disclosures or swearing in. So we will ask the applicant, who is not here, of course. MR. HENDERLONG: No, the applicant -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: He is, Mr. Wester, I'm sorry. Yeah, Mr. Wester, would you like to make a statement, sir? MR. WESTER: Sure. Do I go to this one? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. MR. WESTER: Hello. Brad Wester, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, Jacksonville, Florida, 32202. I did travel six hours for this. I'm glad and happy to be here. But I do a lot of work all over the state, including for this specific client. I thought we were going to do a presentation, but I will -- I'm here to answer any questions and answers. I did want to add one statement you made. It is eligibility for any VR, because it's listed under an umbrella of conditional uses that will be -- but they have to meet the criteria of those conditional uses. So it's not just carte blanche VR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. MR. WESTER: That kind of raises some hair on people's necks. But they have to meet specific criteria, which we programmed into a waterfront-specific property. So -- but I'm here to answer any questions. We're really excited to have this. I think -- did you have some information on that -- more information you wanted to share, Rich? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we're going to call on staff next. MR. WESTER: Okay, great. Yeah. So I won't belabor this. I'll let staff do their report, and then I'm available for any questions and answers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can you give me any -- I'm sorry, I had a death in the family a couple weeks ago, so I'm not caught up on a lot of stuff. Can you just give me -- I don't need your whole report. Two minutes. I'm sure everybody else is prepared. Just give me two minutes on it. MR. WESTER: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm going to be in Chokoloskee Saturday fishing, so I want to hear. MR. WESTER: Yeah. We're, like, one of the furthest southwest points on that island. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 27 of 49 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. WESTER: It's for a fish camp, essentially. Currently, it doesn't allow for overnight stay, and so we felt that, in keeping with a water -- dependent water-related fully functional in the VR zoning, similar to any kind of eco sport, eco recreational aspect -- and we are waterfront -- that we felt that adding this as a conditional use for a fish-camp-type sporting recreation -- it would include a main structure, modern, built to code, but looking rustic and coastal in character and blending with everything architecturally, and then allowing some amenities for fishing. There is an existing boat slip on the property. And then there's a seawall, which we would add, you know, a dock and some spaces for a boat. But the way, form-based-wise, it works is we've got about .6 acres of a property. It's fully undeveloped, fully cleared, previously developed, but currently undeveloped now. And so we'd have a camp house, with the second floor being the kind of habitable structure for a caretaker. So a caretaker would be allowed to live there and maintain it, and more than likely be the fishing charter captain. And then we'd hire all local people to come help maintain anything that's needed on the property, including stand-up paddle guides and whatever else is needed. And then below would be where we'd keep some of the -- like, 14-foot skiffs. Completely sealed around. It would look like a house with a garage door, but in there, protected from the environments, we'd have some boats and standup paddleboards and anything else. One really neat concept that we have in play here -- and this is getting into the conditional-use aspects because it's very site specific for a conditional use. But what we have done and shown as far as our story is, there's a big renaissance going on right now with Airstream Overlander trailers. It started in California; has moved its way over to the East Coast, and we see it kind of growing in Florida as well. So my client has properties in Boca Grande up in Gasparilla. This -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: And they're already doing this? MR. WESTER: Yes, this property, and the village of Islamorada. And so we, essentially, have air lander over stream -- I'm sorry -- Airstream Overlander trailers, which are about 26 feet long. Old, but redone; very, very nice, very high end. And those would be the guest quarters for people coming there to have a full service, you know, offshore/inshore charter fishing, the ability to be able to stay there. And they pay high dollar for it, because it's very, very nice, but it's a really neat accommodation. And we'd have, like, a little pool, a little fire pit, outdoor amenities, just all blended with the kind of eco-based recreation aspects of a fish camp. But what we wanted to further do was define what fish camp could be, including overnight stays and accommodations. But nothing like a hotel. It is not a lock-off accommodation. No hotels. This is not a hotel whatsoever. When it's built, it will look completely in character and blended within the community just like everything else on Choko. COMMISSIONER VERNON: What's the max capacity if you're full? MR. WESTER: There's only four Airstream trailers. So -- and most likely they will all know each other. It's just, you know, each has their own ability to have accommodation there. And then the house would have the caretaker, but the house would have a kitchen, big screen TV, front porch rocking chairs, you know, on the second deck, and amenities, air conditioning, and things like that. But, you know -- so it's a fish camp but added some things that aren't allowed in the VR district, and -- but if we can meet the criteria, being a water-dependent, water-related waterfront site, we felt that this fish camp terminology was very applicable and very compatible. So -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're going to do all that on six-tenths of an acre? MR. WESTER: We made it work. Yeah. It's a very big camp house. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 28 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is somebody going to put up pictures or something so you can see what the neighborhood's -- I mean -- MR. WESTER: Rich, I'll turn it over to you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're not really hearing -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, now -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- much detail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll -- when it's time for staff to speak, we'll get some more information. Before I call on Commissioner Fry, Mr. Wester, I want to complete the record and ask you to recount your expert credentials, please. MR. WESTER: Okay. So I am a -- I'm not an attorney. I'm a professional land-use planner of 25 years and -- but I do work for a law firm, real estate law firm. So I'm professional land-use and zoning planner for that law firm. And I represent this customer and -- at many locations across the state, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And if we don't have any further questions for Mr. Wester, it will be time for staff to present, and we can get -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Fry. Of course, you do. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Brad, so not being an avid fisherman myself, I just want to make sure I'm clear what the definition of a fish camp is. It sounds like it's a place where a small group of people can come, stay overnight, do chartered fishing activities, hang out in a nice area, entertainment, dinner, drinks, that kind of thing, but also some other water sports, paddleboarding, kayaking, that kind of thing. So it's kind of just a water-based destination for a small group of people. That's what you're looking for? MR. WESTER: Yes. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. That's exactly it. Everything eco, water-based, enjoying the views, enjoying the scenery with the ability to fish right there from the bulkhead or do inshore or offshore. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. WESTER: And we have the vessels to accommodate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you, Mr. Wester. We'll now hear from staff. Mr. Henderlong. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you, Commissioners. I have the text up on the screen shown for you to take a look at. When we approached the issue, we looked at the current definitions for camp and cabin sporting and recreation camp and then also for a hotel. Sporting/recreational camps currently are allowed in the conservation district and agricultural district. There's no other place in our Land Development Code or land uses that allows for it. So it was unique in that sense. So when we began to approach this, we realized that in order to be comprehensively complete with the Growth Management Plan, it had to be a water-related or a dependent use, and we narrowed it down to fishing, boating, and recreation on a property. The size of the acre I'll talk about in a minute here. But it had to be a waterfront, which was key, in order to be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The other aspect of it is the acreage size. As you know, we only have a one-acre minimum requirement in the VR zoning that's currently in there. So in order to do an analysis, we did a -- and that's in the staff report above -- lot analysis on all four areas that were zoned VR, and the study basically is saying that that's a reasonable threshold of .5 acres to accommodate four Airstreams, two boats, and a boat ramp. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 29 of 49 And we also wanted to make sure that we weren't isolating it to just Chokoloskee Island. So that's why you see in your packet that the four areas where all the VR zoning is located in the county are either in Immokalee, Copeland, Goodland, and Chokoloskee. And the good news is is that there are waterfront properties where this could -- use could also be applied. So it isn't site specific in that regard. When it comes back for the conditional use, it will be required. I think the Commissioner asked for an aerial. There's an aerial. Let's see. Can I turn this? I don't know how to rotate this, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: That's Goodland, though. MR. HENDERLONG: Oh, I'm sorry. Let me get you down to Chokoloskee. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, if you click "view" at the top and then "rotate." MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. I'm looking. Gotcha. Rotate. There it is. Counterclockwise. Good. There we are. Now we're looking north. COMMISSIONER FRY: I contributed something. MR. HENDERLONG: This arrow's -- let me clear that. I'm going to clear that issue. I can't clear that arrow. Good, thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While you're getting that set up, Commissioner Shea had asked about whether there's any kind of an image or a mock-up that we could see. Now, this is coming back. If this is approved, it will come back for conditional use and would -- MR. HENDERLONG: I'm prepared to put on the screen his concept plans for the floor plan and the layout on it so that you can see how it would lay out when it comes back for -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Before you do that, where is it? Are you going to point to where it is? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: But it will come back as a conditional use. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right there. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. This is it right here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right there, okay. Is that near the Smallwood Store? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. The Smallwood's to your west, to the side. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: It's right down there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Got it. So it is real close. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know that property. Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: But it's right up there. Okay. All right. Any other questions on the aerial? If not, I'll go right to his site plan if you prefer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll ask Mr. Wester: Do you want to say something before we do that? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. The planner in me is wanting to jump out. So I also serve on a review board up in Ponte Verda Beach in St. John's County, chairman of that review board. But as a matter of practice, we are showing the site plan. That's not what we're here to approve today. Today is just the conditional use that's layered under the zoning. We will have to come back before you under the merits of its own criteria and its own site specificity for that approval in the PC. So you guys will see this again on the conditional-use permit side, and that does apply to anybody in VR zoning, that -- just because you have VR zoning doesn't mean you're going to go do a fish camp. You have to go prove it with its own merits, substantial competent evidence and the like. So I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: So when this comes back for a CU, you'll have some more pictures for us? MR. WESTER: Exactly, and I'll have the Airstream pictures, and we'll have details on the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 30 of 49 landscaping, the setbacks, height, all that stuff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: Elevations, you name it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further from staff or the applicant? Any questions or comments from the Planning Commission? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A question for staff. Just a point of interest. What do they do for water/waste water? MR. HENDERLONG: There is sewer down there, I believe, and I'm not sure -- there's sewer. I believe it's there. I don't have anybody here to speak to public utilities. I can't answer the question, because we haven't gone that far to look at to look at how the site's going to be served. But it will have to meet the -- during the conditional use, the requirement by staff for public utilities connections. There is a system down there. I just don't know where the pipes are or where they're going to be located or where the connections will occur. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But there is public water and wastewater? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. MR. WESTER: And there's currently an abandoned septic and well on site that we will clean up and vacate officially once the development has taken place. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Question for staff. When this comes back on a CU, will it come to us or the HEX? MR. HENDERLONG: No. It will come to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Wester, what's the name of your law firm? MR. WESTER: Driver, McAfee, Hawthorne, and Diebenow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. We'll ask Mr. Youngblood if we have registered speakers. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers for this item that are present with us. Our first one is James Seegers, followed by Tara O'Neill. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Seegers. MR. SEEGERS: Thank you for your time and attention. I'm Jim Seegers. I've been a resident at Goodland for 20 years, and the weather here is much better than Wisconsin. I would just like to say that the changes -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You know we're talking about -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry to interrupt. Is he here -- are you here on both items? MR. SEEGERS: Can I explain that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. SEEGERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. I just want to make sure you weren't accidently talking in the -- MR. SEEGERS: We're a little bit confused ourselves as, perhaps, it seems apparent we weren't quite sure. I am speaking to the Chokoloskee change which directly affects Goodland, Copeland in an area that's unincorporated. So to that end, I was going to make a very brief -- a few-sentence statement, and we have a presentation for the 17th or whenever that occurs. I just wanted to make people aware here that this change that you're considering in Chokoloskee directly affects the overlay in Goodland. They are not isolated events. And I think it's important, because there's some other coincidences that we will make more clear in our presentation on the 17th. To that end, I just want to make a few statements about Goodland and about the changes 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 31 of 49 that made here in Chokoloskee will affect us very significantly and we feel in a bad way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed. MR. SEEGERS: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want these changes just to be for Chokoloskee and not for Goodland? MR. SEEGERS: We are against any changes that would affect Goodland, and if the changes in Chokoloskee affect Goodland, we would be against that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this is -- this is adding a CU to VR, and so it would affect Goodland -- MR. SEEGERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and Copeland, Chokoloskee, and Immokalee. MR. KLATZKOW: But you could limit it to Chokoloskee if you wanted to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, really? MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, if that's all -- if the entire opposition is we don't want this on Goodland and you've got the one fish camp applicant for Chokoloskee -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's ask the applicant, Mr. Wester, to come back up. MR. SEEGERS: Where do I go? CHAIRMAN FRYER: To get your reputation back? MR. SEEGERS: He can stand there. We can share the microphone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we usually clean them up. MR. WESTER: Yeah, I'm good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would the applicant agree that this be limited to Chokoloskee? MR. WESTER: A matter of process, yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: We're not going to develop anything in Goodland. But just so everybody knows their due process, there are many conditional uses already in VR zoning that affect Goodland and all these other areas, right? They have -- anybody that wants to exercise those conditional uses has to go through that due process of being an applicant and submitting it for the public vetting. So anybody anywhere else that is listed in a VR zoning has a voice on that change to see if it's compatible to its site specificity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do understand. Thank you. But -- MR. WESTER: I wanted to clarify that for the folks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But what you're saying is is that your client would agree to limit this to Chokoloskee? MR. WESTER: Absolutely. If we can put in there that the criteria has to be Chokoloskee, then, sure. MR. KLATZKOW: Then is there any other opposition to this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are the other members of Goodland in opposition? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. All right. From staff, any objection to having this limited to Chokoloskee? MR. HENDERLONG: So long as it's water-related, water-dependent that was -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those conditions -- MR. HENDERLONG: All those conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- plus the additional condition of limiting it to Chokoloskee. MR. HENDERLONG: No. MR. WESTER: And that kind of makes sense because the others have overlays existing already. This one doesn't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commission, do we have any objection to such a limitation? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I would suggest it anyway, because I'm not 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 32 of 49 comfortable with it applying to Goodland or anywhere else. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Then it sounds as though when it comes time for us to vote, we will add that condition that it be limited to Chokoloskee. MR. WESTER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other registered speakers? And if they pertain to this question, they can waive off their time. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next registered speaker is Tara O'Neill, followed by Jim Inglis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. O'Neill. MS. O'NEILL: Good evening. This may be moot. I'm not sure I understand the procedure here. But I'm fast, so if I'm off target, you won't have to suffer me long. I am a Goodland resident. I grew up here. I've been here since the '60s. And my concern is that changes in Chokoloskee's VR usage can adversely affect codes in Goodland and the other village residential communities. If you change the rule for -- in one village, it sets a possible precedent for that to be used as an argument to change in another village. And little villages like ours can die from the death of a thousand cuts. When you start snipping away at existing rules, we lose our history, our way of life, our quality of life, and our sense of community. So I am opposed to any new conditional uses to these very small, very historic towns. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask you one question, ma'am, just very quickly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. MS. O'NEILL: Take your time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just if -- you're here about Goodland, not so much Chokoloskee, right, and they've applied, really, in Chokoloskee. They're willing to limit it to Chokoloskee. Staff is willing to do that, too, so that it would not apply to Goodland. What would be your -- do you have a specific objection to what he's describing as a fish camp going into Goodland? I'm just curious if it's a -- MS. O'NEILL: If what he's describing were coming into Goodland, I would see that as finding myself living next to a compound equal to an Airbnb. There is -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. O'NEILL: -- nothing residential. These aren't people who live and care and participate in the community. They are there to have a vacation and, as we all know, Airbnbs can be lovely ways for people to have income. It can also destroy a community, neighbors, with people who have parties and loud events, and they're transient and they come and go. And it, again, further displaces. And it's these little communities where we feel the most displaced, where we have the tiniest voices. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. You've made that very clear. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Jim Inglis, followed by Joshua Erickson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Inglis. MR. INGLIS: So I also have been in Goodland for a long time as a Boy Scout, 1955, went there all the time. My family bought a house there in 1970, so I've been there 51 years. I'm pretty familiar with Chokoloskee and Everglades City, and I like to fish, and so that's one of the main reasons I'm there. And kind of my speech is moot because if it's only going to affect Chokoloskee, I'm worried about Goodland; however, Tara brought up the slippery slope. So if you-all decide it's okay for Chokoloskee, then they come and want to see, is it okay for Goodland? You've already decided it was okay there, so what's the harm in saying okay to the next one. And Goodland is quite different than Chokoloskee. And you talked about the size of the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 33 of 49 lots and so forth. You go look at Goodland. Most of them are on the water. They're, like, .1 acres. That place that they're looking to change there, it's all residential. All residential, that whole street, all houses, and they're going to put a commercial business right between two houses. We have zoning for VR and zoning for commercial, and I think it ought to stay that way. So, anyhow, that's -- we're going to have a full detailed presentation to the committee before the 16th. We'll send something in writing thought through, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, did you have a question, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a general question. They don't have NIMs for these types of applications? How do the residents find out about -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is no neighborhood information requirement on a LDC amendment, but these are advertised and public notices are mailed out. COMMISSIONER SHEA: To the resident? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they get individual notices? MR. BELLOWS: To people within 500 feet of the property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it's just newspaper, isn't it? MR. INGLIS: There's nobody in Goodland that got a notice we're aware of, and we're out talking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The reason I believe -- and, again, ask the County Attorney to correct me, but there would be no NIM here because this is -- we're sitting legislatively. We're not -- this is not quasi-judicial. MR. HENDERLONG: But, Commissioner, if I can clarify that. The LDC has the notice requirements for LDC requirements. It's 10.05.3. And I can't remember whether it's K that goes through there. It does not require -- when it's a broad land use or conditional use that it's applied countywide, there are no individual notices sent out. You have the advertising requirements that are required. You have general newspaper, but there is no NIMs required for the LDC. That's also in our administrative code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: And when they go on for a conditional use, will they get the notice? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, they will get the notice for the conditional use. That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. MR. INGLIS: Could I just make maybe one more comment? I need to save these for the meeting, but I can't help it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. INGLIS: I've got one more second. So our other thought is, if we're going to change the zoning and overlay and the processes that affect our community, the community ought to be requesting that and be involved in part of it, not one individual who's out for himself, and he changes the entire community's way of living, and he doesn't even have to tell us. He doesn't have to give us notice. So that kind of is difficult to live with also. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. INGLIS: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our final speaker on this item is Joshua Erickson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Erickson. MR. ERICKSON: Good evening. Josh Erickson. I own property at 237 Harbor Place, which is only about 350 feet from the proposed Goodland site, but I'm here speaking in regards to the village residential zoning potential change down in Chokoloskee. If it does -- if it is going to just pertain to Chokoloskee, then I guess my point is kind of moot. But I'm also here on behalf of my neighbors and some other people on Goodland that own 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 34 of 49 property and live in their houses in village residential zoned properties that are fishermen, crabbers, eco tours out of their homes. And I know that they're concerned about specific lot requirements and just changing the general code across the board. And so I guess I just want to voice my concern that, you know, we're not really in favor of any major changes that broadly address the VR change across Goodland, Chokoloskee, Copeland, Immokalee. So -- but, again, if it sounds like it's just going to stay down in Chokoloskee, we're not -- we're not opposed to that as long as it doesn't affect Goodland, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I believe that's at least going to be our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. ERICKSON: Great. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any further speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any people who have not registered but wish to be heard on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, did you want to be heard again, sir? MR. WESTER: Yes, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WESTER: Thank you. So one of the -- we've been working on this for well over a year prior to all the COVID standdown. And one big check that we had to do was to make sure it was consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And so we submitted a letter requesting that, and it -- and our use, our specific use was deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And that's a huge hurdle, if you will; thereby, just kind of sending it to the zoning side or the Land Development Code side of things. And had we not, we would have had to do a Growth Management Plan change, Comp Plan amendment type stuff, and a much, much bigger deal, more in-depth process. But this one, it's not a rezoning. And I know it's kind of semantics when we talk about it. But, you know, we're okay with it just applying to Chokoloskee. And that was always our intent. And we do own the property, and so we're not speculating on this. We have examples elsewhere. And so this is something that we feel is going to be a benefit to the community, and it will still act as a residential property because there will be a full-time caretaker that isn't somebody from out of town, that's somebody that living there permanently. And so we feel that -- and this is not a high-turnover use. This is a very, very specific almost concierge-driven use where in some cases they'll be picked up from the airport and brought to the property and be there for a week. And so it isn't a high-turnover use. It's folks that will enjoy the community, and it's partly economic development. And there is more mixture of uses. And the speakers are correct, the lots are a little bit more irregular and are bigger throughout Choko, and there are mixture of uses. There are some commercial there. There's, you know, marinas. But there is a -- we're No. 12 on the conditional-use list under VR zoning right now. So if anybody wanted to dig in a little bit deeper on what other conditional uses could go and apply to all VR, it's a little daunting when you look through it. You know, social clubs, fraternities, you know, group care homes, all kinds of stuff, if you meet the criteria. So I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, we will now close the public comment portion of the hearing -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Ray has -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ray, did you want to -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 35 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record. Ray Bellows. I just wanted to reiterate that we're establishing a conditional use for this particular type of activity that will result in an application that will require a neighborhood information meeting for site specific use where all the details are hashed out and the public involvement will take place. The LDC amendment is just dealing with allowing it as a conditional use but not permitting it by right. I think that's the big key to note here, that they have to come through the conditional-use process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Thank you. MR. WESTER: And if I could say one more thing just to add. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WESTER: That's the one where we will notice everybody within a certain radius of the property, and we are required to have a public meeting out there with notes and minutes and everything, and we'll be fully engaged with everybody in the community out there as part of the next process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're very welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Again, without objection, we will -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Question for staff, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea first. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess the -- Ray kind of answered part of it is, the neighborhood will get their chance to input after we pass it, so that isn't -- isn't that kind of like after the horse left the barn? MR. BELLOWS: We're creating a process for allowing somebody to submit an application for a conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not granting a conditional use today. MR. KLATZKOW: If you think it's a terrible idea, you vote no now. If you think it's an idea that has merit, then they will come back and show you on a site specific why it is that you should grant it. But if you think it's a terrible idea right now, there's no point going through this two-point process. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But if we think we need more, but we think it's a pretty good idea -- MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- we can stop it later. We'll have a next chance to stop it. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: This is just basically opening the door so they can walk in and make a presentation to us as to what they're saying they want to do. MR. KLATZKOW: But this is legislative. The next one's going to be quasi-judicial. It's easier to kill it at this stage than at the quasi-judicial stage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think I'm trying to decide whether I think this is a terrible idea or it's an okay idea. And I see a bunch of people here from Goodland who object to the idea if it was in Goodland, and we don't have anybody here from Chokoloskee because there's no notice requirement. So I guess I have to look to staff then. And describe for us -- Mr. Wester said there are a variety of other conditional uses. So describe those other conditional uses and tell us why this is a reasonable addition to those conditional uses that we're really not, I'll just say, you know, putting the people of Chokoloskee -- giving a chance -- opening the barn and letting -- opening Pandora's box, basically, for a commercial use, as the lady well spoke, in an area that doesn't have residential -- or doesn't have commercial uses otherwise. Mr. Wester says there are commercial uses in the conditional-use list. So I'm looking for some insight. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 36 of 49 MR. HENDERLONG: Give me a minute here so I can get the amendment up on the site here. MR. KLATZKOW: And keep in mind that a conditional use is a permitted use that you can place some conditions to buffer the neighborhood on. So right now it's not a permitted use. They can't do this, okay. If you approve this, it is now, in essence, a permitted use but they can come back and say, well, with these conditions, we've buffered the neighborhood. It will -- our hours of operational will be this, this, and that. So it -- you've really got two separate things going on here between this particular proceeding and then the conditional-use proceeding. Again, if you think it's a terrible idea, this is where you kill it. You may not be able to kill it at the conditional use, because he may meet all the criteria. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, yeah. I just -- this is the weirdest one I've had since I've been on the Planning Commission for about a year, because -- and Karl even joked. Since I've been here, I've probably seen 30 or 40 things, and only one time have I said I love this idea, and that was affordable housing 100 percent paid for by the developer. And but for those people sitting in the back of the room, I would have said, I love this idea, because I've driven through Everglades City a hundred times and, you know, it looks to me like we need that area to be more vibrant. I'm not talking about Goodland. I'm talking about Everglades City. And I -- candidly, I've been on a boat fishing where we've talked about, you know what would be perfect here is exactly what he's describing. So, you know, in the sense that I think maybe there's some changes that would be good for that area, I think this is it, but I don't want to be the guy sitting up here pretending to be big brother, like I know better than the people who live there. And I want to be very respectful for that, because that's not -- you know, that's inappropriate. So I'm listening to these people really well, and I guess for tonight -- and I'm talking -- I'm basically talking to the people in the back of the room that, you know, I want you to be out here saying what's wrong with these types of projects. And I understand it may be easier to kill it now rather than later. But where I do come down, I think, in listening to everybody is we're limiting this to Chokoloskee, and I do think that it should -- I'm in favor of it with that limitation, because although there's some pretty vocal opposition right here, none of those folks do live in Chokoloskee. And I'm saying all this because I think we're going to -- you know, I'm going to look really careful of it and be super respectful of these folks and whoever comes from Chokoloskee in opposition to it when they come back and try to do this. But at the same time I don't want to be big brother. You know, I've lived here for 20, 30 years, I've been down there a lot, and I do think that this type of thing, if done right and not -- that this type of thing is not abused, I think it could be a benefit down there. So I wanted to really talk to you folks to tell you what my thoughts are and how you've changed my thoughts. And so I would vote in favor of it, but I'm not going to say I love this idea because there's some folks who live a lot closer to that than I do who seem to object to it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Chris, how would it be a benefit to the people that live in Chokoloskee? Not for people like yourself that want to go and fish and they think a fish camp would be great, but how would it actually benefit the people of Chokoloskee? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do think it would be good for the economy without doing -- and still protect -- I mean, we've got this treasure down there, the Ten Thousand Islands, and it's kind of like -- almost like the RLSA. Let's find a way to make the economy more vibrant but do it in a controlled way that protects it and respects the rights of the citizen, and it would come under the heading of you have a choice of controlling what we do down there or just letting it happen or letting nothing happen. And I don't -- I'm not sure letting nothing happen is really going to be good for -- and I'm not talking about Goodland. I'm talking about more Everglades City, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 37 of 49 which is right next to Chokoloskee and that area. So I just -- you know, do we -- do we have some involvement in how it evolves or do we not? COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you lived next door, would you want to live next door to a fishing group? You ever go to a hunting camp or a fishing camp? People get -- they don't fish all night. Would you like to live next door and somebody's partying in four of these trailers and, believe me, they're going to make noise. I don't feel we're protecting those people, and they're the ones that are most impacted. And, as Karl said, how does that benefit the community? It benefits somebody like you that wants to drive out there and have access to what they have, but I'm not big on it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd just respond to that. I -- definitely, that's the abuse. You know, I think what they're trying to do -- and maybe I'm -- I use the work "snookered." Maybe I'm getting snookered. But I think what they're looking for is folks my age who are probably going -- you know, might have a scotch and go to sleep at 9:00 before the neighbors go to sleep. So I don't think it's really set up for a bunch of college kids to do it. I'm guessing the price point's going to be very different, the Airstream, the appeal of it. That's my guess. And that's why I say, "if it's abused." And I do think it will be good for the economy, I do, and I think it will help maybe have Everglades City -- I keep going back to that, even though it's in Chokoloskee -- evolve in a way that is best for that area -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- without sounding like big brother. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you. Well, I tend to agree with Commissioner Vernon. I think the area, actually historical, you know, we heard someone talking about, you know, the historical use. I think people coming in to fish and leaving is actually probably pretty historical. You know, that's probably one of the uses that has been in these areas, you know, with people wanting to take advantage of the Ten Thousand Islands. I personally have been spending a lot of time down there fishing myself over the last six months, and what I would say is it's kind of a mixed bag as far as what you find in Everglades and in Chokoloskee, and I don't think this use -- I think we -- you know, it's a conditional use. Am I correct, Mr. Attorney, that there's no right to do it; is that correct? If we pass this -- MR. KLATZKOW: A conditional use is a use that's now a permissible use; however, the Board has the ability to place conditions on it so that it better fits with the neighborhood. That's about what a conditional use is. An example is a church in the Golden Gate Estates. It's a conditional use. They're allowed there, but when churches come before this board, the discussion is, what are the hours of operation? Is there going to be any outdoor music? What's the traffic management going to be like? Those are the questions you'll be talking about when they come back, not whether or not this is, you know, something that should be in that area. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So for those reasons -- and I agree that it brings -- it brings something in that does benefit the community. And, of course, if you're right next to it, you're concerned. I totally understand that. If this comes in and you have the property right next door, then you're concerned about it. But I would say, we don't have anybody from this particular area where we're making the -- you know, we're limiting the change to that. No one there -- from there is here before us, you know, concerned about it. I tend to think that it fits right in with what's happening at Chokoloskee based on my own recent -- you know, a dozen visits there, you know, over the last six months where I'm spending the whole day in the area. You know, I think that that's -- it doesn't seem too far off from what is a desired way to be -- you know, something desirable in the community to use -- make use of the land that's there, and I tend to see this as a favorable thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 38 of 49 Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, I'm sorry. I already -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think that's -- do you have something to say, Rich? MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. I was going to answer a question that you had earlier. COMMISSIONER FRY: Please. I saw you put an exhibit up. Go ahead. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. The conditional uses -- you asked what other conditional uses are. On the screen here, Note No. 1, boat yards and marinas, that's typically in C-5 and your other higher districts. There's a good example of a conditional use that can appear anywhere in the VRC. They'll have to come back with a site plan. Childcare, churches, civic, and cultural facilities, cultural -- cluster housing, fraternities, social clubs, schools, private. Group care facilities, Category 1 and 2. Recreational facilities intended to serve an existing or developing residential community as represented by all the property lots included in an approved preliminary subdivision plat PUD or Site Development Plan. The use of the said recreational facility shall be limited to owners of property of the occupants of residential dwellings and their guests with the area of the approved preliminary subdivision plat or Site Development Plan. Number 10, another conditional use is mobile homes. Mobile home sales subject to the compliance with other LDC requirements but not limited to Section 5.04.04. Eleven, public schools without agreement, et cetera. This is a new use being added as an example. Now, there are properties zoned commercial on Chokoloskee Island, C-4, and I can pull up the zoning map if you'd like on that to see what the existing zoning is on there, but most of it is all predominantly VR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So on No. 12, we would add a parenthetical expression before the word "waterfront" that would say something like, for properties on the island of Chokoloskee, comma. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the exchange of ideas is why we're here, all these viewpoints, and I appreciate the viewpoints we've heard. So if there's one thing that gives me pause, it's that because this is not a conditional-use application, there's nobody here from Chokoloskee. We have people from Goodland who are saying, if this were in Goodland, we'd be adamantly opposed to it. And I'm just wondering, what would the people of Chokoloskee feel -- what's so different about Chokoloskee whether the people would welcome it versus the people of Goodland that would be adamantly opposed to it? Do you have an answer for that? This is what's bothering me is that we're making a decision for -- MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, I think they're two different, unique neighbors. They're not identical. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: They have different histories that have gone there. Goodland goes way back to even where there was commercial that had a huge clamming operation back in the 1900s. Trains used to go down there and comport that. It has emerged and changed over time. So the characteristics of these neighborhoods and communities emerged. When he comes back for a conditional use, all the residents -- the majority of them. I would expect to hear from the majority of the residents on Chokoloskee Island after the neighborhood information meeting to give you an opportunity to decide whether they deem it to be compatible or not. In our staff report, on Page 138, we talk about the conditional-use procedure, that he's committed to adhere to that procedure and process of LDC 10.08.00. In there is your seven or eight criterias for compatibility; surrounding properties, any noise, any glare, light glare, all those 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 39 of 49 features get talked about. It will assure the uses are compatible with that, it has to, with the adjacent properties and other property within the VR district. It's just not that one property. COMMISSIONER FRY: So let's fast forward to Brad Wester up at the podium where you are or Rich Yovanovich at the podium where you are I guarantee you their case will be that this case meets all the criteria, all the conditions, as Jeff said the mouthful of the century, which is, once it's a permitted use, they can come in and claim they meet the conditions and we have a hard time saying no to those things. And staff, generally, if it meets the conditions, staff, I think, has no choice but to say this is approved. So I believe our decision here is bigger than just kicking the can down the road to the conditional use. I feel I have more of a sense of responsibility, and I feel there's a missing element. Brad? MR. WESTER: If you don't mind, can I put something on the visualizer? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MR. WESTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that the new iPhone? MR. WESTER: It's several years old. I don't know. I hope it doesn't turn off. Okay. So that sign is right in front of my property, literally right in front of my property. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you show -- can you put the visualizer up just so I can see it? MR. WESTER: Yeah, it's up right now. So that sign advertising Smallwood boat tours, sunset trips, dolphin, da, da, da, turn left there, and then captain, that charter captain is my neighbor. So that charter fishing -- you can see through the thicket right there, my property's behind that sign. You have to -- literally, your mirror will hit that sign when you pull into my driveway into that property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you next door to the Smallwood store? MR. WESTER: No. Smallwood store is right down the street. It's, like, literally around the corner. But that charter fishing captain is right next door advertising his services, and then this sign is advertising other commercial services on the island, including eco tours. So we're kind of basing our service -- and I want to put up the zoning map real quick. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, one thing you could do is continue the item and let the neighbors -- let him bring back letters from the neighbors saying no objection. COMMISSIONER FRY: I love that idea. MR. KLATZKOW: That's one thing you can do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I think also that -- having started this at 5:05, if we continue it, it doesn't have to go back to a 5:05. I think that's what the administrative code says. MR. KLATZKOW: You got me on that one. I don't know the answer. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a first. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, if that's the case then -- if that's the case, then, let's start the other one, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have counsel for the applicant present now on the other one, so we may be able to do that, and I will get a citation and show you. See if you interpret -- MR. KLATZKOW: We can figure it out. But I think that resolves many of the issues if we get letters of no objection from the neighboring properties. MR. WESTER: Well, that's part of the next process. That's part of the conditional-use process whether we apply for one that's there now or we're adding this use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: But if you get it now, they're more likely to pass your LDC amendment knowing that there's no objections. If you're telling us you're not going to do that, that's sort of telling us that you're sort of objecting. MR. WESTER: No, I didn't say I wasn't going to do that. What I'm saying is we're 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 40 of 49 adhering to the process that we've been working on for well over a year with the county, and -- the process at hand. And I will show you the zoning map. This shows you the commercial properties owned on Chokoloskee, and so there is a mixture of zonings on the property: Mobile home, marina, C-4, and then VR. So I just wanted to show you since you asked that question what other zonings are in place on Choko, which is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just do me a favor, please. Are you talking about the red areas are commercial? Which areas are commercial? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. The red areas are -- well -- okay. Yeah, so the red area, there's C-4 commercial, then there's another one that is right here (indicating), and then there's mobile home, then there's TTRVC. So some of these -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is VR? MR. WESTER: That's village residential. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So where -- okay. Where is this going to be compared to village residential? MR. WESTER: It's in village residential, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's the distinction is it's going to be right next to your nice happy little place that you've got now. Now there's going to be a trailer camp. MR. WESTER: Well, it's not a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Whether it's high end -- high end or not, it's a trailer camp. That's what it is. It's just like, you know, some manufactured homes are really nice, but if you live in a -- you know, in a nice, you know, regular constructed home, you don't -- you don't appreciate it if a manufactured home comes next to you. I'm saying that because you need to be realistic with us -- you need to be realistic with us and not paper that over. If you're -- are you listening to what I'm saying? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You know, if you're coming in, then you've got to be candid with us, and the candid situation, the candid assessment is this is very different than residential. And if you just -- if you glance over that and act like it's not, then you lose credibility, in my view. MR. WESTER: I understand. The -- okay. So I'm putting up a site plan here, and there will be a full-time resident caretaker on the property, so that will act as the residential component to this property. And there is a house on the property. There will be a house built on the property. So, I mean, I'm agreeable to go back and vet this with the residents, but this was a part of the process -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And let me just tell you, if it was up to me, I would be voting for this right, you know, today without any further, you know, discussion. MR. WESTER: Well -- and I appreciate that. So this is a site plan that we have up on the screen, and what you'll see is we have the camp house. And so that house, which will be built just in context and character with every other coastal kind of, you know, cracker, two-story house that's out there, that will be the fish camp, the two-story fish camp that I spoke to earlier. And then you have the four Airstreams, which are here, which are the 26 -- and these are really -- I mean, done really high end, really nice. This is not a clientele of a Daytona Beach party scene whatsoever. People pay a lot of money to have this really expensive charter service for inshore and offshore fishing. And through the conditional-use process, you can put hours of operation; you can't be outside; you can't have music outside. You could limit it all -- you could limit it -- you could pack it with all kinds of restrictions to help protect the integrity of the neighborhood to maintain its residential aspect. But we have a full-time caretaker there to make sure it's still maintained as a residential 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 41 of 49 property. We just felt that the overnight stay was the ability that -- and then the niche which -- the Airstream trailers. If we took away the Airstreams, you'd have a fish camp house that is permitted by right. It's just a fish camp house. But it still doesn't allow overnight stays. So we felt that people, if they're going to do inshore and offshore fishing, why not be able stay right on Choko? Go have dinner somewhere on Choko, come back, and you can stay right there overnight or two nights. It's no different than renting any other house on Choko. And Choko is very, very different than Goodland and all the others. It's very irregular-shaped properties. There is commercial. There's a mixture of uses. And then by that signage that I just showed you right at my frontage at my driveway, that is indicative of that fishing village. You walk in, and it's a happy fishing village. There's signage everywhere promoting commercial fishing. And we would like to partake in that and -- so... COMMISSIONER FRY: If all that is true, and I'm willing to believe that -- if all that is true, then I might be of the like mind of Commissioner Vernon that I love it, right? It looks wonderful, right? MR. WESTER: It will be; I promise. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just be more comfortable personally if there were a few residents from Chokoloskee that would walk in arm in arm with you and say, that's a wonderful idea, rather than we're totally against it. And all we have to judge from tonight is people from Goodland. It's a different community; I understand. I don't know the communities intimately. MR. WESTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I guess my -- personally I would feel better if you had some acceptance from the people there that this is a great addition, it's a great -- you know, a great complement to Chokoloskee. That's my own personal opinion. MR. WESTER: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did Mr. Vernon want to go? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, I just have a real -- you know, it's to your point. Were there signs, or what was the process, you know, by which people were aware, or was there any awareness or any attempt to notify, you know, the people who were affected by this, for instance, in Chokoloskee? Would they have any reason to know that this was coming before us? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. There was an advertisement that was sent out in advance, local newspaper. It's about a quarter of a page in the Naples Daily News, local newspapers that go out in advance. We send over -- electronically to people that are on our community e-mail list making the public announcements for the LDC amendments. It goes out to all the civic associations. I don't recall if there's a civic association on Chokoloskee. If it's within the county's network system, they would have received a public announcement and notice as well a link that they can pick up and take a look at the staff report and the application. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the only notice they would have received is if they read the Naples Daily News. MR. HENDERLONG: That plus the electronic e-mails that we send out. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's kind of hit or miss. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would say that that -- yeah, that, to me, isn't a very effective notice. And, certainly, it's the lawful notice, and I certainly am not -- I'm not, you know, saying that anything wrong or anything, you know, should -- more should have been done. All I'm saying is that would indicate as to, you know, why there's nobody here. The reason there's no residents here is probably because they have no idea that we're talking about this. And to that end, you know, I understand that, you know, maybe we don't know what -- if 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 42 of 49 there's any opposition. What I would say is that there's always going to be time. There will -- won't there be signs and, you know, notices given to people, if we actually have someone coming up with an actual petition, if this were to get passed, you know, for this conditional use? And so everyone would have a chance to weigh in. And I'm -- like, I'm still inclined, you know, to vote on this today, because I don't -- I think -- I do think it's very much in keeping with this particular community and the uses that are there. Even this particular, you know -- you know, person who's before us -- I'm sorry. I forgot your name. But, you know, what you're planning to do is on a property that already seems like a much better use, and if you were the neighbor, you would like this use more than the current use. And I realize that's -- you know, that doesn't mean the next applicant is going to be the same, and I understand that. But, again, a conditional use means we can condition -- you know, put a ton of conditions on there that make it so that it is going to be nice for the neighbors. So that's all I'll say. I'm ready to vote for this right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would probably vote for it right now, but out of respect for my colleagues, I think they, you know, have very valid concerns about what do the folks in Chokoloskee think. I would support a motion to continue this. And I have comment and questions that may help so that we can make the most informed decision possible. It seems like one of the concerns is what's going to happen after 9:00 at night. You know, is this going to be -- it's going to be the quietest area in Chokoloskee because you guys are so tired, or is the party going to start? And I don't know how you address that, but I think that would be important to this group. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Chris? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let me just finish. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The next thing is, the condition, when I read it, it looks pretty customized. It looks like you wrote it, and so I don't know how we deal with that. But it might -- but it might make sense for -- it may not make a difference, but it may make a difference to us if it looked like it was actually written more what the staff thought would be appropriate in light of the comments you've heard so far, and then do they fit within that conditional use rather than -- I understand you wrote it with him. But I just -- it sort of matches your property as opposed to being, we're going to say churches are a conditional use, then this type of thing is a conditional use. The other is sort of a question, and this is -- I shouldn't stereotype, but do you expect a lot of offshore crowd? Because that is a little different crowd. I'm sure the captain here could tell you that the backwater crowd typically is a little different than the offshore crowd. Do you expect a lot of offshore fishing? MR. WESTER: We don't expect a ton of offshore. Most of it's going to be inshore. As a matter of fact, that structure right there -- and I don't know, Rich, if you can scroll to the elevation on the map. That is -- we have skiffs that store underneath the building. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I'm not saying -- MR. HENDERLONG: You want that floor -- do you want the -- MR. WESTER: No, the elevation, please. MR. HENDERLONG: Got it. MR. WESTER: Yeah, the elevation of the camp house. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm not going to say I'm going to demand this, but maybe you think about, do you really need offshore fishing? I'm not sure that's going to increase your revenue very much -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 43 of 49 MR. WESTER: I understand. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- and if you get rid of -- a concern of the panel what kind of crowd you're going to get. MR. WESTER: Yeah. And the idea is for them to bring fish right there and bring it into the camp house and cook it, whether it's inshore or offshore. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. That just seems like -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: We're putting so much money in these Airstreams. We're trailering them from other places around the country, renovating them to the nines. I mean, they are super high end. And this whole operation is going to be -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I get that. I get that. I'm familiar with the Airstreams. I know the old Airstreams. I know what you're talking about. MR. WESTER: Yep, yep. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then the last thing I'd say is, even though we can do this during the day, I think the folks from Chokoloskee, a lot of them, you know, I want to be make sure we get as many people from Chokoloskee out here who want to be here, and it may be better for Chokoloskee residents if we do it after 5:00 rather than try to do it in the middle of the day when they may not be able to make it out here, because that seems to be the really -- we want to hear from them. So those are the comments I had that might help you and the staff in presenting the best, most informed presentation you can at the next -- whenever we do it. MR. WESTER: So that's actually a floor plan. That works, too. So you can see with the skiffs are on the bottom floor there, and then the top floor just has the caretakers residence, but a kitchen and, you know, a table, and things like that so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Wester, you probably feel a little blindsided, because you followed the process, you've spent a year on this, and you're here, and now we're saying, hey, maybe we want more. But I'll quote Commissioner Shea who several times in the past has said where he's found pause is where he feels like we are deciding for residents what's best for them rather than without their input or without -- or not listening to what they say, and I just feel that element is missing here. So I'm going to -- I'm going to submit the motion, when the opportunity exists, to continue this, let you come back with -- and I'll come back for an evening meeting for this out of respect for -- MR. KLATZKOW: You don't need an evening meeting for this. I've gone through the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. Then I'll come back in the day for a meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: But you could do an evening meeting if you want. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He works. He's better off in the evening. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll take day anytime. MR. WESTER: And I would be a little jealous if we applied -- if we got the conditional-use list approved, No. 12 on the conditional uses, and then we got the conditional-use permit denied but then somebody else was able to use it. I'd feel a little jealous. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: So listen, I've been doing this for 25 years. I'm okay with going back to the community, knocking on doors. We've already met people, and -- but we feel that this is so in character with that community. I promise you, you drive around Choko, you're like, oh, yeah, it fits. MR. KLATZKOW: You could do as -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 44 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a community homeowners association for the island? THE COURT REPORTER: I can't get all of you at the same time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a homeowners association for the island? MR. WESTER: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No association? No civic? No? CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: You could do this as a companion item. In other words, instead of coming back here another two times, come back here one more time, finish this off, and at the same time present the conditional use. MR. BELLOWS: That is a great idea. MR. WESTER: Yeah, that's a really good idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's good. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you had Chokoloskee Island support. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: That would -- I mean, that would grease the wheels -- MR. WESTER: I understand. MR. BELLOWS: A conditional-use process would require the neighborhood information meeting. It would require the public notice of mailings of 500 feet. Everything that you want now would be brought as the conditional-use application. It's the risk of the applicant to bring them both as companion items, though. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think you might consider advertising in the Coastal Breeze and not the Naples Daily News, because that's who -- Chokoloskee and Goodland will read that paper. MR. WESTER: Well, in this -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Do we need to do a site visit as a group? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if we do a site visit, it shouldn't be as a group. MR. WESTER: It's not that pretty out there, I promise you, on our property, specifically. It's just a piece of dirt. And this does make sense, because the site plan's going to drive this ship, you know. So this makes sense to package it up concurrent with this conditional-use application and just kind of -- and chart forward. So the community was always going to be involved. It was just part of the next process. It took us a while to get to where we are right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's -- Vice Chair, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I like the idea of doing them both together later. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Same here. I like Jeff's idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do, too. All right. I think we're ready for a motion unless we want to -- anything further from staff or the applicant? MR. WESTER: Thank you for your time. MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, are you okay with that approach; bring it back at the same time? MR. WESTER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So, what, do we continue this? COMMISSIONER SHEA: What are we voting on? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think the motion would be that we will continue the hearing on the LDCA. MR. WESTER: Yeah. I think to a date to be determined, right, because we've got to get that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can do that to a date to be determined. MR. WESTER: Because we've got to get the conditional-use application submitted 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 45 of 49 officially and then help the staff to package it up concurrently and then go meet, do our rounds out there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't know the date -- MR. KLATZKOW: Sine die, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sine die, yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: It's usually a three-month process for a conditional use. MR. BELLOWS: A little more than that. MR. HENDERLONG: Three to four. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But getting started now on that should get you to the endgame sooner. MR. WESTER: We were going to have to do it anyway. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. That's good. MR. WESTER: Staff's been great. I know it will help expedite. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And this will require further notices anyway, won't it? MR. WESTER: And signage on the property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So I think -- I think the motion is that we will continue the privately initiated LDCA, adding Conditional Use 12, and then we will schedule as a companion -- companion item the hearing on the conditional use itself. MR. KLATZKOW: And so that the good people of Goodland don't have to come back, we will limit it just to Chokoloskee. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it will be limited to Chokoloskee, and we will be able to hear it during the daytime. MR. WESTER: And out of respect to this conditional-use permit, I will have a full presentation for you, which I didn't think was applicable here, just based on the criteria and the due process. But I'll have a full presentation of all the site plan, the elevations, pictures of the whole property, the area. It will be fully -- you don't have to visit Choko. I will visit it for you and show you everything. I know the property; I know the island. So I'll have a full presentation prepared completely that will be tailored to the CUP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So may I have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 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 VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. MR. WESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Now, if we just -- I'm just curious, because this is an LDC 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 46 of 49 amendment which would tend to be a general application, but we've limited it to Chokoloskee and, really, we're talking about one property here, one conditional use. I mean, is this -- this sounds to me almost like spot zoning, an application of spot zoning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not just one property in Chokoloskee. It's any property in Chokoloskee that meets the criteria. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So this one -- if this gets approved, then it opens the door for other ones to get approved, but now we'll know. And I'm very comfortable with that. Thank you for your flexibility. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. We should probably take a 10-minute break. And it's 6:28. Let's come back at 6:38, please. We stand in recess. (A brief recess was had from 6:28 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in session. Thank you very much. ***And we are ready to call the second item, and then we'll talk about how we're going to proceed on that momentarily. All right. This is an item that we had received a request for a continuance on from the applicant as a result of co-counsel being brought in with a need to be gotten up to speed on the file, which is completely understandable. We also have a large group of people who appeared this evening with the intent of speaking on this matter. And in the interest of taking care of our public, we want to allow them to speak but, of course, we want to be sure that we provide fully for the due process rights of the applicant. And I see that Mr. Davies is at the podium and I ask you, sir, have you been informed of what we're proposing to do at this point? It's essentially what I just said. MR. DAVIES: Yes. For the record, Noel Davies from the law firm of Davies Duke on behalf of the petitioner for this item. Yes, sir, I believe I've been informed as to that. No objection from applicant to allow the Planning Commission to hear comments from members of the public. To add one note, if I may, to the basis for the continuance, which I would like to formally reassert. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. DAVIES: Certainly, I was recently retained on the matter and trying to get up to speed but more importantly, frankly, as the primary basis for the continuance is for my client and me directly, on behalf of my client, personally to work with the residents of Goodland, try to work through any open items, the substance of which I'm still trying to fully grasp, but that's my first priority is to try to engage with them and understand any miscommunication that's there. I would also, if I may, Mr. Chairman, like to apologize for not being here at the 5:05 p.m. I believe that that was a result of miscommunication. It certainly was not my intent to not be here but I think was a misunderstanding as to the county's continuance process. So I just wanted to apologize to the Chairman and to the members of the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Certainly, we appreciate your getting over here as soon as, I guess, word reached you that we would like to have you present. MR. DAVIES: Absolutely, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You got over here quickly, and we appreciate that, and you and your client are to be commended for wanting some extra time to talk with the residents and see if you can't get the differences worked out. MR. DAVIES: If I may, one additional item for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. DAVIES: I would, just respectfully, like to reserve -- right to reserve some sort of rebuttal to the public comment, which I expect would be granted at the time of which the continued hearing takes place. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 47 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. Understood, and it will be granted. MR. DAVIES: And as far as daytime, nighttime, whatever is the preference of the Commission, certainly no objection from my client as to the time of day of the hearing. I would like to try to do it as expeditiously as possible, and we'll also consider with my client the opportunity of potentially doing this as a companion item with conditional use based on the discussion with respect to the prior item; however, at this time, I have no authority with respect to that, so I'd like the two-week request for continuance to be considered by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And after consultation with the County Attorney, we have an opportunity to basically start these proceedings with the public comment or the comments from those of the public who are here, and you may reserve all of your rights of rebuttal, for sure. But having started the proceeding and then continuing it, we can then hear the remainder of the matter during the daytime, which -- do you object to that? MR. DAVIES: No objection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. MR. KLATZKOW: Does staff concur with that approach? MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Great. So, Mr. Davies, unless you have further matters that you want to put on the record at this time, we'll go to comment. MR. DAVIES: Nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, my apologies, all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Davies. Our first public speaker, please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let me just throw out one thing. And I'm sure the folks in the back of the room know this, but I think the way we're proceeding is they can speak now, or they can speak when this matter comes back before us -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- but not both. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's usually how we do it, and that seems most fair that you get one opportunity to speak. And if you're here tonight and you would prefer to speak at the second hearing, then simply don't rise and speak this evening. Is that agreeable with the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: It is, but knowing that the next meeting will be during the day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good point. Yeah, good point. So if daytime meetings for you are difficult because of employment or otherwise, then this is an opportunity to be heard. All right. Our first speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have three registered public speakers for this item. They are all online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're all online? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our first, I'm going to call them companion speakers, Scott Kellett and Stacia Kellett. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we proceed, there's a look of bewilderment up here. There are a number of people from Goodland who are here today physically present. None of them wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered speakers physically present for this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let me just say this, then. If anyone who's here and wishes 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 48 of 49 to be heard tonight, put in a speaker form. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Then we can't speak at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, let me try to clarify it again. If you would prefer to speak at the next meeting, then you don't need to submit a speaker form tonight. Okay? Okay. Thank you. The first registered speaker, then, remotely. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our first registered speaker is Scott Kellett, followed by Stacia Kellett. Mr. Kellett, are you with us? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Kellett. MS. KELLETT: Good evening. This is Stacia Kellett. Good evening. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it Kellett or Keller, ma'am? MS. KELLETT: Kellett, double T. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Kellett. Thank you very much. MS. KELLETT: I would like to reserve our right to speak at the next meeting in two weeks, if I could. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, you may. You may. And your husband as well? MS. KELLETT: Same with him. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Jessica Thomas. Ms. Thomas, are you with us? MS. THOMAS: I am. I would like to reserve my right to speak at the next meeting, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be just fine with us. Thank you, Ms. Thomas. And that being the case, we have no further registered speakers. And just ask as a formality if there are any nonregistered speakers who wish to be heard this evening with the understanding that if they are, then they wouldn't be heard at the next session when this is continued to, let us know right now. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, any questions or comments or discussions of the Planning Commission before we adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we need a motion to continue? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes -- yeah, we do. We will. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to continue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have to have a date or no? No date? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's ask Mr. Davies. If we can do this during the day, we could do June 17, if you wish but, of course, you can't get the CU ready. MR. DAVIES: Again, Noel Davies. On behalf of the petitioner, two weeks during the daytime would be our preferred request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so it won't be a companion the way the previous item was. MR. DAVIES: No, it will not, and not at this time. That may change between now and then. I need to confer with my client, but I believe that the wish at this point is to proceed as contemplated today in two weeks' time at the daytime. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. And so is that the motion? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 3, 2021 Page 49 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Davies. Thank you, staff. Anything further to come before -- well, any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment on matters not on the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, we're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:47 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. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 06.03.21 CCPC Meeting Minutes - Formatted (16312 : June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) 08/19/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.B Item Summary: May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 08/19/2021 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 06/29/2021 3:21 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 06/29/2021 3:21 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/29/2021 3:25 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/30/2021 5:17 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 07/01/2021 10:49 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 07/02/2021 11:53 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/19/2021 9:00 AM 5.B Packet Pg. 54 May 26, 2021 Page 1 of 14 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 26, 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 people present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Christopher T. Vernon Paul Shea Joseph Schmitt Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT Karl Fry, Secretary ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.B.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 2 of 14 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 26th, 2021 special meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone, please, rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are there any commissioners wishing to participate remotely that we know of, Mr. Youngblood? No? Okay. Thank you. Well, we have a -- visually I see we have a quorum, but in the absence of the secretary, I will call the role. Mr. Eastman? COMMISSIONER EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm here. Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have a quorum of four, of whom four are physically present, and the absent members and the late member have all excused absences and late absences. Commissioner Klucik was uncertain about the meeting time and day, and so his is excused, and Secretary Fry's and Commissioner Schmitt's -- Secretary Fry's absence and Commissioner Schmitt's anticipated lateness are both excused. Okay, addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on June 3rd, and this will be actually two meetings. The first one will begin at 9 a.m., and then the second one at 5:05 p.m., and we're going to talk about this 9 a.m. start in a moment. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend both installments of that meeting on June 3rd? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The same question for our second regular June meeting, which is June 17, that's a 9 a.m. start meeting. Anyone know if he or she will be absent at that time? COMMISSIONER VERNON: That was June 18th? CHAIRMAN FRYER: June 19th -- June 17th. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER VERNON: June 17th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. All right. Sounds good on that. Why don't we -- why don't we talk now about the time for our June 3rd meeting, and there may be an issue about notifications that would preclude us from changing the start time. We've got -- let me see what we've got here. We've got two of the five agenda items coming up at night, and three coming up in the daytime, and as near as staff can tell, those three do not appear to be controversial at this time, and so logic would dictate that we consider starting later, but we might be constrained. I'm sorry, County Attorney, catching you with your mouth full, but do we have any flexibility on the start time for June 3rd? MR. KLATZKOW: Has it been advertised? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: What time is it advertised for? 5.B.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 3 of 14 MR. BELLOWS: 9:00. MR. KLATZKOW: What time do you want to do it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we could do it at 2:00 or 3:00, if the law permitted. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we can put up a sign for anybody that shows up at nine. You know, that's your problem, people showing up here and there's an empty room. It's more of -- it's not a legal issue, just more of a courtesy issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see. What's the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd say 1:30 start time, but I am flexible, whatever the rest of you want to do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It would be better to start later and not come back but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, my concern is if we start at 1:30, we will have to come back. I think there's potential we will have to come back. If we start at two or three, I think we can flow right in. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's fine with me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like the later start, but I want to make sure that we don't misinform other people that might want to attend the morning session. I don't want to preclude them coming. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, and as the County Attorney said, it's a courtesy issue, and we want to be sensitive to the needs of the public. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: -- we had something similar in the past where we posted signs on the door and said that the meeting was going to be pushed back later in the day. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If we decided that today, you would update the web page to the new date; right? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they have a period of time where they, if they check the web page, they'd see it? MR. BELLOWS: Correct, and we would notify the applicant, and the team, and anybody who's asked to be notified. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Ray, what items are we hearing? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me go over that and when I do, this is -- I mean, the way we get the look-ahead from Mr. Bellows is it's the best estimate, it's not a certainty, but it's as near as we can tell. In the morning we would hear three LDC's. MR. KLATZKOW: Nobody cares about that. I barely care about that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then in the evening we've got the Goodland and the Chokoloskee, which are private matters, and there may be -- potentially could be some opposition. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But that would be after five? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think there's a great chance people are showing up for LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: There is at some point the Goodland LDC will be followed-up with a conditional use request, but that is where I would anticipate a larger crowd showing up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so that would also be in the evening? MR. BELLOWS: No, during the day, when it comes as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, oh, I see. Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But there are no petitions, just LDC amendments? CHAIRMAN FRYER: LDC amendments in the daytime, and then petitions in the evening. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, LDC would be at night. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 4 of 14 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, can Ms. Jenkins come help us here? My understanding is that the Goodland and the Chokoloskee were the night items? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it was the other way around. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's clarify it. MS. JENKINS: Sure. Good morning, Anita Jenkins, the Zoning Director. The two nighttime meetings are LDC amendments, but they're privately initiated LDC amendments for specific changes to the LDC to allow additional or different uses in that district. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That's the Goodland one? MS. JENKINS: Yes, Goodland and Chokoloskee is how they're titled. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, everybody -- MR. HENDERLONG: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Rich Henderlong, principal planner and coordinator for both of the LDC amendments, private initiative. The one in Chokoloskee is a conditional use for the BR District and water-related uses, and it's a recreational space camp, cabin camp, that staff has worked up. It will be applied -- it's uniform to all four different BR Districts, okay? The difference with the other private initiative amendment is for an oyster distribution and processing center that will be a specified water dependent, water-related use, isolated to the Goodland overlay zoning district. We've had one person call for an objection about that, so if there's any public participation, it would be that item in particular. Otherwise, we don't anticipate objections to any of the other items. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Henderlong. So since those are both at night with a start time that has been advertised already, it shouldn't be a problem. MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I would suggest a 2:30 start time. What do others think? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Works for me. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: For the 3rd, all right, then by consensus, unless someone wants to have a formal vote on it, let's just say by consensus four to nothing that we've decided we're going to start the daytime meeting at 2:30 on June 3rd, and, of course, the evening meeting will start at 5:05 p.m. And everyone, please, keep in mind that these are -- this is not etched in stone when we get these look-aheads, it's always subject to change. This is the best view that we can put to it at this time. All right. Let's see, approval of minutes. We have none before us today for action. BCC report recaps, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir. Yesterday the Board of County Commissioners, they heard the SRA for the Villages of Longwater and Bellmar and the town framework agreement. They went through the applicant's presentation, the staff's presentation, and through all the public comment, but they deferred the vote to the next board meeting to allow all of the commissioners to vote on the item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. Which takes us to public hearings, and we have two companion items this morning under advertised public hearings and they are PL20200001865 and PL2020000 -- I don't have the second number correctly. Does anyone have the companion date -- the number to 1865? COMMISSIONER SHEA: 2161. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 2161? Thank you, 2161. These are both the Florida Power & Light Immokalee Solar Farm Conditional Use and Variance respectfully. Without objection, as always they'll be heard together and voted on separately. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please, rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: All right. Thank you. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 5 of 14 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures, beginning with Mr. Eastman? COMMISSIONER EASTMAN: None, other than the materials that are in the public record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon has no disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. For me it's materials of public record and communications with staff and the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke briefly to Mr. Davies, and Ms. Crespo, and Mr. Scoville. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Without further ado, we'll begin with the applicant's presentation. The Chair recognize Mr. Davies. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Noel Davies with the Law Firm of Davies, Duke. I'm here this morning on behalf of Florida Power & Light Company with respect to their applications for a solar energy facility which would be located in the eastern portion of the county at the east side of the intersection of State Road 29 and State Road 82. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I will make my introductory remarks and hand it off to my client representative, Mr. Scoville, and then our professional planner, Ms. Crespo. The subject property is 578 acres and we do have two pending applications before you this morning. The first is a conditional use application for the subject solar facility use, and the second is a buffer variance application with respect to supplementary native plantings along portions of State Road 29. I have several members of the team with me today. Scott Scoville, as I mentioned, Brandon Stankiewicz, Sean Miller, John Renfranz, Scott Goreland and Jeff Conti are all here from Florida Power & Light this morning. Alexis Crespo, as I mentioned, is our professional planner, Waldrop Engineering, David Scott is our professional engineer with Jacobs Engineering, and Brady Walker is our environmental consultant with Kimley-Horn. This is a real opportunity, Commissioners, for the county to partner with FPL on a very forward-thinking, clean energy project. FPL is doing these facilities all over the state. It's going to be a huge benefit to our Collier County residents by providing additional solar power to the overall power grid, and, thereby reducing the cost of power for all customers without generating any toxic emissions. We have had no criticism or opposition to this project, no attendees at our neighborhood information meeting. Your staff is recommending approval with certain conditions, and my client is in agreement on all proposed conditions. With that, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Scott Scoville, Senior Project Manager with Florida Power & Light. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SCOVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Planning Commissioners. My name is Scott Scoville. I am a Senior Project Manager with Florida Power & Light, and I am responsible for the development of the Immokalee Solar Energy Center. We are very excited to bring you our first solar project here to Collier County, and before I get started, I'd like to personally thank all the staff's assistance in getting us here today, so thank you. I'd like to briefly talk about the NextEra Energy, our parent company. It's comprised of three entities, Florida Power & Light, you'll see on the right there, with a service territory on the east coast of Florida, and then a portion of the west coast here in Collier County. We also have Gulf Power, which is up in the western Panhandle of Florida, and then on the left we have NextEra Energy Resources. NextEra Energy Resources develops and owns and operates solar and wind and battery projects in 48 states and Canada. So when you combine the wind and solar assets from NextEra Energy Resources, FPL, and Gulf Power, it makes NextEra Energy the world's largest producer of renewable energy, and more importantly, it's combination of companies gives NextEra Energy a great depth of experience in 5.B.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 6 of 14 designing, constructing and operating electrical generating products across a diverse geography and technologies. Florida Power & Light -- FPL and Gulf represent -- we have 5.6 million customers in Florida in 43 counties, and we service customers from Miami to Pensacola. Over the past two decades the NextEra/FPL leadership has made some very forward-thinking decisions and investments to make Florida a leader in clean energy and sustainability. We've eliminated coal from our power plant with more fuel efficient natural gas. These modernizations save our customers over $11 billion, and last year we were very excited to announce our 30 by 30 Plan. It's our goal to install 30 million panels in Florida by 2030. There will be approximately 100 new solar projects across the State of Florida. The Immokalee Solar Center is one of those projects. Today we currently have 38 solar sites and operations in the State of Florida. These numbers change daily. The stars on the map, the gold ones are the ones in operation, and the white ones are ones that are under construction. Like I said, these numbers change pro-daily for us, so we're very proud of that. Due to the passive nature of solar energy sites, we make great neighbors and were are highly compatible with the surrounding residential and agricultural land uses. A solar project is virtually silent. The solar panels sit low to the ground. The panels are approximately two feet off the ground at the lower end, and six and a half feet high at the highest point. The solar site has no nighttime lighting, and just to be clear, we do have safety lighting at our substations and only illuminated at night, if and when we ever have to go to that solar facility after daylight hours. We also have lighting at the entrance to the site off of State Road 29, as per the County's development codes. All of our sites are monitored remotely from Juno Beach, and following construction there is minimal to -- minimal -- minimal increased traffic to the area. We might visit the site once or twice a month for routine maintenance or vegetation management, and there's, more importantly, there is no fuel or water used to generate renewable energy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, I apologize for interrupting, but a message to Mr. Troy Miller, at least three of us up here do not have the screen feed that is on the projection. So if that could be fixed, I think it would be appreciated. Sorry to interrupt. MR. SCOVILLE: Okay. You want me to pause? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And every other one. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, go ahead. MR. SCOVILLE: Here are a couple of photographs in one of our facilities. The one in the top left shows a pile, which serves as a primary support system for our racking system. It's driven into the ground approximately six to ten feet. The actual depth of the pile that is driven into the ground is determined by the wind loading requirements for the area and slope conditions. The construction of the racking system and the installation of panels is all done by hand, which contributes to the large number of workers that are needed to construct these solar projects. Each one of the sites is designed to avoid impact to the environmentally-sensitive areas, and they are constructed in a way that allows the grass to grow under the panels and stabilize the soil. Additionally, all of our products are designed to withstand substantial winds that are -- and are built to the relevant building codes and wind-loading requirements. These panels are securely fastened to the support system and wind damages is typically not a concern. In fact, Hurricane Irma in 2017 passed directly over three of our projects here in Southeast Florida. Our panels withstood the storm event, and we -- the storm passed over approximately a million panels, and of those million panels, 50 received some minor damage to them. So these products are designed to withstand events of that nature. Here's a few photos from a typical solar project. You can see the ground cover is restored as we 5.B.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 7 of 14 build these projects. As they're building, they're planting seeds to get the soil back to stabilization. The middle picture on the top right is an inverter. That is what takes the DC voltage from about 600 volts DC and converts it to 34,500 volts. The picture on the bottom left-hand corner is one of our favorites. It's a colleague of ours. He is 6'5" and he is as tall as the panels are high. Here's a picture on the left, is the location of the site. It's located, like we said, at the intersection of State Road 29 and 82. It is 74 point -- as with all of our projects, it's 74.5 megawatts. It's on a 570-acre site that we purchased on March 31st from Barron Collier Enterprises. The Florida DEP issued our permit on May 7th and we are seeking to start -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, sir. I need to interrupt you for a moment. Commissioner Klucik is online, and so we need to take a vote to allow him to participate remotely. May I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to allow him. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please, say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome, Commissioner Klucik. MR. SCOVILLE: Assuming Collier County approves the project, we anticipate construction would be complete -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, Commissioner -- or Mr. Chairman, what was that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome. We voted to allow you to participate remotely, and while we have you, do you have any ex parte disclosures, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: None. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sorry, again, for the interruption, sir. MR. SCOVILLE: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did you say you purchased the land? MR. SCOVILLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're the land owner? MR. SCOVILLE: Yeah, we submitted the application, and we were under option and we closed on it March 31st of this year. Assuming the County approves the project, we anticipate construction would be complete and in service by the first quarter of 2022. Here is an artistic rendering of what the site will look like when it is completed, along with the service roads, the panels, the inverters, and how it's going to be orientated next to State Road 29. This project will have approximately $300,000 panels, depending on the technology employed, but that's the typical size of our project. With our county outreach this project, as we said, it has no negative comments from the community. No one was in attendance online or in person at our neighborhood information meeting, and there is one resident near the project here, down on State Road 29, that I have spoke to directly, and he was okay. He was okay with our project. Once again, thank you for your time, and turn it over to Ms. Crespo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for the gentleman before he stands down? Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The only question -- I did have a question quick. What's the capacity in terms of kilowatts of the facility? MR. SCOVILLE: It's 74.5 megawatts or 74,500 kilowatts. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can you translate that for us? COMMISSIONER SHEA: A lot. MR. SCOVILLE: Excuse me? 5.B.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 8 of 14 COMMISSIONER VERNON: What does that mean? I know it's a difficult question to answer, but just simplify. What percentage of the energy is being produced by solar output, so just kind of speak to that generally. MR. SCOVILLE: A project of this size will service about 15,000 homes, and the other stack we have on the deck was it takes the equivalent of the emissions of 14,000 cars annually off the road. With the daylight hours it operates at about mid 20 percent factor, so the big number for us is 15,000 homes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Does it provide it to nearby, or go to a central location and doesn't matter? MR. SCOVILLE: It's injected into our transmission system, and it's distributed to our customers. So it's more just generation for our overall transmission system. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Scoville. Ms. Crespo? MS. CRESPO: Good morning, Alexis Crespo representing the applicant. Scott covered kind of the fun details of the application details. I'm going to give you more technical aspects of the staff report. You're familiar with where the property is located, east of State Road 29. From a land use standpoint, the site is within the rural land stewardship area on the future land use map. It is designated open, as part of that overlay district; that means it's not receiving. It's not sending. It's not within the flow way or habitat stewardship areas. It's simply an open area that can opt into those programs or can be conducted as agricultural activities in accordance with the Land Development Code. From a zoning standpoint, the site is agricultural mobile home overlay rural land stewardship area overlay. As Scott has noted and it's clearly indicated on the aerial location map, the site has been historically used for agricultural purposes, citrus crops. There is an impoundment system consisting of wetlands and water management features immediately to the east of the property, as well as the north, and that does create somewhat of a regular boundary for the property, which directly relays into our buffer variance request that I will go over a little bit later, and I noted not within any habitat stewardship areas, flow way area, and there's just one sole point of access to the property from State Road 29. So the first request is to allow for the solar energy plant to be operated within the Agricultural Zoning District. This would fall under essential services, and the energy generating plant category -- use category under that zoning district, which does require the conditional use approval. We certainly submit that due to the very low impact nature of this, it's very different than your typical electric or gas-generating plant that you have, subject to a similar conditional use, and it's very low intensity, as Scott has outlined. It will be unmanned. We did receive a traffic waiver and we submitted some data into the record indicating that there will be a nominal number of trips per month, just for maintenance purposes. The only vertical structures is one control house, and then the six and a half foot tall solar panels throughout the site. Scott has shown you the rendered version of the land plan. The access is at the southern point of the property. You can see the solar field are accessed by the pathway system through the site. We are not impacting any wetlands. Those that are located within the property will be preserved, and the majority of those wetlands you can see on the screen are actually outside the boundary of the property. In terms of environmental considerations, we are proposing wildlife-friendly fencing around the property, which would consist of four-foot-tall fencing to the north, south and eastern boundaries, and then six-foot-tall fencing along State Road 29, and we did submit details of those fence designs to staff as part of the process to ensure that the wildlife was addressed through the application. Also, because this is unmanned there will not be trash containers or things that would generate incentives for animals to come to the site from a human being disturbance standpoint. I won't belabor the conditional use criteria. There are five criterias in the code. We qualify as a conditional use as written. The compatibility criteria has been met, based on the low impact nature of the 5.B.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 9 of 14 proposal, and we're in agreement with staff on our consistency with the criteria in the Land Development Code guiding us under this approval process. They have included four conditions in the staff report. The applicant has reviewed those conditions, and is in agreement with all of those conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. I'm going to interrupt for a moment to acknowledge the arrival of Commissioner Schmitt. Commissioner, do you have any disclosures ex parte on this matter? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, not on this matter. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Continue, please. MS. CRESPO: I will hit on the buffer variance. Because this is deemed public use, there is a requirement for 10-foot buffers along the north, south and eastern property lines, and along the public roadway or the State Road 29 fringe, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer. So there's very significant buffering for a use that will not be readily visible from the road, due to the height of the panels. This would be nine miles of buffer that we have to surround the property, and intended for more intensive public use, per our interpretation of the code, and we do meet the intent through the existing site conditions, as well as the supplemental plantings that have been conditioned by staff. In terms of those existing conditions, this is a northern view of the site. You can see there's significant existing vegetation along the western boundary along State Road 29. There's also a farm road and berm, and then the site where the solar panel will be located is significantly lower than the State Road 29 grade, as well as the berm area and the vegetation along our western boundary. So the point being, because of those existing conditions the panels will not be readily visible; therefore, negating the need for a formalized Type B buffer along the roadway. Additionally, along the north, south and east, we abut either agricultural uses or wetlands in that impoundment area, and there will be no negative view impacts to our surrounding neighbors on any sides of the property. This slide just shows an aerial view, and the arrows point to some of those areas. You can clearly see the existing stretch of native vegetation, or vegetation along the roadway. We did work with staff. They did have some concerns there were areas where the vegetation may be sparse, so we worked on a supplemental planting plan, which was included and attached to the staff report, and that would be hedgerows consisting of native shrubs species that would be stabilized by being watered in, and would eliminate the need for costly irrigation and would be a nice compromise. We are providing additional screening in certain locations to address the intent of the code to screen the shed from the public roadway. So those areas are shown in the green on this slide. We meet the variance criteria as outlined in our application materials attached to your package, as well as outlined in the staff report. The ecological boundary does represent a hardship. There's also an easement along our western property line that would preclude planting, so we've outlined those various criteria within the application materials, and are in agreement with staff. They have submitted four conditions of approval relating to that supplemental planting plan, and watering-in and fertilizing and site preparation in order to make sure those shrubs do survive, and we are in agreement with all of those conditions. So to summarize, the conditional use will simply allow for the solar energy plant to be located on the subject property because it is agriculturally zoned. The buffer variance is appropriate due to those existing conditions not created by the applicant. As outlined in our materials and the staff report, the request is entirely consistent with your Growth Management Plan, as well as the Land Development Code, and we're in 100 percent agreement with staff on all conditions. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Any Planning Commissioners have questions or comments for Ms. Crespo? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I have a couple. I'm not sure who they would be for, but how many trees do you have to take out to build this solar farm, or whatever we're calling it? I don't need a specific, but I assume there is a bunch of trees on there that have to be taken out? 5.B.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 10 of 14 MR. SCOVILLE: There is no native species. We're not going to impact any natives species, but we will have to take out the existing citrus groves. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay, so there's not a lot of trees like oaks and stuff like that? MR. SCOVILLE: No, sir, we carved out the uplands, so we have the uplands on the site so -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I saw that in two -- inside the parcel, there's two areas. MR. SCOVILLE: Yeah, so we're not going to impact any native species, just the existing citrus trees have to come out. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. I guess the hardest question is, you know, it looks like FPL has a good reputation, looks like a great project, presented well, everything, I read it, but today's solution, tomorrow's problems. As credibly as you can tell me, what's the biggest downsize of this? MR. SCOVILLE: (No response.) COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know you're betting against yourself here, but, I mean, there's no such thing as a perfect anything. MR. SCOVILLE: We haven't seen a downside to it; that's just it. It's a compatible use of the land. We don't use water. We don't -- you know, every step of the way this is a positive project for the community and the surrounding land, and we've kind of done our homework over time of 38 of these projects, and we haven't seen that. We're a regulated utility in the State of Florida, so the maintenance and the upkeep of the project, we'll continue to maintain and upkeep them, but I don't see a downside to a project like this. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCOVILLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments from the dais? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Quick question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Kind of a dumb question. As we -- this is part of the open land and it's zoned agricultural, is it appropriate that they could apply for TDR rights for this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, right now it's neutral land. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is RLSA? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it's RLSA. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's open land? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, open. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But on the new amendments you could get ag on open land. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You could. It could be converted to sending lands. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, the only question I have is environmental, and I know you noted that it is in the area of the Bonneted Bat, which typically in this part of Florida is covered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and their, I guess, regional study. There is no impact on panthers, and we've heard a lot of panther issues with development? How -- how do the panther react to this type of structure being built in a receiving area? We've heard so much about panthers, and the impact of panthers. I don't see anybody here from the Conservancy, Wildlife Confederation or others who made issues about the townships being built, but this is a pretty significant. Are PHUs going to be impacted by this? Are there going to be -- will they have to pay PHUs for this? I've noted that there's -- still has to go through consultations through the Fish and Wildlife and the Florida Wildlife Commission -- Conservation Commission. MR. RENFRANZ: Good morning, Commissioner. I'm John Renfranz with FPL Environmental Services. Thank you for your question. With regard to the panther, we've looked extensively at the site, and the project is not anticipated to have any take on the panther. We looked at publicly available telemetry points for the panther, and none have occurred on this 5.B.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 11 of 14 site, and with us using panther-friendly fencing, you know, that's four foot tall farm fence, that allows panther and their prey to move onto the site, if they wish to do so, and the PHU score for solar projects is actually a little bit better compared to citrus groves. So there's no PHU deficit for this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For my colleagues, PHU is Panther Habitat Units, that's an impact they pay. Go ahead. MR. RENFRANZ: That's correct, sir. So like I said, panther and their prey will be able to move onto the site if they wish to do so. There will be forage for their pray. So we anticipate that the project will not have any effect on the panther. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So eco-friendly environment for the panther? MR. RENFRANZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nice, shaded canopy so the panther can lay down beneath the solar panels? MR. RENFRANZ: Correct. And with regard to your comment about the Bonneted Bat -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes? MR. RENFRANZ: -- we coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the bat, and because we are not removing any canopy, any native trees on the project, we did not have to do any acoustical surveys or surveys for the bat, and the determination there was that we would also have no effect on the Bonneted Bat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. MR. RENFRANZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Probably just a technical informational question. I notice on one of the drawings you had multiple pump stations. I'm assuming because the area is low-lying, you're collecting any storm water and pumping it into the wetlands area there? I mean, there were four or five of those pump stations shown. MR. SCOVILLE: Yeah, those are the pumps for the existing irrigation and draining system. We still have to have the ability to discharge off the property, so there will be the discharge pumps available to us. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they exist, you're not putting -- you're not adding them? MR. SCOVILLE: They're existing. It's an existing ag operation, so we'll keep the existing pumps for discharge. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? Anything else, Mr. Davies? MR. DAVIES: Nothing further. That concludes the applicant's presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Staff? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm presenting this petition today. Based on the applicant's PowerPoint presentation I won't go into the one staff prepared. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions outlined in both the conditional use and in the variance application, and if you have any questions, we do have our landscape staff here and environmental staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And there were a total of eight conditions, four in the CU and four in the variance, and Mr. Davies confirmed with me on the phone yesterday, and today again publicly, that the applicant is satisfied with and willing to meet all eight conditions. Thank you. Anything from up here for staff, please? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you very much. Mr. Youngblood, do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have no registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any persons in the room who have not registered but wish to be heard on this matter? Now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, and without objection, we will close the public comment 5.B.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 12 of 14 portion of this hearing, and we will begin our deliberation. Who would like to start? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I can. I mean, I think it's a great project. I think it fits in nice with the area and I -- I support it wholeheartedly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do as well. I think it's a great project, pretty significant, large size, but I think it's a great step forward, and we hope it does what it's advertised to do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Indeed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think it's great; about time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I don't think -- I can't see anything wrong with it at all. So my sincere thanks to FPL and the applicant's representatives for your presentation, and at this point I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon moves. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There is two separate -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll do the CU first. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second on the CU? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please, say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously 6-0. Now on the variance, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon moves. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second? Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please, say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, FPL. Thank you, applicant. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You too. Folks, that is all we have by way of an advertised agenda, and is there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any new business? (No response.) 5.B.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 13 of 14 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment on a matter not on our agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be at the next meeting. I, unfortunately, had a death in the family and I have to travel to Harrisburg. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We understand that. Our sympathies, and your absence is excused. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we stand adjourned. * * * * * * 5.B.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) May 26, 2021 Page 14 of 14 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 9:41 a.m. ******** COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ___________, as presented ___________ or as corrected ___________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY JANICE R. MALINE, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 05-26-21-CCPC_Meeting Formatted (16398 : May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) 08/19/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.C Item Summary: June 17, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 08/19/2021 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 07/09/2021 6:38 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 07/09/2021 6:38 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 07/12/2021 10:56 AM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 07/21/2021 3:17 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 07/22/2021 9:59 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 07/23/2021 12:07 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/19/2021 9:00 AM 5.C Packet Pg. 69 June 17, 2021 Page 1 of 44 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 17, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Christopher T. Vernon Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney 5.C.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 2 of 44 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome all. June 17, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission will now come to order. And will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we ask the secretary to call the roll, I want to check on the possibility of a remote participant. I think this will probably be the last meeting where that would be acceptable. Do we know whether we have a remote participant, Commissioner Klucik, coming in? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I didn't see him on the participants. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, please let me know if he signals a desire to come in. Will the secretary now please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six out of seven. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addendum to the agenda. We've had three requests for continuances, if you count two companion matters. Mr. Bellows is going to come up and lead us through those. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. Yes, we have a request for a continuance of 9A1 and its companion item, 9A2. These are the Santa Barbara PUD commercial rezone and its companion Growth Management Plan amendment. It's being requested to be continued to August 8th. And we also have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are we meeting on August 8th? MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. Let me double-check that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: August 5th. MR. BELLOWS: August 5th. We also have a continuance request for 9A3, which is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, is that you? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It sounded like him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Bellows. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, sorry, Mr. Chairman. This is Robert Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, Commissioner Klucik. May we have a motion for his participation remotely please? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 3 of 44 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Welcome, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: And the last continuance is the LDC amendment for the Goodland Zoning Overlay to allow for the oyster processing, and that is to allow it to come back as a companion item with a conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I believe there is some -- some who wish to be heard, including me, on these continuances. And I'm going to start by asking the County Attorney to provide us with his observations and advice. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And we spoke briefly in the parking lot on the way in, Commissioner. I was on the phone with Commissioner Shea. To start off with, I've been doing this for a long time, a long time, sitting before the Planning Commission. It's been one of my great honors, and I've never seen so many continuance requests throughout this entire time. Now, let me preface it further by saying that at the end of the day it's a board policy decision whether or not to grant continuances freely. And to that end, I will be asking you to make a recommendation to the Board on this policy. You guys are volunteers. We've had to hold special meetings because of a backlog, and part of that backlog is all the continuances that have been requested. I mean, it's as simple as that. When an applicant is ready to go and he tells staff, I'm ready to go on this, I've had my NIMs, I've met all the conditions, staff has signed off on it, and we advertise it, and the public comes down for it -- and you can see in this audience we have a number of people who want to talk about an item that's going to be asked to be continued. Now, once upon a time in my life, I was a litigator. One of my litigation strategies was to try to wear out the opposition by continuances and putting things over and, you know, the next thing -- I called it the death defense because hopefully, you know, by that time the plaintiff would either die, and I'd settle with the estate or, you know, people just got worn out. It was a -- it's a common litigation tactic. And I'm afraid that that's seeped into the development community where if they find there's significant opposition towards the end, they want it continued, and they always say, well, we want the opportunity to talk to the community. They had that opportunity right here with the communities here, they also had that opportunity during the NIM, and they had that opportunity during the year-plus it took for the application to be processed, all right. I think it's an imposition on you, I think it's an imposition on the public, and I think it is an incredible cost to the county. We probably spend in excess of $5,000, and I've talked to Mr. Bosi, who thinks that's probably a low number. The county probably expends about in excess of $5,000 to hold a hearing like this. I've got a court reporter here. We've got staff present. We've got the AV people going on. It's not an inexpensive thing to do, okay. So at the very least, I would suggest that as part of your discussions, if a continuance is 5.C.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 4 of 44 going to be granted, unless staff is asking for it, which in case it's on us, all right, that the applicant repay the Collier County taxpayers for the cost it is to hold a hearing. And I'm telling you it's in excess of $5,000. And Mr. Bosi and I chatted about that briefly, and they'll look into it. But that's what we're looking at. And, again, at the end of the day, it's a board policy decision, and the board policy may very well be that continuances are freely granted. I don't know what the Board of County Commissioners' view on this is. But I'm asking that you guys discuss this and, if you feel it appropriate, to make a recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And before I -- I've got a lot of people lit up here who want to speak, and that's good. Just a clarification, if I can, from the County Attorney. So the current BCC policy is that continuances are granted freely, and that applies not only to them or to us? MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have a policy on this, and the reason we don't have a policy on this, it's been my history here that we just haven't had that many of them. I mean, it's fine you have the occasional continuance so another meeting would have another item added on. But here we've got three out of your four items being asked to be continued. And then all I know is the development community screams at the commissioners, our stuff isn't getting processed by the Planning Commission. You guys get pulled in for a special meeting, which is an imposition on you. I know that you've spent hours preparing for this, you know, and then you come in here, and it's like, okay, all revved up and no place to go. But, again, this is -- this is your call as to your feelings on this. I would simply say it ultimately will be a board policy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I would further -- I agree with everything Mr. Klatzkow said. The part -- and this is maybe a question for Ray. I walk in here today, this is the first time I hear about it. You know, continuations, there are good reasons to have it, but there's no good reason to constantly have it at the last minute when all these people are here, we're here, we've done all our preparation. Can we put a time limit on it? If we wanted to have a policy and say, if you want a continuation, it needs to be in 10 days prior so we can get a notice out and not spend -- waste hours of time preparing for the meeting. I mean, right now I would say no. If you asked me to vote on it, I would say no on any of these continuations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And before I call on the other commissioners, I want to observe that an e-mail was sent out about the matters A1 and A2, and I think we all got that. And I know, Commissioner Shea, you've been having some difficulty getting e-mails, and that's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. I received that one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's another matter, and we need to talk about that. And I will say that in the case of the 9A3, the Goodland matter -- and this also applies to the Santa Barbara matter if we have speakers, but any speakers who've come all the way from Goodland, if we do decide to continue this matter, they will be allowed to be heard if they wish to be heard today, probably not a repeat, not a reprise of the same speaker on the day to which this is continued. So a speaker could choose to either be heard today, even if we decide to continue the matter, or to wait and be heard when the matter on the merits is heard. And some speakers might want to be heard today, and some may want to keep their powder dry until the thing is presented on the merits. But we are -- we're going to give the people who came in here today all the way from Goodland who want to speak today a chance to speak today, no doubt about it, and that also applies if there are people here from Santa Barbara. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: While I agree with that, I believe that that's still not a complete solution, because they're not able to speak while the matter's being actively adjudicated. So I think it's important that the speakers are in the same session as the applicant's presentation, if at all 5.C.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 5 of 44 possible. I would just as a -- I would just point out, if we have any kind of an advanced time limit on this or a minimum advance notice, we get our packets one week before the meeting. So if we had a notice before that, that would be helpful, if we wanted to impose a time limit. The final point before you respond, Ray, is I think for myself, before I -- if I have the chance to vote before I approve a continuance, I'd like to know why. I'd like to know what the justification is for the continuance. MR. BELLOWS: And those are great points. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, this is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, I'm going to call on Commissioner Schmitt first, and then you're going to be next. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm going to ask the staff. Personally, I believe that if a petitioner is requesting a continuance, that petitioner should be here in person to request the continuance and to explain why the continuance is being asked. It is not up to the staff to lobby on the petitioner's behalf to ask for a continuance. And I recall in the past, Ray, back in my days, which was ancient history, most times we used to have the petitioner here asking for the continuance. And in this case, they basically dumped it on the staff. I don't see -- is the petitioner here. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. In this case, the petitioner is here. We did have extensive conversations with them to remind them of the Planning Commission's policy to have the applicant here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't see Mr. Yovanovich. Is he here? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Arnold is here representing that petition. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So in other words, they're not ready to go forward? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would appear to be the case. MR. BELLOWS: In regards to the first two items -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, were you finished, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a -- you know, Ray did clarify. I thought it was policy for the petitioner to be here. I don't see Mr. White here. Is he here for the asking for -- asking for his continuance? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Noel Davies is here for the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Noel Davies, is he here? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, he's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, he's hiding behind you over there. Okay. There he is. Thank you. So I think both of them need to come to the podium and explain the reasons for the continuance. MR. BELLOWS: And they'll be glad to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I just mentioned as part of the addenda to the agenda that the reason for the request for the LDC amendment is it was expressed at the last meeting that the LDC amendment advertising is less than it is for a conditional use, and the applicant has agreed to bundle it as a companion item with the conditional-use application. So it will go through a neighborhood information meeting and much more extensive advertising that's required of a conditional use. So the idea is, even though we have a great turnout for Goodland, it will give the applicant a chance to sit down during a NIM to explain what they're 5.C.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 6 of 44 trying to do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to follow up on that, because I had a conversation with Mr. White probably over a month ago on the, what do you want to call it, the expediency of having this amendment heard and, basically, the issue having to do with not -- staff delaying it was the accusation, and now we're at a point, we have one meeting scheduled a month -- two weeks ago, a special meeting, of course. And, I unfortunately, missed that meeting, but here we are again with another continuance. And I'm kind of puzzled now what happened to the urgency of this petition and now we're at the point where we're going to delay it another -- what, another month? MR. BELLOWS: Well, this would be an indefinite continuance because it's dependent upon the conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The conditional use. All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just kind of affirm, I guess, what I've been hearing as far as the concerns from our attorney and my fellow commissioners. What I would say is, we have a whole system set up, and, like -- as Mr. Klatzkow said, at great expense, and all of us make commitments. People who are -- you know, members of the public make commitments. And I am glad this is coming up, because I was scratching my head all along as to why we, you know, kept not hearing the things that were on our agenda. And I am fully behind some sort of a policy -- coming up with some sort of a policy where we do not grant continuances unless there's extremely exceptional circumstances, because at this point, you know, I'm going to have to, you know, be -- I can't -- I won't be able to appear remotely. You know, this meeting, you know, there were -- it became a very small meeting, you know, as far as our agenda, a much curtailed agenda. And if you have volunteers coming to spend the whole day and planning ahead of time, so we have a full day twice a month, and all the planning and time, you know, committed to getting ready for those meetings by volunteers, who are the commissioners, and as well as members of the public who are, you know, getting ready, I don't see why we would have a continuance ever. And I see what's happened is everyone involved sees, oh, they're granting continuances, so they have no sense of urgency. I mean, it's really not a dig against anybody. They're human beings. Human beings do that. They see that the border has expanded, and they go closer to the edge of that new border because it went further out. So it's not a -- you know, it's not really a criticism of anyone -- it's a criticism of us, I guess, that we need to maintain discipline and order and expectations for everybody involved including, you know, our staff and the petitioners. The expectation should be if you're on the schedule, you're on the schedule, period. A bunch of people are lined up, and we need to move forward. And if things didn't go well, then I guess you can plead your case that, you know, you really do need an extension, but that should be only in exceptional circumstances. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I think part of this continuance -- and I'd like to hear from the applicant -- is due to the outcome of the Chokoloskee item last time where it was actually negotiated that the applicant go back, meet with the opposition/homeowners in the area, come back with companion items to get the whole thing through but with their support in hand, and here it appears we probably have some opposition here. And maybe this is the same similar theme? MR. BELLOWS: Exactly. If you will recall, Mr. Davies was here at the last meeting to discuss the Goodland LDC amendment, and he couldn't commit at that time to come in as a companion because he needed to discuss it with his client. He has since discussed that, and they have evaluated the facts and have decided to do what the Chokoloskee LDC amendment was doing 5.C.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 7 of 44 as being a companion item to a conditional use to ensure better public notice. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yeah, I think -- I mean, that seems to be a particular circumstance where there was an appearance and everybody talked about it, and the panel, you know, the Board decided, hey, let's, you know, go ahead, and this seems like a good idea, which is very different than showing up and saying, oh, we want a continuance, you know, without there being -- you know, kind of -- I mean, we've done that before. People don't really have a good reason. It's just they're not ready or so and so isn't available. I think whatever we come up with -- even if we have a policy, we can always -- you know, as a commission, we can go ahead and, you know, say, okay, well, we're going to -- we're going to do this anyways despite our policy. I'm pretty sure -- I know, Mr. Klatzkow, I think we can do that; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it is, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I -- I'm not really speaking to today's request for a continuance. You know, my discussion, you know, previously when I spoke, you know, a few minutes ago, was really in general. And I think we have two discussions here: What are we doing today, and then what are we going to do going forward? Mr. Chairman, if you see it that way, I mean, I think, obviously, if we're going to impose something today and we've been lenient now and we're not going to be, I don't know if that's the right solution, but I certainly think we should put everyone on notice if we're going to have a policy where we don't grant continuances liberally, that we should let everybody know in advance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, I did ask -- I asked you a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you repeat it? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, if you see that we have two issues, we have today and then we have a policy going forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that is one viable way to proceed, and when the time comes for a motion -- and we're probably pretty close to that -- I would entertain that motion. Also, just for my personal perspective, I see these two matters, the combined Santa Barbara thing and the Goodland oyster thing as somewhat different, and they're -- we established a bit of a precedent or an informal precedent when we dealt with Chokoloskee. And right now I'm more disposed to grant that continuance than I would be on the others. But there -- I also see merit to the suggestion that Mr. Klucik has made that if we do grant all the continuances requested today, that we send forth a loud and clear signal that that may not happen next time. And with that, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A question for Ray. So we sat at the last meeting and talked about this. What's changed that all of a sudden at the last minute we have to do -- I'm really hung up on the timing of this stuff. I believe there are reasons why we have continuances, but this last-minute stuff, for me, is just not acceptable. MR. BELLOWS: In regards to the first two items, there was an early notice to the Planning Commission of the continuance, requested continuance. In regards to the timing of the last one, I don't know exactly when that came in. It might have been -- and I might have to defer -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, we're going to ask the applicants to come up and explain, make their case for a continuance. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I could be heard. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 8 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think that the policy -- I think the policy is a great idea. I agree with everything everybody's said, but I think we don't really want to vote on the policy today. So I think we can dispose of the policy issue in short order by requesting that Jeff come up with, maybe in concert with the staff, a proposed policy and just vote on that and then come back with the proposed policy and see if we like it, and then we can move on to the issues of today -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- if that makes sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. County Attorney, is that something that you would consider doing for us? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I would ask for some direction so I know which way to go, but we could certainly go that way, yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I've got some thoughts on that. I think -- I agree with everything, but I don't think having the applicant come in and explain themself is enough, because it still means we're wasting the money, we're wasting the time. I, frankly, don't think a 10-day notice is enough because I don't think the public necessarily going to get notice that it's been continued. I do totally agree with Karl's point. And being a trial lawyer, you know, having everything at the same time is super important. Having the public speak and then two weeks later the applicant comes back and the public's not here, it's just not the same dynamic. Everything should be heard at once. So in terms of direction, I think we need to do more than what my colleagues have said. And, you know, we are quasi judges because we're quasi-judicial, and I think Jeff will agree and all the trial lawyers in the room will agree, what you want with a judge is consistency. If he's a hardass, he's a hardass, or she's a hardass. If they're soft, they're soft. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're referring to the animal, ass. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I am referring to a donkey. Thank you. Correct, I'm referring to a donkey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for pulling me out of that hole. COMMISSIONER FRY: Or perhaps a burrow. COMMISSIONER VERNON: A burrow, a big burrow. Point being, as long as everybody knows the rules and knows we're going to follow the rules, then I think everybody's going to be treated fairly, and I think those rules should be pretty darn strong because of, especially what Jeff said, how this thing has slowed to a crawl because of these continuances. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Agreed. MR. KLATZKOW: I would just note that once upon a time we had an applicant from Bad Ass Coffee and, you know, their logo was a donkey, so you're fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What happened to that? COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just -- I guess my request now would be, before we discuss a policy or direction for County Attorney and staff, that we hear from the applicants, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that would be appropriate as well. And we will -- we will ask for that. Should we -- before we dispose of -- well, we'll see what the applicants have to say. The first applicant I see is represented by Mr. Arnold. Sir, you may proceed with your case. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold representing the applicant for the first two items on your agenda. We did request last week for this item to be continued. After our continuance several weeks ago, we had an impromptu meeting outside the building with some of the neighbors who attended. We agreed to hold another informational meeting, which we held a week and a half ago out at the Golden Gate Community Center with some more of those neighbors. They've asked us 5.C.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 9 of 44 to go back, retool our plan, try to rotate the buildings, do some things that are in addition to what we would -- had proposed. We couldn't have achieved that and had it in your packet in time for today's meeting. So we agreed with them and communicated with them that we were requesting the continuance so that we could continue the dialogue with them and come back with a plan that hopefully is acceptable to them and staff. MR. KLATZKOW: That should have happened before it was advertised. MR. ARNOLD: Well, with all due respect, Jeff, that couldn't, because we didn't have an opportunity post the first neighborhood meeting to know that there was -- MR. KLATZKOW: But you knew you were having -- but you knew you were having another meeting, yet you continued to advertise, and that's the problem, because you sort of -- you're sort of getting it both ways. If the neighborhood information meeting came out well, you'd move forward with it, and if it didn't, you'd ask for a continuance. And, meanwhile, we've got people in the audience here because it was advertised. MR. ARNOLD: I hope you check your speaker slips. I don't believe that anybody has signed up to speak for the Santa Barbara items. I think we've been communicating with them that we needed more time; they wanted us to take more time to come back with a better product. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we'll find out right now. Any members of the public here to speak on the Santa Barbara matter? I see one. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have one registered speaker for that item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, that registered speaker, if she wishes to be heard, will be heard today, or she can be heard if we decide to continue this matter when it's continued. MR. ARNOLD: And we chose the August 5th date in conjunction with staff's schedule, because in two weeks, your staff planner was not available to be at the meeting, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: I must say, I'm not terribly pleased with the fact that counsel for your client is not here, making it, as a practical matter, impossible for you to go forward if the continuance was denied. MR. ARNOLD: I'm prepared to put on our case. I think you'll have a better case if you would allow the continuance to occur so that more of the neighbors who had expressed interest in the project could actually be here in attendance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We would or your client would? MR. ARNOLD: I think we would all benefit from that, honestly, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Wayne, you're asking for a two-week continuance, correct? MR. ARNOLD: No. We're actually asking to go to the August 5th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: August 5th. Is that sufficient time for you to meet with the staff? Because, of course, you're well aware -- I'm not here to debate the merits of the case, but you're well aware of the numerous positions staff has taken, which is obviously going to create a requirement for staff either -- to amend their report based on the accommodations you're making. So is there sufficient time to do all that? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I think that gives us adequate time to do that. Two weeks probably would not be adequate to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, it would not. Two weeks would not. But if we're talking a month away, I mean, that's still you meeting with staff, staff -- and adjudicating with -- MR. MOTLEY: Two months. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two months, okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: August, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: August. Yeah, that should be sufficient time then, because the executive summary and all the other associated documentation, whether you can negotiate with staff some of the objections that they have. MR. ARNOLD: And I will say, Mr. Schmitt, that two of your staff members were present 5.C.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 10 of 44 at our informal informational meeting that we held a couple weeks ago. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MR. BELLOWS: And in regards to this matter, if I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that it may require another official neighborhood information meeting since it's been over a year since the last one was held. We'll verify that and work with the applicant. But if it is over a year, they are required by our LDC to hold another NIM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Arnold, I'm going to ask you a question I think I already know the answer to. But let's say that part of -- if we do come up with a policy and it involves a fee, I guess, for -- if we've advertised the meeting, we're incurring the expense for the meeting, as Attorney Klatzkow said, what are your thoughts on the -- I guess the question is, would you fight such a fee? I mean, I think the whole idea is we want you to be responsible in scheduling these meetings and doing -- and knowing the path you have to take and scheduling the meetings so you can take that path fully without having to continue unless absolutely necessary, and then if you don't take those steps, to respect the county's time and money by paying a fee to make up for it. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Right now -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you answer that, if I may, and with the utmost respect for Secretary and fellow commissioner, whether this applicant would fight our policy or not is wholly irrelevant in my judgment. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm interested in his point of view as an applicant and not that I believe whether they would like it or not is a factor, but I do believe that he might have information as to the reasonableness of whether such a fee would be appropriate. That's why I asked the question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I mean, we can certainly hear from anyone on that, but I would be more inclined to listen to people who do not have a financial interest in the outcome of that discussion. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out, the county does have penalties for a continuance. If the continuance is requested after the petition is advertised, we charge a $500 fee for that late continuance, and if the continuance is requested during the meeting, it's $750. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And those are way low -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- in relation to actual expenses. And so I think when we get to the point of discussing the policy -- and that's the next thing I want to talk about after we act on these continuances -- is to consider what -- the specifics that we would like to have in it so that the County Attorney can know at least what our thinking is on that. So I'm going to ask Mr. Arnold to continue -- well, Commissioner Shea first. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's a separate question. We can finish with Mr. Arnold first. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: And just to conclude, we do request that continuance. That would allow our entire team to be here. I think you're going to get the benefit of us having another sitdown meeting with our neighbors to show them what that can look like. Staff will be participants in those meetings. And as you mentioned, too, Mr. Bellows, the original neighborhood meeting was held sometime in mid August so, technically, there's not another formal neighborhood meeting required before the August date, but there would be required before the BCC date that's scheduled in September. So we do respectfully request a continuance. We were hopefully abiding by your policy 5.C.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 11 of 44 to have gotten this in as soon as we could. We had our neighborhood meeting, and I think the Monday following our meeting we asked for the continuance knowing that we needed more time to work with our neighbors. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: It seems that a factor that you may want to consider for granting or not granting continuances would be the benefit to the public and the establishment of that being put on the applicant to show that versus just a self-serving one that relates strictly to the developer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Any other comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from you, Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. I'll answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. There apparently are no questions. I propose that we -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Ray. So if we had known -- is there a lineup of projects that could have been ready for a hearing today had they -- had we had known early enough that these were going to request continuance? MR. BELLOWS: No items were pushed off this agenda because of the items currently scheduled, so this -- the continuance doesn't matter as to -- MR. KLATZKOW: You wouldn't have had this meeting, okay, for the one -- for the one item. It's as simple as that. You guys got drug in here for no purpose whatsoever, because you wouldn't have had a meeting, you know. It's as simple as that. We would have pushed it off to the next one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Okay. Any other comments, questions? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I have comments, but they're more about the policy. I don't think they're specific to Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I would propose that the Planning Commission take action on this request for a continuance and would entertain -- Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Do you want to hear from the public speaker on this item? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, we're going to hear from the public speakers no matter what -- or public speaker, yeah, absolutely, and that is -- that goes without saying, I think. Somebody came in here; we're going to hear from them. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do we hear before we vote on the continuation? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's up to you. I don't -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, it sounds like some of my colleagues want to, so I defer to them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we want to hear from the public before we take action on the continuance? Because we've got another request for continuance behind this. It would be nice if we could dispose of it. Should we hear from the applicant or the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't -- I question the input of the public based on the decision in front of us right now. I mean, it's too -- it's kind of mutually exclusive, as I see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I was going to suggest that if the public wants to be heard on the merits -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but not on whether we vote yes or no on continuance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think we'll listen to the public, but I think whether we vote yes or no -- I mean, the public certainly can weigh in on it, but it should -- it's a separate decision. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 12 of 44 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Separate process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, without objection -- and if anyone does have an objection, please voice it. But without objection, I'm going to ask the single public speaker to speak first, and then -- and it will be on the merits of the matter, not on whether we should grant a continuance, then we will take up the question of continuance and dispose of this one way or the other today. So -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I have to say this was advertised as a continuance. We've known for over a week. We have one speaker here. We might have had 50 if it had not been continued. I don't see the point of hearing from one speaker when they're going back with more meetings, and the speaker will have ample opportunity to be involved. I'd like -- I'd love to hear their viewpoint; I'm just not sure it's timely today. Two speakers? I yield to my fellow commissioners, but that's my point of view. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's -- I wanted to do this without objection but certainly respect the objector's objection. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if they speak today, will they be allowed to speak again? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's also our decision. MR. KLATZKOW: They should be allowed -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's important because I wouldn't want -- MR. KLATZKOW: They should be allowed to speak again, because we take public comment after the applicant has closed their case. The applicant often has experts and presents, you know, the full case. So to get -- I forget which commissioner said, but -- Commissioner Fry noted this. It's like it's kind of unfair to ask them to talk about it now and not allow them to talk about it later because it's really after the presentation that they would have the full benefit of being able to tell the Planning Commission their feelings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm personally in agreement. Does any Planning Commission object to that approach, we're not going to restrict people who decide to speak today from coming back and speaking to the continued date? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would not object. I agree with what Tom said basically. The public's going to have an opportunity to weigh in on this again. What Mr. Arnold pretty much said is they're trying to modify designs and layout. It will certainly have an impact to the public on what they're going to present when this is heard, if it's heard again. So I would not restrict anybody from giving their thoughts today and coming back again, because it's going to be somewhat different than what we're -- than what's in front of us right now as far as the design, the layout, and everything else. That's at least what Wayne has pretty much stated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice chair, did you want to be heard? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I'm fine either way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: What's -- I mean, I would move -- I'd move that we grant the continuance. Is that what you're looking for? I think Paul's the only one who kind of wanted to hear from the public, and I think he's -- you're okay without it? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm okay with the consensus of -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd move that we grant the continuance, and the main reason is because, in fairness to the applicants and the parties, we really haven't had a tough policy, and I'd rather put a policy in place, let everybody know about it, and be strict about it rather than hammer somebody because we're frustrated. So I would grant -- I would move we grant the continuance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want clarification from the mover and seconder. What about people -- and there are two speakers. What about if one or both of those speakers wanted to be heard today and at the continued date? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm fine with that today -- 5.C.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 13 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- for the same reason, but I do think part of the policy should be how we deal with that, because even though conceptually it's a good idea and it's fair, good for the public, if we had 50 speakers, and they said, okay, we're all going to get together, we get two bites at the apple, it could get organized against the applicant in a way that's unfair to the applicant. So for today, I think we ought to be fairly gracious with everybody in the room, but in the policy, we ought to think that one through. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. What about the order of sequence part of your motion? Is it that we hear from the speaker first and then vote on the continuance? No, it's not. Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just vote on the continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's the second as well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- Commissioner Schmitt? All right. Any further discussion on that? Everybody understand what we're being asked to vote on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it passes unanimously, and it's been continued to a date certain. MR. ARNOLD: August 5. CHAIRMAN FRYER: August 5th. Was that part of your motion and second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Does everybody understand that it's a continuance to a date certain, August 5? MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the consensus of the Planning Commission, then. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I just have a theoretical question. So I understand we have petitioners, and they moved the ball, but would we -- you know, if we're going to have a continuance policy, then I would also think that if you have people that are invested in, you know, speaking, and they also have a reason where they could ask for a continuance because -- you know, let's say you have a primary speaker who's ready to speak on behalf of a civic organization that's affected, and they have a death in the family and they have to fly to Hawaii that week, you know, are we going to grant a continuance so that -- you know, I guess what I'm saying is I think that if we're going to do this, we need to make sure that it's fair, because I've been a little guy in front of this panel and in front of the County Commissions. I've been, you know, the David in front of the Goliath, and it's intimidating to begin with, but then we have, you know, those kind of circumstances where you might actually have something really important to contribute to the discussion and to the Commission's decision, and then you're not able to for circumstances that, you know, that you can't control, and I just want to make sure that we consider that when we're 5.C.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 14 of 44 coming up with our policy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think that's a good idea, and we will discuss suggestions for a policy today so that Mr. Klatzkow is informed of at least how we -- if we can arrive at a consensus on some specific bullet points. All right. So -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Are you surprised that I was intimidated? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just wondering. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So what we're going to do now is we're going to hear -- if the two registered speakers on PL20200000385 and PL20200000386, which is the GMPA and the CPUD, if those speakers would like to be heard today without prejudice to their privilege of being heard when this matter is continued to August 5th, they may be heard. So who do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our first speaker is Susan Salzmann, followed by Barbara Kanter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. SALZMANN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, ma'am. You have the floor. MS. SALZMANN: My name is Susan Salzmann, and I currently reside right next to the proposed property that wants to be redeveloped to a RaceTrac. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you pull the microphone down. Thank you. MS. SALZMANN: Sorry. I guess what I came here today for is because even though we've had this neighborhood meeting and whatnot, I feel that by -- rezoning this piece of property is not only a detriment to me and my lifestyle -- I've lived there for 25 years. My children have gone to the school that's right next to it, and -- but my biggest thing that I feel is that it's been zoned residential for a reason. And with all the new growth and development and everything else that's going on in Golden Gate, in Golden Gate City, I really feel that this is not necessary. And with all the things that were going on, I was trying to get some of our neighbors involved in this, and there's quite a few of us that aren't interested in seeing this rezoned. It is the only one corner in that area that is still residential. And the biggest thing, if nothing else, I feel it's a safety issue. Like I said, I'm the last house before you get to Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, and there isn't a day that I don't start slowing my car down a block ahead of time just so I can get in my driveway without getting ran into. And now we're talking about putting a gas station that's going to bring in how much of the public off of Exit 105 off of 75, and it's just going to bring that much more traffic to that area. We have a school that's already next to it. And I just feel that it's not appropriate, for one thing, to have a gas station that sells, you know, liquor and cigarettes and whatever. It's a convenience. That's all it is is a convenience for this company to come in and make money, but it's a safety issue. You're bringing in traffic and cars. And, I mean, this is a community that already has problems with that. You go from a six-lane to a four-lane to go into Golden Gate City. There's a lot of options here. Not to mention, when Golden Gate was developed, when they widened the roads to six lanes where we're at, they put public water on the one side, but we're on well. So you're going to put in gas tanks. And I realize they're going to be a ways away, but I'm still on a well system and most of my neighbors are, too, so you also have that hazard that could possibly happen. I mean, pray to God it never does, but you don't know. Not to mention what comes with a gas station. You've got lights. You've got high traffic volume. You've got -- you know, of course people are attracted to it. It's not going to be 5.C.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 15 of 44 something in the afternoon they're going to show up. They're coming in in the morning to get their cup of coffee and do what they're going to do for the day, and then how do you get back on 75? You either have to go into Golden Gate City or go down Santa Barbara, whip across three lanes, make a U-turn to head back. It's just -- safety is the biggest thing, if nothing else, not to mention what it will do to my property value and the other people that live around me. And once you start one, then, you know, people are going to go, well, what's next? And I really don't want to see another -- I mean, I know this is really extensive, but another Pine Ridge Road. We all know what that traffic can be like, and just getting in and out off of the interstate is just -- you're just bringing in more that's not necessary. Plus we have a new development that's going to be done, if I believe, right, by the County Commissioners right on 951 and Golden Gate Parkway, and they're talking about growing that into multifamily units? And what else? There's golfing and whatever else might be affiliated, and they're going to bring in more traffic. And I just see it's going to be just an issue that's not necessary for our little area. Keep it as our neighborhood that it was already zoned for. I know Mr. DeSalle (phonetic), that has passed, fought over 25 years ago to keep it residential for that reason. And we don't need another gas station or a multiunit housing or whatever on that corner. There's already enough housing and developments. We got a gas station a mile in each direction. What do we need another one for, and to take away from the people that already have their businesses and, you know, take away business from them? But that's how I feel about it, and that's why I was here today. I understand, you know, they were going to continue and, yeah, we came up with some different ideas, but the more I think about it, this is livelihood. This is where I've lived. And I just can't see this any way, what is it convenient for me? I'm going to have the lights, the noise, the traffic, the potential of someone getting hurt or even killed. You've got children that are going to school. You've got one entrance in on Golden Gate Parkway and one on Santa Barbara, and you're right next to a school. It just -- it doesn't make any sense to me. So that's why I'm coming to you, to please hear us out and really look into this when this matter comes evolved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Ma'am, I just want to -- right here. Hi. MS. SALZMANN: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just want to -- I'm looking at the satellite. I just want to clarify where you live. I see to the east -- I'm sorry -- to the west of this parcel -- MS. SALZMANN: West. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- there are two homes. Are you one of those two? MS. SALZMANN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: The first one, the closest? MS. SALZMANN: We're the closest. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're the closest, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just want to thank you for coming out, and hopefully we will see you on the 5th. MS. SALZMANN: You will. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Salzmann. MS. SALZMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next registered speaker is Barbara Kanter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: And she will be our final registered speaker on this item. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 16 of 44 MS. KANTER: Hi. My name is B.B. Kanter, and I'm a retired planner, which kind of -- I know. We have to talk about our conflict of interest first, right? And also, I'm from Pelican Bay, so I'm not immediately -- directly affected by this development, although I did drive past it a lot because I went to the old and new semitropical Tree Farm, which is adjacent to the site or across the street from the site. I've been following what -- the reason I'm here is I've been following politics very closely since I first started -- my husband first started remoting in Naples seven years ago, and what I've noticed that disturbs me the most -- remember, I have a conflict of interest -- is that the commissioners seem to ignore what the Planning Department and the community wants. In this case -- and I don't always agree with what the Planning Department wants and what the community wants. I am very highly opinionated, and if people know me here, they know that I often take a third position. But, in general, when I hear that the Planning Commission and the neighborhood wants the same thing, I go for it. Excuse me. Not the Planning Commission. The Planning Department and the neighborhood both want the same thing, I really go for it, and I think the commissioners need to listen to that. The other thing I agreed with that I heard today was what the attorney said. I can barely keep track of what's going on. We never heard from the neighborhood about what they thought about the continuance. All we heard about is why the continuance is good for the applicant. I don't understand what's going on. So I am coming back August 9th [sic]. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Make that the 5th. MS. KANTER: Fifth, excuse me. Fifth. What day -- that's a Tuesday or Thursday? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thursday. MS. KANTER: You're always Thursday. The commissioners have taken Tuesday. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh. MS. KANTER: And how does this continuance serve the people in the neighborhood or the Planning Department? I don't get it. I am so confused. All I know about is why it's good for the, you know, applicant. Could somebody answer that question to me -- for me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I thought it was going to be a rhetorical question, but I will try to answer it. MS. KANTER: Well, it is rhetorical, but if you're allowed to answer, I'd really like to know how this continuance has benefited anyone but the developer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think -- I think what you heard certainly -- MS. KANTER: Should I stay or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure, go ahead. What you heard this morning was expressions of serious disagreement and concern on the part of the members of the Planning Commission that we're going to allow this to continue forward. And, personally, I was very unhappy when I observed that counsel for the applicant is not even present. But the fact of the matter is, is that people had expectations as to what we were going to do. I think by making the public record as we have today, we have seriously challenged those expectations on the part of the development community. And we are going to, with the leadership of the County Attorney, craft a recommended policy that is going to -- that is going to be applicable going forward, and we're simply not going to entertain these the way we have in the past. MS. KANTER: Am I allowed to speak on that topic? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, quickly, quickly, if you can. MS. KANTER: Okay. So I think that if the developer wants to ask for a continuance and a continuance and continuance, there has to be agreement with the community to ask for the continuance and the continuance and the continuance, because we don't have -- you know, we're not on a ticker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Unfortunately, the way the system is structured, the public -- members of the public are not parties to the proceeding. MS. KANTER: I know. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 17 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly, we want to hear from the public, but they are not parties. MS. KANTER: Could you try to get input? Because the developer -- I mean, just in this case, the developer's claiming he's reaching a consensus with the community and with an alternative, but from what I heard, Ms. Salzmann, who really -- I'm under the impression is the leader of the group, she's saying they're not reaching any consensus, and they haven't changed their mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me respond to that, if I may. I am going to want to know in significant detail the extent, if any, to which this applicant makes concessions, because that's the justification for the continuance, that they're going to try to satisfy the community in a material way, and I'm going to look for that to happen. And if it doesn't, I'm going to be heard complaining about that. And, certainly, when we have our policy in place, we will definitely, I expect, be granting much, much fewer continuances. That's my sense of the feeling of the fellow planning commissioners. MS. KANTER: And this is really a very -- remember I said I often go in a third direction. The reason I'm so active is that I see the community being outpowered by the big guns. And I feel like if the big guns are going to ask for continuance, continuance, continuance, maybe they should provide professional -- just like you know there's Legal Aid lawyers. Maybe they should pay for the community to have a professional consult, because I heard them saying things which were not true, and the community doesn't have the background to argue with them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your point is noted. It's an expense item. It would have to be a policy decision -- MS. KANTER: No, but I'm saying the developer should pay for it, because the community can't defend itself against a bunch of hired suits. MR. KLATZKOW: That's just a bridge too far. MS. KANTER: What? MR. KLATZKOW: That's a bridge too far. We could not oppose that. MS. KANTER: And it's not that subject. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. But thank you for your comments, ma'am. We appreciate it. MS. KANTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. No more register speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any people in the room who have not registered but wish to be heard on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we will then put the matter in recess and ask -- let me get my material up here so that I can call the right thing. Bear with me one second. All right. This is -- this is going to be PL20200001481, the Goodland GZO conditional-use proposal. And for the presentation on the request for continuance, the Chair recognizes counsel for the applicant, Mr. Davies. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. Noel Davies on behalf of the applicant for this item. At your last meeting, this commission suggested that my client on this item consider filing a conditional-use application and having that application heard as a companion item with the pending LDC amendment application at some indefinite later date in the future. At that time, at your lasting meeting, as was mentioned, I did not have authority from my client to agree to that request from you-all. I believe I did mention at the time that it was a possibility that if anything changed, I would certainly let the county know. Since then, after due consideration by my client, we are agreeable to that request, and with your indulgence, Commissioners, would seek your approval today to allow us to be heard at some indefinite date in 5.C.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 18 of 44 the future such that both the LDC amendment and the future conditional-use application would at the same time like was done last meeting per your unanimous vote for the Chokoloskee LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Davies, there is a substantial contingent of, I believe, residents of Goodland who are here. I have never been in a meeting where there was a substantial -- contingent this large to speak in favor of an application. So as our Chairman -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There are more people in another room upstairs. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. As our Chairman mentioned, when the previous application comes back, he'll be looking for material evidence that they moved the ball with respect to gaining consensus of the neighbors, and may we expect the same effort on your part and the same presentation of tangible evidence of working for a consensus with the folks that are here? MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir, 100 percent. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: If I may, Mr. Chairman, if I could finish my presentation on the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. DAVIES: I would -- thank you. So with respect to providing the bases for the request, I do believe there are several. First -- and some of this was mentioned in your earlier discussion -- the LDC amendment technically does not require a neighborhood information meeting. One was not held, and we believe that is particularly important here, especially because of the presence of the community here today. A NIM is required under your Land Development Code for the conditional-use application. We believe that a number of items could be clarified through that NIM, including the precise details of the conditional-use application, which are not in front of you today. Having both applications heard at the same time would also take a two-step public hearing process, combine that into one, creating more efficiency and also allowing the ample opportunity to engage with the community, which my client is certainly committed to. Applicant recognizes that this would result in a significant delay, likely a few months. We think this would be the best next step going forward. With respect to those that are here today, we certainly appreciate that, that they want to address you today. We, for the record, have no objection to them addressing you today and would further have no objection to them speaking at a subsequent hearing on the companion items. I have conferred at length with your staff and let your staff know as soon as I had the authority from my client, which I believe was on Tuesday, to let them know about the request for continuance. I believe they are in support of that, but I will let them address you with respect to that point separately. With that, I do appreciate your time, Chairman and Commissioners, and I'm happy to answer any questions with respect to the request for continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt, you look like you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any commissioners have questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'll just add my words. I think this is a different situation than the previous one. I'm more inclined to grant the continuance in keeping with the approach that we took with Chokoloskee but, of course, similarly, we want all speakers who here -- are here today because they thought this was going to be heard on the merits. Anyone who wants to speak today will be heard, and you will not be prejudiced with respect to your ability to speak a second time if you wish when this is heard on the merits. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 19 of 44 Anybody want to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd be more inclined to hear this one than wait. It's on the agenda. We just found out about it today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. What do others think? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You have all kinds of people here waiting to speak. They've been -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to allow them to speak no matter what. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree with the continuance only because of the issue involving the conditional use. I mean, they're going to -- Noel, you said, basically, you're going to have the LDC amendment and the conditional use. If we vote on the LDC amendment, it makes the conditional use -- it could possibly make the conditional use a moot point if we deny the LDC amendment; is that correct? MR. DAVIES: Correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's my point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, why bother if -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The issue could be -- as they said, make it a moot point in regards to hearing the conditional use, but the applicant certainly can proceed with the conditional use and go through that process. What are we talking about, then? You've got to go through the entire advertisement -- application advertisement. It could be six months from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There will be a NIM. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, and he has to have a NIM. MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. So contextually at your last meeting, this was discussed in detail with respect to the Chokoloskee LDC amendment, and my recollection of that discussion was such that because of the request for a conditional use being added to your LDC, that there would be efficiency -- efficiency improvements but also a more holistic approach of what the proposal would include, and that was the thinking behind requesting that applicant and then moving unanimously to continue them to do those items together. And at that time -- had I had the authority from my client at that time that I do now, I would have consented at that time at this podium. I did not have that authority. As soon as I obtained it, I let the county know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So to Mr. Davies' presentation and to -- I think Mr. Eastman said a mouthful when he said we need to weigh this from the standpoint of the benefit to the public, and I look at there being an absolute benefit to the public in this case because of the nature of the extenuating circumstance. As an LDC amendment, it did not require the engagement with the neighborhood. We have all these folks here, and you have not had an opportunity to engage them. You may or may not be successful in that engagement. But as I see it, you're committing to expenditures, advertising, a NIM, and when you come back with that conditional use and we see a room this full of people speaking against it, you know, you're going to have a tall hill to climb, right? Your job between now and then is to either come back with compelling reasons why we should approve it without their support or to come back in with at least some support from the neighborhood. So I believe it is in the public's best interest for this. In fact, I believe the folks that are here to speak, they haven't had the benefit of what they should have, which is an engagement with you, which was not required by the process. So I would be in support of a continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Others wish to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I guess I'll weigh in just so everybody knows where everybody's coming from. I think I'd be inclined to grant the continuance for the same reasons I granted the -- or moved to grant the continuance with Mr. Arnold's application -- or application on which he's representing them. I just feel like, you know, what Mr. Davies did was he said, I'm going to do this. He did 5.C.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 20 of 44 this, and he's back doing what he said, and I don't like the idea of punishing the applicant because we're all of a sudden switching gears and we're frustrated. I don't want to see this happen anymore, but I don't feel like being punitive is the way to handle it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other commissioners wish to be heard? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: My problem is there's no -- there's only one item submitted here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, the CU. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you're continuing for them to add another petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's not the same case with the one we just had. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I suppose that's right. I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Fry that -- on the issue of public benefit. In addition to hearing from the neighbors today, there will be a NIM, and we -- most of us, I think, listen to those NIM recordings. I know I do and others -- some others do. So we're going to be very fully informed as to exactly what is being requested more so, I think, than we are now and have a fuller picture. Just my personal opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I would agree. I'm not happy with the continuance, but I would agree. It's too -- as Karl said, there is a public benefit to this. And, of course, then the applicant has the opportunity to certainly hear what the neighbors say, and at that time they may even choose not even to bring it forward. So that's -- that's between you and your client and the community when you -- when you present to them the plan and they present to you their views and feelings, which I sense, as Karl did, that these are -- they're all here to support your petition; is that correct? No? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Not a single one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anyone else want to be heard? If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion we continue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: As long as we're going to hear every speaker today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we are. We absolutely are. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, yeah. 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Davies. MR. DAVIES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now it's time for us to hear the members of the public on the Goodland -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like -- 5.C.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 21 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: -- to clarify. This is -- the continuance is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sine die. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, but with the intent that he comes back as a companion item with the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It will be continued indefinitely, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's readvertisement, the entire aspect of a conditional use. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that the motion was that he come back with the conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good clarification, and also that it was indefinite. Okay. Do we have public speakers registered? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have nine registered speakers in person, and we also have one online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our first registered speaker is going to be Dr. Greg Bellow, followed by Tara O'Neill. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. DR. BELLOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you please repeat your name. I didn't get it. DR. BELLOW: Dr. Greg Bellow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bellow? DR. BELLOW: President of the Goodland Civic Association. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you're speaking on behalf of the association? DR. BELLOW: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. DR. BELLOW: I've been president approximately nine years; know pretty much most of the Goodlanders pretty well. We're here for the reasons of protecting our little community. Ray Bellows, who's a very good friend of ours -- Ray, you remember when we put this thing together? MR. BELLOWS: I sure do. DR. BELLOW: Okay. Do you remember how much work we put behind us to protect us? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. DR. BELLOW: We put the Goodland zoning together. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have a zoning overlay as a result of numerous meetings down in Goodland to come up with an overlay that provides for the fishing village atmosphere that they wanted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Doctor, I'm going to ask you to address us. DR. BELLOW: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. DR. BELLOW: I just felt the need to say hello to Ray. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I feel that way sometimes, too, but not often. COMMISSIONER FRY: Once every two weeks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. DR. BELLOW: The reason you're having such a huge turnout is because there's a huge opposition. This Goodland as -- did you all receive my e-mail by chance? Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. DR. BELLOW: Goodland -- have you all been to Goodland? 5.C.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 22 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have. DR. BELLOW: Okay. Goodland is a residential community. We have 29 commercially zoned properties on Goodland. The rest are residential. They're either village residential, village residential condominium, or village residential trailer. So it's a predominantly residential community. It's a community that's unique in that it has received the allowance of golf carts to be driven legally on our roads. I believe we're the only -- maybe one other community has had the approval by the Board of Collier County Commissioners to legally have golf carts on our roads for transportation without the need for registration and normal DMV requirements. We have no sidewalks in Goodland. Our roads are typically narrow. People walk -- go out for walks; they walk on the road. It's very, very residential. The property that is in question here is a residentially zoned piece of property. It's surrounded by homes on both sides, completely residential. No commercial zoning on that -- on that portion of the road. There's other neighborhood lots that are vacant right now that are also zoned residential; one directly across the street from my house, a bunch of them, you know, throughout the island. This zoning overlay was put in place with the help of Ray Bellows, and it was put in place to protect Goodland from developers coming in, doing things that were going to be monetarily profitable for them at the expense of this community. We are not interested in that. If this was a zoned commercial lot, we wouldn't be here. We would be home welcoming -- welcoming them to Goodland. This is not that. This is a residential lot that is going to change the life of the people surrounding it. To even be considered is disgusting. It's something that doesn't make any sense, and that's why I'm glad Ray's here, because Ray was one of our soldiers who allowed us to protect ourselves. How many communities go through the effort to create a zoning overlay for themselves? Because we have a reason to. Goodland is very vulnerable. We put out a petition -- and just to give you a two-second point here. We put out a petition to the Goodlanders to freely sign if they were opposing this act. There's approximately -- there's roughly 500 residents if you could count everybody on Goodland during -- you know, if you brought everybody to Goodland, there would be about 500 residents. This is the off-season. Half of our residents are up in Michigan and somewhere else. The petition we sent out, we have 243 signatures we got in the last five days; 243 residents said no, we're not interested. We want you guys to consider something. This is a tiny community that's constantly being approached by developers for their own gain. And we are lovers of our community. We treat Goodland likes it's our child. That's why we're here, because we care. We need you guys to consider that, and we need -- we need seven votes when the time comes. I don't know if I'll be able to be at that next meeting. I hope I will, because I want to speak again. But you guys have got to know this is how passionate we are, and we need seven nos, because we need to go to the commissioners and do this over again, because they're not going to stop with you guys. They're going to keep going. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Tara O'Neill, followed by Dr. James Seegers. MS. O'NIELL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning. MS. O'NIELL: My name is Tara O'Neill. I actually grew up on Marco Island but for the past 25 years have been a year-round resident and homeowner in Goodland. I would like to thank the Commission for the work you do for small villages like ours. You are all we have between ourselves and our demise. That's a lot on your shoulders, and I appreciate your work. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 23 of 44 Goodland's existing overlay was established by a community majority to protect our village neighborhoods. A quick aside, the late Nancy Olson, former regional director of parks and rec, that included Goodland, maintained that Goodland had more historic structures per square mile than any other community in Collier County. And I maintain that little villages like ours can and do die the death of a thousand cuts when you start snipping away at the existing rules. We worked really hard on that overlay, all of us as a community coming together. I think that's a rarity and a precious thing. But if you start making these changes, it is how we lose our history, our way of life, and our quality of life. I oppose any changes to our hard-won overlay that is not a benefit to the entire community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: The next speaker is Dr. James Seegers, followed by Jim Inglis. DR. SEEGERS: Mr. Fryer and members of the committee, thank you. I'm Jim Seegers, and I'm going to hold my -- some of my comments. I would just like to say this: Many of us have read the 47 pages that are due today. No one from the community has recommended or suggested or wished for a continuance. This is entirely on the side of the opposition. The Goodland strong community is here today, and they're loaded for bear. They aren't just here. They're upstairs. And that term came about when we came together when the hurricane hit back in -- let's see. That was 2017. This is an advantage to the applicant. We are ready. I'm going to hold the rest of my comments, because this is just the tip of the iceberg, and it's a very large iceberg. And I'd like to save my comments for that meeting. Could we have ample notice? Some of us have traveled thousands of miles to be here. It's important that we have ample notice, if it pleases you folks. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Jim Inglis, followed by Mike Barbush. MR. INGLIS: Good morning. My name is Jim Inglis. I've had a home in Goodland for 51 years, and I'm speaking today because our community opposes having a conditional use added to the Goodland Zoning Overlay based on one person's request. The overlay was developed by the community, and if there's changes needed to the overlay, the community should be making that request and putting the facts together and deciding what to do and, specifically, the one that's being suggested now would never get approved by the community of Goodland. Goodland is mostly a residential community. There's 360 properties out of 397 that are residential. That's 90 percent of the properties are residential. Residential sections in Goodland have roads that are narrow. There's no sidewalks. We're a golf cart community. We have a playground for the children in the community. We all like to walk our pets out on the streets within our community. And if somebody wants to add a commercial business to Goodland, we have 29 properties that are commercially zoned, and I think they should be talking to those places, if that's what their interest is. So to summarize, I've been here 51 years. I'm the treasurer of the Goodland Civic Association. Two hundred forty-four people in Goodland have signed a petition saying we don't want to make this change, and so I would ask you to please not approve a conditional change to the Goodland Zoning Overlay, because that change affects every property in Goodland. It overlays everything. So please help us stay residential, and don't make this change. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Mike Barbush, followed by Edward Fullmer. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 24 of 44 MR. BARBUSH: Good morning. My name is Mike Barbush. I'm a 41-year resident of Goodland. I'm currently the vice president but have been president in the past a number of, number of years. I'm going to echo some of the things, and I'll be brief here. We did the overlay originally because a lot of our lots were nonconforming in Goodland. The original impetus for the overlay was to get everybody nonconforming so if we had an Irma hit us we could rebuild exactly what we had. Unfortunately, after Irma, FEMA steps in, and we've got some conditions or whatever. But the original impetus was to get all of our lots conforming, because a lot of them were nonconforming. That morphed into having crab traps in our yard, having a motor home in your front yard, and everything that makes Goodland Goodland. Fifty-one percent of the homeowners in Goodland agreed to this. Now, you can take three people outside and ask them what color the sky is, and you're going to get three different answers. And as Jim said, for one person to crack into our overlay -- which is something that we value greatly not only because of the property values there, but it's our lifestyle. And we -- I seriously think that if we break this, we're going to have -- all of our residential lots are affected, and I oppose this. And I'm sure we can have meetings with the applicant and all that sort of thing. Maybe we need to have a Collier County sheriff at these meetings. We will -- we will do our part. We've been through this. I personally have been through this several times. The boat park, you know, Margood. I mean, there's numerous, numerous things that we worked with the county. You-all just gave us two -- almost $2 million to do our road. We are with you-all, but you can see from everybody here and everybody that's upstairs that we are unified, and we do not want this project to proceed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Edward Fullmer, followed by Seton Motley. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. FULLMER: Hey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Hey, how are you? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did the court reporter get one? Can you provide one to the court reporter, please, sir. Please proceed, Mr. Fullmer. MR. FULLMER: First of all, I'm going to say good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the planning board. Everybody is new here except Joe Schmitt and Ray Bellows to me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is your first time at the podium, right? MR. FULLMER: No. It's got my name written here. First of all, I'd like to say, Goodlanders, hold your hands up. As you see, we're up here because -- I was president back when we did this. Let me read my speech, and I have a few other comments. My name is Ed Fullmer. I'm a 23-year-old resident of Goodland. Take this off. I was a member of the Board of Directors of the Goodland Civic Association for many years and president of the association during the time that our zoning overlay was created. The history of the Goodland Zoning Overlay District, the GZOD, in the late 1980s and '90s, Marco Islanders voted six times to incorporate the city, the island as a city. It wasn't until the area of Goodland was drawn outside the proposal incorporation area and fewer nay votes. There were enough votes that finally was in favor of the incorporation in August of 1997. That win was only by 181 votes. And with that, again, lost if Goodland hadn't voted. We had 300 votes six times to keep it not a city. As Goodland retained [sic] our governance of Collier County Commissioners, Goodland 5.C.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 25 of 44 was offered the opportunity to create a zoning overlay for our small area. Marco also offered us an overlay to join them with annexation, and we refused -- I was president then -- as our land uses are unique to other areas of the Collier County, Ray Bellows of the planning board spearheaded the project. Committees were created, meetings held, questionnaires, surveys, voting by property owners and residents, taking well over a year, yielding the Goodland Zoning District Overlay next -- not to be changed, not to be changed, not by the planning board or this private petitioner, not only by the votes of the property owners -- for the voters of Goodland to change it. Now, Chokoloskee does not have an overlay. Copeland does not have an overlay. Immokalee does not have an overlay, but we have our overlay. In 20 years, nobody has tried to change it until this one gentleman that's trying to change it. And I know for a fact -- you can see the people here today and the 244 petitions that were made in five days -- that we are completely opposed to it. We are the only ones that can change our zoning. I don't want to be offensive to you, but I was president then. Mike was my vice president, Ray Bellows was my treasurer. So we fought to keep antimonium [sic] out of there. We fought to keep stackage [sic] out of there, and we kept the developers out of our community. We want to keep this operation out of our community. It's zoned residential. And you can change all the residential you want in Collier County, but you can't change ours unless we vote for it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Before we take our next speaker, I want to acknowledge that it's almost 25 minutes after 10:00. After this next speaker, we will take our midmorning break. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Seton Motley. MR. MOTLEY: I'm cool with it. You're fine. I have an immune system. Thanks. Seton Motley. I appreciate you guys doing this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me. Would you mind spelling your name, sir. MR. MOTLEY: Oh, yeah. My parents named me that and wonder why I was a musician. S-e-t-o-n. Motley, like the bad '80s metal band, M-o-t-l-e-y. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Motley. Thank you. MR. MOTLEY: I wanted to speak for a couple reasons. One of them is, as you can see, I'm a little younger than most of the residents of Goodland. I bought into Goodland -- a couple years, couple years. I bought into Goodland in part because of this overlay. I wanted this. I moved -- I bought my house in 2017. I haven't been there forever. Bought it in 2017. I'm going to tell you my brief odyssey in Goodland. I think most of the people know it even if they don't know me yet. I bought the house in February 2017. Lived there three months, moved back to Maryland, went back to Maryland, did $60,000 worth of renovations. The house was then flooded and destroyed by Irma. I then built an entirely new house. I intentionally built it with stucco to match the old stucco of the old house. So I put probably a million bucks into this house in Goodland. It is now three lots down from this proposed gas station. I am vociferously opposed to this. He came to me four months ago, pitched it to me, and I told him he could stick it. He didn't talk to anybody in the community about this. He tried to sneak this through. We had a meeting last week. The entire community was -- anyone that wasn't living in Michigan or New York and New Jersey was in that room. He didn't come to the meeting. He's made no outreach. He tried to sneak this through. So there's no -- there's been no outreach to the community, any the reason he hasn't done any outreach is because he knows we're all unanimously opposed to this. I wouldn't say unanimously. There's one guy who's holding out that I know of, but... But this is a terrible idea. This overlay exists for a reason. There are people like me who 5.C.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 26 of 44 will want to buy into the community, just as I did, because of this overlay. As he points out, no one can change it. I did a lot of research, but I bought this house. The point of the overlay was only the people of Goodland can change it. And to have this one person come in and want to open a gas station for boats when we already, by the way, have two gas stations on Goodland, which is the size of a postage stamp. We don't need a third gas station. I just refer to a gas station; it's a marina. You know what I mean. There's no need for this. There's no desire for it. And it shouldn't happen. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. And we will now -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, let's refrain from that, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. Go ahead, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Speakers have said that this can't go through without their approval. Counsel, is that true? Or why are we hearing it if that's the case? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not the case. MR. KLATZKOW: That's more of a hope than it is a reality. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments before we go in recess? All right, we'll be in recess for 12 minutes until 10:40. (A brief recess was had from 10:28 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. Mr. Youngblood. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have three more speakers for this item. Our next speaker is going to be Jessica Thomas, followed by Ray Bozicnik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Thomas, you have -- do we have a quorum? Now we do. You have the floor. MS. THOMAS: I do? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. THOMAS: Good morning, and thank you all for the opportunity to speak today. Hello. I haven't seen you in a long time. I am a Collier County native with family roots going back to the early pioneering families of the 1800s. My family were commercial fishermen and boat builders, and I spent many a Christmas break helping my grandfather during mullet season. I know what a commercial fishing operation looks like, smells like, sounds like. It is not something that you want next door to your home. I mean, if you think about it, there are ice machines that run 24/7 and drop ice, bang, boom, all that kind of noise. Boats starting up before the crack of dawn. I mean, this is not what you want to live next door. For the record, I'm fairly new to living on Goodland. I purchased my house -- excuse me. Catch my breath -- in 2017, but I've known Goodland my entire life, and it is not what is being described in the staff report. It is a residential community where we enjoy our water access, quiet streets, and peaceful enjoyment of our community. A commercial operation for processing oysters and shellfish and the wholesale and retail of the same would require commercial traffic on a small residential street, lots of it. And I can tell you, I go down that street in my golf cart. I have a hard time navigating the street on my golf cart just turning around on that street, so I can't imagine how commercial traffic will, you know, go on that street. I also notice in the application that it is for an ecotour business and retail sales. And it's my opinion that that is nothing more than a false flag. The oyster part of it is nothing more than a false flag. It doesn't make economic sense that you can develop that property at the cost of the property and the revenue that would be generated from a small oyster farming business to support 5.C.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 27 of 44 all of that. So I think the oyster farming is the false flag to get you all to approve this change. And it's really about running a fueling dock, a retail business of which we don't need on the island, and the ecotour business, and rent paddleboards, excuse me. Yeah, yeah. So this whole idea of claiming to educate about oyster farming and taking tourists to see a bunch of floating jugs with oyster bags, nobody really wants to do that. I really think what they are intending to do is that retail and ecotour business. And, personally, I don't think we need any more of those on Goodland. We have several that are operating out of our boat ramp right now. And some of them are really good operators and do what they're supposed to do, but others of them, there's nothing about an ecotour business going on whatsoever. They are chasing dolphin to get them to jump in their wake, and they're just bringing hordes and hordes of tourists to pick shells. I mean, that's basically what it is, and they're making a lot of money doing it. They're doing it out of the boat ramp. So for this operation, where does he intend to park the people that are going to be taking the ecotours or renting his paddleboards and all of that on this small residential street? Our boat ramp parking facility is already jammed to the gills with the businesses that are running out of the boat park. There is frequently no place to pull in with your vehicle and boat trailer to launch your boat because the parking spaces are all taken by people on these ecotours. So, I mean, that really impacts us. The staff report confirms that there are adequate parcels on Goodland that would meet the .25 acres requirement. So if this amendment is approved, any waterfront property or combination of lots that would equal .25 acres or more could be used for commercial oyster harvesting, ecotour retail business. I don't want to live next door to that. They don't belong on our residential streets. This would really devalue our property and disrupt our peaceful enjoyment. The existing commercial property on Goodland, if you think about it -- you've all said you've been there. Starting at Stan's and going all the way around to the Crabby Lady has long been established and accepted by the community, enjoyed by the community, some of it going back to the 1940s. So anyone that bought adjacent to any of those existing properties knew what they were buying when they purchased a home. The rest of us that have all purchased our homes did so without any commercial property next to us. So to try and change that on us now is completely unacceptable. I don't believe this amendment is in the best interest of Goodland or the future of the island, and permitting commercial and retail operations on residential streets is not the way forward. I ask that you carefully consider the impact this amendment would bring to residential property owners and our way of life on Goodland, and I ask that it be denied. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. MS. THOMAS: Thank you for your time today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You mentioned the ecotours out of the boat park. That's the county -- MS. THOMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- park? Okay. Because now, just for clarity, was there concerns from the Goodlanders about the ecotours running out of the park? MS. THOMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because my understanding, there's really no prohibition against it, but there is a concern because it's public parking but, yet, the ecotour, the boats pull up, take customers, and take them out. MS. THOMAS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But as far as you know, or is there -- as far as I know, 5.C.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 28 of 44 there's no prohibition against that. Is that in violation of the overlay? I don't -- I didn't think it would be. MS. THOMAS: I don't like it, but I don't think it's in violation of anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, sir. We can't have people in the audience speaking up. MS. THOMAS: Two different issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but you talked about -- you brought it up in your comments about ecotours out of the park. MS. THOMAS: Yeah. I mean, I really think that this oyster farming operation is the vehicle to get -- you know, is the wedge to get in to change the amendment to accommodate commercial businesses like this. I don't think anybody can make money off of an oyster farming business. I don't think there's any commercial market for that. Like I said, I'm a native of Collier County. I wouldn't eat oysters out of that water. It's too hot. Would any of you? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, please. MS. THOMAS: No. It's a false flag. It's about having a retail business, an ecotour business, a paddleboard business, in a residential community on a residential street. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. THOMAS: And the oyster farming is just the, oh, the state wants -- likes this and, you know, so therefore we should do this because aquaculture is a good thing. I don't deny aquaculture is a good thing. It just doesn't belong on my residential street. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Ray Bozicnik, followed by our online speaker, Scott Kellett. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is the gentleman in the room, please? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. We'll go with the online then, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our online speaker is Scott Kellett. Mr. Kellett, are you with us? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Kellett? MR. KELLETT: I am. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Please proceed, sir. MR. KELLETT: Good morning. Yes, sir, thank you. Good morning, and thank you to the Commission. My name is Scott Kellett. My wife and children moved to Goodland in 2009, and we have owned properties there ever since. We moved there with the expectation and the protection of the Goodland Overlay specifically having a reasonable expectation of quiet enjoyment in our residential neighborhoods and where you're surrounded by homes that are either multifamily or single-family residential. You never in your life would think you would wake up with the idea that at some time in the future, because of a change in the overlay, you have created a -- or the Commission would have created commercial lots where none were envisioned simply because they were over 2.5 [sic] acres or collectively 2.5 acres and adjacent to the water, and all of a sudden you would afford them the ability to run two ecotour -- air quotes, "ecotour" -- boats out of the property that is otherwise residential and having all the requisite traffic, noise, et cetera, that's been discussed simply by virtue of an overlay change. The change in the overlay that is suggested substantially negatively impacts the quiet -- the expectation and the quiet enjoyment of a residential neighborhood, and Goodland's 90 percent residential. So that's the largest concern. Obviously, we know legally the Commission can change it, if necessary or needed, but the facts are, there's been no change since the overlay was created that justifies any change to it, and as many people have alluded to, they've done so and come to Goodland for the very reason, the protection of the overlay and the uniqueness of the way Goodland operates. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 29 of 44 Can you imagine if you had a house and because of the change in the Commission, all of a sudden someone could run a retail establishment or boat tours or motorcycle tours out of the house that you had always and forever known as a residential piece of property? That's the same thing that's being suggested here, which it flies in the face of reasonableness. And while you can legally change the overlay, we realize that, the facts are that we believe that this group and the Collier County Government as a whole must absolutely defer to the majority or the will of the people. Now, as a side, as many people have testified, we haven't gotten into the water quality or the noise or the light pollution, the fact that there's no sewers on Goodland -- there's actually a few, but most residential places don't have sewers, and then the traffic. Fifty-two thousand cars in a two-week period in March, as reported by the Collier County Sheriff's Association. The residential use of that property and where it is simply is incongruous with any commercial operation. But the worst thing is changing the overlay sets a precedent that would then afford more commercial operations that, again, are just simply incongruous with the way of life and with a residential community. If you haven't been out in a boat or on an ecotour, I'd be happy to take you. The residential dolphins that are out there being harassed with boats and jet skis sitting on top of them are actually residents of the greater Marco and Goodland area. They don't travel north or south. They're not the larger bottlenose dolphins that you see out offshore. They're actually residents. And so if they die or they're harassed, they won't replicate and, therefore, you lose that community of dolphins, meaning they don't go to the -- the Goodland dolphins don't go to Naples, and the Naples dolphins don't go to Goodland. But the bottom line is, and most critically important, is the fact that this is a false flag to try to get an ecotour and gas stations that are just incongruous with what's going on in Goodland and I think should be denied. I guess, from a procedural standpoint, I would respectfully ask the petitioner to afford all Goodlanders the opportunity to comment on this, and that means that all Goodlanders need to be back in town. And so having these types of hearings and trying to run this through the Commission during the summer months is a -- at least disingenuous, and we would respectfully ask that if we have this NIM meeting that it be done, at the earliest, September or October so if they really want the input of the community, we should have adequate notice and able to afford people that are traveling ample time to get a calendar -- get this on their calendar so they can participate in person. If they really want our input, then we need to have the opportunity to do so, and that's a meeting in September or October at the earliest, and then we could bring it back to this group. So I would respectfully ask the petitioner to afford the citizens of Goodland that opportunity. And with that, I'll finish, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Question for the County Attorney. It's my understanding that the NIMs have included remote participation and, presumably, they could continue to do that, could they not, even after June 25? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, there's no prohibition whatsoever one way or the other on conducting a NIM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thank you. All right. Are there any people who have not registered -- MR. KLATZKOW: I will tell you this, though. In the past, representatives for the developers have said, well, the LDC doesn't require it, so I don't have to do it. So if that's something the Planning Commission wants for this particular thing, I would suggest that you make that as part of a motion because it's -- to my knowledge, it's not required by the LDC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The remote aspect of it? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, and they tend to do the minimum requirement. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 30 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Mr. Davies, would you approach for a moment, please, sir. And my question is going to be, would you be willing to provide for full remote participation at the NIM? MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. No objection to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Let's see. Any people in the room who have not registered to speak wish to be heard on this matter today, now would be the time. And you'll all be permitted again, of course, to speak on -- when this is continued to -- we are going to continue it indefinitely if we continue it. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, actually, we already have. Anything further to come from the Planning Commission on this before we go to our -- apparently not. All right. Actually, I'm going to ask Mr. French to come forward and make an announcement or two, and then we'll go to our fourth agenda item. COMMISSIONER VERNON: While he's coming up, can I just make a comment on what I just heard? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So what I heard was that the folks on Goodland, very well organized, very well spoken, are simply against a commercial property. And I've heard two of the commissioners indicate -- and everybody can always change their mind, but indicate that there needs to be some appeasement of Goodland folks for this to go through. So I think Mr. Davies, from what I've heard, is going to have a tough road ahead of him. And I would say that that NIMs meeting is probably going to be pretty emotionally charged. And I just think that it would be in everybody's best interest to try to make that NIMs meeting as productive as possible. And you can always, Goodland residents, always say no to whatever they propose, but I'd say I think it's in everybody's best interest to try to make that meeting productive. Because I took a bunch of notes, so if you don't show up, I'm going to my notes. I know what you're thinking, and I heard you. So I just urge everybody to have a productive NIMs meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. French. MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jamie French. I'm the deputy department head for the Growth Management Community development element of the Growth Management Department. Just very quickly, as you'll see, we're joined today by Mike Bosi. Mike has been -- I think this is his second week back at the county. Mike was 17-plus years with the county prior to him leaving and going to work in the private sector. But, really, we're a work in progress, as you can see. We've had some staff changes and the county underneath the direction of a new County Manager. So more to come on how our organization will look. But I just wanted to take the opportunity to welcome Mike but also to thank Anita Jenkins who is also a director within the Growth Management Department. Both will be teaming up. It's a work in progress as we begin to transition and look back more towards that community development environmental services model that was -- I had the opportunity and pleasure to serve under Joe Schmitt at the time. So as we look at that, you're going to see -- you're going to continue to see some new faces. I also wanted to let you know -- and just a big thank you to Matt McLean. Matt McLean will actually be leaving us. Friday is his last day with the community development and environmental services or the regulatory side of the house as he transitions over to the capital side of the Growth Management Department heading up stormwater and capital projects. And I think it will best suit the county -- it's great for the organization to have someone with that level of design and practical experience in the field but also his seven-plus years of regulatory knowledge into that role. And Matt's done a phenomenal job. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 31 of 44 But, again, first to welcome Mike; second, to continue to thank Anita, her leadership, and her -- certainly her knowledge of the subject matter, and her professional etiquette has not gone unnoticed, and we certainly appreciate her for all of her efforts and continued efforts in the future. But then again also to say, you know, not farewell. You'll still see him. He'll just be in a different role. And more to come on that. And so we'll have more staff announcements as we move forward, but so charged up, like me coming back. And not that it matters, but I did have the opportunity to work with some of the Goodlanders over the last five months or six months ago. When I was heading up public services, I had the opportunity to go down and -- as a child growing up here, I look at Margood Park, and I think about what it wasn't and what it is today and the renovations that are going on there and teaming up with the Marco Historic Society as well as Goodlanders as they move forward to make that community even better. But I can say I remember Stan's when it had a boat ramp, and I know most of these folks can as well. But, again, thank you to you for all the service you bring forward. We will be having some discussion with the Planning Commission as these executive orders begin, as we believe that they'll expire on how we'll conduct meetings with you going forward and certainly appreciate your time. I know you're all volunteer, even though Joe is always asking for a raise. But we do, because your time, much like the community, is voluntary, whereas if staff, as well as the petitioners, in many cases, they're paid, paid employees. So thank you all for that. And if there's no further questions, I'll just tell you guys to have a great day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Yeah. I'll say on behalf of the Planning Commission, warm welcome for the return of Mike Bosi and also much appreciation to Ms. Jenkins for her continuing service, and also, Matt, good luck to you. All right. Actually, we're not really ready to go to the fourth item, because we're still at our Agenda Item No. 4, which is Planning Commission absences. So with a reminder to my colleagues, we are not going to be meeting on July 1st. Commissioner Schmitt, you weren't here, but that was -- that action was taken at the last meeting. And our next meeting is on July 15. Does anyone know if he or she won't able to attend the July 15 meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be at the July 15th. I'm taking a vacation that week, the middle of July. I really thought we would not have a meeting that week. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we may not. Okay. Understood. Thank you. We'll still have a quorum. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move that Joe flies back for the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With a plane or without? COMMISSIONER FRY: Doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was hoping to have the first of July meeting, but -- okay. So that's canceled. 1 July is canceled. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Also, we have relatively few matters on our upcoming agendas, and we only have one thing now on for August 5th, and that's the Santa Barbara matter. I don't believe we have anything on at this point for August 19. And so I would propose that we give ourselves another vacation day, well deserved considering how hard we've worked the last year on many difficult matters, and cancel our meeting for August 19th. I spoke with staff at my regular staff meeting about this on Tuesday, and there was no objection expressed then. And someone could nod yes that there's still no objection from staff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. The August 5th meeting I will actually be on holiday. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Understood. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 32 of 44 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I will be missing the 5th as well, the way I planned this, but -- unfortunately I'll be missing the 5th. I was available the 19th, but -- so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we've continued the Santa Barbara thing to the 5th, and I was going to suggest -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which we could change since it's, you know, not in the best interest, necessarily, if all the commissioners can't be there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'll ask staff to weigh in. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Because of the length of the continuance anyways, it's going to have to be readvertised, so either date will work. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. What is the -- what is the wish of the other members of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm pretty flexible, but if we had a meeting on the 19th and we canceled the meeting on the 5th might be a good option. COMMISSIONER FRY: If that means we have everybody here and we're at full strength, then absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I think it's the unanimous consensus of the Planning Commission. Now, we'll need to notify the applicant on Santa Barbara that it's being moved to the 19th. MR. BELLOWS: We will follow up today with conversations about the issue with attendance of the Planning Commission and what happened. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Great. So then we will be canceling our August 5 meeting, and we will reconvene for our meeting on August 19th and urge staff to use that date rather than reviving the August 5th date, if things do come in and need to be heard sooner. Thank you. May I have a motion on that, that we're going to cancel -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion as stated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Approval of minutes. We have one set of minutes; those are -- they have May 20, 2021. They're now before us for action. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 33 of 44 COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. BCC report and recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On June 8th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the SRA villages for Longwater and Bellmar. Those villages were approved by a vote of 4-1 subject to the Planning Commission recommendation with an additional change to adopt the affordable housing language offered by staff at the Planning Commission, and the town agreement was also -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you clarify the language that was approved. Do you have that or -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't have it with me. I could see if staff has -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was it an increase? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it was an increase. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MR. KLATZKOW: Voluntary by the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Voluntary. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: We'll be glad to forward the information. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, please, if you would. I'd like just to understand the Board's thinking in that regard. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Also, they approved on their summary agenda, that was the Immokalee Road 7-Eleven PUD and companion distance waiver. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Thank you much. Chairman's report; none today. Consent agenda, we have none today. ***And so that takes us to the only matter, substantively, coming before us on the merits today, and it's legislative in nature. It's PL2021000603. It's a large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the Bayshore/Gateway -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I speak to what Mr. Bellows just noted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So regarding the RLSA actions that the Board of Collier County Commissioners took, I would just note that contrary to various news outlets making it seem as if it was, you know, very divided and split, it actually was almost -- you know, I think the vote -- there was only one vote in opposition on anything in both our commission and the Collier County Commissioners. And so I just think it's important to note that. Anything that I've read in any journalism, so to speak, seemed to sensationalize it as if everything was -- you know, there was this vast sentiment that could have overridden everything to go against it. And I think the two commissions actually showed that that's not -- I don't think that that was the case, and I don't think we, as commissioners on our commission or the Board of County Commissioners -- I think everyone is very attentive to 5.C.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 34 of 44 the people, certainly the people that are elected. The County Commissioners, they're very attentive to the people, and I think we are very attentive to the people. And I don't -- those were very lopsided votes for those actions, and I just wanted to underscore that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. The matter coming before us is the Bayshore Gateway/Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. It's a large-scale GMPA. So if it's approved by the BCC, it will be coming back to us a second time for approval. And we'll begin with the applicant's presentation. The Chair recognizes Josephine. MS. MEDINA: Yeah. For the record, Josephine Medina, principal planner with Comprehensive Planning section. So this is a county-initiated Growth Management Plan amendment, and this was initiated by the request of the Bayshore CRA. And these amendments came from recommendations from the Community Redevelopment Plan update that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in May 2019. So staff's recommendation for this is to move forward this petition for transmission to the Board of County Commissioners. I should note that there was one letter of -- one public comment letter that was attached to your agenda packet. And with that, I have Laura DeJohn who is the CRA's consultant that has been working on these amendments to provide you an overview of the changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Welcome, Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Good morning. Thank you. If I can just pull up a brief presentation to walk through what the proposed changes entail. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: While you're doing that, I have a question. The letter basically had to do with the density-bonus transfer, did it not, that -- I didn't -- that's the staff -- that the -- it was a comment, but it really had to do more with dealing more with the density bonus, did it not? It wasn't an objection. MS. MEDINA: It was more, I think, dealing with urbanization of the area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, okay. Yeah. All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: So, again, for the record, Laura DeJohn, a planner with Johnson Engineering here today on behalf of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA office, and also here today is Deborah Forester, the executive director of the Bayshore CRA office for any questions you might have. Again, this is a -- it's called a large-scale amendment because of the process it goes through for state review. It is small in nature. We're looking at about four-and-a-half pages of revisions to the Future Land Use Element. I just want to give a brief perspective. Where do the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle policies and regulations live, because we've got so many documents that kind of build up to these policies that we're talking about. The redevelopment plan is, again, adopted per Florida Statute for the redevelopment area. The BCC adopts the redevelopment plan by resolution, and that latest update was done in 2019, which is directing the changes we're here for today. Your Growth Management Plan, specifically the Future Land Use Element, is where Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay exists and has existed since the year 2000. And there's a Future Land Use Element designation outlining the policies affecting the overlay, and the overlay is on the Future Land Use Element map, obviously. That's what we're here to discuss today is changes to the language in the Future Land Use Element. One layer down, the Land Development Code, of course, implements any of these policies, and over time you will be seeing implementing Land Development Code changes also as part of your purview. Today is just focused on the Growth Management Plan change, and redevelopment area 5.C.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 35 of 44 overlay is depicted in your staff report. I'm sure you're familiar with the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. Now, quick highlights. These changes are regarding the density-bonus pool that has existed since the year 2000 within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. Obviously, you know redevelopment areas are established based on a finding that there needs to be reinvestment in an area to help it where certain inefficiencies are happening or dilapidated structures are in that area, and so redevelopment is targeted in this area. And one of the incentivizing features of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area has always been that any existing allowed residential units that do not get built fall within a pool, and then that pool can be redistributed as bonuses to eligible developments. So the bonus pool, existing since the year 2000, was derived from the Naples Botanical Gardens property when 388 units that could have been built on that property were not built and will never be built. The pool was established, and those 388 units were sitting there as incentives to bring the opportunities for development to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area, and it's been a success. So 266 units have been used, leaving 122 left. And since the update of the redevelopment plan, it was acknowledged that this needs to be updated as well 20 years later. So what exactly is happening in the proposed amendments is to remove what's now a little out of date, just the finite reference to 388 units being in existence, because we want to keep replenishing that pool. So a mechanism is being created for some project other than Naples Botanical Gardens. Some CRA-owned property that is not getting developed for residential use could replenish the pool through mechanisms outlined in the amendment. We're also changing kind of some unclear language that said any eligible development could ask for no more than 97 units dash 25 percent of the total pool to make that more concise, more strict. Now we're saying only 25 percent of the total density units available could be requested by the development community. That's, again, to keep this pool replenished and not have it, you know, totally consumed. We are updating where residential-only bonus-pool eligible projects could be. Originally, they were allowed along Davis, Airport, U.S. 41, and Bayshore, and this is getting refined down so that residential-only projects using the bonus pool would have to be on Bayshore only. There's a new opportunity we're creating, which is called the limited bonus-pool allocation. This is to address the reality that there are many small parcels in the CRA area, and there may be interest in very small allocations of the bonus pool, not a large PUD asking for large development to happen in the area. The bonus pool, again, which is units that already exist, are already entitled and allowed to develop in the area. They're just being, you know, made part of a pool, that up to four units could be accessed by a smaller development site through a limited-scale process. And, finally, this refinement to the bonus-pool program is really aimed at making sure the use of the pool not only incentivizes some new development to occur but that development is beneficial to the area. So new criteria are proposed when using the bonus pool. It's not just a freebie. There would be public benefits brought by that developer who is getting the benefit of the bonus pool. There's also a new provision to make sure bonus-pool units that are awarded have to be used or else they would revert back to the pool, because there's been experience with concern that bonus units get allocated and then might not be used. Then they're lost. So we're putting in an expiration provision. This has been vetted for about a year now. We introduced the concepts to the CRA advisory board last summer, met with the CRA advisory board again in November with these precise revisions, refined one more time, came back to the CRA advisory board in January 2021 and got their recommendation for approval of these changes. You also have a nicely written staff report that lays out all of these proposed changes. There are findings and conclusions that support what's being done by the CRA in the interest of furthering their redevelopment plan, and they do recommend approval, so we'd request your recommendation as well. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 36 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. No one has -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Until Commissioner Fry did. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: You finished quicker than I expected, so thank you. Laura, can you describe any opposition, if any, that was expressed to these amendments, and what was the basis of that opposition? MS. DeJOHN: These changes to the bonus density pool did not bring forth a lot of comment and opposition. I think it's because the pool program already exists, and this is a, you know, refinement of the program. I know just the terminology, like the quick -- quick look, when people say "bonus density," they think there could be some, you know, overdeveloping going on, and I think once there's education that this is a bonus pool that is derived from development potential that already exists, is just being, you know, pulled off of property that isn't developing residential and put onto residential properties, I think that's a helpful -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may tag on to your explanation, Ms. DeJohn. There was an e-mail from a Joan Scannel or Scanell that we were copied on, and it was the subject of the discussion that I had with staff at my Tuesday staff meeting, and three points were raised, and the first one was, how much more density would be permitted? And it's my understanding that this is just a reshuffling of existing density, not adding new density. MS. DeJOHN: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then the second point was, she was very concerned that the current development appears to be already encroaching on the Everglades themselves. I believe that is not the case; am I correct? MS. DeJOHN: This area is not in proximity to the Everglades. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then, finally, she raised the point that there are already existing empty commercial properties that have no tenants. And, typically, in a GMPA we, you know, have economic studies to show demand. And I realize, you know, there's some things coming in like Courthouse Shadows and other developments. But could you give us some comfort on the economic advisability of adding these residential uses. MS. DeJOHN: Well, again, this is all derived from the Board-adopted redevelopment plan. So the analysis that went into the redevelopment plan adopted in 2019 did find that there was actually underutilization of residentially zoned property. A lot of multifamily residentially zoned property in the CRA is not occupied with as much -- as many units as the multifamily residential zoning allows. That was a finding in the redevelopment plan. And then this question or concern about lack of commercial occupancy in some commercial spaces, usually it's the increase in residential households that is going to support and sustain more commercial and occupancy of those empty spaces. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it would be your expert opinion and that of staff that the 2019 redevelopment plan is still valid and it still calls for more residential uses? MS. DeJOHN: It calls -- yeah, it calls for the continuation of this bonus density pool program and the continuation of incentivizing the use of the bonus pool which, again, is not an increase in net number of units in the CRA. It's a reallocation of them in exchange for public-realm improvements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I had one other -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: One other question. Are there currently developments or projects out there that would be releasing, in the near term, units into the pool to help replenish the pool? MS. DeJOHN: At this time there's not a certain project I can claim is ready to deposit units into the pool, but I am aware that CRA-owned property like the 17 acres along Bayshore Drive, once a final development plan is determined there, there would be a lift of residential units 5.C.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 37 of 44 potentially off of that CRA-owned property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I notice just mathematically that you used to have a limit of 97 or 25 percent from the pool, but now you've lifted that limit. Now, right now there are 122 available units which is much less than 388, but I guess you have the possibility that more and more units could be replenished into the pool, which would mean that at some point, if you had 5- or 600 units and you now allow 25 percent, you could have one project asking for 100 or more units. Is that -- is that acceptable? I guess I want to make sure there's not an unintended consequence of these changes. MS. DeJOHN: I can answer that. I mean, number one, it is unlikely to reach those -- the magnitude. As you can think about the size of the Naples Botanical Gardens and the 388 generated there, we will not have another piece of property like that in the CRA generating that magnitude of units. And, secondarily, the request -- they are allowed to make the request; however, those requests still go through a public hearing process. So the potential for a high number of units to be requested and if it is somehow incompatible or inappropriate for the given site, that public hearing process is going to, you know, influence the number of units ultimately achieved. COMMISSIONER FRY: Very well stated. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I had one question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Please, go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It just sort of came -- and I'll use Karl's term, unintended consequences. During the process with the staff and your analysis and everything, did you ever talk about short-term rentals, residential rentals like Airbnb, VRBO, and whether this would have any impact on that? Or did it come up in the discussions? MS. DeJOHN: I know that is a topic that gets raised during CRA advisory board meetings from time to time just in the community, but there was not a direct tie ever in our discussions about this continuation of a density pool program that already exists having some new consequences relative to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Just one point of clarification, Laura, and staff may have to answer this. The recommendation is that this go forward to the Board of County Commissioners. But will it not first have to go to the Board acting as -- sitting as the CRA advisory board and they would vote as the CRA advisory board for approval and then vote as the Board of County Commissioners? MS. DeJOHN: Well, this is a GMP amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Deborah may know. No? MS. DeJOHN: No. Your GMP amendment is a legislative action that the, you know, Collier County Commission has purview over. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for clarity, then, this has already been approved in concept by the CRA advisory board, which is the Board of County Commissioners is sitting. No? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, take the word "advisory" out, then you've got the BCC. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, they're the -- they are the -- well, the Board sits as the CRA board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There is also an advisory board, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, correct. So they're the CRA board. Has this gone to the commissioners sitting as the CRA board? MS. DeJOHN: So the CRA board gave direction to the CRA staff to move forward with regulatory changes including the one we're talking about today. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 38 of 44 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. I just want to make sure that that piece was actually included in the process. Okay. Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: Good point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know that was confusing. Sorry. That's okay. We got her straightened out. Thank you. Does Ms. Forester wish to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Deborah doesn't want to steal victory out of the -- or steal defeat out of the jaws of victory; is that what -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's exactly what it is, right. Okay. Anything further, then, from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. All right. Any public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No public speakers, says Mr. Youngblood. All right. Are we ready to close the public portion of this hearing? Then that's what -- that's what we'll do. Without objection, the public comment portion has closed, and it's now appropriate for us to deliberate and take action. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion that this be passed to the Board of County Commissioners, PL2021000603, Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Overlay -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- GMP amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? If not -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You're recommending transmittal? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Recommend transmittal, thank you, yes. 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) Thank you, staff. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did we hear from Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. Now, we still have something on our agenda. I guess it would come up under new business or old business, it doesn't matter, and that has to do with any guidelines that we want to suggest to the County Attorney on the continuances matter. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 39 of 44 I believe it -- unless the -- unless the Planning Commission would prefer to defer this for some reason, now would be an appropriate time to talk about that. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I just -- I agree with Jeff. This is -- the continuances, sometimes they have been a problem, then it just disappeared, and they were not -- we didn't have them, and now all of a sudden we have this plethora of continuances. And it's almost -- as Jeff said, it's let's wear them out until the point where they won't show up anymore. I really believe some of that takes place. Though we can't prevent it because we still have to allow the public its opportunity, but at the same time, I think it's kind of the developer tends to wear out the process, and then finally the public just gives up. So there has to be some penalty to force the developer or the petitioner to really consciously decide to continue this, continue an item. And I don't know if it's financial. I think that would be -- certainly be something to think about, but the reality is, I believe that staff ought to be looking at the true cost of the request and assess the fees accordingly for a continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree with that. Others? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I had a few thoughts I was holding, because I think -- I think at least what I'm suggesting is that you get input or the staff gets input from all of us -- and I think we've already come up with a bunch of thoughts -- and then come back with some proposal. But to me, the number-one proposal -- and I believe I talked to staff, and I think Ray may say this has to be changed by the commissioners. But to me -- and we allowed Mr. Arnold to do it, and I think Joe had some questions to make sure he was -- Joe was raising the issue. But to me, if you ask for a continuance, you should be off the docket. You shouldn't say, well, I'll come back in a month, and we will be ready. And a term I like to use is "dead dog ready." You ought to be -- before you call up staff and say we want to be back on the agenda, we "are" ready, not we "will be" ready, and I think that will get rid of a lot of it. And there always -- there's always exceptions. And you may come up with some -- they may have some new facts that are changed. And so we still can make exceptions. But I don't like the idea of somebody asking for a continuance and getting on the agenda and then calling and saying, well, we thought we'd be ready, but we're not ready. If you're not ready when you stand before us, don't come back to -- or don't get us on the agenda until we are ready. That's the number-one change I'd like to see. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with that totally. I think it will incentivize them to think about their first step when they ask to be on the agenda. But I think it also needs to happen from a courtesy standpoint to us and the public that before we start issuing these packages a week ahead of time, that notice goes out in a timely manner. And I don't know what -- all the notices that have to go out to get to the residents, but it just shouldn't happen at the last minute like this all the time. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think they both -- those are companion pieces. MR. KLATZKOW: The advertising for most land-use items requires 15 days, okay. So that's your time frame. So I'm sure staff gets it into the Naples Daily News, but it's advertised at least 15 days prior to the hearing. I would use that as -- I don't know. It seems like the developer says, okay, two weeks ahead of time I'm ready or three weeks ahead of time I'm ready, please advertise, and then a week later, after they advertise, Ron [sic] says. I'm not ready, that's the piece I don't quite get. Just to get to a point that they should give you the notice early, and certainly so that you save time in preparing, you know, we'll come back with that. But from a time frame, understand it's 15 days' advertising and, generally, I would think staff would get it to the Naples Daily News the week before that just -- Naples Daily News takes some time. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And for me, to follow on that thread, the litmus test for 5.C.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 40 of 44 granting a continuance, not only should it be a timely request for a continuance, but it should be based on -- just like in the court, based on new facts, something different that's happened since they said "I am ready." And that -- I think that will get rid of a lot of it. You're looking at me like that doesn't -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm looking at the other members to see if they agree with you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think you've got to be ready. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I call on Commissioner Fry, just to stay on this subject, I believe we need some language in there that sets a standard, whether it be extraordinary circumstances or something else, so that we are sending a clear signal that this is to be an exceptional case, not the rule. And so I would suggest language of that sort. And the other thing is is that I think we need to send an even stronger signal than extraordinary circumstances, that a second continuance will almost never be granted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Fry was first, and then Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just -- I have a question for you, Jeff. How often or how close a correlation would you say there is between continuances and the appearance of opposition from the neighbors to an issue? MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, it's been my experience that what happens is that they get here, they see the maddening crowd, and then they ask for the continuance. Sometimes they're aware of the maddening crowd beforehand. I'm not saying it never happens that they ask for a continuance without opposition, but I think that would be the general rule. COMMISSIONER FRY: As the root cause? MR. KLATZKOW: As the root cause, yeah. And the developer will say, well, we want to work with the community. And there's a lot to be said for that, don't get me wrong. But on the other hand, not to be aware that there's a lot of opposition until you get into this room, I don't know. They do the NIM meetings. You would think they'd have a better pulse on it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, that's what leads me to think that if -- they should be working with the community prior to coming in here. They should be aware of the potential opposition. They should work with them in advance. And I don't have a problem with them going back to work with the community. I think they should bear the cost, a much higher cost of a reschedule, with the advanced notice that everyone's talking about. But they are aware of the process, and they're aware that if there's neighborhood opposition and it's a factor, they should be working with them before they stand before us, or pay a steep cost for not being ready. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I agree. But from a cynics [sic], just to pick up on all of that, I think what they're doing, because we're letting them, is somewhat may be using our meetings to check the pulse. COMMISSIONER FRY: Gauge. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And that's because we're allowing them to. So I'm agreeing with everything you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comment. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is there any -- could we change policy to require a NIM for an LDC amendment? MR. KLATZKOW: You're in charge of making recommendations for any LDC amendments. So if that's what you want to do, by all means. I don't know that every LDC amendment requires a NIM. In fact, 98 percent of them wouldn't. This is an anomaly, from my standpoint but -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But there's two. MR. KLATZKOW: -- I would have an LDC amendment giving staff the discretion, when they believe that something should have a NIM, to require it, because they're so few and far 5.C.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 41 of 44 between. And I trust staff to use their best judgment on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm going to follow up on what Karl said. The preponderance of continuances are usually because they -- there's an opposition. In this case that we just dealt with, it was pretty clear there was no support from the staff, and I was very surprised that up until, what, till we were noticed that it was continued, because typically the petitioner will get the reading from the staff, read the staff report, and then basically try and negotiate with the staff. But in this case it's -- well, I could say almost always it's either opposition, staff in opposition or the public. I want to be careful, because there are times when we have petitioners who come before us here, we hear comments from the staff, the petitioner hears more comments from the staff, and we as a board agree or recommend that they continue and meet with the public. And we've done that in the past, and that practice is probably more often than not when there's a continuance. So I want to make sure we don't close the door on that, because there are times, certainly, the public is energized enough, they come here, and then the petitioner realizes there's opportunity to amend their plan. So it's sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of -- I still want to make sure that whether we force it or the petitioner, if they choose that, because of public opposition, they want to continue, that's a good thing, but they have to do it in a timely manner, that it doesn't get advertised and on the agenda. They should -- this last petition, they should have sensed it before it was even put on the agenda. It was clear and obvious when they saw -- they must have seen the staff report and said, wow, this is not going to go anywhere, and I think at that time they probably should have had a continuance and -- but in regard to an LDC, I would agree, if it's -- if it is a private petition, maybe there ought to be, you know, a NIM, something like that. But most LDC -- yeah, most LDC amendments, we have a very clear process typically how many times it has to come before us and the night hearings and all the other things that are associated with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think -- I think in the case of privately initiated LDC amendments, that that's -- that's the issue of whether there's a NIM to be required. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want staff to come back with a report on that? I think that would be fair for staff to come back with a report on whether or not, for a privately initiated LDC, a NIM might be a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only if it impacts the zoning. I mean, if it's having to do with a setback or some other type of requirement, how would you have an LDC -- or a NIM for that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That should be a HEX thing anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- other comments? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I just want to tag on to what Joe said. I don't think anybody here wants to restrict the Board's ability to continue something because we think it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So I think we're distinguishable from an applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think -- I think we've given a lot of input to the County Attorney, and I would ask that the County Attorney get further input from staff rather than wait for our next meeting so that when you can come back, as soon as possible, we will have something that we could act upon. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. You'll have it before your next meeting. And I always work with staff. They know what they're doing far more than I do when it comes to the code so, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Thank you. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 42 of 44 Any further matters to be discussed on this? Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I don't know if we're done with that -- are we done with that section then? CHAIRMAN FRYER: With the continuance? COMMISSIONER FRY: This is kind of a final comment sometime at the end of the meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I having something else to say, but you go first. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I just wanted to say that, you know, with respect to Jamie coming up here, I really would like to welcome Mike back. I remember he was here when I first joined this commission, and I found him a very welcomed resource. He's very accommodating and speaks in clear terms both at the podium but also to us behind the scenes. It's great to have him back. I think, you know, Anita, glad to have Jamie back on the team. I have to say my perception is that through some of these very tough issues we've been through that staff is -- I have great confidence in staff. I just want to say, I think it's a very hard job, and to the person, I think you guys defend your positions well. And the only comment I would make is that -- is just to continue, we always -- I'll speak for myself, but I think most would agree. We really want to hear -- if you don't feel comfortable with something that's in an application, that we'd like to hear that, because it is very hard for us to go against -- it's heard for us to go against something when you have expressed support in your staff report. So we just really want unfiltered -- filtered but -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But unfiltered. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- but yet your real reactions as people, as professionals, you know, to help us have all viewpoints when we make decisions. But I really want to commend staff. I feel very comfortable and confident in staff, and it makes our job much easier. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I could add something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I totally agree with that. In fact, I don't want to mix it up with the creating a policy on the continuance. I think we ought to stay on that limited issue. But -- and Mr. Klucik and I are the newest members, and at least I feel, and I think Mr. Klucik probably feels, we've kind of settled in, and we understand -- we've got a -- you know, got a sense for how the show works. And I think that -- I would like to see probably some other changes that we ought to -- you know, we ought to think about what we want and what we are allowed to do and some things we might not be able to change the rules on but the County Commissioner might -- Commission might be able to change the rules on. And we ought to kind of -- I want to get through the continuance policy change, but we ought to look through some other things and say, we're the judges here. How do we want this to work so that it's fair to the public, fair to the applicant, fair to us, fair to the process, and gets the best results for Collier County. And I think that maybe -- and I say that because I think that sort of the continuance situation has sort of come about because we've unintentionally sort of allowed it to occur because the applicants are always going to be jockeying for a better position, the public's going to be jockeying for a better position. That's the nature of the beast. And so, you know -- and going back to what Karl said about the staff, I think, you know, the staff and general counsel, they're, you know -- they're, you know, part of our team, and sometimes I feel a little bit like the staff kind of gets lost in the crowd because the applicant's presentation is so long, and then there's public speakers, and all of a sudden I want to -- kind of almost, like, in my mind, we start with the staff and finish with the staff and get advice of counsel, and then -- I don't know. I just think there may be a better approach to this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All good thoughts. We had one workshop, I guess, at the very 5.C.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 43 of 44 beginning of this year. After we get through the summer, would it be appropriate for us to have another workshop to talk about these matters? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone think that's not a good idea? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: During our meeting time? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I mean, yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: A short afternoon or something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We might -- yeah, we might put it on as an agenda item, but it would be in the nature of a workshop. Is everybody on board with that? (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then we will ask staff to consider the mechanics of doing that. And I think it's -- I sense that it is not an appetizing thought on the part of the Planning Commission to have a special meeting for this, so if we can put it on a regular agenda item, that would be very good. All right. Then the last thing that I wanted to say, or that I wanted to say, has to do with the Collier County e-mail system. I've heard some complaints from up here on the dais, and I -- as of about four days ago, I have been unable to operate the county e-mail system on my personal MacBook, and I would just like to know if anyone else is experiencing similar problems. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I've had to take a couple of tries to get into my e-mail the past few days. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Get an error message even this morning saying server not responding. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I'm getting, too. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I consistently have had problems as well. MR. BELLOWS: Me, too. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I've had problems just where it says you can't log in. Everything's not appropriate. Then the next day I did the same exact thing, and it worked. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I would like to ask staff to follow up on this with IT at your very earliest convenience and give them a sense of the concerns and frustrations that we're experiencing, because we've got to be able to have full access to our e-mails. And just so that you know, the problems I'm having, as Commissioner Schmitt said, sometimes it just won't let me get in. It says server down or whatever. Other times it logs me off unceremoniously, and then I have to log myself back on, and yet other times I can see my e-mails, and I can read them, but I can't reply. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. I understand, because it happened to me over the last few days as well. There were some issues. I believe they got them resolved, but I will follow up with them to contact you individually to see what -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Appreciate that. MR. BELLOWS: -- you are individually experiencing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: And in regards to the workshop, we'll come up with a date that we would like you to vote on. Then we can put it on the agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And put it -- yeah, put it on the regular agenda, and then keep other items on that agenda light, if possible. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, definitely. That was the concept. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: With regards to the e-mail, are they putting in new firewalls or other type of reimaging or -- because it's just -- MR. BELLOWS: You're talking to an Apple guy. We'll -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLOWS: I'll follow up with them. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) June 17, 2021 Page 44 of 44 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Any other new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment on matters that haven't been addressed yet? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:46 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ___________, as presented ________ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.C.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 06-17-21 CCPC Meeting Minutes formatted (17512 : 6/17/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) 08/19/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: PL20210000093 PUDZ - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Soluna RPUD, to allow construction of up to 130 dwelling units on property located southwest of the intersection of Tree Farm Road and Massey Street, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18.5± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 08/19/2021 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 08/02/2021 4:07 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/02/2021 4:07 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 08/04/2021 12:26 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/04/2021 1:53 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 08/09/2021 11:19 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 08/09/2021 11:54 AM Growth Management Department Mike Bosi GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 08/09/2021 11:56 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/19/2021 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 114 PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 1 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 19, 2021 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20210000093; SOLUNA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ______________________________________________________________________________ Owner: Contract Purchaser: Agent: Sun Broadcasting, Inc. D.R. Horton Kenrick S. Gallander, AICP 2824 Palm Beach Boulevard Fort Myers, FL 33916 10541 Six Mile Cypress Fort Myers, FL 33966 RWA, Inc. 6610 Willow Park Naples, FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone property from a Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Soluna RPUD, to allow construction of up to 130 dwelling units. The subject property is comprised of one parcel owned by Sun Broadcasting, Inc. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of Tree Farm Road and Massey Street on, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.5+/- acres (see location map on page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to 130 dwelling units at 7.0 (DU/AC) for a project to be known as Soluna RPUD. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 2 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 116Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 3 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of Soluna RPUD: North: Tree Farm Road, a two-lane local road, and then developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Warm Springs RPUD (3.52 DU/AC), which is approved for single and multi-family residential units East: Massey Street, a two-lane local road, and then developed with single family residential, with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district within a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands South: Developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Vanderbilt Country Club PUD (2.5 DU/AC), which is approved for single and multi-family residential units West: Developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Buttonwood Preserve RPUD (4.0 DU/AC), which is approved for single and multi-family residential units Collier County Property Appraiser 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 4 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The 18.5-acre subject site is Urban Designation, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The applicant is proposing 130 DUs (all townhomes) with a density rate of approximately 7 DU/A. They wish to utilize Residential Infill; including purchasing a total of 19 TDRs from a sending area to increase the density to 7DU/A. The density would be calculated as follows: 4 DU/A base +3 DU/A residential infill 7 DU/A total units per acre 18.5 acres x 7 DU/A = 129.5 DUs; rounded is 130 DUs Staff has found this project consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s February 23, 2021 and the April 8, 2021 supplemental update Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed 130 residential dwelling unit development will generate a projected total of +/- 75 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 5 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 the adjacent roadway segments of Collier Boulevard and The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links using the current 2020 AUIR: Roadway/Link # Link 2020 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2020 Remaining Capacity Collier Boulevard/30.1 Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road D 3,000/North 30/NB 603 Immokalee Road/44.0 Collier Boulevard to Wilson D 3,300/East 3/EB 95 (2) 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is February 23, 2021; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Projected deficiencies for segments 44.0 are due to projected background traffic from trip bank not caused by this development. Staff notes the section of Immokalee Road noted above will benefit from the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road that should improve capacity on the noted projected trip bank deficiencies. Therefore, based on the TIS provided by the applicant, and the 2020 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 9.44 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 1.42 (15%) acres of native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Applications to rezone to or to amend RPUDs shall be in the form of a RPUD Master Plan of development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The RPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 6 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The minimum PUD preserve requirement is 1.42 acres (15% of 9.44 acres); the applicant has provided 3.90 acres of preserve onsite. An updated listed species survey was conducted in February 2021. Three gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows were identified within the project site. Prior to relocation, a relocation permit must be obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The proposed project is located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus). Five cavity trees were observed onsite with the potential to contain bonneted bat; however, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized. FWC wildlife data indicates the presence of Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan will need to be included at PPL or SDP review. Additionally, stiff-leaved wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) and Florida butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), listed as Less Rare Plants in the LDC, were observed onsite and will be protected in accordance with LDC 3.04.03. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and north wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure along the project’s frontage on Tree Farm Road. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Landscape Review: The buffers labeled on the Master Plan are in accordance with the Land Development Code. Stormwater Review: Stormwater staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Parks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Affordable Housing Review: Affordable housing is not proposed for this project. School District: At this time, there is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle concurrency service areas and in an adjacent high school concurrency service area of the proposed development. At the time of SDP or platting, the project will be evaluated for school concurrency. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 7 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 Zoning Services Review: As previously mentioned in the Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning portion of the staff report, to the north, Warm Springs RPUD has a density of 3.52 DU/AC, to the east, the residential properties within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district has a density of 1 du/5acres, to the south, Vanderbilt Country Club PUD has a density of 2.5 DU/AC, and to the west, Buttonwood Preserve RPUD has a density of 4.0 DU/AC. This petition proposes a density of 7.0 DU/AC, which is compatible to the surrounding properties. Even though Soluna RPUD is proposing more dwelling units per acre than what is allowed in the surrounding properties, it should be noted that the existing development in the surrounding area is a mixture of single and multi-family and is not out of context with regard to the community character of the immediate vicinity. Staff analyzed the proposed uses and associated development standards in the Soluna RPUD and compared them with the uses allowed in the Vanderbilt Country Club, Buttonwood Preserve, and Warm Springs PUDs and the residential properties within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district. Currently, the Warm Springs RPUD has developed single-family and allows for multiple family, single family detached, townhouse, two family, duplex and zero lot line for single family. The residential properties to the east are developed with single family units. Vanderbilt Country Club PUD has developed single and multi-family residential and allows for single family, zero lot line single family, and multifamily condominiums. Buttonwood Preserve has developed single family units and allows for single family detached, two family duplex, single family attached, and multifamily units. The Soluna RPUD proposes detached single-family, attached single family and townhouses, two family zero lot line, and multi-family residential. Therefore, the proposed uses in the Soluna RPUD would be compatible with the surrounding allowed uses in the Vanderbilt Country Club, Buttonwood Preserve, and Warm Springs PUDs and the residential properties within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district. Attachment B shows a table of the development standards for principal and accessory structures proposed within the Soluna RPUD and how they compare to the Vanderbilt Country Club, Buttonwood Preserve, and Warm Springs PUDs and the residential properties within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district. In short, the minimum side yard, minimum rear yard, and maximum height proposed for the Soluna RPUD are less than Vanderbilt Country Club, Buttonwood Preserve, and Warm Springs PUDs and the residential properties within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district. The minimum front yard and minimum PUD Perimeter setback is more than Vanderbilt Country Club, Buttonwood Preserve, and Warm Springs PUDs and the residential properties within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district. Furthermore, the minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum floor area, minimum preserve setback, and minimum distance between structures are generally the same among all surrounding PUDs. As such, the proposed Soluna RPUD development standards are compatible with the surrounding areas around the Soluna RPUD property. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 8 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Water distribution and wastewater collection mains are readily available within the Tree Farm Road right-of-way, and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed PUD. The subject site fronts on Tree Farm Road and Massey Street. Water and wastewater facilities are located within the right-of-way, and each has enough capacity to serve the proposed RPUD. Stormwater management details will be evaluated at time of SFWMD Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) and County Site Development Permit (SDP)/Plans and Plat Permit (PPL) permitting. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report subsection Landscape Review, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The RPUD is required to provide at least 60% of the gross area for usable open space. No deviation from the open space requirement is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or platting. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 9 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. As noted above, Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. Collier County has sufficient treatment capacity for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including adjacent Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Five deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to RPUD. See deviations section of the staff report beginning on page 12. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable”: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 10 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The properties to the west, north, and south of the subject property are zoned PUD and the property to the east is zoned Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district within a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands. All aforementioned properties allow for residential uses. The abutting Warm Springs RPUD, Vanderbilt Country Club PUD, and Buttonwood Preserve RPUD have similar and related zoning classifications and allowable uses to the proposed Soluna RPUD. Therefore, the proposed petition would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The rectangle-shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of the parcels assembled for the rezoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezone is not necessary but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. It should be noted that the proposed uses are not allowed under the current zoning classification. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. As noted above, Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed RPUD request is not anticipated to create a stormwater management problem in the area; provided an environmental resource permit that addresses stormwater best management practices, stormwater pollution prevention, urban stormwater management, on-site stormwater treatment, and attenuation storage is obtained from the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 11 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 management system, calculations, and design criteria at time of SDP and/or plat review. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties to the north, east, west, and south are developed, as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. Because the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The proposed uses and development standards are not permitted, according to the existing classification. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff’s opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 12 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation #1: (Right-of-Way Width) “Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, which requires minimum local street right- of-way width of 60 feet, to allow a 50’ right-of-way width for the internal streets that include public utilities.” Petitioner’s Justification: Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the Soluna RPUD. This deviation is justified because this will be a smaller-scale private residential gated community with controlled access, low traffic volumes and a low posted speed limit. A 50-foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. In 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 13 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 addition, a 10’ PUE will be provided on each side of the right -of-way to accommodate “dry utilities.” The 50-foot right-of-way results in a more compact roadway cross-section which accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the community and reduces the impervious surface impacts to the water management system. All public utilities will be provided within the 50’ right-of-way. This deviation is commonly approved and has been effectively implemented in numerous residential PUDs throughout the County and will not affect public health and safety. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Similar deviations were approved with the Brandon, Gold Club of the Everglades, Argo Manatee, Rockedge, Vincent Acres, and Mattamy Homes RPUDs and as such staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #2 (Dead End Street) “Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead end streets except when designed as a cul-de-sac, to allow dead end street of less than 100 linear feet.” Petitioner’s Justification: This deviation is justified to provide a less impactful roadway design by eliminating the need for cul-de-sacs and the associated extra area needed to support such an impactful design. Reduced roadway area reduces the impervious surface impacts to the water management system as well as allowing for a more efficient site design through an overall looped layout. The limited vehicular activity within these proposed dead ends, and access to the residential unit’s driveways does not negatively impact the overall traffic flow or management within the development. This request has been commonly approved and utilized in other residential PUDs throughout the County and does not negatively impact the public’s health, safety, or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Similar deviations were approved with the Buckley MPUD, Royal Palm International Academy PUD, and Abaco Club RPUD and as such staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #3: (Sidewalks) “Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5 foot sidewalks within public and private rights-of-ways or easements, which are internal to the site to be on both sides of local/internal accessways (streets), to allow sidewalks to be constructed only on the side of the streets that are directly adjacent to residential units or amenity areas.” 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 14 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 Petitioner’s Justification: This deviation will not adversely impact pedestrian mobility for the project and will reduce impervious areas for improved water quality, storm water attenuation, and minimizes impacts to adjacent preserve areas. The private internal local roadways will have low vehicular travel speeds; therefore, the deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety and welfare. This deviation has previously been approved with proven results that fulfill the goal of safe pedestrian mobility. As proposed, the sidewalks will provide a comprehensive circulation throughout the community, including interconnections to the existing and/or proposed sidewalk systems within the public rights-of-way adjacent to the development. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Similar deviations were approved with the Rushton Pointe, County Barn Road, Warm Springs, Collier 36, Willow Run, and Wolf Creek RPUDs and as such staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #4: (Wall Height) “Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height of 8’ along the perimeter of the project where abutting an existing public roadway, and allow a 12’ tall wall/berm combination.” Petitioner’s Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening from adjacent properties and noise attenuation from the significant traffic along the public roadways. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and general area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Similar deviations were approved with the Willow Run, San Marino, Avalon of Naples, Argo Manatee, Rockedge, and Abaco Club RPUDs and as such staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #5: (Ground Signs) “Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8’ and a total combined sign area of 64 square feet, to allow for two (2) ground signs at the proposed project entrance with a maximum height of 10’ and a total combined sign area of 80 square feet.” 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 15 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 Petitioner’s Justification: This proposed deviation will provide for an on-premise ground sign height and size appropriate for its location and orientation to the Tree Farm roadway corridor. The Tree Farm roadway corridor has been recently extended and improved to Massey Street for additional traffic network capacity and management. With this additional traffic and exposure to the public realm as a result of the improvements, the 25% increase in height and area of ground sign for the development is not an excessive request to help ensure improved visibility for travelers along this recently improved corridor. This deviation will enhance public health, safety, and welfare by helping all motorist more easily identify and locate the community and therefore facilitate proper navigation. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Similar deviations were approved with the County Barn Road, Avalon of Naples, San Marino, 951 Villas, and Brandon RPUDs and as such staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on April 21, 2021 at Peace Lutheran Church located at 9850 Immokalee Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:48 p.m. The applicant’s agent explained the request for the proposed rezone. Ken Gallander, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and staff, and an overview of the proposed RPUD rezoning application, including the requested residential uses, maximum allowable height, location of preserve areas, and access. He also outlined the rezoning process and opportunities to provide input at public hearings. Following the Consultant’s presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The public attendees had the following concerns: • Request to have additional landscaping and a wall between the residential areas to the south and west (Vanderbilt Country Club and Canopy) of Soluna. They also requested to retain the existing vegetation and trees. • Concern of the Soluna townhomes will tower and look into the homes at Vanderbilt Country Club and Canopy. The Soluna townhomes will be too close to these residences. • Request to have additional space between the Soluna townhomes and the Canopy residential homes. The public were concerned about the proposed dimensions. • Request to revise and move the preserve area from the east side of Soluna PUD to the other side of the PUD and not disturb any existing vegetation. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD Page 16 of 16 Revised: August 2, 2021 No commitments were made. A copy of the sign-in sheet, handouts, Powerpoint, and NIM summary are included in Attachment D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2 -1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on July 29, 2021. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) Development Standards Comparison Table C) Opposition Letter D) Application/Backup Materials E) Hybrid Meeting Waiver F) Advertising Hearing Sign 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Staff Report - Soluna RPUD (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130 dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL: TRACT R A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units: • Detached single family • Attached single family & townhouses • Two family, zero lot line • Multi-family 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses associated with the principal uses permitted in this RPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas, screen enclosures and utility buildings and infrastructure. 2. Walls, berms, signage (including boundary marker signage), and development excavations. 3. Gatehouses, and access control structures. 4. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools for residents and their guests. 5. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 6. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 7. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. AMENTIY AREA: TRACT AA A. Principal Uses: 1. Clubhouses with cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 2. Community administrative and recreation facilities. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis/pickle ball courts and basketball courts, parks, dog parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. 4. Tennis clubs, health spas, fitness facilities and other indoor recreational uses (private, intended for use by the residents and their guests only). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 2. Walls, berms, signage (including boundary marker signage), and development excavation. 3. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the FLOODPLAIN COMPENSATION: TRACT F A. Principal Use: 1. Open Space B. Accessory Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required compensation area to be utilized and does not alter the designed ground elevation. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting. 3. Passive Recreation areas, per LDC requirements. 4. Water management as allowed by the LDC. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 3 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 PRESERVE: TRACT P A. Principal Use: 1. Preserve B. Accessory Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting. 3. Passive Recreation areas, per LDC requirements. 4. Water management as allowed by the LDC. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 4 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development Table 1 below sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the Soluna RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP), Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) or Plat. TABLE 1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY & TOWNHOUSE TWO-FAMILY, ZERO LOT LINE MULTI- FAMILY AMENITY AREA PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,000 SF PER UNIT 1,800 SF PER UNIT 1,800 SF PER UNIT 1 ACRE 10,000 SF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 40 Ft 20 Ft 40 Ft 100 Ft 100 Ft MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 700 Ft MINIMUM FRONT YARD 23 Ft (1) 23 Ft (1) 23 Ft (1) 23 Ft (1) N/A MINIMUM SIDE YARD 5 Ft 0 OR 5 Ft (2) 0 OR 5 Ft (2) 0 OR 5 Ft N/A MINIMUM REAR YARD 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft N/A MINIMUM PUD PERIMETER SETBACK 30 Ft 30 Ft 30 Ft 30 Ft N/A MINIMUM PRESERVE SETBACK 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES) 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 20 Ft 10 Ft MAXIMUM HEIGHT ZONED (not to exceed 2 stories) ACTUAL (not to exceed 2 stories) 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 5 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MINIMUM FRONT S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. MINIMUM SIDE S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. MINIMUM REAR 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft MINIMUM PRESERVE SETBACK 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft MINIMUM PUD SETBACK 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft MAXIMUM HEIGHT ZONED (not to exceed 2 stories) ACTUAL (not to exceed 2 stories) 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft NOTES: • S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structures • GENERAL: Except as provided herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or boundary lines, or between structures. If required, landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time of SDP or Plat approval. • Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. FOOTNOTES: (1) The 23-foot setback shall apply to any front entry garage and shall be measured from the adjacent sidewalk. All other front yard setbacks shall be as follows: Where side entry garages are provided, the driveway shall be designed in such a manner that a parked vehicle shall not conflict with the sidewalk; however, in no case shall the front setback for the side entry garage be less than 10 feet. All other portions of this principal structure except as noted later in this paragraph, whether designed with a front entry or side entry garage, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet front the front yard property line, except where a lot is located at the intersection of two streets, in which case the front yard setback set forth herein shall only apply to the street on which the driveway is located, and the other setback abutting the right-of-way shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the front yard property line. The setback for porches, entry features and roofed courtyard elements shall be a minimum of 15 feet; except that it shall be a minimum of 5 feet on corner lots for the yard which does not contain a driveway vehicle access. Any structures, including overhangs, shall not encroach into a PUE or CUE. (2) 5-foot minimum setback for single-family attached, townhouse, two-family and zero lot line must be accompanied by another 5-foot side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10-foot separation. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) RRRRR/WTREE FARM ROADPROPERTYBOUNDARYACCESS GATE(APPROXIMATE LOCATION AS ALLOWEDBY LDC & COUNTY ORDINANCES)CURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: A15' TYPE 'B'BUFFER15' TYPE 'B'BUFFERAALPFRRRR/W15' SLOPE EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4498,PAGE 283110'15' SLOPE EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4498,PAGE 2831MIN. 20' TYPE'D' BUFFER10' FPL EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 1544,PAGE 207430' EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4346,PAGE 422PROPERTYBOUNDARY10' SLOPE EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4498,PAGE 2831MASSEY STREET20' TYPE 'D'BUFFER20' TYPE 'D'BUFFERRGE:TWP:SEC:DATE:TITLE: CLIENT: PROJECT:OFPROJECT NO.:SHEET NUMBER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:DATEREVISION#DRAWN 0June 7, 2021 10:59 AM K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Exhibits\2000610003X MCP.dwgSOLUNA RPUD  DR HORTON 1 2200061.00.0112/2035 48 26KGHD25 50100EXHIBIT C - MASTER PLAN 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 / Naples, Florida 34109(239) 597-0575 FAX: (239) 597-0578www.consult-rwa.comFlorida Certificates of Authorization EB 7663 / LB6952LEGENDAA - AMENITY AREAF - FLOODPLAIN COMPENSATIONL - LAKE /WATER MANAGEMENTP - PRESERVER - RESIDENTIALR/W - RIGHT OF WAY#- PROPERTY BOUNDARY- PROJECT INGRESS/EGRESS- R/W- DEVIATION LOCATIONS31241254PER STAFF COMMENTS1 DLP 04/21 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 138Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) RGE:TWP:SEC:DATE:TITLE: CLIENT: PROJECT:OFPROJECT NO.:SHEET NUMBER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:DATEREVISION#DRAWN 0June 7, 2021 10:59 AM K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Exhibits\2000610003X MCP.dwgSUN BROADCASTING PARCEL  DR HORTON 2 2200061.00.0112/2035 48 26KGHDN/A N/AN/AEXHIBIT C - MASTER PLAN 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 / Naples, Florida 34109(239) 597-0575 FAX: (239) 597-0578www.consult-rwa.comFlorida Certificates of Authorization EB 7663 / LB6952 SITE SUMMARYTRACT/AREA USE UNITSAREA (ACRES)PERCENTAGER RESIDENTIAL130 7.4140.05%AA AMENITY AREA0.563.03%F FLOODPLAIN1.9210.38%P PRESERVE3.9021.08%LLAKE1.166.27%R/WRIGHT OF WAY2.7414.81%BUFFERS OPEN SPACE.804.3243TOTAL: TOTAL:18.50 100.00%PRESERVE AND OPEN SPACE:REQUIRED PRESERVE: 1.42± AC; 15% OF 9.44±AC. OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATIONPROVIDED: 3.90± ACREQUIRED OPEN SPACE: 60%PROVIDED OPEN SPACE: 60%RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES:1. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ONTHIS PUD MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.2. THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OFTHE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED ATEITHER PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLATAPPROVAL, OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PLATAPPROVAL OR SDP.3. PROJECT DENSITY: 7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.4. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THELANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT AFTER EXOTICVEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDCSECTION 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. IN THE EVENTTHAT THE PRESERVE DOES NOT SATISFY THEBUFFER REQUIREMENT AFTER REMOVAL OFEXOTICS, SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING WILL BEPROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC 3.05.07 TOMEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT10'2'TRAVELLANE10'PUBLICUTILITYEASEMENTC/LR/WScale: NTSTYPICAL SECTION50' RIGHT-OF-WAY2' CURB50' ROW5'5'3'10'2'TRAVELLANE10'PUBLICUTILITYEASEMENTR/W2' CURB5'5'3'319.A.1.bPacket Pg. 139Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 8 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development THE NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A TRACT OF PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S.02°16'57"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, FOR 668.96 FEET TO A POINT OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'03"W., ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, FOR 35.03 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 35 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LINE; THENCE N.02°16'57"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 388.75 FEET; THENCE N10°08'28"W., FOR 182.84 FEET; THENCE N.41°55'27"W., FOR 47.02 FEET; THENCE N.80°37'49"W., FOR 153.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 40 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 718.67 FEET; THENCE N.73°11'14"W., FOR 79.40 FEET; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., FOR 57.22 FEET; THENCE S.73°09'14"W., FOR 44.92 FEET; THENCE S.86°54'42"W., FOR 187.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.02°16'03"W., ALONG SAID WEST LINE, FOR 40.03 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.89°58'31"E., ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR 1321.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL. CONTAINING 805,839 SQUARE FEET OR 18.50 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 9 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01.N, which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow a 50’ right-of-way width for the internal streets that include public utilities. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead end streets except when designed as a cul-de-sac, to allow dead end street of less than 100 linear feet. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5 foot sidewalks within public and private rights-of-ways or easements, which are internal to the site to be on both sides of local/internal accessways (streets), to allow sidewalks to be constructed only on the side of the streets that are directly adjacent to residential units or amenity areas. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height of 8’ along the perimeter of the project where abutting an existing public roadway, and allow a 12’ tall wall/berm combination. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total combined sign area of 64 square feet, to allow for two (2) ground signs at the proposed project entrance wi th a maximum height of 10' and total combined sign area of 80 square feet. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 10 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is D.R. Horton, Inc. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. B. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.” (Section 125.022, FS) C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. TRANSPORTATION: The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 75 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 11 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 LANDSCAPING: Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirement after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC Section 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.e.1. In the event that the preserve does not satisfy the buffer requirement after removal of exotics, supplemental planting will be provided in accordance with LDC 3.05.07 to meet the buffer requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL: The project has 9.44+/- acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 15 percent of the existing calculated native vegetation on-site shall be retained. The minimum required preserve for the RPUD is 1.42+/- acres. The project is providing 3.90+/- acres. The Collier County Preserve Management Plan will specify that the potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows occurring within the development footprint will be excavated and the resident tortoises relocated pursuant to a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) gopher tortoise permit that will be obtained for the project. Residents will be provided with educational materials concerning preventing nuisance black bears. Both butterfly orchids (E. tampensis) and stiff-leaved wild-pines (T. fasciculata) were observed in various locations across the site. Pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03 if these species are not present within the preserve at the time of development, between two and ten plants of each species (growing within eight feet of natural grade) will be relocated from the development footprint to the on - site preserve prior to the initiation of clearing activities. PUBLIC UTILITIES: Reserved MISCELLANEOUS: Reserved 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON TABLE Detached Single Family Attached Single Family & Townhouse Two-Family, Zero Lot Line Multi Family Amenity Area Minimum Lot Area Soluna Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 4,000 s.f. 7,200 s.f. 1,800 s.f. n/a 1,800 s.f. 4,800 s.f. 1 acre ½ acre 10,000 n/a Buttonwood Preserve 5,000 s.f. 1,400 s.f. 3,500 s.f. (3) 9,000 s.f n/a Warm Springs Rural Agricultural (A) 4,000 s.f. 217,800 s.f. 1,600 s.f. n/a 3,500 s.f. n/a n/a n/a 10,000 s.f. n/a Minimum Lot Width Soluna 40 ft 20 ft 40 ft 100 ft 100 ft Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 58 feet n/a 40 ft 100 feet 100 ft Buttonwood Preserve(4) 42 feet 16 feet 35 feet 90 ft n/a Warm Springs (9) 40 ft 20 ft 35 feet n/a n/a Rural Agricultural (A) 165 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Floor Area Soluna 1,000 s.f 1,000 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 700 ft Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 1,000 s.f. n/a 800 s.f. Efficiency – 450 ft, One bedroom – 600 s.f, Two or more Bedrooms – 750 s.f. n/a Buttonwood Preserve 1000 s.f. 1000 s.f. 1000 s.f. 750 s.f. n/a Warm Springs 1,200 s.f. 750 s.f. 900 s.f. 750 s.f. n/a Rural Agricultural (A) 550 s.f. n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Front Yard Soluna 23 ft (1) Principal and Accessory) 23 ft (1) Principal and Accessory) 23 ft (1) Principal and Accessory) 23 ft (1) Principal and Accessory) n/a Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 20 ft n/a 20 ft 20 feet n/a Buttonwood Preserve 20 feet (5) (Principal and Accessory) 20 feet (5) (Principal and Accessory) 20 feet (5) (Principal and Accessory) 20 feet (5) (Principal and Accessory) 15 ft (Principal and Accessory) Warm Springs 20 ft (11) (Principal) 20 ft (Accessory) 20 ft (11) (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 20 ft (11) (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 20 ft (11) (Principal) 20 ft (Accessory) n/a (Principal) n/a (Accessory) Rural Agricultural (A) 50 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Side Yard Soluna 5 ft (Principal and Accessory) 0 or 5 ft (2) (Principal and Accessory) 0 or 5 ft (2) Principal and Accessory) 0 or 5 ft Principal and Accessory) n/a Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 7.5 feet n/a 0 or 5 ft 15 feet n/a Buttonwood Preserve 6 feet (Principal and Accessory) 0 ft and 6 ft (6) (Principal and Accessory) 0 ft and 6 ft (Principal and Accessory) ½ building height (Principal and Accessory) 10 ft (Principal and Accessory) Warm Springs 5 ft (Principal and Accessory) 0 or 5 feet (Principal) 0/6 feet (Accessory) 5 feet (Principal) 6 feet (12) (Accessory) 10 ft (Principal) 0 feet (12) (Accessory) 10 feet (Principal and Accessory) Rural Agricultural (A) 30 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Rear Yard Soluna 10 ft (Principal) 5 ft (Accessory) 10 ft (Principal) 5 ft (Accessory) 10 ft (Principal) 5 ft (Accessory) 10 ft (Principal) 5 ft (Accessory) n/a 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B - Development Standards Comparison Table (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 15 feet (Principal Structure) 10 feet (Golf Course) 10 feet (Accessory Structure) 25 feet (Lake Control Elevation) n/a 15 feet (Principal Structure) 10 feet (Golf Course) 10 feet (Accessory Structure) 25 feet (Lake Control Elevation) 20 feet (Principal Structure) 10 feet (Golf Course) 10 feet (Accessory Structure) 25 feet (Lake Control Elevation) 50 feet (Principal structures from all PUD boundaries/ residential districts 20 feet (Accessory structures from all PUD boundaries/ residential districts) Buttonwood Preserve 15 feet (Principal) 10 feet (Accessory) 15 feet (Principal) 10 feet (Accessory) 15 feet (Principal) 10 feet (Accessory) 15 feet (Principal) 10 feet (Accessory) 15 ft (Principal and Accessory) Warm Springs 15 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 20 ft (Principal) 5 ft (Accessory) 10 feet (Principal) 5 feet (Accessory) 15 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 15 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) Rural Agricultural (A) 50 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum PUD Perimeter Setback Soluna 30 ft (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 30 ft (Principal) 15 ft(Accessory) 30 ft (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 30 ft (Principal) 15 ft(Accessory) n/a Vanderbilt Cnty Clb n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Buttonwood Preserve n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Warm Springs 15 ft (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 15 ft (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 15 ft (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 20 ft (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) 20 ft (Principal) 15 ft (Accessory) Rural Agricultural (A) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Preserve Setback Soluna 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) Vanderbilt Cnty Clb n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Buttonwood Preserve n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Warm Springs 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) 25 ft (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) Rural Agricultural (A) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Distance Between Structures Soluna 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 20 ft 10 ft Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 10 feet n/a 10 ft 20 feet 35 feet (Principal) 25 feet (Accessory) Buttonwood Preserve (7) 12 ft 12 ft 12 ft Sum of 1/2 building height Sum of 1/2 building height Warm Springs (12) 10 ft (Principal and Accessory) 10 ft (Principal) 0/10 (Accessory) 10 ft (Principal) 0/10 (Accessory) ½ sum of the building height (Principal) 0/10 ft (Accessory) ½ sum of the building height (Principal) 10 ft (Accessory) Rural Agricultural (A) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Maximum Height Soluna - Same for both Principal and Accessory 30 ft (Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) 30 ft (Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) 30 ft (Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) 30 ft (Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) 30 ft (Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) Vanderbilt Cnty Clb 35 feet n/a n/a 35 feet 35 feet (Principal) 25 feet 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B - Development Standards Comparison Table (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) (Accessory) Buttonwood Preserve - Same for both Principal and Accessory 35 ft (Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) 45 ft (Zoned) 50 ft (Actual) 35 ft (Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) 45 ft (Zoned) 50 ft (Actual) 35 ft (8)(Zoned) 40 ft (Actual) Warm Springs Principal: 30 ft (Zoned) 35 ft (Actual) Accessory: 25 ft (Zoned) 30 ft (Actual) Principal: 45 ft (Zoned) 50 ft (Actual) Accessory: 25 ft (Zoned) 30 ft (Actual) Principal: 30 ft (Zoned) 35 ft (Actual) Accessory: 25 ft (Zoned) 30 ft (Actual) Principal: 45 ft (Zoned) 50 ft (Actual) Accessory: 25 ft (Zoned) 30 ft (Actual) Principal: 30 ft (Zoned) 35 ft (Actual) Accessory: 25 ft (Zoned) 30 ft (Actual) Rural Agricultural (A) 35 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a 1) The 23-foot setback shall apply to any front entry garage and shall be measured from the adjacent sidewalk. All other front yard setbacks shall be as follows: Where side entry garages are provided, the driveway shall be designed in such a manner that a parked vehicle shall not conflict with the sidewalk; however, in no case shall the front setback for the side entry garage be less than 10 feet. All other portions of this principal structure except as noted later in this paragraph, whether designed with a front entry or side entry garage, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet front the front yard property line, except where a lot is located at the intersection of two streets, in which case the front yard setback set forth herein shall only apply to the street on which the driveway is located, and the other setback abutting the right-of-way shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the front yard property line. The setback for porches, entry features and roofed courtyard elements shall be a minimum of 15 feet; except that it shall be a minimum of 5 feet on corner lots for the yard which does not contain a driveway vehicle access. Any structures, including overhangs, shall not encroach into a PUE or CUE. (2) 5-foot minimum setback for single-family attached, townhouse, two-family and zero lot line must be accompanied by another 5-foot side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10-foot separation. (3) Each half of a duplex requires a lot allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. (4) Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained (5) Front entry building garages shall be setback a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk. The minimum 20 foot front yard may be reduced to 15 feet where the residence is served by a side-loaded or rear entry garage. (6) Zero foot minimum side setback on one side of building as long as a minimum 12 separation between principal structures is maintained. (7) Building distance may be reduced at garage to a minimum of 10 feet if detached or 0 feet where attached garages are provided. Multifamily principal buildings shall be separated a minimum of 20 feet and garages a minimum of 10 feet. (8) Clock towers or similar architectural features shall be permitted up to 45 ft zoned height and 50 ft actual heigh t (9) Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. (10) Front yards shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed) (11) Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20 ft, and a minimum of 23 ft from a sidewalk. Porches, entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15 ft. (12) Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0 ft where attached garages are provided and a 10 ft minimum separation is maintained, if detached. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B - Development Standards Comparison Table (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) From: FinnTimothy Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:35 AM To: 'Katrina K. Curran' Cc: NawrockiStefanie; BellowsRay; 'Ken Gallander' Subject: RE: Canopy/Soluna Hi Katrina, Thank you for your detailed email and we understand your concerns. As such, this email will be included in the backup packet as an oppositional letter for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to evaluate. They will evaluate the information in this email separate from staff’s recommendation. The next opportunity to be heard at a public hearing regarding this petition will be at the CCPC. The CCPC meeting date has not been set. Because you were notified of the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) you will be notified of the CCPC meeting date. Staff has done an extensive review of this petition and is consistent with our Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP). It is important to note that staff can’t make any decisions not supported by our LDC and GMP and does not have any leeway beyond what the codes require. If you have any other issues, you do have the option of working these out with the agent. From: Katrina K. Curran <kkirkland77@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:06 PM To: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: NawrockiStefanie <Stefanie.Nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Canopy/Soluna EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mr. Finn, I have reviewed RWA response to your letter dated May 17, 2021 and I find their response to be quiet inadequate. I understand that RWA does not feel any of our concerns are legitimate but they are. I have noted that their site line exhibit tries to explain the visual distance between these two properties however, it is incorrect. I am attaching a snapshot of the property appraisers site which shows the actual distance from the homes in canopy to the property line. As you can see, Soluna’s avg of 67.2 is greatly misleading. Our PROPERTY includes outdoor spaces (lanais and yards) that are for our private enjoyment and just as meaningful to our property values as the home itself. Maybe even MORE meaningful as it is where our children play, where we gather as a community and where we’ve been able to get some quiet, as the fronts of our homes are not private despite being a distance of 90’ garage to garage from the neighbor across 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) the street (perspective of distance). Once the trees are cleared, the 38.7’ is nothing for a two story residence overlooking our property. From their site line drawing, we will have hardly anything for at least 5 years as any type of buffer between the two properties. In regards to their response about Canopy having a wall, we as a community was not given a choice. The original plans filed with the county included a fence to Tree Farm Rd and a wall along Tree Farm Rd, which Neal decided not to put it. We bought these homes based on false information from Neal as they did tell us we would have these security measures and Neal did not honor their commitment to the community. Additionally, where the fence was supposed to be behind our property, is currently a radio station that DOES have a fence located on the property. Now DR Horton, would like to remove that fence and build a townhome, the back of that townhome on the exact fence line that the radio station put in. At that point, there really will not be any type of protection between the two properties. I have reviewed the County’s website and Canopy has significant buffers between Bristol Pines ( appx 62 ft plus 50 ft road frontage) and Vanderbilt has almost 90ft from Canopy property line to the nearest Vanderbilt home. We are given less than 40 ft from the property line to the back of the townhouse. There is absolutely NO REASON, that DR Horton cannot draw up plans to continue the same likeness throughout this area and continue to preserve what is already here. Additionally, we are looking to have appx 6-18 units behind our homes. That is a minimum of 18-36 windows facing our homes, 6-18 ac units behind our homes and absolutely no buffer or security measures. I have taken the liberty of visiting DR Horton’s new community, Meadowood, on Collier Boulevard to provide some perspective as to what they are planning to put in Soluna. Please see attached photos below taken from Meadowood that back up to Brittany Bay and Indigo Lakes. As you can see, there is 23 ft from the back of the townhome to the fence on both sides of Meadowood’s property and a completely visual opening on both sides. When you look at the photos between Meadowood and Indigo Lakes, there is absolutely NO privacy between the two properties. This is unacceptable. We are unwilling to wait 5 years for some bushes to grow in between the properties, when there is already adequate vegetation between the two communities. Having a 6 ft fence put up without adequate landscaping is meaningless, as any child or adult can climb the fence without a problem. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Construction will be happening around these homes and with an adequate buffer this is a HUGE liability for RWA, DR Horton and Collier County for not protecting this community or Soluna. If a small child can freely roam between these two properties and get hurt, this will not have a happy ending. If someone can walk into our community and roam freely and someone gets injured or there is a loss of property, this will be another significant problem. In light of these facts, I am requesting the County take a serious look at these issues, so that these problems can be avoided. We are requesting a meeting with the County prior to the zoning change meeting. This is of an imperative nature. 1st picture- property appraiser, actual distance 2nd- pink pipe represents Soluna property line to Indigo fence 3rd- represents the back of the townhome to the fence 23 ft, which is nothing and what they are proposing here 4th- finished product- zero privacy and clearly both sides of the fence can see everything and everybody. And they don’t even want to put a fence in Soluna! 5th – what it looks like all the way down 6th from the road in Meadowood (front of a new townhome) to Indigo backyard. Completely open. Please keep in mind how old those trees are in the back yard at Indigo, we clearly do not have trees that old, so until they are grown it is completely open. If they leave the vegetation that is there or plant new full size that would be a different story but as you can see from the other photos they do not have any intention to do that. I look forward to hearing for you to schedule a meeting. Thank you for you time and attention to this matter. Katrina Curran 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) From: Katrina K. Curran <kkirkland77@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:16 PM To: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: stefanie.nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Re: Canopy/Soluna Thank you for your response Mr Finn. Correct, they are not proposing 400 units, I mentioned that to state the area of Collier and Immokalee is really getting full along with all the additional housing coming in on Immokalee, that this area will soon be even more crowded than it already is. As it is, people are turning down Woodcrest to get to Vanderbilt more and more each day. During peak times of the day 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) we are having trouble turning out of Canopy to make the left onto Tree Farm and this will only exacerbate the problem. Adding 108 townhomes on the corner of Tree Farm and Massey will make the area more congested and difficult to get in and out of. From the appearance of the current traffic study it does not take into account the growth that is occurring in this area. In addition to the traffic concerns, these particular townhomes are 38.7 ft from the back of their townhomes to my backyard. The landscaping plans currently in place are not a sufficient buffer between the two communities. This is a safety concern. There is also no type of fence or wall border between the communities making it free range for anyone. I don’t know if Soluna is gated or not, but if if is not, ANYONE can come in through Soluna onto my backyard and into our community. This is a serious matter that needs to be considered. We would like to schedule a meeting with the planning commission before this heads to zoning for approval. I look forward to hearing from you. Katrina Curran Get Outlook for iOS From: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:41:09 AM To: NawrockiStefanie <Stefanie.Nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov>; Katrina K. Curran <kkirkland77@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Canopy/Soluna Hi Stefanie/Katrina, The applicant is not proposing 400 units, they are proposing 130 units. Please see attached latest version of the Soluna RPUD document. Moreover, please see the architectural renderings of the anticipated townhomes. From: NawrockiStefanie <Stefanie.Nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 4:27 PM To: Katrina K. Curran <kkirkland77@hotmail.com> Cc: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Canopy/Soluna Hello Katrina: I am the planner for the PPL. The PPL cannot be approved until the rezone has been approved. All concerns for the proposed development are handled through the rezone process and neighborhood information meetings. Below is the planning project number for the rezone and the latest zoning comments from the Planner. I’ve copied the rezone planner on this email for additional questions. PL20210000093 Rezone 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Respectfully, Stefanie Nawrocki Senior Planner Development Review Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239-252-2313 From: Katrina K. Curran <kkirkland77@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 3:24 PM To: NawrockiStefanie <Stefanie.Nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Canopy/Soluna EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Ms. Nawrocki, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) I am reaching out to you regarding the proposed Soluna development off of Tree Farm Rd. I just cc’d you on an email to the engineers for the development along with some of our concerns. My neighbors and I would like to schedule a meeting with you along with the planning and zoning committee regarding this development as soon as possible. This area is not big enough (no matter how small) for another development especially with the 400 apts coming in and all the additional houses being built on Immokalee Rd. We would like the county to consider an alternate use for the land. I look forward to speaking with you regarding this matter and scheduling a meeting in the future. Thank you, Katrina Curran 3601 Canopy Cir Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) From: PAUL HUTCHINSON <hutchpm@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 8:34 PM To: FinnTimothy Cc: Dennis Vila; Richard Ceresa; Richard Crisanti; Andrei Ghelman; Mike LoVerde; Paul Hutchinson Subject: Concerns about the proposed Soluna Development. EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Timothy Great talking to you today. As I said, I will be unable to attend the meeting on the 19th in person, I will try to attend via zoom. A member of our BOD for Mockingbird Crossing should be there in person. To ensure our concerns are part of the upcoming meeting could you submit my observations for review by the committee. My initial concerns are: I can find no notification of the proposed development to the Mockingbird Crossing Association. We are located directly across Massey Street from the proposed development so I am not sure why we were not notified. Additionally, DR Horton was the developer of our community so they had first hand knowledge of our proximity to Soluna. Do you have any documentation of notification for our community? We became aware of the development, as I said today, as a result of the public sign. I did see notification on the county website that Vanderbilt Country Club was notified. And the HOA to the east of the proposed site was also notified. Do you know if the development to the North was notified and if they have any concerns? I was glad to see that concerns identified by Vanderbilt Country Club we’re addressed in the form of plantings and setbacks. The current planned opening onto Tree Farm Road is acceptable to us, however we would oppose any changes that would increase traffic on to Massey Street. The current planned preserve along Massey Street is acceptable and we would advocate for maintaining that preserve in both size and location. I reviewed the current traffic study and I have concerns about the future traffic along Woodcrest and Massey. How did the study assumptions take into account the current developments that are still under construction? We have seen a two or three fold increase in pass thru traffic along Woodcrest and Massey as traffic is increased along Collier. Additionally as traffic signals are added along Collier and Immokalee along with the current construction at the corner of Immokalee and Collier we have seen the traffic along Woodcrest and Massey increase as people move between Vanderbilt and Immokalee. The proposed construction increases along Vanderbilt between Collier and Wilson will also increase traffic along Massey and Woodcrest. How was all of this already approved projects taken into account as part of the traffic study? Please ensure these concerns are addressed at the meeting on the August 19 as part of the NIM. Additionally, how can we ensure we are given proper notification of future meetings and changes to this project. Regards: 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Paul Hutchinson President, Mockingbird Crossing Association. 978-884-7998 Hutchpm@aol.com 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) ADAMCZYK LAW FIRM, PLLC August 11, 2021 VIA REGULAR U.S. MAIL AND CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: Collier County Growth Management Department Comprehensive Planning Section Attn: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, GMP 2800 Horseshoe Drive N. Naples, FL 34104 REAL ESTATE. CONDO/HOA & BUSINESS LAW DONALD S. BOYD, ESQ. DONALD@ADAMCZYKLA WFIRM.COM Re: Soluna RPUD (PUDZ) / Planning Project Application No. PL20210000093 Dear Ms. Faulkner: Our law firm serves as general counsel for the Canopy Neighborhood Association, Inc. (hereinafter "Association") which is the governing entity for the Canopy of Naples neighborhood located along Tree Fann Road ( off of Collier Boulevard, between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road). The Association has directed our office to reach out to the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section concerning the pending Soluna RPUD ·application. We understand that a number of the concerns from residents of Canopy and the neighboring Vanderbilt Country Club community were expressed at the neighborhood informational meeting held on April 21, 2021. With that noted, the Association requested that we formally submit the residents' concerns regarding the Soluna development with the hopes that the County will take these into consideration when reviewing the Soluna RPUD application. The Association's specific concerns are set forth in the bulleted list below: •The Association is concerned with the sufficiency of the buffer between the communities and is requesting sufficient buffer requirements, privacy wall barrier, and screening between the Canopy and Soluna communities in accordance with s. 4.06.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") or in excess of the intent of the Code. •The Association wants to ensure that the type and number of plantings along the landscape easement in Soluna are of sufficient size, quantity and density to provide sufficient screening. There are also a number of fully grown native pine trees on the border of the Soluna property. The Association would like for the County to require that as many of these mature pine trees be retained as possible and any supplemental plantings be provided to satisfy the buffer and preserve requirements in accordance with s. 3.05.07 of the LDC.9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 239.631.6199 I WWW.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM 9414811899561484647643 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Submittal #1 Working Docs\01 2021-02-26 Cover Letter.docx February 26, 2021 Intake Department Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Soluna Residential PUD Rezone (PUDZ)– Submittal #1 PL20200002165 Intake Team: Pursuant to the pre-application meeting held on February 3, 2021, RWA, Inc., is pleased to submit, on behalf of our client, this PUD Rezone Application for property located at 1555 Massey St., Naples, FL 34120. As part of this cover letter, please see the attached Narrative Statement describing the project as well as the following items included pursuant to the application Submittal Requirement checklist: 1. One (1) copy of the Narrative Statement; 2. One (1) copy of completed PUD Rezone Application, including Statement of Utility Provisions; 3. One (1) copy of the Pre-Application Meeting Notes; 4. One (1) copy of the Affidavit of Authorizations, signed and notarized; 5. One (1) copy of the Property Ownership Disclosure Form; 6. One (1) copy of the Covenant of Unified Control, signed and notarized; 7. One (1) copy of the Completed and Approved Addressing Checklist; 8. One (1) copy of the Warranty Deed; 9. One (1) copy of List of Owners and all parties of corporation; 10. One (1) original of the Boundary Survey (ALTA), signed and sealed; 11. One (1) copy of Architectural Renderings; 12. One (1) copy of Current Aerial Photograph with project boundary and FLUCFCS Codes; 13. One (1) copy of the Environmental Data Requirements & Protected Species Survey; 14. One (1) copy of the Traffic Impact Study; 15. One (1) copy of the School Impact Analysis Application; 16. One (1) copy of the Completed Exhibits A-F; a. Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses; b. Exhibit B: Development Standards; c. Exhibit C: Master Plan; d. Exhibit D: Legal Description; e. Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations; and f. Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments; 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com 17. One (1) copy of the Requested Deviations with Justifications; 18. One (1) copy of the Conceptual Master Plan in 24” x 36” format and 8 ½” x 11” format; and 19. One (1) copy of a Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan Additionally, one (1) electronic copy of all required documents have been uploaded to the GMD Public Portal. The PUDZ review fees, a Total of $19,087.50, for the PUD Rezone, Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review, Environmental Data Requirements, Listed/Protected Species Review, Transportation Review, and Legal Advertising Fees will be paid upon receipt of the Payment Slip. We look forward to your review and are available to answer questions related to this application. Sincerely, RWA, Inc. Kenrick S. Gallander, AICP Director of Planning Attachments: Application Submittal Requirements (listed above) cc: Mr. Wayne Everett Mr. Mark Brumfield Mr. Richard Yovanovich, Esq. RWA File: 200061.00.03 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\01a Narrative Statement FINAL.docx NARRATIVE STATEMENT Soluna Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) A PUD Rezone (PUDZ) The subject property is located on a single 18.5 +/- acre parcel of land (Property ID No.: 00205280007) located southwest of the intersection of Tree Farm Road and Massey Street (See figure 1). The specific address is 1555 Massey St., Naples, FL 34120. The owner of this subject property is Sun Broadcasting, Inc., and the applicant for this Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) is D.R. Horton, Inc. The subject property is, by reference, an “infill parcel” per Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.07.02.A.2, - less than 20 acres, surrounded by at least two common boundaries that are developed and overall located in a heavily developed residential area of Collier County. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation is Urban (Urban - Residential Subdistrict) as provided on the FLUM of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The current zoning district is Rural Agriculture (A). Figure 1. Subject Property Location Map The following narrative and attached materials/documentation will further address those applicable criteria as outlined in accordance with the LDC subsection 10.02.13.B.a-h. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\01a Narrative Statement FINAL.docx a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject property is vacant, with a current zoning designation as Rural Agriculture (A). The property is bounded by residential development with the Vanderbilt Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the south and the Buttonwood Preserve Residential Planned Unit Development to the west. The subject property is adjacent to the Tree Farm Road public right-of-way to the north and Massey Street public right-of-way to the east. See Table 1 below. Table 1: Surrounding Area Analysis Future Land Use District Zoning District Existing Uses NORTH Urban – Mixed Use RPUD (Warm Springs) Public right-of-way SOUTH Urban – Mixed Use PUD (Vanderbilt Country Club) Residential EAST Urban – Mixed Use Rural Agriculture (A) Public Right-of-way; WEST Urban – Mixed Use RPUD (Buttonwood Preserve) Residential The Soluna RPUD is proposed to develop a maximum of 130 townhome residential dwellings on the 18.5 +/- acres. This proposed residential use is consistent with the surrounding areas’ residential land use pattern. A rezone of the subject property from Rural Agriculture (A) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) will allow for a more consistent residential land use patten, which more accurately reflects the intent of the FLU designation and is consistent with the abutting residential uses bounding the project site. All necessary utility infrastructure is in place adjacent to the subject property to support the proposed residential development. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at a public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicant, D.R. Horton, Inc., is the contract purchase of the entire 18.5+/- acre subject property. Operation and maintenance responsibility for private areas and facilities shall be assigned to the developer until conveyance to a property owners association at the appropriate time. Further, the proposed RPUD documents make appropriate provisions for the continued operation and maintenance of common areas. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 3 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\01a Narrative Statement FINAL.docx c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) The proposed infill residential development allows for residential uses, amenity areas, water management lakes, preserves, open space and internal roadways with sidewalks. The project is designed in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) as follows: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Designation; Urban Mixed Use District; Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of Collier County GMP. According to the GMP, the Urban designated areas are planned for the majority of the county’s population growth due to the existing or projected urban facilities and services, and thus a majority of the most intensive land uses and greatest densities will occur within these areas. Additionally, the purpose of this district is to provide for the most variety of residential uses densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated to serve the urban environment. The Urban designated areas will allow for both residential and a various non-residential uses. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows for an overall maximum of 16 dwelling units (du) per acre. The Soluna RPUD is requesting a maximum density of 7 du/acre. The Urban Residential Subdistrict permits a base density of 4 dwellings units (du) per gross acre in accordance with the Collier County GMP Density Rating System (Section B.1.a). Additional Density Bonuses (3 du/acre) are achievable by meeting specific criteria listed in the GMP’s Section B.2.d to encourage residential in-fill in urban areas. The Soluna RPUD will meet the requisite criteria under Section B.2.d: d. Residential In-fill: To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: (a) The project is 20 acres or less in size; YES. (b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; YES. (c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; YES, BASED ON SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES, OPEN SPACE, AND BUFFERING. (d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; YES. (e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; NO ADJACENT PARCELS ARE OWNED BY THE CURRENT OWNER OR APPLICANT. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 4 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\01a Narrative Statement FINAL.docx (f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential density bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; YES, THE PARCEL WAS NOT CREATED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SECTION AND WAS RECOGNIZED PARCEL PRIOR TO JANUARY 10, 1989. (g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands; UNDERSTOOD, and (h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. UNDERSTOOD. 2. As set forth in Objective #3 of the FLUE, all improvements for the Soluna RPUD are planned to be compliant with land development regulations where applicable and as set forth in our PUD development standards and deviations. 3. This proposed development addresses GMP objectives including Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 in that the site is located in an urban designated area with available urban services and existing infrastructure. It is a Planned Unit Development project which provides residential infill development in an area specifically designated for urban uses and urban densities. The subject property’s location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services constitutes an appropriate area for the development of residential land uses as intended in Objective 3 Policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The presence of schools, public facilities, medical facilities, office uses, and emergency services are all within short distance of the subject property as well as water and wastewater treatment services, demonstrate that the proposed residential development will be appropriately served. 4. The proposed infill residential development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.6 of the FLUE through the proposed residential uses, internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards contained herein. The Soluna residential development will be consistent and compatible with existing adjacent residential uses. The proposed development standards are consistent with those found in the Vanderbilt Country Club, Buttonwood Preserve and Warm Springs PUDs. Similar to those projects, Soluna will have a unified architectural theme and landscaping, common open space, a recreational amenity area, and restricted access for the residents and their guests. The proposed development standards limit the scale of the units and height limits (2 stories) furthering consistency with the existing residential developments to the north, south, and west. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 5 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\01a Narrative Statement FINAL.docx The proposed 15’ Type “A” buffers along the south and west adjacent to existing residential are consistent with buffering and landscaping standards approved and applied throughout this area and the County. The project is designed with the internal roadway network adjacent to the proposed buffer, thus providing additional distance from the neighboring residents. An extensive preserve area along the northeast and eastern portion of the Soluna development will provide further buffering from adjacent uses to the east, while also retaining more of the native natural setting the community desires. 5. The proposed property is adjacent to Tree Farm Road and Massey Street. Both roadways are neither a county classified arterial nor a collector road. In accordance with the Master Plan, the development will connect to Tree Farm Road. Based on the existing roadway classifications and project’s accessway connection, the proposed development is consistent with the intent of Policy 7.1 of the GMP. The project provides for an internally looped roadway system, which is consistent with Policy 7.2 to encourage such development design to reduce vehicle congestion on nearby roadways. Policy 7.3 is not applicable to this project as the surrounding developments are developed with no opportunity to inter- connect to other internal local streets. The proposed RPUD provides the area with a potential housing options that differ from what currently exists in the area, which is predominantly single-family detached development. The project is requesting a density that will allow the development of townhomes or duplexes, which will diversify the housing stock and provide housing choices, while still providing a quality community consistent with the area and will include amenity areas, preserve, open space, and internal roadways and pedestrian connectivity to solicit walkability and smart growth initiatives consistent with Objective 7 and Policy 7.4 of the GMP. 6. A Traffic Impact Statement, dated February 23, 2021, has been prepared for the subject project. The TIS concludes there is available capacity within the adjacent transportation network, and thus, consistent with Policy 1.3 of the Transportation Element. 7. Goal 6 of the GMP’s Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) seeks to ensure identification, protection, conservation, and to appropriately use native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. The project, a proposed residential in-fill development on land great than 5 but less than 20 acres and not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, is consistent with the supporting Policy 6.1.1 and the implementing regulation under LDC Section 3.05.07.B.1 by providing 1.45+/- acres of preserve, which meet or exceeds 15% of 9.67+/- acres of existing native vegetation and identified disturbed lands. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 6 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\01a Narrative Statement FINAL.docx 8. Goal 7 of the GMP’s Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) seeks to protect and conserve the county’s fisheries and wildlife. A Protected Species Assessment was conducted on the subject site. The assessment concluded the project, as proposed, is consistent with all the applicable Goals and Objectives of the CCME of the GMP. Thereby, consistent with all applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection concurrent with Policy 7.1.4 of the CCME. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As previously stated, the property is bounded to the south and west by residential uses and public right-of-way to the north and east. The proposed residential uses, site design, orientation of structures, architectural elements, proposed development standards, placement of buffering/screening, and open space provided further emphasizes its compatibility with the surrounding area, e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The proposed development will meet or exceed the minimum 60% open space requirements of the Collier County LDC. Usable open space in the form of a recreational area, common areas, pedestrian walkways, lakes, and a preserve will be provided throughout the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the ade quacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Public and private improvements and facilities are available for the site. Water and sewer service is available. Roadway capacity as confirmed by the provided TIS. Drainage is adequate for the site. Waste management, cable, electric, and telephone service are available. Adequate schools, police, fire, bus, park, and health care facilities are within the proposed development’s service area. Payment of impact fees and timing of adequate public facilities certification are mechanisms to assure the development is appropriately serviced. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The proposed residential community is an ideal infill project that is compatible with surrounding residential uses and is appropriate for the general area and the specific property. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 7 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\01a Narrative Statement FINAL.docx h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed development conforms with the intent of the PUD regulations by establishing uses and development regulations that are consistent with similar residential developments adjacent to and throughout Collier County. The requested deviations provide design flexibility that will help improve the overall project while not causing any adverse impact the public health, safety, and welfare. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))SUN BROADCASTING, INC. D.R. HORTON, INC. 10541 Six Mile Cypress Ft. Myers FL 33966 jweverett@drhorton.com Kenrick S. Gallander, AICP (SEE LIST OF ADDITIONAL AGENTS) RWA, Inc.6610 Willow Park Naples FL 34109239-597-0575 kgallander@consult-rwa.com 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: •If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; •The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and •The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))Rural Agriculture (A) Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Public Infrastructure - Utility (Communication Towers) Residential with Amenity AreasN/AN/A 35 48S 26EN/A N/A N/A See attached. N/A N/A 00205280007 1,287.0 629.1 809,689 18.5 1555 Massey StreetSouthwest of the intersection of Tree Farm Road and Massey Street. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))RPUD (Warm Springs)Tree Farm Road; Residential PUD (Vanderbilt County Club)ResidentialAMassey Street; Residential RPUD (Buttonwood Preserve)Residential N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners Association8555 Danbury Boulevard #105 Naples FL 34120 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a.The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b.Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at pu blic expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c.Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d.The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which c onditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f.The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h.Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to asce rtain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an applicati on “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))No. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e.Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))D.R. HORTON, INC. 10541 Six Mile Cypress Ft Myers FL 33966 jweverett@drhorton.com1555 Massey Street.Naples FL 34120 35 48 26N/A N/A N/A See attached. N/A N/A 00205280007 X Collier County Utilities 2.5 MGD X Collier County Utilities 325 based on potential of 130 max. units. 128.3 gpm 45,500 gpd 91.6 gpm 32,500 gpd June 2022 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))The sewage treatment process used and method of affluent disposal will be via the existing development's connection to the existing Collier County's Sewage Disposal Utility System lines along Tree Farm Road. Acknowledged. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Page 8 of 11 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of recor d of property commonly known as ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for ______________ planned unit development (______________PUD) zoning. We hereby designate___________________, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring a nd authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1.The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2.The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3.A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4.All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5.So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek e quitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought in to compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development. ___________________________________ Owner ___________________________________ Printed Name ___________________________________ Owner ____________________________________ Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization this ____ day of _______________, 20___, by (printed name of owner or qualifier)_________________________________________ Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: Are personally known to me Has produced a current drivers license ________________ Has produced ______________________ as identification. Notary Signature:_________________________________________ March 4, 2020 Notary Seal 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))PROVIDED AS SEPARATE SUBMITTAL DOCUMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre-application meeting notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Checklist continues on next page 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet:  Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses  Exhibit B: Development Standards  Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code  Exhibit D: Legal Description  Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each  Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: City of Naples Utilities Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION  Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00  PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00  Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00  Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00  Transportation Review Fees: o Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 X X X PAID X X X X X X X X X X X X 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))X X X X 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))RICHARD YOVANOVICH COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. F orms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) BL (Blasting Permit) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit CU (Conditional Use) EXP (Excavation Permit) FP (Final Plat LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) PNC (Project Name Change) PPL (Plans & Plat Review) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) SDP (Site Development Plan) SDPA (SDP Amendment) SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) SIP (Site Im provement Plan) SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) SNR (Street Name Change) SNC (Street Name Change – Unplatted) T DR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) 1 SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) SDP - or AR or PL # 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))n See attached. 00205280007 1555 Massey St., Naples, FL 34120 Soluna RPUD TBD COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email Personally picked up Applicant Name: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED 2 Fax Email/Fax:Phone: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) 00205280007 01/13/2021 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))N/A n Kenrick S. Gallander 239-597-0575 kgallander@consult-rwa.com LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOLUNA - Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) A PUD Rezone (PUDZ) THE NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A TRACT OF PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S.02°16'57"E., ALONG THE EASE LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, FOR 668.96 FEET TO A POINT OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'03"W., ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, FOR 35.03 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 3 5 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LINE; THENCE N.02°16'57"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 388.75 FEET; THENCE N10°08'28"W., FOR 182.84 FEET; THENCE N.41°55'27"W., FOR 47.02 FEET; THENCE N.80°37'49"W., FOR 153.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 40 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 718.67 FEET; THENCE N.73°11'14"W., FOR 79.40 FEET; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., FOR 57.22 FEET; THENCE S.73°09'14"W., FOR 44.92 FEET; THENCE S.86°54'42"E., FOR 187.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.02°16'03"W., ALONG SAID WEST LINE, FOR 40.03 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.89°58'31"E., ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR 1321.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) LOCATION MAP: 1555 MASSEY ST. SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34109 Phone: (239) 597-0575FAX: (239) 597-0578LB No.: 6952________________________________________DESCRIPTIONSCHEDULE B-II (EXCEPTIONS) NOTESSURVEYOR'S GENERAL NOTES:TABLE A NOTES:UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS:CERTIFICATIONS:12/18/20209.A.1.ePacket Pg. 212Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) MASSEY STREET TREE FARM ROAD6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34109 Phone: (239) 597-0575FAX:(239) 597-0578LB No.: 6952LEGEND9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 213Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Soluna A Residential Planned Unit Development List of Owner and all Parties of Corporation • Owner: SUN BROADCASTING, INC. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 217Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 5" 12" 4" 12" 3"12" 5" 12" 5" 12"5" 12" 4" 12" 3"12" FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" 8070 OHGD 3068 ENTRY 1/2 33 SH 8070 OHGD 8070 OHGD 35 SH 35 SH 25 SH 25 SH 35 SH 35 SH 25 SH 25 SH 35 SH 35 SH 8070 OHGD 8070 OHGD 1/2 33 SH 3068 ENTRY 8070 OHGD TILE ROOF RAKE TRUSS 1'-0" RAKE TRUSS 1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"7'-4"6'-8"4" DECOR BAND SHUTTERS 6" DECOR BAND 4" DECOR BAND 6" DECOR BAND 6" DECOR BAND SHUTTERS 4" DECOR BAND SHUTTERS 6" DECOR BAND 4" DECOR BAND 6" DECOR BAND ELEV. @ -1'-0" B.F.F. AVERAGE ROAD CENTERLINE ELEVATION(40'-0" ALLOWABLE)29'-7 13/32"(30'-0" ALLOWABLE)23'-3 45/64"3068 ENTRY 3068 ENTRY 3068 ENTRY 3068 ENTRY UNIT A UNIT B UNIT B UNIT B UNIT B UNIT A INWALL WEEP SCREED INWALL WEEP SCREED INWALL WEEP SCREED FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" TILE ROOF 35 SH 25 SH 35 SH 2-4068 SL GL DR2-4068 SL GL DR2-4068 SL GL DR2-4068 SL GL DR2-4068 SL GL DR2-4068 SL GL DR 1'-0"1'-0"1'-0" 25 SH25 SH25 SH25 SH25 SH25 SH25 SH 1'-0" DECO TEXTURE FINISH OVER CONC BLOCK DECO TEXTURE FINISH OVER CONC BLOCK 6'-8" TYP.BOTTOM OF VENT SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 3'-0" BELOW THE RIDGE PER R806.2.2 3'-0" MAX4" SLEEVES FOR HVAC GAS LINES, PLACE IN 1ST FLOOR BEAM BEFORE POUR 4" SLEEVES FOR HVAC GAS LINES, PLACE IN 1ST FLOOR BEAM BEFORE POUR 4" SLEEVES FOR HVAC GAS LINES, PLACE IN 1ST FLOOR BEAM BEFORE POUR 4" SLEEVES FOR HVAC GAS LINES, PLACE IN 1ST FLOOR BEAM BEFORE POUR FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0" TILE ROOF 35 SH 25 SH 25 SH7'-4"6'-8"DECO TEXTURE FINISH OVER CONC BLOCK 7'-4"7'-4"WHERE ROOF FRAMING CONFLICTS WITH THE ROOF VENTS, INSTALLATION OF THE VENT MORE THAN 3'-0" BELOW THE RIDGE IS ALLOWED PER R806.2.2 FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 0" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" TOP OF BEAM ELEV. @ 8'-8" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" 2ND FINISH FLOOR ELEV. @ 10'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" TRUSS BEARING ELEV. @ 18'-0" 25 SH 35 SH 25 SH TILE ROOF 1'-0"7'-4"1'-0"6'-8"DECO TEXTURE FINISH OVER CONC BLOCK 7'-4"7'-4"WHERE THE ROOF FRAMING CONFLICTS WITH THE ROOF VENTS, INSTALLATION OF THE VENT MORE THAN 3'-0" BELOW THE RIDGE IS ALLOWED PER R806.2.2 SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PLAN: REVISED: DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2017 -6TH EDITION 3/16" = 1'-0"L:\0-New Data\1-MASTER 2019\2019-BUILDERS\DR HORTON 2019\TOWNHOMES\MEADOWOOD 6 UNIT TOWN HOUSE\REVIT\MEADOWOOD.rvtA-1 ELEVATIONTOWNHOMESMEADOWOOD08/20/20ADDRS: Enter address hereProject Number3/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 219Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) SOLUNA Rezoning Environmental Information (February 2021) Based on a review of historic aerial photography, the property was primarily forested prior to 1986. By 1993 the central portion of the property had been cleared for the construction of transmission towers. There is currently 9.44± acres of native vegetation (as defined by Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.05.07.A.1) on the property. This consists of Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Codes 411, 624E2, 625DE, 625DE1, 625DE2, and 625DE3 as shown on the attached Vegetation Map. A survey for bald eagles, listed species known to inhabit similar vegetative communities in Collier County, and plants species listed in LDC Section 3.04.03 has been conducted. A bald eagle nest is located 977± feet north northeast of Soluna’s northeast corner. Three potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows and scattered wild pines were observed on- site. Please see the attached Protected Species Assessment for a discussion of the current site conditions and the results of the listed species survey. The limits of the wetlands on-site have been flagged. The extent of the wetlands will be confirmed during the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitting process. The project as proposed is consistent with all applicable Goals and Objectives of the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. Craig M. Smith of DexBender prepared the Protected Species Assessment. Mr. Smith has been employed as a full time environmental consultant in southwest Florida since 1987. A copy of his credentials is attached. Y:\DRHOR-518\County\County Zoning Info.Docx 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 221Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) SOLUNA Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida Protected Species Assessment February 2021 Prepared for: D.R. Horton Homes 10541 Six Mile Cypress Pkwy., Suite 100 Fort Myers, FL 33966 Prepared by: DexBender 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 1 INTRODUCTION The 18.50± acre parcel is located within a portion of Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The property is bordered by Tree Farm Road to the north, Massy Street to the east, Vanderbilt Country Club to the south, and Canopy to the west. SITE CONDITIONS Based on a review of historic aerial photography, the property was primarily forested prior to 1986. By 1993 the central portion of the property had been cleared for the construction of transmission towers. The area containing the transmission towers is surrounded by a six feet tall chain link fence topped with barb wire. VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS The predominant upland and wetland vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2019 digital color 1” = 100’ scale aerial photography. The property boundary was obtained from RWA Engineering and inserted into the digital aerial. The property boundary was not staked in the field at the time of our site inspection and was, therefore, estimated based on the overlay of the boundary on the aerial photography. Eight vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). Figure 1 depicts the approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations and Table 1 summarizes the acreages by FLUCCS Code. A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is provided below. In order to minimize redundancy only the base FLUCCS Codes are described (i.e. description provided for FLUCCS Code 625D but not for FLUCCS Codes 625DE, 625DE1, 625DE2, and 625DE3). In general, as the density of exotics increases the density and diversity of native plants in the canopy, midstory, and ground cover strata decreases. Table 1. Acreage Summary by FLUCCS Code FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 411 Pine Flatwoods 2.56 624E2 Cypress – Pine Invaded by Exotics (26 –50%) 3.39 625DE Drained Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (5 –9%) 2.01 625DE1 Drained Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (10 – 25%) 0.58 625DE2 Drained Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) 0.72 625DE3 Drained Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (51 – 75%) 0.18 740 Disturbed Land 0.23 821 Transmission Towers 8.83 Total 18.50 FLUCCS Code 411, Pine Flatwoods The upland pine flatwoods on the property are characterized by an open canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and a dense ground cover of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 224Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 3 Scattered stagger bush (Lyonia sp.), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) are present in the midstory. Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and grape vine (Vitis sp.) are also present in the ground cover. FLUCCS Code 624E2, Cypress – Pine Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) The wetland in the northeast corner of the property is dominated by pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), slash pine, cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). Exotics, such as Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and old world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), are common throughout. Saw-grass (Cladium jamaicense) and grape vine are also present. FLUCCS Code 625D, Drained Hydric Pine Flatwoods Portions of the site were historically hydric pine flatwoods that appear to be effectively drained. The canopy is dominated by slash pine while cabbage palm and scattered pond cypress are present in the midstory. Varying densities of melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and earleaf acacia are present. The ground cover is dominated by grape vine with scattered muhly grass (Muhlenbergia sp.), bracken fern, whitehead broom (Spermacoce verticillata), swamp fern, and Caesarweed (Urena lobata). FLUCCS Code 740, Disturbed Land A disturbed area is located adjacent to Tree Farm Road. This area is vegetated by a dense growth of Brazilian pepper and grape vine with scattered cabbage palm, bracken fern, Boston fern (Nephrolepis sp.), and swamp fern. FLUCCS Code 821, Transmission Towers The central portion of the property contains transmission towers and a support building. The area within the fence is a mowed field vegetated by species such as natalgrass (Rhynchelytrum repens), Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), lovegrass (Eragrostis sp.), and pusley (Richardia sp.). SURVEY METHOD Based on the general habitat types (FLUCCS Codes) identified on-site there is a low potential for a limited number of species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to potentially occur on the subject parcel. These species include gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a variety of wading birds, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida bonneted- bat (Eumops floridanus). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which has been delisted by the FWC and FWS, is still protected by other regulations and was therefore included in the survey. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), delisted in 2012, is still protected by the Florida Black Bear Management Plan and was therefore included in the survey. In addition, per Collier County regulations three species of orchids (Cyrtopodium punctatum, Encyclia cochleata, and E. tampensis) and four species of wild 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 4 pine (Tillandsia fasciculata, T. utriculata, T. balbisiana, and T. flexuosa) which could potentially occur on-site were included in the survey. In order to comply with FWC/FWS survey methodology guidelines, each habitat type was surveyed for the occurrence of the species listed above using meandering pedestrian belt transects. The meandering pedestrian belt transects were spaced approximately 75 feet apart. The approximate location of direct sighting or sign (such as tracks, nests, and droppings) of a listed species, when observed, was denoted on the aerial photography. The 1" = 100’ scale aerial Protected Species Assessment Map (Figure 1) depicts the approximate location of the survey transects and the results of the survey. The listed species survey was conducted during the mid-day hours of January 8, 2021. The weather at the time of the survey was mild and sunny with a light breeze. Additional observations were made while mapping vegetation in October 2020. Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a search of the FWC listed species database (updated in June 2020) was conducted to determine the known occurrence of listed species in the project area. This search revealed no known protected species occurring on the site. The database indicated that Florida black bear have been recorded adjacent to the property (Figure 2). The property is within a wood stork core foraging area but is not within panther Priority 1 or 2 zones. The FWC data base shows a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest (Nest Number CO-031) located within a preserve for the Calusa Pine Golf Club to the northeast. The nest at this location was last reported to be active in 2017. On October 23, 2020 the pine tree snag at that location did not contain an eagle nest. According to Collier County staff the pair of eagles had established a new nest located just north of Calusa Pines Drive during the 2019/2020 nesting season. However, at the time of our listed species survey an apparent eagle nest had been re-built in the original pine tree snag. That tree is located 977± feet north northeast of Soluna’s northeast corner. The FWC’s online Gopher Tortoise Permit Map was also reviewed. According to the website, no gopher tortoise permits have been issued for the subject property. However, the Gopher Tortoise Permit Map indicates that a permit (GTT-13-00164) was issued in 2013 to Collier County for the relocation of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) within a utility corridor along Tree Farm Road adjacent to the northern property line of the subject property. Two gopher tortoises were captured and relocated off-site. SURVEY RESULTS Gopher Tortoise Three potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows were found in the upland pine flatwoods on-site. Using the FWC standard burrow occupancy correction factor of 0.5 gopher tortoises per burrow, it is estimated that two gopher tortoises are present within the property. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Perm it Use Only - N ot For C on st ruct ionProperty b oun dary is ap proximat e.Map b ased o n dat a o bt ain ed fro m th e F lorida Fish an d W ild lifeConservation C omm ission . So lu na ³ Fig ure 2. Nui sa nc e Bea r Ca lls Ma p nmnm nmnm nmnmnm nmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnm nm nm nmnm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nm nmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nm nmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nmnm nm nmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nm nmnm nm nmnm nmnmnmnm nmnmnm nmnmnm nm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nmnm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nmnm nm nmnm nm nmnm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nmnmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nmnmnm nm nm nm nmnmnmnm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnmnm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnm nmnm nmnm nmnm nm nmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm Sour ce: Esr i, M axa r, G e oEye , Ear t hst ar G e ogr aph ic s, CNE S/Air bus DS , USDA, US GS, Ae roGRID,IG N, a nd t he G IS Us er Com m un it y 2/1 8/2021 2 :3 2:51 PM Y:\DRHO R-5 18\GIS _GPS\Bear M ap .m xd Fort My er s (23 9) 33 4-3680 - 0 0.5 10.2 5 Mi le s Le ge nd nm Bla ck Be a r Nu is a nc e C all s Su bje c t P a rc elCollier BoulevardMassey StreetTree Far m Road Section: 35Township: 48Range: 26 59.A.1.e Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6 Florida Bonneted Bat A total of five dead trees containing potential cavities entrances were identified (Figure 1). The vast majority of identified potential cavity entrances are less than approximately two inches in diameter, very shallow, and do not penetrate the heartwood of the snag. No evidence of bat utilization (bat vocalization/chatter from within the potential cavities or guano on or around the snags) was observed. No live trees with cavities or artificial structures were observed on-site. Collier County Plants Both butterfly orchids (E. tampensis) and stiff-leaved wild-pines (T. fasciculata) were observed in various locations across the site. Both species occur within the preserves and therefore, pursuant to Collier County LDC Section 3.04.03, there is no requirement to relocate butterfly orchids or stiff-leaved wild-pines into the preserves. Other Listed Species No other species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey or during other site visits. There is the potential for periodic opportunistic foraging by both listed and non-listed species of wading birds within the wetland. In addition to the site inspections, a search of the FWC species database (updated in June 2020) revealed no additional known protected species within the project limits. Y:\DRHOR-518\PSA.docx 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Current Responsibilities Project Manager providing an array of environmental studies and services related to land development and property evaluation in south Florida. These activities, performed for private landowners and public entities, include vegetation mapping, binding and informal state and federal wetland jurisdictional determinations, wetland functional assessments using UMAM, WRAP, and MWRAP, habitat evaluations, establishing seasonal high water elevations for wetlands using biological indicators, threatened and endangered species surveys, and wetland (COE, DEP, and WMD) permit applications. Additional services include threatened and endangered species relocation and management plans, wetland mitigation (creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation) plans, and the design and implementation of wetland monitoring plans. Experience Joined the firm in 2003 bringing over 16 years of experience as an environmental consultant in South Florida. More than 276,000 acres of land has been mapped and evaluated since 1987. Mapping includes detailed macrophyte community mapping, more general plant community mapping of wetlands and uplands, and the mapping of current and historic conditions based on photo interpretation. Individual properties ranged in size from less than one acre to more than 5,000 acres located in Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Sarasota, Hardee, Polk, Brevard, Martin, and Dade Counties. Projects have included agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, new and expanding roadways, and wetland restoration (wetland mitigation banking). Wetland permitting experience includes wetland delineation, preparation of state and federal permit applications and supporting documents, responding to agency questions and third party concerns, and negotiating mutually acceptable wetland mitigation plans. Surveys and management plans have been conducted and prepared for gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snake, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida bonneted bat, and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Has authorization from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to conduct surveys, prepare permit applications, and relocate gopher tortoises as an Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent. Is qualified as an expert witness by the Lee County Hearing Examiner, Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, Collier County Planning Commission, and City of Bonita Springs Zoning Board, Village of Estero Zoning Board on environmental issues. Craig M. Smith, Senior Ecologist 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Recently completed and ongoing projects for the public and private sectors include monitoring of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project mitigation park, wetland permitting and wetland enhancement plan development, implementation, and monitoring for Barrington Cove, Marsilea, Verona Pointe Estates, and Naples Heritage in Collier County, and bald eagle management plan preparation for the Calusa Cay CPD, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Winkler 10 Acre RPD. Education and Certification Master of Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 1987. Bachelor of Science, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 1984. Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America Professional Wetland Scientist (No. 238), Society of Wetland Scientists Certified Arborist (No. FL-6255A), International Society of Arboriculture Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent (Permit No. GTA-09-00011F), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Qualified Bald Eagle Monitor, City of Cape Coral Provisionally Certified Wetland Delineator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Certification Program, 1993. Continuing Education Florida Master Naturalist Program – Freshwater Wetlands. University of Florida IFAS, 2012. Native Trees, Shrubs, and wildflowers for Central and South Florida: Zones 9-11. Florida Association of Native Nurseries. 2011. Unified Mitigation Assessment Method 201 Training. South Florida Water Management District. 2010. Florida Statewide (62-340 FAC) Wetland Delineation Training Program. Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. 2007. Wetland Plant Identification Training Program. Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. 2007. Unified Mitigation Assessment Method Training. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. The Florida Master Wildlifer. University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 2003. Basic Prescribed Fire Training. Hillsborough Community College. 1992. Florida Wetlands Successful Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement Training Course #1. Natural Resources Training and Certification, Inc. 1991. Florida Hydric Soils Workshop. Florida Association of Professional Soil Classifiers. 1991. Affiliations Ecological Society of America Society of Wetland Scientists 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 243Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 244Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 251Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 253Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [√] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name: ___________________________________________ Municipality: _________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact inform ation is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Em ail_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III. Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))SUN BRADCASTING RPUD REZONE COLLIER COUNTY 00205280007 1555 MASSEY ST TREE FARM ROAD AND MASSEY ST Owner: SUN BROADCASTING, INC./Contract Purchaser: DR HORTON, INC. KENRICK S. GALLANDER 6610 WILLOW PARK DR SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34109 URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT RPUD RURAL AGRICULTURE (A)RPUD 18.5 +/- 74 130 4 Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF MF MH C G Totals by Yr Grand Total Grand Total Insert totals by unit type by years. Unit Types: SF = Single Family MF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile Homes C = Condo/Co-Op G = Government EXAMPLE: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MH N/A C N/A G N/A Totals by Yr 75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Grand Total 150 . 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: - School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; - Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) LOCATION MAP: 1555 MASSEY ST. SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\17 Deviation List & Justifications 2021-02-19 FINAL.docx Soluna A Residential Planned Unit Development List of Requested Deviations and Justifications Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01.N, which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow a 50’ right-of-way width for the internal streets that include public utilities. Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the Soluna RPUD. This deviation is justified because this will be a smaller-scale private residential gated community with controlled access, low traffic volumes and a low posted speed limit. A 50-foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. In addition, a 10’ PUE will be provided on each side of the right-of-way to accommodate “dry utilities.” The 50-foot right-of-way results in a more compact roadway cross-section which accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the community and reduces the impervious surface impacts to the water management system. All public utilities will be provided with in the 50’ right-of-way. This deviation is commonly approved and has been effectively implemented in numerous residen tial PUDs throughout the County and will not affect public health and safety. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead end streets except when designed as a cul-de-sac, to allow dead end street of less than 100 linear feet. This deviation is justified to provide a less impactful roadway design by eliminating the need for cul-de- sacs and the associated extra area needed to support such an impactful design. Reduced roadway area reduces the impervious surface impacts to the water management system as well as allowing for a more efficient site design through an overall looped layout. The limited vehicular activity within these proposed dead ends, and access to the residential unit’s driveways does not negatively impact the overall traffic flow or management within the development. This request has been commonly approved and utilized in other residential PUDs throughout the County and does not negatively impact the public’s health, safety, or welfare. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5 foot sidewalks within public and private rights-of-ways or easements, which are internal to the site to be on both sides of local/internal accessways (streets), to allow sidewalks to be constructed only on the side of the streets that are directly adjacent to residential units or amenity areas. This deviation will not adversely impact pedestrian mobility for the project and will reduce impervious areas for improved water quality, storm water attenuation, and minimizes impacts to adjacent preserve areas. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\2021-02-26 Submittal #1\17 Deviation List & Justifications 2021-02-19 FINAL.docx The private internal local roadways will have low vehicular travel speeds; therefore, the deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety and welfare. This deviation has previously been approved with proven results that fulfill the goal of safe pedestrian mobility. As proposed, the sidewalks will provide a comprehensive circulation throughout the community, including interconnections to the existing and/or proposed sidewalk systems within the public rights-of-way adjacent to the development. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height of 8’ along the perimeter of the project where abutting an existing public roadway, and allow a 12’ tall wall/berm combination. The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening from adjacent properties and noise attenuation from the significant traffic along the public roadways. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and general area. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total combined sign area of 64 square feet, to allow for two (2) ground signs at the proposed project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total combined sign area of 80 square feet. This proposed deviation will provide for an on-premise ground sign height and size appropriate for its location and orientation to the Tree Farm roadway corridor. The Tree Farm roadway corridor has been recently extended and improved to Massey Street for additional traffic network capacity and management. With this additional traffic and exposure to the public realm as a result of the improvements, the 25% increase in height and area of ground sign for the development is not an excessive request to help ensure improved visibility for travelers along this recently improved corridor. This deviation will enhance public health , safety, and welfare by helping all motorist more easily identify and locate the community and therefore facilitate proper navigation. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) RRRRR/WPROPERTYBOUNDARYTREE FARM ROADPROPERTYBOUNDARYMASSEY STREET CURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: A15' TYPE 'A'BUFFER15' TYPE 'A'BUFFERAALPP20' TYPE 'D'BUFFERRRRR/WGENERALIZED DIRECTIONOF FLOW (TYP.)PERIMETER BERMPERIMETER BERMPERIMETER BERMPERIMETER BERM6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 / Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 597-0575 FAX: (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Florida Certificates of Authorization EB 7663 / LB6952SITE SUMMARYTRACT/AREAUSEAREA (ACRES)PERCENTAGE (%)RRESIDENTIAL7.4140.05%AAAMENITY AREA0.563.03%PPRESERVE5.8331.51%LLAKE1.166.27%R/WRIGHT OF WAY2.7414.81%BUFFERSOPEN SPACE.804.3243TOTAL:TOTAL:18.50100.00%LEGENDAA -AMENITY AREAL-LAKE /WATER MANAGEMENTP-PRESERVER-RESIDENTIALR/W-RIGHT OF WAY-GENERALIZED DIRECTION OF FLOW- OUTFALL/CONTROL STRUCTURE-PERIMETER BERM-TOPO VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD 29)RGE:TWP:SEC:DATE:TITLE: CLIENT: PROJECT:OFPROJECT NO.:SHEET NUMBER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:DATEREVISION#DRAWN 0February 24, 2021 3:22 PM K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Exhibits\2000610003X CWMP.dwgSOLUNA RPUD   DR HORTON  12200061.00.0112/20354826KGHD#######CONCEPTUAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN13.3(FLOOD ZONE AH PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATEMAP 12021CO218H. EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 16, 2012.)9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 264Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 00 Response to Comments Letter.docx April 16, 2021 Intake Department Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Soluna Residential PUD Rezone (PUDZ)– Submittal #2 PL20210000093 Dear Intake Team: Please accept this letter in response to your insufficiency letter dated March 30, 2021, for the above subject project. This letter outlines responses to each comment including stipulations. Please find the following list of information and materials that are being submitted electronically: 00. Response to Comments Letter 01. Email dated April 5, 2021, from Mr. Tim Finn 02. Revised Boundary Survey 03. Revised PUD Document Exhibit D – Legal Description 04. Revised PUD Document Exhibit C - Master Plan 05. Revised PUD Document Exhibit F – List of Development Commitments 06. Revised PUD Document Exhibit A – List of Permitted Uses 07. Email dated April 1, 2021, from Ms. Jaime Cook 08. Revised Statement of Utility Provisions 09. Letter dated April 8, 2021, from TR Transportation, Inc. 10. Revised Affidavit of Authorization 11. General Location and Public Facility Map exhibit 12. Concept Utility and Water Management Plan exhibit 13. Revised Covenant of Unified Control with Exhibit A 14. Revised Property Ownership Disclosure 15. Revised Narrative Statement Please note that as a result of findings during the preparation for the environmental permitting, the need for a Floodplain Compensation area was discovered. This new area is referenced in the revised narrative statement and specifically identified on the Master Plan as TRACT F to be used as an open space area to address floodplain management needs. A TRACT F has also been specifically identified on the PUD Document - Exhibit A – List of Permitted Uses. In reply to your review comments, we offer the following responses in bold: 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Rejected Review: Emergency Management Review Reviewed By: Dan Summers 1. Review comments will be provided as soon as they become available Response: Per email from Mr. Finn, dated April 5, 2021, direction was given to resubmit even though no comments were received from Emergency Management. Rejected Review: Engineering Surveyor Review Reviewed By: Marcus Berman 1. The legal description on the Boundary Survey and sheet 8 (Exhibit D) in the RPUD document does not close. It appears to be the S.86°54'42"E. in the 9th sentence of the 3rd paragraph under the less and except portion of the description. Should be S86°54'42"W. Response: Please see the revised Boundary Survey and Exhibit D. Rejected Review: Environmental Review Reviewed By: Jaime Cook 1. On PUD Master Plan and in Environmental Commitments, disturbed lands (FLUCFCS 740) should not be counted toward on-site native vegetation and amount of required preserve. Update Master Plan and Environmental commitment. Response: Please see the revised Exhibit C - PUD Master Plan and Exhibit F – List of Development Commitments indicating the correct site native vegetation calculation and amount of required preserve. 2. List "Preserve" as principal use for Preserve Tract within PUD document. All other uses should be classified as Accessory uses. Response: Please see the revised Exhibit A of the PUD document adding “Preserve” as a principal use and all other uses being classified as accessory uses. 3. Provide an environmental commitment within PUD document for black bear management, listed plant species identified on-site and gopher tortoises. Response: Please see the revised PUD document’s Exhibit F providing an environmental commitment addressing black bear management, listed plant species identified on -site, and gopher tortoises. 4. Provide narrative explaining how project meets CCME goals 6 and 7. Response: Comment resolved per email 4/1/2021 response from Ms. Cook. Please see the attached email. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 3 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Rejected Review: Parks and Rec Review Reviewed By: Barry Williams 1. Review comments will be provided as soon as they become available Response: Per email from Mr. Finn, dated April 5, 2021, direction was given to resubmit even though no comments were received from Parks and Recreation. Rejected Review: Public Utilities - PUED Review Reviewed By: Eric Fey 1. 3/30/2021: Estimate peak water demand using a maximum 3-day peaking factor of 1.3 per our 2014 Master Plan. Estimate peak wastewater flow using a maximum 3-day peaking factor of 1.5 per our 2014 Master Plan. Express all values in units of gallons per day (GPD). Revise the Statement of Utility Provisions accordingly. Response: Please see the revised Statement of Utility Provisions. Rejected Review: Transportation Planning Review Reviewed By: Michael Sawyer 1. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev.1: Please provide a figure showing the percentage and volume of project traffic assigned to Collier and Immokalee. Please also explain why traffic is only assigned to east bound Immokalee from Woodcrest and not west bound. Is the assumption that traffic will use Collier instead of Woodcrest for West bound Immokalee? If so the new signal at Woodcrest and Immokalee might be more of a determinant...951 is LOS D currently. Response: Please see the attached letter dated April 8, 2021, from TR Transportation, Inc., to Mr. Gallander providing Figures 2 & 3 and Tables 1A & 2A to address the above comment. Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed By: Timothy Finn 1. Submit an Affidavit of Authorization from the current owner (Sun Broadcasting Inc) to the contract purchaser (D.R. Horton Inc) Response: Please see the revised Affidavit of Authorization from current owner (Sun Broadcasting Inc) to the contract purchased (D.R. Horton Inc.). 2. Submit a general location map drawn to scale, illustrating north point and relationship of the site to external facilities such as highways, shopping areas, cultural complexes and the like. Response: Please see the attached General Location and Public Facility Map exhibit for your reference. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 4 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com 3. Submit a map showing the location and nature of all existing public facilities, such as schools, parks and fire stations that will service the PUD. Response: Please see the attached General Location and Public Facility Map exhibit for your reference. 4. Submit a plan for the provision of all needed utilities to serve the PUD; including (as appropriate) water supply, sanitary sewer collection and treatment system, stormwater collection and management system, pursuant to related county regulations and ordinances. Response: Please see the attached concept Utility and Water Management Plan exhibit for your reference. 5. What is the plan to take down the existing antenna towers? Is there a phasing schedule to take these antenna towers down? Response: The plan is to remove the existing antenna towers and associated infrastructure as soon as all applicable development permits are issued by Collier County. A contractor has been acquired to complete the work. There is no phasing to remove the towers and infrastructure. Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 1. Covenant of Unified Control-please attach the legal description (exhibit A) to the Covenant. Response: Please see the attached Exhibit A to the revised Covenant of Unified Control. 2. Covenant of Unified Control: It should appoint DR Horton Inc. and not Justin A. Robbins, individually, as the authorized representative. Response: Please see the revised Covenant of Unified Control appointing D.R. Horton Inc as the authorized representative, not just Justin A. Robbins. 3. Covenant of Unified Control-The notary needs to list the name of the person that signed the covenant in the notary acknowledgment. Response: Please see the revised Covenant of Unified Control properly listing the name of the person that signed the covenant. 4. Please provide disclosure of ownership of Sun Broadcasting Inc. and DR Horton, Inc. for the CCPC and BCC conflicts checks. The intent of this request is to determine the names of the humans that stand to gain from this petition. Response: Please see the revised Property Ownership Disclosure form. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 5 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com 5. County Attorney review of the PUD Document Exhibits and survey will commence with Submittal 2. If all County staff approve Submittal 1, the County Attorney's office will be notified and the rest of submittal 1 will be reviewed. Response: Noted. Rejected Review: Landscape Review Reviewed By: Mark Templeton 1. Since multi-family is permitted and the abutting residential developments to the South and West are single family, please change the buffer type along the South and West from 'A' to 'B' Response: Please see the revised Master Plan. 2. The 6' wide reservation is only required where preserves are used to satisfy a Type B or C buffer. Since the preserve extends the entire length of the East boundary which requires a Type D buffer rather than a Type B or C, please modify the note about preserves meeting the buffer requirement to remove the reference to the 6' wide reservation area. Response: Understood. The note has been modified to remove reference to the 6’ wide reservation area. Please note, due to requirements of the need to provide for floodplain compensation, the prior designated Preserve area has been altered. For the portion of the subject property now designated as a “Floodplain Compensation” tract (TRACT F), we have provided a 20’ Type D Buffer along a portion of the eastern boundary (Massey Street right-of-way) and continued the 15’ Type B Buffer along the southern boundary. GENERAL COMMENTS: [Timothy Finn] 1. Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, a petition can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the petition for a period of six (6) months. In addition, a GMP Amendment application that is a companion item can likewise be considered closed. That six months period will be calculated from the date of this letter. Response: Noted. 2. Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a sufficient petition has been submitted for review. This correspondence should not be construed as a position of support or non-support for any issues within the petition. Staff will analyze the petition and the recommendation will be contained in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or Hearing Examiner (HEX). Response: Noted. 3. Please ensure that all members of your team that may testify before the HEX or CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) are registered as lobbyists with the County pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 6 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Response: Noted. 4. When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. Response: Noted. 5. Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of all Plans. The PUD document should include a footer that reflects the project name, petition number, date and page X of Y for the entire document. Documents without this information will be rejected. Response: Noted. 6. A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. Response: Noted. 7. Public hearings cannot be held until the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) criteria has been met. In some petition types a NIM must be held while other petition types only require the agent to send a letter. All letters and newspaper ads must be pre-approved by the county planner. For additional information about the process please contact me. Please note that the NIM must be held at least 15 days prior to the first hearing. As you prepare for that meeting, please be aware of the following items: a) Please provide the required NIM notice affidavit and its attachments prior to the meeting (in compliance with the LDC); and Response: Noted. b) Please post signs to direct attendees to the exact meeting location; and Response: Noted. c) Please ensure that there is sound amplification equipment available and working for this meeting. If there is no permanent equipment, please bring a tested/working portable microphone; and Response: Noted. d) You must provide a written synopsis of the meeting that includes a list of all questions and answers as well as providing the audio/video tape; and Response: Noted. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 7 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com e) Please prepare documents for hand out to all NIM attendees and the public hearing file, that show the differences in the uses that would be allowed in the existing and proposed zoning districts. This request is based upon recent CCPC direction. Response: Noted. 8. Pursuant to F.S. 125.022, exhibits and application materials are subject to review upon each resubmittal until deemed sufficient and complete. Should the project receive a third request for additional information, staff requests that the applicant provide written acknowledgement with the resubmittal to waive the regulation that restricts the County from requesting additional information. Projects that do not include such written acknowledgement and that fail to address any outstanding review items with the 4th submittal will be denied/recommended for denial. Response: Noted. 9. Note the adopted fee schedule requires payment of additional fees for petition review upon the 5th and subsequent submittals; please contact the appropriate staff and resolve issues to avoid this fee. Response: Noted. 10. If you would like to discuss the review comments, require clarification and/or wish to identify agree- to-disagree issues, a post-review meeting can be arranged including all rejecting reviewers. To schedule a post-review meeting, please contact me, and Zoning Operations staff will proceed with scheduling. Response: Noted. Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Documents Hosting a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required for this application type. To resolve this condition, please upload all supporting NIM documents from meeting to the GMD Public Portal. Contact Planner of this project for additional questions. If you experience issues uploading, please contact Client Services at (239) 252- 1036. Response: Noted. Informational Comments Soluna Residential Planned Unit Development (PUDZ). The subject site is Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The applicant is proposing 130 DUs (all townhomes) with a density rate of approximately 7 DU/A. They wish to utilize Residential Infill; including purchasing a total of 19 TDRs from a sending area to increase the density to 7DU/A. Response: Noted. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 8 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Informational Comments Residential Infill: To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: (a) The project is 20 acres or less in size; (b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; (c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; (d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; (e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; (f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential density bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; (g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands; and (h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. Response: Noted. Informational Comments Please include scale and North arrow on "Current use: Single Family Residential Zoning District: RPUD" Response: Noted. Informational Comments This project is consistent with the Future Land Element of the Growth Management Plan. Response: Noted. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 9 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com We trust the enclosed information is sufficient for your review and approval. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office at (239) 597-0575. Sincerely, RWA, Inc. Kenrick S. Gallander, AICP Director of Planning Attachments: Application Submittal Requirements (listed above) cc: Mr. Wayne Everett Mr. Mark Brumfield Mr. Richard Yovanovich, Esq. RWA File: 200061.00.03 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 1 Ken Gallander From:FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 9:02 AM To:Ken Gallander Cc:Jane Eichhorn; Blake Finnegan Subject:RE: PL20210000093 - Soluna RPUD (PUDZ) Review Comment Status EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Ken, Please go ahead and resubmit if you are ready. Both Parks and Rec and Emergency Management have been busy with field operations due to Covid and were not able to get to these reviews in time at its first submittal. From: Ken Gallander <kgallander@consult-rwa.com> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 5:31 PM To: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Jane Eichhorn <JEichhorn@consult-rwa.com>; Blake Finnegan <BFinnegan@consult-rwa.com> Subject: PL20210000093 - Soluna RPUD (PUDZ) Review Comment Status EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Tim, Can you help us get comments for the following please: Emergency Management Review Planned Unit Development Rezone Rejected 03/29/2021 03/30/2021 Reviewer: Timothy Finn ((239) 252-4312) Send Email Corrections: Correction 1: Miscellaneous Corrections Status: Outstanding Date Status Changed: 03/30/2021 Comments: Review comments will be provided as soon as they become available Parks and Rec Review Planned Unit Development Rezone Rejected 03/29/2021 03/29/2021 Reviewer: Timothy Finn ((239) 252-4312) Send Email Corrections: Correction 1: Miscellaneous Corrections Status: Outstanding Date Status Changed: 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 2 03/29/2021 Comments: Review comments will be provided as soon as they become available We are working to have responses back to you very quickly, but these may hold us up. Thank you! Ken Ken Gallander, AICP Director of Planning MAIN OFFICE | 239.597.0575 DIRECT LINE | 239.260.4330 CELL | 850.803.5621 EMAIL | KGallander@consult-rwa.com *RWA’s FORT MYERS OFFICE HAS MOVED! In order to accommodate continued growth and create a little more elbow room for employees and guests, RWA has relocated to 12800 University Drive, Suite 175, Fort Myers, FL 33907. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34109 Phone: (239) 597-0575FAX: (239) 597-0578LB No.: 6952________________________________________DESCRIPTIONPROJECTLOCATIONCERTIFICATIONS:SCHEDULE B-II (EXCEPTIONS) NOTESSURVEYOR'S GENERAL NOTES:TABLE A NOTES:UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS:04/09/20219.A.1.ePacket Pg. 276Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) MASSEY STREET TREE FARM ROAD6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34109 Phone: (239) 597-0575FAX:(239) 597-0578LB No.: 6952LEGEND9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 277Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) From:CookJaime To:Ken Gallander Cc:Blake Finnegan Subject:RE: PUDZ-PL20210000093; Soluna RPUD (Env. Review Comment) Date:Thursday, April 1, 2021 2:23:06 PM Attachments:image003.png EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Ken, Thank you for forwarding this – when I originally attempted to open the document from Cityview, nothing opened for me beyond the first page. Pages 2 – 7 never loaded for me. This is exactly what I need, so I will go in and withdraw my comment. Thank you! Respectfully, Jaime Cook Principal Environmental Specialist Development Review Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.6290 How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Ken Gallander <kgallander@consult-rwa.com> Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 2:18 PM 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) To: CookJaime <Jaime.Cook@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Blake Finnegan <BFinnegan@consult-rwa.com> Subject: PUDZ-PL20210000093; Soluna RPUD (Env. Review Comment) EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Jaime, I’m hoping to get some further help from you on your comment #4: 4. Provide narrative explaining how project meets CCME goals 6 and 7. Within the narrative document of our original submittal, we did provide statements addressing CCME goals 6 & 7 (See attached on pages 5 & 6) Can you either give me a call or email back to help us understand what further details we are missing or some guidance on what we need to expand upon? Thank you! Ken Ken Gallander, AICPDirector of Planning MAIN OFFICE | 239.597.0575 DIRECT LINE | 239.260.4330 CELL | 850.803.5621 EMAIL | KGallander@consult-rwa.com *RWA’s FORT MYERS OFFICE HAS MOVED! In order to accommodate continued growth and create a little more elbow room for employees and guests, RWA has relocated to 12800 University Drive, Suite 175, Fort Myers, FL 33907. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e.Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))D.R. HORTON, INC. 10541 Six Mile Cypress Ft Myers FL 33966 jweverett@drhorton.com 1555 Massey Street. Naples FL 34120 35 48 26 N/A N/A N/A See attached. N/A N/A 00205280007 X Collier County Utilities 2.5 MGD X Collier County Utilities 325 based on potential of 130 max. units. 128.3 gpm 45,500 gpd 91.6 gpm 32,500 gpd June 2022 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))The sewage treatment process used and method of affluent disposal will be via the existing development's connection to the existing Collier County's Sewage Disposal Utility System lines along Tree Farm Road. Acknowledged. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 285Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 286Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) TITLE: CLIENT: PROJECT FILE NUMBER:NUMBER: April 9, 2021 9:04 AM K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Exhibits\Location Map.dwg DR HORTON SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SOLUNA RPUD LOCATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP 200061.00.03 200061.00.03 12800 University Drive, Suite 175 / Fort Myers, Florida 33907 (239) 597-0575 FAX: (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Florida Certificates of Authorization EB 7663 / LB6952 SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2020) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ))SOLUNA RPUD TREE FARM ROADMASSEY STREET15' TYPE 'B'BUFFER15' TYPE 'B'BUFFER20' TYPE 'D'BUFFERSSSS S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S S S S S S FFFFFFFFFFFW W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRR/WCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: A AALPPRRRR/WF20' TYPE 'D'BUFFERPROPERTYBOUNDARYPROPERTYBOUNDARYGENERALIZED DIRECTIONOF FLOW (TYP.)PERIMETER BERMPERIMETER BERMPERIMETER BERMPERIMETER BERMHOT-TAP EX. 14" PVC WM W/TAPPING SLEEVE & VALVEHOT-TAP EX. 8" HDPE FM W/TAPPING SLEEVE & VALVEHOT-TAP EX. 12" PVC WM W/TAPPING SLEEVE & VALVEACCESS GATE(APROXIMATE LOCATION)6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 / Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 597-0575 FAX: (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Florida Certificates of Authorization EB 7663 / LB6952LEGENDAA -AMENITY AREAF-FLOODPLAIN COMPENSATIONL-LAKE /WATER MANAGEMENTP-PRESERVER-RESIDENTIALR/W-RIGHT OF WAY-GENERALIZED DIRECTION OF FLOW- OUTFALL/CONTROL STRUCTURE-PERIMETER BERM-TOPO VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD 29)RGE:TWP:SEC:DATE:TITLE: CLIENT: PROJECT:OFPROJECT NO.:SHEET NUMBER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:DATEREVISION#DRAWN 0April 16, 2021 1:11 PM K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Exhibits\2000610003X CWMP - 2.dwgSOLUNA RPUD   DR HORTON  11200061.00.0112/20354826KGHD2550100CONCEPTUAL UTILIITY AND WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN13.3(FLOOD ZONE AH PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATEMAP 12021CO218H. EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 16, 2012.)SITE SUMMARYTRACT/AREAUSEUNITSAREA (ACRES)PERCENTAGERRESIDENTIAL1307.4140.05%AAAMENITY AREA0.563.03%FFLOODPLAIN1.9210.38%PPRESERVE3.9021.08%LLAKE1.166.27%R/WRIGHT OF WAY2.7414.81%BUFFERSOPEN SPACE.804.3243TOTAL:TOTAL:18.50100.00%PER STAFF COMMENTS1 DLP 04/21 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 289Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL EXHIBIT A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development THE NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A TRACT OF PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S.02°16'57"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, FOR 668.96 FEET TO A POINT OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'03"W., ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, FOR 35.03 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 35 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LINE; THENCE N.02°16'57"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 388.75 FEET; THENCE N10°08'28"W., FOR 182.84 FEET; THENCE N.41°55'27"W., FOR 47.02 FEET; THENCE N.80°37'49"W., FOR 153.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 40 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 718.67 FEET; THENCE N.73°11'14"W., FOR 79.40 FEET; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., FOR 57.22 FEET; THENCE S.73°09'14"W., FOR 44.92 FEET; THENCE S.86°54'42"W., FOR 187.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.02°16'03"W., ALONG SAID WEST LINE, FOR 40.03 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.89°58'31"E., ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR 1321.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Revised: April 14, 2021 Page 1 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 15 Narrative Statement FINAL rev1 2021-04-14.docx NARRATIVE STATEMENT Soluna Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) A PUD Rezone (PUDZ) The subject property is located on a single 18.5 +/- acre parcel of land (Property ID No.: 00205280007) located southwest of the intersection of Tree Farm Road and Massey Street (See figure 1). The specific address is 1555 Massey St., Naples, FL 34120. The owner of this subject property is Sun Broadcasting, Inc., and the applicant for this Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) is D.R. Horton, Inc. The subject property is, by reference, an “infill parcel” per Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.07.02.A.2, - less than 20 acres, surrounded by at least two common boundaries that are developed and overall located in a heavily developed residential area of Collier County. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation is Urban (Urban - Residential Subdistrict) as provided on the FLUM of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The current zoning district is Rural Agriculture (A). Figure 1. Subject Property Location Map The following narrative and attached materials/documentation will further address those applicable criteria as outlined in accordance with the LDC subsection 10.02.13.B.a-h. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Revised: April 14, 2021 Page 2 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 15 Narrative Statement FINAL rev1 2021-04-14.docx a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject property is vacant, with a current zoning designation as Rural Agriculture (A). The property is bounded by residential development with the Vanderbilt Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the south and the Buttonwood Preserve Residential Planned Unit Development to the west. The subject property is adjacent to the Tree Farm Road public right-of-way to the north and Massey Street public right-of-way to the east. See Table 1 below. Table 1: Surrounding Area Analysis Future Land Use District Zoning District Existing Uses NORTH Urban – Mixed Use RPUD (Warm Springs) Public right-of-way SOUTH Urban – Mixed Use PUD (Vanderbilt Country Club) Residential EAST Urban – Mixed Use Rural Agriculture (A) Public Right-of-way; WEST Urban – Mixed Use RPUD (Buttonwood Preserve) Residential The Soluna RPUD is proposed to develop a maximum of 130 townhome residential dwellings on the 18.5 +/- acres. This proposed residential use is consistent with the surrounding areas’ residential land use pattern. A rezone of the subject property from Rural Agriculture (A) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) will allow for a more consistent residential land use patten, which more accurately reflects the intent of the FLU designation and is consistent with the abutting residential uses bounding the project site. All necessary utility infrastructure is in place adjacent to the subject property to support the proposed residential development. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at a public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicant, D.R. Horton, Inc., is the contract purchase of the entire 18.5+/- acre subject property. Operation and maintenance responsibility for private areas and facilities shall be assigned to the developer until conveyance to a property owners association at the appropriate time. Further, the proposed RPUD documents make appropriate provisions for the continued operation and maintenance of common areas. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Revised: April 14, 2021 Page 3 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 15 Narrative Statement FINAL rev1 2021-04-14.docx c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) The proposed infill residential development allows for residential uses, amenity areas, water management lakes, preserves, open space, floodplain compensation, and internal roadways with sidewalks. The project is designed in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) as follows: 1. The subject property is located within the Urban Designation; Urban Mixed Use District; Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of Collier County GMP. According to the GMP, the Urban designated areas are planned for the majority of the county’s population growth due to the existing or projected urban facilities and services, and thus a majority of the most intensive land uses and greatest densities will occur within these areas. Additionally, the purpose of this district is to provide for the most variety of residential uses densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated to serve the urban environment. The Urban designated areas will allow for both residential and a various non-residential uses. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows for an overall maximum of 16 dwelling units (du) per acre. The Soluna RPUD is requesting a maximum density of 7 du/acre. The Urban Residential Subdistrict permits a base density of 4 dwellings units (du) per gross acre in accordance with the Collier County GMP Density Rating System (Section B.1.a). Additional Density Bonuses (3 du/acre) are achievable by meeting specific criteria listed in the GMP’s Section B.2.d to encourage residential in-fill in urban areas. The Soluna RPUD will meet the requisite criteria under Section B.2.d: d. Residential In-fill: To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: (a) The project is 20 acres or less in size; YES. (b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; YES. (c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; YES, BASED ON SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES, OPEN SPACE, AND BUFFERING. (d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; YES. (e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; NO ADJACENT PARCELS ARE OWNED BY THE CURRENT OWNER OR APPLICANT. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Revised: April 14, 2021 Page 4 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 15 Narrative Statement FINAL rev1 2021-04-14.docx (f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential density bonus and was created prior to the adoption of th is provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; YES, THE PARCEL WAS NOT CREATED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SECTION AND WAS RECOGNIZED PARCEL PRIOR TO JANUARY 10, 1989. (g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands; UNDERSTOOD, and (h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. UNDERSTOOD. 2. As set forth in Objective #3 of the FLUE, all improvements for the Soluna RPUD are planned to be compliant with land development regulations where applicable and as set forth in our PUD development standards and deviations. 3. This proposed development addresses GMP objectives including Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 in that the site is located in an urban designated area with available urban services and existing infrastructure. It is a Planned Unit Development project which provides residential infill development in an area specifically designated for urban uses and urban densities. The subject property’s location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services constitutes an appropriate area for the development of residential land uses as intended in Objective 3 Policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The presence of schools, public facilities, medical facilities, office uses, and emergency services are all within short distance of the subject property as well as water and wastewater treatment services, demonstrate that the proposed residential development will be appropriately served. 4. The proposed infill residential development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.6 of the FLUE through the proposed residential uses, internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards contained herein. The Soluna residential development will be consistent and compatible with existing adjacent residential uses. The proposed development standards are consistent with those found in the Vanderbilt Country Club, Buttonwood Preserve and Warm Springs PUDs. Similar to those projects, Soluna will have a unified architectural theme and landscaping, common open space, a recreational amenity area, and restricted access for the residents and their guests. The proposed development standards limit the scale of the units and height limits (2 stories) furthering consistency with the existing residential developments to the north, south, and west. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Revised: April 14, 2021 Page 5 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 15 Narrative Statement FINAL rev1 2021-04-14.docx The proposed 15’ Type “B” buffers along the south and west adjacent to existing residential are consistent with buffering and landscaping standards approved and applied throughout this area and the County. The project is designed with the internal roadway network adjacent to the proposed buffer, thus providing additional distance from the neighboring residents. An extensive preserve area along the northeast and eastern portion of the Soluna development will provide further buffering from adjacent uses to the east, while also retaining more of the native natural setting the community desires. 5. The proposed property is adjacent to Tree Farm Road and Massey Street. Both roadways are neither a county classified arterial nor a collector road. In accordance with the Master Plan, the development will connect to Tree Farm Road. Based on the existing roadway classifications and project’s accessway connection, the proposed development is consistent with the intent of Policy 7.1 of the GMP. The project provides for an internally looped roadway system, which is consistent with Policy 7.2 to encourage such development design to reduce vehicle congestion on nearby roadways. Policy 7.3 is not applicable to this project as the surrounding developments are developed with no opportunity to inter- connect to other internal local streets. The proposed RPUD provides the area with a potential housing options that differ from what currently exists in the area, which is predominantly single-family detached development. The project is requesting a density that will allow the development of townhomes or duplexes, which will diversify the housing stock and provide housing choices, while still providing a quality community consistent with the area and will include amenity areas, preserve, open space, and internal roadways and pedestrian connectivity to solicit walkability and smart growth initiatives consistent with Objective 7 and Policy 7.4 of the GMP. 6. A Traffic Impact Statement, dated February 23, 2021, has been prepared for the subject project. The TIS concludes there is available capacity within the adjacent transportation network, and thus, consistent with Policy 1.3 of the Transportation Element. 7. Goal 6 of the GMP’s Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) seeks to ensure identification, protection, conservation, and to appropriately use native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. The project, a proposed residential in-fill development on land great than 5 but less than 20 acres and not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, is consistent with the supporting Policy 6.1.1 and the implementing regulation under LDC Section 3.05.07.B.1 by providing 3.90+/- acres of preserve, which exceeds 15% (1.42+/- acres) of 9.44+/- acres of existing native vegetation. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Revised: April 14, 2021 Page 6 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 15 Narrative Statement FINAL rev1 2021-04-14.docx 8. Goal 7 of the GMP’s Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) seeks to p rotect and conserve the county’s fisheries and wildlife. A Protected Species Assessment was conducted on the subject site. The assessment concluded the project, as proposed, is consistent with all the applicable Goals and Objectives of the CCME of the GMP. Thereby, consistent with all applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection concurrent with Policy 7.1.4 of the CCME. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As previously stated, the property is bounded to the south and west by residential uses and public right-of-way to the north and east. The proposed residential uses, site design, orientation of structures, architectural elements, proposed development standards, placement of buffering/screening, and open space provided further emphasizes its compatibility with the surrounding area, e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The proposed development will meet or exceed the minimum 60% open space requirements of the Collier County LDC. Usable open space in the form of a recreational area, common areas, pedestrian walkways, lakes, floodplain compensation land, and a preserve will be provided throughout the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Public and private improvements and facilities are available for the site. Water and sewer service is available. Roadway capacity as confirmed by the provided TIS. Drainage is adequate for the site. Waste management, cable, electric, and telephone service are available. Adequate schools, police, fire, bus, park, and health care facilities are within the proposed development’s service area. Payment of impact fees and timing of adequate public facilities certification are mechanisms to assure the development is appropriately serviced. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The proposed residential community is an ideal infill project that is compatible with surrounding residential uses and is appropriate for the general area and the specific property. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Revised: April 14, 2021 Page 7 of 7 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #2\Submittal 2 - 15 Narrative Statement FINAL rev1 2021-04-14.docx h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed development conforms with the intent of the PUD regulations by establishing uses and development regulations that are consistent with similar residential developments adjacent to and throughout Collier County. The requested deviations provide design flexibility that will help improve the overall project while not causing any adverse impact the public health, safety, and welfare. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0003 PUD Rezone Application Support\Working Docs, Submittal #3\Submittal 3 - 00 Response to Comments Letter rev2.docx June 7, 2021 Intake Department Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Soluna Residential PUD Rezone (PUDZ) – Submittal #3 PL20210000093 Dear Intake Team: Please accept this letter in response to your insufficiency letter dated May 17, 2021, for the above subject project. This letter outlines responses to each comment including stipulations. Please find the following list of information and materials that are being submitted electronically: 00. Response to Comments Letter 01. Revised PUD Exhibits A-F 02. Site Line Rendering Exhibits (Canopy and Vanderbilt Country Club) 03. Revised Affidavit of Authorization In reply to your review comments, we offer the following responses in bold: Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed by: Timothy Finn 1. Please address the following issues that were discussed at the 4-21-21 NIM: • The public would like landscape buffering between the residential areas to the south and west of the proposed Soluna PUD Response: Per Exhibit C – Master Plan, a 15’ Type “B” Buffer will be provided along the western and southern property lines of the Soluna PUD. These buffer areas will be planted in accordance with LDC Section 4.06.02. • The public would like a wall between the residential areas to the south and west (Vanderbilt Country Club and Canopy) of the Soluna PUD. The public wants to retain the existing vegetation and trees and construct the wall. Response: Based on our assessment of the surrounding developments, neither Canopy nor Vanderbilt Country Club were required to have or chose to construct a wall if an option. The applicant will be providing the required buffer width and landscape plantings consistent with the surrounding development pattern ensuring compatibility between existing and the 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com proposed residential land uses. The applicant is considering an optional 6-foot high chain link fence to help ensure a more secure location. Additionally, due to site development standards and best engineering practices to meet state and local water management requirements, the property must be altered to ensure proper grading and drainage. The site alternations will likely require the existing vegetation be removed along the PUD boundary line and replaced or supplemented with code required plantings within the buffer. It is the intent to save as many existing trees along the PUD boundary line as possible based on finalized site development plan approval and construction constraints. • The public were concerned that the Soluna townhomes will tower and look into their homes at Vanderbilt Country Club and Canopy. The Soluna townhomes are too close to these residences. Response: Please refer to the site line rendering exhibits we have prepared to help visualize the proposed two-story homes on the Soluna property. Based on these renderings, it is the applicant’s position that the proposed Soluna two-story homes do not “tower” over the adjacent neighbor’s property. The Soluna homes are setback approximately 38.7 feet from the PUD perimeter property line, which is more than the setback required of 20 feet for a traditionally zoned residential use. Additionally, the existing landscape buffer plantings required of the Canopy development and future landscape buffer plantings, when at a more mature state in five years, within the Soluna development will further help ensure views towards the Canopy development will be significantly impeded. • The public said that there needs to be additional space between the Soluna townhomes and the Canopy residential homes. The public were concerned about these dimensions. Response: To ensure space is provided between the Soluna homes and the Canopy homes, we have revised the Minimum PUD Perimeter Setback development standard to be increased from 15 feet to 30 feet. See Exhibit B of the PUD document. • The public would like for the agent to revise and move the preserve area from the east side of the Soluna PUD to the other side of the PUD and to not disturb any existing vegetation. Response: The preserve area is necessary to be located on the eastern portion of the Soluna property based on the following: 1. To maintain historical east to west water flow patterns to the lowest areas of the property for stormwater/floodplain management. 2. To be environmentally aware by retaining the existing wetlands located in this area of the property. 3. To complement the required Floodplain Compensation area that will be adjacent to the preserve area on the eastern side of the property. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 3 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 1. Affidavit of Authorization for Sun Broadcasting, Inc.: It should appoint DR Horton Inc. and not Justin A. Robbins, individually, as the authorized representative. Response: Please see the correct Affidavit of Authorization from current owner, Sun Broadcasting Inc, to not just Justin A. Robbins, but also D.R. Horton Inc. 2. Please provide a letter from Sun Broadcasting Inc. stating that it agrees to be the Managing Entity per Section A, GENERAL, of Exhibit F of the PUD. Response: Per our discussion on May 27, 2021, please see the revised Exhibit F of the PUD document identifying D.R. Horton, Inc. as the Managing Entity, due to the fact it is named as the applicant for this petition. 3. Please address my comments and requested changes per my 5 -13-21 review of the PUD document, to be provided by email by County staff. Response: Please see the revised PUD document addressing the comments. Per our discussion on May 27, 2021, it was agreed that no changes or further information is needed regarding the typical section for the 50’ right-of-way and associated Deviation #3. However, to ensure clarity, we have added language to the section stating, “WHERE REQUIRED CONSISTENT WITH DEVIATION #3.” Rejected Review: Landscape Review Reviewed By: Mark Templeton 1. The 6' wide reservation is only required where preserves are used to satisfy a Type B or C buffer. Since the preserve extends the entire length of the East boundary which requires a Type D buffer rather than a Type B or C, please modify the note about preserves meeting the buffer requirement to remove the reference to the 6' wide reservation area. Rev. 2: Please remove the last sentence from Master Plan Note 4. This is in relation to the 6' wide reservation. The preserve will still be required to be supplemented in accordance with 3.05.07 if necessary, to meet the buffer requirement even if developed as single family. And modify the second sentence as follows: "In the event that the preserve does not satisfy the buffer requirement after removal if exotics, supplemental planting will be provided in accordance with LDC 3.05.07 to meet the buffer requirement." Response: Please see the revised Master Plan Note 4 to state the following: “4. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PRESERVE DOES NOT SATISFY THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT AFTER 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 4 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com REMOVAL OF EXOTICS, SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING WILL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC 3.05.07 TO MEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT.” Please note: We revised Exhibit C – Master Plan specific to the proposed 20’ Type “D” Buffer along the northwest/north property boundary as a result of comments received during the PPL review (PL20210000514). The comment requires that no portion of the buffer area can be located within the 10’ and 30’ easements. We have identified on the revised Exhibit C – Master Plan the recorded easements, their locations, further detailed a minimum 20’ Type “D” buffer adjacent to the easements and ensured the buffer area is outside of the easements. General Comments Timothy Finn 1. Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, a petition can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the petition for a period of six (6) months. In addition, a GMP Amendment application that is a companion item can likewise be considered closed. That six months period will be calculated from the date of this letter. Response: Noted. 2. Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a sufficient petition has been submitted for review. This correspondence should not be construed as a position of support or non-support for any issues within the petition. Staff will analyze the petition and the recommendation will be contained in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or Hearing Examiner (HEX). Response: Noted. 3. Please ensure that all members of your team that may testify before the HEX or CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) are registered as lobbyists with the County pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. Response: Noted. 4. When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. Response: Noted. 5. Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of all Plans. The PUD document should include a footer that reflects the project name, petition number, date and page X of Y for the entire document. Documents without this information will be rejected. Response: Noted. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 5 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com 6. A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. Response: Noted. 7. Pursuant to F.S. 125.022, exhibits and application materials are subject to review upon each resubmittal until deemed sufficient and complete. Should the project receive a third request for additional information, staff requests that the applicant provide written acknowledgement with the resubmittal to waive the regulation that restricts the County from requesting additional information. Projects that do not include such written acknowledgement and that fail to address any outstanding review items with the 4th submittal will be denied/recommended for denial. Response: Noted. 8. Note the adopted fee schedule requires payment of additional fees for petiti on review upon the 5th and subsequent submittals; please contact the appropriate staff and resolve issues to avoid this fee. Response: Noted. 9. If you would like to discuss the review comments, require clarification and/or wish to identify agree-to- disagree issues, a post-review meeting can be arranged including all rejecting reviewers. To schedule a post-review meeting, please contact me, and Zoning Operations staff will proceed with scheduling. Response: Noted. Informational Comments Soluna Residential Planned Unit Development (PUDZ). The subject site is Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The applicant is proposing 130 DUs (all townhomes) with a density rate of approximately 7 DU/A. They wish to utilized Residential Infill; including purchasing a total of 19 TDRs from a sending area to increase the density to 7DU/A. Response: Noted. Informational Comments Residential Infill: To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: (a) The project is 20 acres or less in size; (b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 6 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com (c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; (d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; (e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; (f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential density bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; (g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands; and (h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. Response: Noted. Informational Comments This project is consistent with the Future Land Element of the Growth Management Plan. Response: Noted. We trust the enclosed information is sufficient for your review and approval. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office at (239) 597-0575. Sincerely, RWA, Inc. Kenrick S. Gallander, AICP Director of Planning Attachments: Submittal Documents (listed above) cc: Mr. Wayne Everett Mr. Mark Brumfield Mr. Richard Yovanovich, Esq. RWA File: 200061.00.03 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130 dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL: TRACT R A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units: • Detached single family • Attached single family & townhouses • Two family, zero lot line • Multi-family 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses associated with the principal uses permitted in this RPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas, screen enclosures and utility buildings and infrastructure. 2. Walls, berms, signage (including boundary marker signage), and development excavations. 3. Gatehouses, and access control structures. 4. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools for residents and their guests. 5. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 6. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 7. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. AMENTIY AREA: TRACT AA A. Principal Uses: 1. Clubhouses with cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 2. Community administrative and recreation facilities. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis/pickle ball courts and basketball courts, parks, dog parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. 4. Tennis clubs, health spas, fitness facilities and other indoor recreational uses (private, intended for use by the residents and their guests only). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 2. Walls, berms, signage (including boundary marker signage), and development excavation. 3. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the FLOODPLAIN COMPENSATION: TRACT F A. Principal Use: 1. Open Space B. Accessory Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required compensation area to be utilized and does not alter the designed ground elevation. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting. 3. Passive Recreation areas, per LDC requirements. 4. Water management as allowed by the LDC. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 3 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 PRESERVE: TRACT P A. Principal Use: 1. Preserve B. Accessory Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting. 3. Passive Recreation areas, per LDC requirements. 4. Water management as allowed by the LDC. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 4 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development Table 1 below sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the Soluna RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP), Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) or Plat. TABLE 1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY & TOWNHOUSE TWO-FAMILY, ZERO LOT LINE MULTI- FAMILY AMENITY AREA PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,000 SF PER UNIT 1,800 SF PER UNIT 1,800 SF PER UNIT 1 ACRE 10,000 SF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 40 Ft 20 Ft 40 Ft 100 Ft 100 Ft MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 700 Ft MINIMUM FRONT YARD 23 Ft (1) 23 Ft (1) 23 Ft (1) 23 Ft (1) N/A MINIMUM SIDE YARD 5 Ft 0 OR 5 Ft (2) 0 OR 5 Ft (2) 0 OR 5 Ft N/A MINIMUM REAR YARD 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft N/A MINIMUM PUD PERIMETER SETBACK 30 Ft 30 Ft 30 Ft 30 Ft N/A MINIMUM PRESERVE SETBACK 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft 25 Ft MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES) 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 20 Ft 10 Ft MAXIMUM HEIGHT ZONED (not to exceed 2 stories) ACTUAL (not to exceed 2 stories) 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 5 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MINIMUM FRONT S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. MINIMUM SIDE S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. MINIMUM REAR 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft MINIMUM PRESERVE SETBACK 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft MINIMUM PUD SETBACK 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft 15 Ft MAXIMUM HEIGHT ZONED (not to exceed 2 stories) ACTUAL (not to exceed 2 stories) 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft 30 Ft 40 Ft NOTES: • S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structures • GENERAL: Except as provided herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or boundary lines, or between structures. If required, landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time of SDP or Plat approval. • Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. FOOTNOTES: (1) The 23-foot setback shall apply to any front entry garage and shall be measured from the adjacent sidewalk. All other front yard setbacks shall be as follows: Where side entry garages are provided, the driveway shall be designed in such a manner that a parked vehicle shall not conflict with the sidewalk; however, in no case shall the front setback for the side entry garage be less than 10 feet. All other portions of this principal structure except as noted later in this paragraph, whether designed with a front entry or side entry garage, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet front the front yard property line, except where a lot is located at the intersection of two streets, in which case the front yard setback set forth herein shall only apply to the street on which the driveway is located, and the other setback abutting the right-of-way shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the front yard property line. The setback for porches, entry features and roofed courtyard elements shall be a minimum of 15 feet; except that it shall be a minimum of 5 feet on corner lots for the yard which does not contain a driveway vehicle access. Any structures, including overhangs, shall not encroach into a PUE or CUE. (2) 5-foot minimum setback for single-family attached, townhouse, two-family and zero lot line must be accompanied by another 5-foot side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10-foot separation. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) RRRRR/WTREE FARM ROADPROPERTYBOUNDARYACCESS GATE(APPROXIMATE LOCATION AS ALLOWEDBY LDC & COUNTY ORDINANCES)CURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT: RPUDCURRENT USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: A15' TYPE 'B'BUFFER15' TYPE 'B'BUFFERAALPFRRRR/W15' SLOPE EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4498,PAGE 283110'15' SLOPE EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4498,PAGE 2831MIN. 20' TYPE'D' BUFFER10' FPL EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 1544,PAGE 207430' EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4346,PAGE 422PROPERTYBOUNDARY10' SLOPE EASEMENTO.R. BOOK 4498,PAGE 2831MASSEY STREET20' TYPE 'D'BUFFER20' TYPE 'D'BUFFERRGE:TWP:SEC:DATE:TITLE: CLIENT: PROJECT:OFPROJECT NO.:SHEET NUMBER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:DATEREVISION#DRAWN 0June 7, 2021 10:59 AM K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Exhibits\2000610003X MCP.dwgSOLUNA RPUD   DR HORTON  12200061.00.0112/20354826KGHD2550100EXHIBIT C - MASTER PLAN 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 / Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 597-0575 FAX: (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Florida Certificates of Authorization EB 7663 / LB6952LEGENDAA -AMENITY AREAF-FLOODPLAIN COMPENSATIONL-LAKE /WATER MANAGEMENTP-PRESERVER-RESIDENTIALR/W-RIGHT OF WAY#-PROPERTY BOUNDARY-PROJECT INGRESS/EGRESS-R/W-DEVIATION LOCATIONS31241254PER STAFF COMMENTS1 DLP 04/21 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 311Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) RGE:TWP:SEC:DATE:TITLE: CLIENT: PROJECT:OFPROJECT NO.:SHEET NUMBER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:DATEREVISION#DRAWN 0June 7, 2021 10:59 AM K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0002 PUD Rezone Application Prep\Exhibits\2000610003X MCP.dwgSUN BROADCASTING PARCEL   DR HORTON  22200061.00.0112/20354826KGHDN/AN/AN/AEXHIBIT C - MASTER PLAN 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 / Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 597-0575 FAX: (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Florida Certificates of Authorization EB 7663 / LB6952 SITE SUMMARYTRACT/AREAUSEUNITSAREA (ACRES)PERCENTAGERRESIDENTIAL1307.4140.05%AAAMENITY AREA0.563.03%FFLOODPLAIN1.9210.38%PPRESERVE3.9021.08%LLAKE1.166.27%R/WRIGHT OF WAY2.7414.81%BUFFERSOPEN SPACE.804.3243TOTAL:TOTAL:18.50100.00%PRESERVE AND OPEN SPACE:REQUIRED PRESERVE: 1.42± AC; 15% OF 9.44±AC. OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATIONPROVIDED: 3.90± ACREQUIRED OPEN SPACE: 60%PROVIDED OPEN SPACE: 60%RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES:1.THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ONTHIS PUD MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.2.THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OFTHE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED ATEITHER PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLATAPPROVAL, OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PLATAPPROVAL OR SDP.3.PROJECT DENSITY: 7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.4.PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THELANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT AFTER EXOTICVEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDCSECTION 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. IN THE EVENTTHAT THE PRESERVE DOES NOT SATISFY THEBUFFER REQUIREMENT AFTER REMOVAL OFEXOTICS, SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING WILL BEPROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC 3.05.07 TOMEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT10'2'TRAVELLANE10'PUBLICUTILITYEASEMENTC/LR/WScale: NTSTYPICAL SECTION50' RIGHT-OF-WAY2' CURB50' ROW5'5'3'10'2'TRAVELLANE10'PUBLICUTILITYEASEMENTR/W2' CURB5'5'3'319.A.1.ePacket Pg. 312Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 8 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development THE NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A TRACT OF PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S.02°16'57"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, FOR 668.96 FEET TO A POINT OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'03"W., ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, FOR 35.03 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 35 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LINE; THENCE N.02°16'57"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 388.75 FEET; THENCE N10°08'28"W., FOR 182.84 FEET; THENCE N.41°55'27"W., FOR 47.02 FEET; THENCE N.80°37'49"W., FOR 153.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE LYING 40 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, FOR 718.67 FEET; THENCE N.73°11'14"W., FOR 79.40 FEET; THENCE S.89°58'31"W., FOR 57.22 FEET; THENCE S.73°09'14"W., FOR 44.92 FEET; THENCE S.86°54'42"W., FOR 187.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.02°16'03"W., ALONG SAID WEST LINE, FOR 40.03 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N.89°58'31"E., ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR 1321.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL. CONTAINING 805,839 SQUARE FEET OR 18.50 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 9 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01.N, which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow a 50’ right-of-way width for the internal streets that include public utilities. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead end streets except when designed as a cul-de-sac, to allow dead end street of less than 100 linear feet. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5 foot sidewalks within public and private rights-of-ways or easements, which are internal to the site to be on both sides of local/internal accessways (streets), to allow sidewalks to be constructed only on the side of the streets that are directly adjacent to residential units or amenity areas. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height of 8’ along the perimeter of the project where abutting an existing public roadway, and allow a 12’ tall wall/berm combination. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total combined sign area of 64 square feet, to allow for two (2) ground signs at the proposed project entrance wi th a maximum height of 10' and total combined sign area of 80 square feet. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 10 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SOLUNA RPUD A Residential Planned Unit Development The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is D.R. Horton, Inc. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. B. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.” (Section 125.022, FS) C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. TRANSPORTATION: The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 75 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 11 of 11 Soluna RPUD Revised: May 18, 2021 PL20210000093 LANDSCAPING: Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirement after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC Section 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.e.1. In the event that the preserve does not satisfy the buffer requirement after removal of exotics, supplemental planting will be provided in accordance with LDC 3.05.07 to meet the buffer requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL: The project has 9.44+/- acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 15 percent of the existing calculated native vegetation on-site shall be retained. The minimum required preserve for the RPUD is 1.42+/- acres. The project is providing 3.90+/- acres. The Collier County Preserve Management Plan will specify that the potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows occurring within the development footprint will be excavated and the resident tortoises relocated pursuant to a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) gopher tortoise permit that will be obtained for the project. Residents will be provided with educational materials concerning preventing nuisance black bears. Both butterfly orchids (E. tampensis) and stiff-leaved wild-pines (T. fasciculata) were observed in various locations across the site. Pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03 if these species are not present within the preserve at the time of development, between two and ten plants of each species (growing within eight feet of natural grade) will be relocated from the development footprint to the on - site preserve prior to the initiation of clearing activities. PUBLIC UTILITIES: Reserved MISCELLANEOUS: Reserved 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 1 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0004 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)\Working Docs\NIM Mailer.docx March 29, 2021 Subject: Neighborhood Information Meeting Soluna RPUD Rezone Application (PL20210000093) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a request to rezone the property from Rural Agriculture (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The Soluna RPUD subject property is 18.21 ± acres and is located southwest of the intersection of Tree Farm Road and Massey Street in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The Petitioner is asking the County to address the following: • Seek approval of a rezoning from Rural Agriculture (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) in order to allow for a future development of up to 130 residential dwelling units with an amenity center. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) will be held to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our development intentions and to give you an opportunity to influence the form of development. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held at 5:30pm on Wednesday, April 21, 2021, at the Peace Lutheran Church, 9850 Immokalee Rd, Naples, FL 34120. Due to COVID-19, special accommodations will be made to allow people to attend in person or virt ually. The meeting will be held indoors where CDC guidelines will be observed. Reservations for in -person meeting attendance is required to ensure social distancing can be met. The meeting will also be online via Zoom. Should you choose to either participate in the Zoom meeting or want to attend in-person, please notify us via email at bfinnegan@consult-rwa.com prior to April 20, 2021, to allow us to send you login instructions and document your reservation. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please also contact me via email at kgallander@consult-rwa.com or 239-597-0575. Sincerely, RWA, Inc. Kenrick S. Gallander, AICP Director of Planning KSG/ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Page 2 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 | (239) 597-0575 | Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com Project Location Map 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 1NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPEADAMUS, KIMBERLY JO 3574 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---025225001924 UALBERGO, JOSEPH MICHELLE MARIE ALBERGO 3396 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080004906 UAMENDOLA, NICHOLAS J CYNTHIA C AMENDOLA 3368 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080005044 UAPOSTOLIDIS, ATHANASIOS A CHRISTINA APOSTOLIDIS3597 CANOPY CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---025225000585 UARBELAEZ, MONICA EMILIA VERONICA DEL PILAR RUIZ 3432 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004728 UARGO WARM SPRINGS LP 21141 BELLA TERRA BLVDESTERO, FL 33928---081080000243 UARGO WARM SPRINGS LP 21141 BELLA TERRA BLVDESTERO, FL 33928---081080000285 UARGO WARM SPRINGS LP 21141 BELLA TERRA BLVDESTERO, FL 33928---081080004029 UARGO WARM SPRINGS LP 21141 BELLA TERRA BLVDESTERO, FL 33928---081080004061 UARGO WARM SPRNGS LLLP 21141 BELLA TERRA BLVDESTERO, FL 33928---081080000023 UBALLESTEROS, JUAN C GRACE LUCIA CARTEI 3672 CANOPY CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---025225001665 UBAMMERLIN, RONALD & ELIZABETH 3680 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34210---025225001623 UBELL, JACKSON R & NANCY W 8538 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009180 UBROWN, JAMES H & LORI D 3616 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---025225001801 UBROWN, ROBERT & DEIRDRE8637 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---079305009889 UBUCCA, ANTONINO LORENA ELIZABETH BUCCA3308 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080001323 UBUCHANAN, DENNY L KIMBERLY S BUCHANAN3312 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080001307 UCALLAHAN III, CHARLES MICHAEL DONNA CALLAHAN3590 CANOPY CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---025225001843 UCALUSA PINE GOLF CLUB LLC 20 N WACKER DR STE 1711CHICAGO, IL 60606---054465001522 UCALUSA PINE GOLF CLUB LLC 20 N WACKER DR STE 1722CHICAGO, IL 60606---054465000125 UCALUSA PINE GOLF CLUB LLC 20 N WACKER DR STE 1722CHICAGO, IL 60606---054465000141 UCALUSA PINE GOLF CLUB LLC 20 N WACKER DR STE 1722CHICAGO, IL 60606---054465001182 UCALUSA PINE GOLF CLUB LLC 20 N WACKER DR STE 1722CHICAGO, IL 60606---054465001564 UCANOPY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC INC % SANDCASTLE MANAGEMENT 9150 GALLERIA COURT STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34109---025225000022 UCANOPY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC INC % SANDCASTLE MANAGEMENT 9150 GALLERIA COURT STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34109---025225000048 UCANOPY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC INC % SANDCASTLE MANAGEMENT 9150 GALLERIA COURT STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34109---025225000187 UCANOPY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC INC % SANDCASTLE MANAGEMENT 9150 GALLERIA COURT STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34109---025225000226 UCODY, DREW ALDEN & PERFAY 3356 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001080 UCOLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---000193820003 UCOLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---000209161708 UCOLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---060410001325 UCONDOMINA JR, JORGE ARMANDO 3609 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---025225000640 UCONNER, STEVEN W & JILL G 3332 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001200 UCORRAO, DAVID J & TRISHA L 3307 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080002021 UCRONENWETT TR, RICHARD H UTD 8/7/01 R H CRONENWETT REV LIVING 8610 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---1685 79305009229 UCURRAN, TIMOTHY J KATHERINE K CURRAN3601 CANOPY CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---025225000608 UDABULLA, ALTIN & AMARILDA 3392 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004922 UDAVID & ELIZABETH YOUNG IRREVOCABLE TRUST 8633 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---1686 79305009902 UDERVISHI, ASTRIT & ALBANA 3300 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001365 UDEVLIN, HAROLD B REGENE ROSS 8530 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009148 UDONNELLS, JOSEPH W & SALLY A 3571 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34210---025225000462 UDUBE, ERIC & NICOLE C 3304 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001349 UDUNGAN, JAMES M & MARCIA N3637 SUNSET BLUFF DRBEAVERCREEK, OH 45430---079305009300 UDZIOBA, CHRISTINA LYNN3620 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225001788 UELWELL, BENJAMIN DAVID ALYSON RENEE ELWELL 3625 CANOPY CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---025225000721 UEVERETT, FAWNE ELICIA 3424 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080004760 UFAUSTINI, JENNIFER LYNN FRANCESCO LUIGI A CASCONE 3412 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004825 UFIELDS II, CALVIN DAY EMILY S FIELDS 3372 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080005028 UFINNECY, JAMES & MARY ANN 8578 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009384 UFRANCES A CAPASSO 2009 R/L TR 8602 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1685 79305009261 UFRAUMENI, JANINE MARIE 3594 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225001827 UFUSARO, NICHOLAS MAX BRIANNA MARIE FUSARO 3593 CANOPY CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---025225000569 UGASCON, JOEL N NICOLA LEE LA CORTE 3436 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004702 UGIRALDO, LUIS F CLAUDIA TERESA LUZARDO 3428 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004744 UGREEN, CAMERON RICHARD JACQUELINE MICHELE GREEN 3643 CANOPY CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---025225000802 UGRIMES, SEAN M & STACY J 3634 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225001720 UGROSSMAN, ROBERT J GAIL J CRESSWELL 8582 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009368 UGROW, JOHN & ANGELA 1001 WOODWIND HILL DRDALTON, PA 18414---9170 79305009164 UGUTIERREZ, JULIE ANN 3638 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225001704 UNotice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA.Petition: PL20210000093(PUDZ) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 3/25/2021 | Site Location: 205280007 (Proposed Soluna RPUD)Copy of POList_500_PL202100000939.A.1.ePacket Pg. 323Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 2HACZYNSKI, JEFFREY 3613 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000666 UHANSEN, RICHARD C & JEAN A 8586 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009342 UHARTZ, TERRY LEE & BRIAN IAN 3316 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001284 UHEATH, JAMES R & LINDA K 8526 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009122 UHERRIN, DUSTIN ALLEN EMILY BRYN SPENCER 3400 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004883 UHOLMAN, DENISE L & MARTIN J 3344 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080001145 UINGARGIOLA, GIUSEPPE ROSARIA INGARGIOLA 3647 CANOPY CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---025225000828 UJOHN R LYDIC REVOCABLE TRUST BEVERLY K LYDIC REVOC TRUST PO BOX 367LAKE CITY, MI 49651---081080002089 UJURAS, ELEANOR MAE 3577 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000488 UKELLY, CYNTHIA F 3639 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---025225000789 UKERRY A HOLLOWELL TRUST 3621 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000705 UKHACHADOORIAN, RONALD & PAMELA 8606 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1685 79305009245 UKISTNER, JESSICA JEAN BRANDYN W KISTNER 3339 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080002186 UKLEINHEINZ, CLARK V JULIE L OSTBY 3655 CANOPY CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---025225000860 UKNUTSON TR, GERALD J & LINDA J GERALD J KNUTSON REV/TR LINDA J KNUTSON REV/TR UTD 4/29/03 8522 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009106 UKRACIK, CLAUDE J & BONNIE J 8562 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---079305009465 UKROLL, ROBERT E & GRETCHEN A 315 CALAMUS CIRMEDINA, MN 55340---9228 79305009203 ULEE, KEITH ALEXIS HELENE LEE 3336 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080001187 ULENNOX III, GEORGE H DEBRA M BARNARD STECKLEIN8550 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009520 ULEWIS, GERALD M & NATALIE B 8570 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009423 ULICAUSI, MARIEL B 3617 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000682 ULINLEY D METSGER REV/LIV TRUST 114 LA DOLCE VITA RDGREENSBURG, PA 15601---854279305009449 ULOWELL, LANDON CHASE GABRIELA D CARDENAS DUFFY 3676 CANOPY CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---025225001649 ULYCETTE, PATRICIA M JAMIE M LYCETTE 3375 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080005183 UMASHINGTON II, JOSEPH P ELENA M MASHINGTON 3630 CANOPY CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---025225001746 UMATTAMY NAPLES LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080002128 UMATTAMY NAPLES LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080002144 UMATTAMY NAPLES LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080002160 UMATTAMY NAPLES LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080002209 UMATTAMY NAPLES LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080002225 UMATTAMY NAPLES LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080002241 UMATTAMY NAPLES LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080002267 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080004663 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080004689 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005206 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005222 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005248 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005264 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005280 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005303 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005329 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005345 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005361 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005387 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005400 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005426 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND RD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005442 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080004647 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080004809 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD SUITE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080004841 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD STE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005109 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD STE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005125 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD STE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005141 UMATTAMY TAMPA/SARASOTA LLC 4901 VINELAND ROAD STE 450ORLANDO, FL 32811---081080005167 UMAUREN, EDWARD ARTHUR MARIA CAPONE MAUREN 3311 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080002047 UMCCAIN, ALEX MICHAEL & BRYANNA 3323 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080002102 UMCKENZIE, PATRICIA T 8598 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009287 UMELHEIM, KIRA A & DAVE M 3635 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000763 UMEYER, JOSEPH G 3328 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001226 UMOCKINGBIRD XING COMM ASSOC 9530 MARKETPLACE ROAD STE 206FT MYERS, FL 33912---060410000025 UMOCKINGBIRD XING COMM ASSOC 9530 MARKETPLACE ROAD STE 206FT MYERS, FL 33912---060410000041 UMOCKINGBIRD XING COMM ASSOC 9530 MARKETPLACE ROAD STE 206FT MYERS, FL 33912---060410001163 UMUELLER, JASON WILLIAM PAULINE ANN MUELLER 3388 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080004948 UMUTKA, JAMES R & DEBRA A 3585 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000527 UNEWLOVE, RICHARD A & LAURIE B 336 S MAIN STBOWLING GREEN, OH 43402---3009 79305009944 UNEWTSON, JOSHUA S & JENNIFER L 3651 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---025225000844 UCopy of POList_500_PL202100000939.A.1.ePacket Pg. 324Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 3PASCAL, MARLENE CARIDAD 3586 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225001869 UPECK, MICHAEL Z & SVETLANA V 1609 MOCKINGBIRD DRNAPLES, FL 34120---060410001668 UPELLEGRINI, ANDREA V 3589 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000543 UPILAT, MARCIN P & IZABELA 3631 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000747 UPLOCHARCZYK JR, JOHN MICHAEL MORGAN DANIELLE HINDS 3420 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004786 UPOKA, MICHAEL ATTILA & KELLY 3605 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---025225000624 UQYTYKU, BESNIK & INIDA 3352 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080001103 UQYTYKU, ILIR & EDLIRA 3348 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080001129 URAYNOR, CHRISTOPHER DONNA DOHERTY3624 CANOPY CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---025225001762 UREGAN, DOMINIC A & DENISE R 8621 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---079305009960 URICHARD K & PAMELA J HUBER QUALIFIED SPOUSAL TRUST 1647 SONGBIRD CT NAPLES, FL 34120---060410001367 URICHARD W NELTNER REV TRUST 8641 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---1686 79305009863 URINGHAM, LEWIS JAY KRISTEN LYNETTE RINGHAM 3380 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080004980 UROLAND, SCOTT A 3324 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001242 UROMERO QUILES, FRANCES ILLIANA 3340 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080001161 UROUSH, JASON C & LORI H 3376 PILOT CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---081080005002 USAINI, HARVINDER H HARPREET K BUDHIRAJA3320 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080001268 USAYRE, JAMES PATRICK WENDY BETH SAYRE 9 TULIP TREE DR GARNERVILLE, NY 10923---079305009326 USHELLEY J RYAN TRUST 1605 MOCKINGBIRD DRNAPLES, FL 34120---060410001684 USHOPLACK, TORREY ELIZABETH 3581 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225000501 USMITH, MAUREEN K 3664 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225001681 USTEINBERG, AARON J & AUDREY T3582 CANOPY CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---025225001885 USTONE, WINNIFRED L KEVIN EDWARD GORHAM 8518 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---1683 79305009083 USUN BROADCASTING INC 2824 PALM BEACH BLVDFT MYERS, FL 33916---1503 00205280007 UTHEODORE, MARC JOSEPH ASHTON KAY THEODORE 3315 PILOT CIRNAPLES, FL 34120---081080002063 UTYRRELL, BRIDGET SARAH SHELDON CURTIS TYRRELL III3404 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080004867 UVANDERBILT CMMTY ASSOC INC 8250 DANBURY BLVDNAPLES, FL 34120---1631 79305006662 UVANDERBILT CMMTY ASSOC INC 8250 DANBURY BLVDNAPLES, FL 34120---1631 79305007263 UVANDERBILT CMMTY ASSOC INC 8250 DANBURY BLVDNAPLES, FL 34120---1631 79305007522 UVENABLE, ROGER HAROLD ELIZABETH ROBINSON VENABLE 3360 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080005086 UWHITE, THOMAS D & BRIGITTE 3578 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---025225001908 UWILLIAM A SERENIUS REV TRUST 8554 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---079305009504 UWINKLEPLECK, JOHN G & NANCY G 8558 GLENEAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---079305009481 UWRAGG, GARRY RICHARD ELIZABETH CAROLE WRAGG 3364 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080005060 UYURKO, DREW ALBERT LESLEE JEAN YURKO 1651 SONGBIRD CT NAPLES, FL 34120---060410001341 UZAKAIB MD, DR EDWARD A JILL ARNOLD ZAKAIB 3805 DOVER ROAD RICHMOND, VA 23221---079305009928 UZAWACKY, TIMOTHY MATTHEW MANDI ELAYNE ZAWACKY 3384 PILOT CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---081080004964 UFLYNN, MARILYN A & JOHN R 24 OLD MILL TERRTORONTO M8X 1A2 CANADA 79305009407 FCopy of POList_500_PL202100000939.A.1.ePacket Pg. 325Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34109 • (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 • www.consult-rwa.com Page 1 of 6 K:\2020\200061.00.03 Sun Broadcasting PUD, ERP, PPL, SIP & SDP\0004 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)\Meeting Docs and Materials\Soluna RPUD - NIM Summary rev1.docx DATE: May 3, 2021 TO: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Collier County – Growth Management Department: Zoning Division FROM: Kenrick S. Gallander, AICP Director of Planning RWA Engineering PROJECT NAME: Soluna RPUD – (PL#: 20210000093) SUBJECT: Neighborhood Information Meeting – Summary A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on April 21, at 5:30pm at the Peace Lutheran Church, 9850 Immokalee Rd, Naples, FL 34120. Attendees are as follows: • Kenrick Gallander, AICP, Director of Planning – RWA Engineering • John Williams, Vice President – RWA Engineering • Blake Finnegan, Associate Planner – RWA Engineering • Joel Blikstad, P.E., Senior Professional Engineer – RWA Engineering • J. Wayne Everett, Entitlements Manager – D.R. Horton • Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner – Collier County • Please refer to the attached Sign-In Sheet and NIM ZOOM Reservation Tracker Sheet for all other attendees. Intro Summary (Started at 5:30 p.m.): Mr. Gallander began the meeting introducing himself and due to the meeting being done virtually as well, he ensured those attending via Zoom could hear and see the meeting online. Once confirmed, Mr. Gallander MEMORANDUM 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34109 • (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 • www.consult-rwa.com Page 2 of 6 proceeded to outline the meeting, which would include a brief presentation and following the presentation would have time for questions and answers. The presentation included a description of the subject property location and details of the property. Mr. Gallander went on to further detail the existing conditions relevant to this request currently under review by Collier County and outlining the communication cell towers that were previously located on the site which are no longer in use. From there, Mr. Gallander spoke to the current zoning and future land use. He mentioned it is an infill parcel and the conditions that defined the criterion for an infill parcel designation. He then went into the details of the request stating the intent to rezone from Rural Agricultural to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPU D) to allow for a maximum of 130 dwelling units and the residential uses proposed under the list of permitted uses. Following the request, Mr. Gallander outlined the Master Plan under review detailing the development tracts Residential Tract, Amenity Area Tract, Floodplain Compensation Tract, and the Preserve Tract) as well as proposed ingress and egress and buffer types on each side of the property. Mr. Gallander then reviewed the requested deviations and explained the intent, followed by the transportation and environmental commitments and process/timeline for the applications being submitted in conjunction with the zoning request. Then Mr. Gallander concluded the presentation and then opened the floor for questions/comments/input from those in attendance. Questions/Comments asked or offered at the meeting: Q/C: What is the square footage of the houses? A: We do not have those specifics at this point as part of this zoning petition. Q/C: What type of homes will they be? A: At this point we do not have concrete answer on this, but we know they are looking at townhouses at the moment. They have many options open. Q/C: What is the separation distance between the canopy homes and these homes? A: Approximately 70 feet. Q/C: Will there be a fence between Canopy and Soluna? A: Not that we are aware of at this point. Q/C: When was the traffic counts done? 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34109 • (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 • www.consult-rwa.com Page 3 of 6 A: They are done annually. Q/C: Did the traffic study account for the Massey street connection? A: I do not know that answer. Q/C: Why didn’t we keep the preserve of the west side? A: Our engineers designed the drainage and floodplain concept and determined this worked best to accommodate. Q/C: Where are the PPL documents? A: You can find them on CityView. Q/C: Does D.R. Horton own the property. A: Not at this time, no. Q/C: What is the max height limitation? A: The height limitation is 30 feet – Zoned. Q/C: Did the transportation report review the safety measures on Tree Farm Road? A: Yes. The traffic study has been reviewed and found consistent. Q/C: What will the costs of these homes be? A: We do not have that information. Q/C: Will the site be filled/leveled? A: Yes, with import fill as needed. Q/C: Will there be any type of wall separating the Canopy development? A: Not being considered at this time. There will be a buffer. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34109 • (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 • www.consult-rwa.com Page 4 of 6 Q/C: Will there be any affordable housing? A: No. Q/C: Could you give me a copy of the TIS? A: Yes. Q/C: Will there be another TIS study after the development is approved? A: No Q/C: Where on the Master Site Plan will the homes be located? A: Where you see the letter “R” is where the homes will go . Q/C: Do you have a copy of the plan they submitted to be reviewed? A: I do not have that with me, but you can find that on CityView website. Q/C: Have you been out to the property? A: Yes. Q/C: Do we have the responsibility to look at what the other communities will do that impact the roadways? A: This project as designed is identified as not negatively affecting the transportation network in terms of safety, capacity, etc. Other projects in the future may do so. Q/C: Is it possible to take section P and move it closer to the property lines to the other side? A: Again, based on the design and best stormwater manag ement practices we have identified this as the best design. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34109 • (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 • www.consult-rwa.com Page 5 of 6 Q/C: Is anything along the line of Vanderbilt going to be preserved? A: I cannot speak exactly to that. But it is typical practice that you want to maintain the existing vegetation there and if it does not meet the requirement for the buffering landscaping , you have to supplement it. Sometimes there are exotics that have to be maintained and/or removed. Q/C: You say that the preserve is in the best place to put it, but are you saying that because it is the least expensive? A: Again, the analysis by our engineers have identified this area is the best to manage the stormwater. Q/C: Nobody here is against the project, but it is disrespectful what you are providing right now in regard to the de-value of our homes and no wall being considered. The townhomes will be tall enough to see right into our backyards. Q/C: There is no buffer or fence being maintained by the Canopy community. There is nothing there. Just grass. Q/C: In terms of the floodplain compensation, what typically is that? Is it vegetation? Is it marshland? A: My understanding is that yes, it is an area that is maintained and cleared, and it becomes a depression area that helps to ensure the water that is in this watershed is properly managed on site . Not marshland, more like open field open space. Q/A: Does that mean if there is any rain there could be a small pond that could form in the flood plain area? A: Absolutely. Q/A: Do you have trees in there? A: No. Q/A: Can you describe the lake? Is it deep and are you planning to dig this? A: Yes, it will be a certain depth and will be provide for some fill on he project to balance the site. Do not know the depth. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34109 • (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 • www.consult-rwa.com Page 6 of 6 Q/A: That whole area is probably between 5 and 7 feet below Tree Farm Road in elevation. Will this site be filled? Does the site have to be somewhat level with the road? A: Yes, we will use what is from the lake and rest will be hauled in. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. In summary of our meeting, the residents of the Canopy community to the west expressed the majority of the concerns. They are concerned that there will not be adequate separation between their homes and the new development. They were adamant about having privacy and were also concerned about the height of the new buildings, fearing that the new residents will be able t o see into their backyards. They expressed that they were not against the development but would like the site changed to address their concern about privacy. They also expressed concern for the location of the preserve noting they would like to have preser ved the west side as opposed to what is being proposed with the preserve to the east. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 334Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Soluna NIM Reservation Name Organization Email Address Phone # ZOOM:Public 1 Rosemary Capone Property Owner rgclake@me.com 1550 Mockingbird Drive Not Provided 2 George Lennox Property Owner debsteck@gmail.com 8550 Gleneagle Way 609-442-9097 3 Deb Stecklein Property Owner debsteck@gmail.com 8550 Gleneagle Way 850-567-8373 4 Luis and Claudia Luzardo Property Owner Luisgsells@gmail.com 3428 Pilot Cir Not Provided 5 Paul J. Murray Property Owner lawmanpjm2@aol.com 3750 Canopy Circle 615-423-9412 6 Roger Gullet Property Owner rog4958@gmail.com 3712 Canopy Circle 239-631-9326 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) Soluna Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Rezone (PUDZ –PL20210000093) Neighborhood Information Meeting April 21, 2021 5:30pm 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Team Representatives •Applicant: •D.R. Horton, Inc. •Wayne Everett •Mark Brumfield •Agent: •RWA, Inc. •Ken Gallander, AICP •Blake Finnegan •Joel Blikstad, P.E. •John Williams 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Subject Property: •18.4+/-acres •Southwest corner of Tree Farm Road & Massey Street •Future Land Use Map designation: Urban (Urban – Residential Subdistrict) •Zoning: Rural Agriculture (A) •Existing Use: Vacant (Communication Towers) •“Infill parcel” per LDC Sec. 4.07.02.A.2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Request: •Rezone from Rural Ag. (A) to RPUD •Max. 130 dwelling units •Permitted Principal Uses: •Residential Tract: Detached single -family; Attached single-family & Townhouses; Two family, zero lot line; Multi-family •Amenity Area Tract: Clubhouses; Outdoor recreation facilities –pool, playground, dog park (private residents and guest only); Open space areas; Health and fitness/Indoor recreation facilities •Floodplain Compensation Tract: Open space •Preserve Tract: Preserve 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Proposed Deviations: •Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01.N, which requires minimum local street right -of-way width of 60 feet, to allow a 50’ right-of-way width for the internal streets that include public utilities. •Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead end streets except when designed as a cul-de-sac, to allow dead end street of less than 100 linear feet. •Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5 foot sidewalks within public and private rights-of-ways or easements, which are internal to the site to be on both sides of local/internal accessways (streets), to allow sidewalks to be constructed only on the side of the streets that are directly adjacent to residential units or amenity areas. •Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height of 8’ along the perimeter of the project where abutting an existing public roadway, and allow a 12’ tall wall/berm combination. •Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total combined sign area of 64 square feet, to allow for two (2) ground signs at the proposed project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total combined sign area of 80 square feet. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Commitments: •Transportation: •PUD shall not exceed 75 two -way PM peak hour net trips. •Environmental: •The project has 9.44+/-acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 15% existing native vegetation shall be retained. The minimum required preserve = 1.42+/- acres. (Provided: 3.90+/-acres) •Black Bear Management •Listed Plant Species Management •Gopher Tortoise Management 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Process and Timeline: •Application under review with County Staff •Submittal #2 •Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) •Public Hearing (Estimated: July) •Board of County Commissioners (BCC) •Public Hearing (Estimated: September) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Questions? 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment E - Hybrid Meeting Waiver (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment F - Advertising Hearing Sign (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) t^*l:,,,,. !, ,', .i 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment F - Advertising Hearing Sign (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) { t t HEARI}IG I{OTICE SOLUNA RPUD RPUD BEZOftIE Petition No. P120210000093 CCPC, AUGUST 19,2021 - 9'00 a.m. 8CC, SEPTtlllEEf, 28, 2021 - 9,00 a.m Colli.r Countt G0r.rnm.oi C!ol.r, Tiird flool |ry. {srn0n furnr. B'rilding (8ldg. t) !20t tsrr I.mi.mi Tr.il, ilapl.s. fL 34l12 Tinothy Finr, Principal.Planner: 239-252-4312 .PUBLIC I ,|, n T ffi 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment F - Advertising Hearing Sign (17586 : PL20210000093 Soluna RPUD (PUDZ)) 08/19/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20210001793 - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, to create the Private Property Rights Element as required by state law; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (Coordinator Mike Bosi, Division Director, Planning and Zoning) Meeting Date: 08/19/2021 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Anita Jenkins 07/28/2021 1:42 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 07/28/2021 1:42 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 07/29/2021 2:35 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/02/2021 4:39 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 08/04/2021 11:48 AM Zoning James Sabo Additional Reviewer Completed 08/04/2021 4:27 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 08/06/2021 10:10 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/19/2021 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 355 ‒ 1 ‒ PL20210001793 Staff Proposed GMPA - Private Property Rights Element STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: August 19, 2021 RE: PETITION PL20210001793, STAFF-PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CREATE A REQUIRED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] INTRODUCTION The purpose of this proposed Growth Management Plan Element is to implement the legislative intent expressed in ss. 163.3161(10) and 187.101(3) that governmental entities respect judicially acknowledged and constitutionally protected private property rights. BACKGROUND The 2021 Legislature approved House Bill 59 to amend the Community Planning Act, Chapter 163.3117 F.S., requiring Collier County “to include in its comprehensive plan a property rights element.” Collier County must adopt this new element “by the earlier of the date of its adoption of its next proposed plan amendment that is initiated after July 1, 2021, or the date of the next scheduled evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan.” The Department of Economic Opportunity defines “initiate” as the first Land Planning Agency (Collier County Planning Commission) Hearing. This required adoption timeline gives urgency to the consideration of the proposed Element. The attached House Bill 59 provides for the “statement of rights” to adopt in the proposed Private Property Rights Element. The Private Property Rights Element contains a single Goal, a single Objective, and four implementing Policies which are reflective of the statement of rights. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on August 28, 2021. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Land Planning Agency, forward the proposed Private Property Rights Element of the Growth Management Plan to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report Property Rights GMPA (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 1 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 1 An act relating to growth management; amending s. 2 163.3167, F.S.; specifying requirements for certain 3 comprehensive plans effective, rather than adopted, 4 after a specified date and for associated land 5 development regulations; amending s. 163.3177, F.S.; 6 requiring local governments to include a property 7 rights element in their comprehensive plans; providing 8 a statement of rights which a local government may 9 use; requiring a local government to adopt a property 10 rights element by the earlier of its adoption of its 11 next proposed plan amendment initiated after a certain 12 date or the next scheduled evaluation and appraisal of 13 its comprehensive plan; prohibiting a local 14 government's property rights element from conflicting 15 with the statement of rights contained in the act; 16 amending s. 163.3237, F.S.; providing that the consent 17 of certain property owners is not required for 18 development agreement changes under certain 19 circumstances; providing an exception; amending s. 20 337.25, F.S.; requiring the Department of 21 Transportation to afford a right of first refusal to 22 certain individuals under specified circumstances; 23 providing requirements and procedures for the right of 24 first refusal; amending s. 380.06, F.S.; authorizing 25 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 2 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S certain developments of regional impact agreements to 26 be amended under certain circumstances; providing 27 retroactive applicability; providing a declaration of 28 important state interest; providing an effective date. 29 30 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 31 32 Section 1. Subsection (3) of section 163.3167, Florida 33 Statutes, is amended to read: 34 163.3167 Scope of act.— 35 (3) A municipality established after the effective date of 36 this act shall, within 1 year after incorporation, establish a 37 local planning agency, pursuant to s. 163.3174, and prepare and 38 adopt a comprehensive plan of the type and in the manner set out 39 in this act within 3 years after the date of such incorporation. 40 A county comprehensive plan is controlling until the 41 municipality adopts a comprehensive plan in accordance with this 42 act. A comprehensive plan for a newly incorporated municipality 43 which becomes effective adopted after January 1, 2016 2019, and 44 all land development regulations adopted to implement the 45 comprehensive plan must incorporate each development order 46 existing before the comprehensive plan's effective date, may not 47 impair the completion of a development in accordance with such 48 existing development order, and must vest the density and 49 intensity approved by such development order existing on the 50 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 3 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S effective date of the comprehensive plan without limitation or 51 modification. 52 Section 2. Paragraph (i) is added to subsection (6) of 53 section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, to read: 54 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive 55 plan; studies and surveys.— 56 (6) In addition to the requirements of subsections (1)-57 (5), the comprehensive plan shall include the following 58 elements: 59 (i)1. In accordance with the legislative intent expressed 60 in ss. 163.3161(10) and 187.101(3) that governmental entities 61 respect judicially acknowledged and constitutionally protected 62 private property rights, each local government shall include in 63 its comprehensive plan a property rights element to ensure that 64 private property rights are considered in local decisionmaking. 65 A local government may adopt its own property rights element or 66 use the following statement of rights: 67 68 The following rights shall be considered in local 69 decisionmaking: 70 71 1. The right of a property owner to physically 72 possess and control his or her interests in the 73 property, including easements, leases, or mineral 74 rights. 75 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 4 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 76 2. The right of a property owner to use, maintain, 77 develop, and improve his or her property for personal 78 use or for the use of any other person, subject to 79 state law and local ordinances. 80 81 3. The right of the property owner to privacy and to 82 exclude others from the property to protect the 83 owner's possessions and property. 84 85 4. The right of a property owner to dispose of his or 86 her property through sale or gift. 87 88 2. Each local government must adopt a property rights 89 element in its comprehensive plan by the earlier of the date of 90 its adoption of its next proposed plan amendment that is 91 initiated after July 1, 2021, or the date of the next scheduled 92 evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan pursuant to 93 s. 163.3191. If a local government adopts its own property 94 rights element, the element may not conflict with the statement 95 of rights provided in subparagraph 1. 96 Section 3. Section 163.3237, Florida Statutes, is amended 97 to read: 98 163.3237 Amendment or cancellation of a development 99 agreement.—A development agreement may be amended or canceled by 100 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 5 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or by their 101 successors in interest. A party or its designated successor in 102 interest to a development agreement and a local government may 103 amend or cancel a development agreement without securing the 104 consent of other parcel owners whose property was originally 105 subject to the development agreement, unless the amendment or 106 cancellation directly modifies the allowable uses or 107 entitlements of such owners' property. 108 Section 4. Subsection (4) of section 337.25, Florida 109 Statutes, is amended to read: 110 337.25 Acquisition, lease, and disposal of real and 111 personal property.— 112 (4) The department may convey, in the name of the state, 113 any land, building, or other property, real or personal, which 114 was acquired under subsection (1) and which the department has 115 determined is not needed for the construction, operation, and 116 maintenance of a transportation facility. When such a 117 determination has been made, property may be disposed of through 118 negotiations, sealed competitive bids, auctions, or any other 119 means the department deems to be in its best interest, with due 120 advertisement for property valued by the department at greater 121 than $10,000. A sale may not occur at a price less than the 122 department's current estimate of value, except as provided in 123 paragraphs (a)-(d). The department may afford a right of first 124 refusal to the local government or other political subdivision 125 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 6 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S in the jurisdiction in which the parcel is situated, except in a 126 conveyance transacted under paragraph (a), paragraph (c), or 127 paragraph (e). Notwithstanding any provision of this section to 128 the contrary, before any conveyance under this subsection may be 129 made, except a conveyance under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c), 130 the department shall first afford a right of first refusal to 131 the previous property owner for the department's current 132 estimate of value of the property. The right of first refusal 133 must be made in writing and sent to the previous owner via 134 certified mail or hand delivery, effective upon receipt. The 135 right of first refusal must provide the previous owner with a 136 minimum of 30 days to exercise the right in writing and must be 137 sent to the originator of the offer by certified mail or hand 138 delivery, effective upon dispatch. If the previous owner 139 exercises his or her right of first refusal, the previous owner 140 has a minimum of 90 days to close on the property. The right of 141 first refusal set forth in this subsection may not be required 142 for the disposal of property acquired more than 10 years before 143 the date of disposition by the department. 144 (a) If the property has been donated to the state for 145 transportation purposes and a transportation facility has not 146 been constructed for at least 5 years, plans have not been 147 prepared for the construction of such facility, and the property 148 is not located in a transportation corridor, the governmental 149 entity may authorize reconveyance of the donated property for no 150 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 7 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S consideration to the original donor or the donor's heirs, 151 successors, assigns, or representatives. 152 (b) If the property is to be used for a public purpose, 153 the property may be conveyed without consideration to a 154 governmental entity. 155 (c) If the property was originally acquired specifically 156 to provide replacement housing for persons displaced by 157 transportation projects, the department may negotiate for the 158 sale of such property as replacement housing. As compensation, 159 the state shall receive at least its investment in such property 160 or the department's current estimate of value, whichever is 161 lower. It is expressly intended that this benefit be extended 162 only to persons actually displaced by the project. Dispositions 163 to any other person must be for at least the department's 164 current estimate of value. 165 (d) If the department determines that the property 166 requires significant costs to be incurred or that continued 167 ownership of the property exposes the department to significant 168 liability risks, the department may use the projected 169 maintenance costs over the next 10 years to offset the 170 property's value in establishing a value for disposal of the 171 property, even if that value is zero. 172 (e) If, at the discretion of the department, a sale to a 173 person other than an abutting property owner would be 174 inequitable, the property may be sold to the abutting owner for 175 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) ENROLLED CS/CS/CS/HB 59, Engrossed 1 2021 Legislature CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0059-05-er Page 8 of 8 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S the department's current estimate of value. 176 Section 5. Paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of section 177 380.06, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 178 380.06 Developments of regional impact.— 179 (4) LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER.— 180 (d) Any agreement entered into by the state land planning 181 agency, the developer, and the local government with respect to 182 an approved development of regional impact previously classified 183 as essentially built out, or any other official determination 184 that an approved development of regional impact is essentially 185 built out, remains valid unless it expired on or before April 6, 186 2018, and may be amended pursuant to the processes adopted by 187 the local government for amending development orders. Any such 188 agreement or amendment may authorize the developer to exchange 189 approved land uses, subject to demonstrating that the exchange 190 will not increase impacts to public facilities. This paragraph 191 applies to all such agreements and amendments effective on or 192 after April 6, 2018. 193 Section 6. The Legislature finds and declares that this 194 act fulfills an important state interest. 195 Section 7. This act shall take effect July 1, 2021. 196 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: House Bill 59 Private Property Rights (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Resolution Property Rights GMPA - 072021 (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Resolution Property Rights GMPA - 072021 (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Resolution Property Rights GMPA - 072021 (17607 : PL20210001793 - GMP Amendment - Private Property Rights) 08/19/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: PL20210001271 - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, proposing Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) based amendments to Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to address sea level rise, and update nomenclature, and furthermore directing transmittal of the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (Coordinator: James Sabo, Planning Manager) Meeting Date: 08/19/2021 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 07/29/2021 4:21 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 07/29/2021 4:21 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 08/04/2021 12:31 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/04/2021 1:56 PM Zoning James Sabo Additional Reviewer Completed 08/04/2021 4:14 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 08/04/2021 4:19 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 08/06/2021 10:08 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/19/2021 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 368 ‒ 1 ‒ Proposed Amendments-Conservation and Coastal Management Element STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: August 19, 2021 RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROPOSING EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW (EAR) BASED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE, AND UPDATE NOMENCLATURE, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL20210001271] [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] INTRODUCTION The purpose of this proposed Growth Management Plan Element is to implement the legislative intent expressed in Senate Bill No. 1094 related to the peril of flooding. The Bill amends s. 163.3178 and specifies requirements for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element for a local comprehensive plan. BACKGROUND In 2015, the Legislature approved House Bill 1094 to amend the Community Planning Act, FL Statute 163.3178 requiring Collier County to amend its Conservation and Coastal Management Element language to “Include development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions that reduce the flood risk in coastal areas which result from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and the related impacts of sea-level rise.” The bill requires additional language related to the use of “best practices” for development and redevelopment in flood zone areas to reduce losses due to flooding. The specific changes are enumerated in House Bill 1094 and a copy is included as Attachment B. During the 2020 legislative session, the State required local governments to comply with the requirements of s. 163.3178 F.S. for Coastal Management. REQUESTED ACTION The State Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) provided an Evaluation and Appraisal Notification to the Growth Management Department related to compliance with the 2015 legislative changes for sea level rise. As a result, Collier County must adopt the proposed amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element by December 31, 2021 as required by the DEO. Exhibit A details the proposed amendments to the CCME. It is included as Attachment A. The amendments include: 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Final Staff Rpt CCPC 8-19-21 GMPA (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Amendment) ‒ 2 ‒ Proposed Amendments-Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 11, which is development of an adaptation action area... Goal Area 14, is added, which is the reduction of flood risks from high tide events... Goal 14, is added to the element, which is to foster resiliency by coordinating with local, state, and federal partners… Objective 14.1, sets a December 2023 date to address issues related to sea-level rise, including development and redevelopment strategies to reduce the risk of flooding. It will encourage the use of best practices development principles to remove property from flood zone designations and reduce losses due to flooding... Policy 14.2, states that the County shall continue to monitor all credible climate change and sea-level rise data… Policy 14.3, states the County shall continue to support Florida Statutes for Beach and Shore Preservation… Policy 14.4, states the County shall consider the possible impacts from climate change… Policy 14.5, references the development of an adaptation action area for low lying zones experiencing coastal flooding. Policy 10.3.6, there is a correction to the text from Setback Line to Control Line… Policy 10.4.7, there is a correction to the text from Setback Line to Control Line. Also, there is a change to add the provisions of the Dennis L. Jones Beach and Shore Preservation Act of 2012… Policy 10.4.8, there is a correction to the text from Setback Line to Control Line… Policy 10.4.13, strike the word ‘potential’… Policy 10.5.4, there is a correction to the text from Setback Line to Control Line… Policy 10.5.9, there is a correction to the text from Setback Line to Control Line, Also, there is a change to add the provisions of the Dennis L. Jones Beach and Shore Preservation Act of 2012… Policy 10.5.11, there is a correction to the text from Setback Line to Control Line… LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on July 29, 2021. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Land Planning Agency, forward the proposed Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Final Staff Rpt CCPC 8-19-21 GMPA (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Amendment) Exhibit A PL20210001271 Page 1 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. EXHIBIT A CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (CCME) [page 1] I. INTRODUCTION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** In addition to the Conservation Element, Subsection 163.3177(6)(g), Florida Statutes, also requires certain designated local governments (including Collier County) to have an element of the local comprehensive plan dealing with coastal management. This Coastal Management Element must “set forth the policies that shall guide the local government's decisions and program implementation with respect to the following objectives:” 1. Maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values. 2. Continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and marine life. 3. The orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources. 4. Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable loss of coastal zone resources. 5. Ecological planning principles and assumptions to be used in the determination of suitability and extent of permitted development. 6. Proposed management and regulatory techniques. 7. Limitation of public expenditures that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas. 8. Protection of human life against the effects of natural disasters. 9. The orderly development, maintenance, and use of ports identified in s. 403.021(9) to facilitate deepwater commercial navigation and other related activities. 10. Preservation, including sensitive adaptive use of historic and archaeological resources. 11. Development of an adaptation action area designation for those low-lying coastal zones that are experiencing coastal flooding due to extreme high tides and storm surge and are vulnerable to the impacts of rising sea level. Local governments that adopt an adaptation action area may consider policies within the coastal management element to improve resilience to coastal flooding resulting from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and related impacts of sea-level rise. [page 2] 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment A CCME Exhibit A (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Amendment) Exhibit A PL20210001271 Page 2 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. The statute further relates the functions of the Conservation and Coastal Elements so that, in effect, local governments in designated coastal areas, such as Collier County, are required to prepare a Conservation and Coastal Management Element, which fulfills the requirements for both Elements. Accordingly, Collier County’s Conservation and Coastal Management Element is divided into thirteen (13) (14) separate goal areas. These may be summarized as follows: 1. Protection of natural resources; 2. Protection of surface and estuarine water resources; 3. Protection of groundwater resources; 4. Protection of freshwater resources; 5. Protection of mineral and soil resources; 6. Protection of native vegetation and wildlife habitat; 7. Protection of fisheries and wildlife; 8. Maintenance of existing air quality; 9. Management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes; 10. Protection of coastal resources; 11. Protection of historic resources; 12. Hurricane evacuation and sheltering; 13. Avoiding duplication of regulations; and 14. Reduction of flood risks that result from high tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and the related impacts of sea level rise. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [page ??] GOAL 14: TO FOSTER RESILIENCY BY COORDINATING WITH OUR MUNICIPALITIES, STATE AND FEDERAL PARTNERS, AND OTHER EXPERTS TO EXCHANGE DATA AND DEVELOP COORDINATED STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF SEA-LEVEL RISE. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [page ??] OBJECTIVE 14.1: By December 2023, the County shall address issues related to the impacts of sea-level rise, in accordance with Section 163.3178 FS, which requires the County to have specific requirements related to sea level rise, including a redevelopment component that outlines the principles that must be used to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities arise, and: 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment A CCME Exhibit A (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Amendment) Exhibit A PL20210001271 Page 3 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 1. Includes development and redevelopment principles, strategies and engineering solutions that reduce the flood risk in coastal areas which results from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and the related impacts of sea-level rise. 2. Encourages the use of best practices development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions that result in the removal of coastal real estate property from flood zone designations established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 3. Identifies site development techniques and best practices that may reduce losses due to flooding and claims made under flood insurance policies. 4. Are consistent with the flood-resistant construction requirements in the Florida Building Code and applicable flood plain management regulations set forth in 44 C.F.R. part 60. 5. Requires that any construction activities seaward of the coastal construction control lines established pursuant to s. 161.053 be consistent with Chapter 161. 6. Encourages local governments to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to achieve flood insurance premium discounts for residents. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [page ??] Policy 14.2: The County shall continue to monitor all credible climate change and sea level rise data and what potential effects this has on the need to reduce the flood risks that result from high tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and the related impacts of sea level rise in evaluating public infrastructure and natural resource decisions. Based on this data the County shall evaluate and update the public infrastructure and resource protection standards of the Land Development Code and this Plan as necessary. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [page ??] Policy 14.3: Collier County shall continue to support Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, Beach and Shore Preservation, which sets forth guidelines for the regulation of beach construction and reconstruction, beach and shore preservation, coastal zone protection, and coastal resources. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [page ??] 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment A CCME Exhibit A (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Amendment) Exhibit A PL20210001271 Page 4 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. Policy 14.4: Collier County shall consider the potential impacts from climate change, including rising sea levels and shoreline stabilization needs, in its planning for infrastructure and public facilities. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [page ??] Policy 14.5: Develop an adaptation action area designation for those low-lying coastal zones that are experiencing coastal flooding due to extreme high tides and storm surge and are vulnerable to the impacts of rising sea level. Local governments that adopt an adaptation action area may consider policies within the coastal management element to improve resilience to coastal flooding resulting from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and related impacts of sea-level rise. Criteria for the adaptation action area may include, but need not be limited to, areas for which the land elevations are below, at, or near mean higher high water, which have a hydrologic connection to coastal waters, or which are designated as evacuation zones for storm surge. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.3.6: [page 45] Prohibit construction of structures seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Control Line on undeveloped coastal barriers. Exception shall be for passive recreational structures, access crossovers, and where enforcement would not allow any reasonable economic utilization of such property. In the latter event, require construction that minimizes interference with natural function of such coastal barrier system. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.4.7: [page 47] Collier County shall prohibit construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Control Line except where such construction would be permitted pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985, and the Dennis L. Jones Beach and Shore Preservation Act of 2012 (Florida Statutes, Chapter 161, Parts I and II), and where such prohibition would result in no reasonable economic utilization of the property in question, or for safety reasons. In such cases, construction will be as far landward as is practicable and effects on the beach and dune system and the natural functions of the coastal barrier system shall be minimized. Policy 10.4.8: [page 47] 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment A CCME Exhibit A (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Amendment) Exhibit A PL20210001271 Page 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. Collier County shall allow construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Control Line for public access and protection and activities related to restoration of beach resources. Such construction shall not interfere with sea turtle nesting, will utilize native vegetation for dune stabilization, will maintain the natural beach profile, will minimize interference with natural beach dynamics, and, where appropriate, will restore the historical dunes with native vegetation. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.4.13: [page 48] Development and redevelopment proposals shall consider the implications of potential rise in sea level. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.5.4: [page 48] The County shall not allow construction of any structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Control Line. Exceptions may be allowed for passive recreational structures, access crossovers, and where enforcement would not allow any reasonable economic utilization of such property. In the latter event, construction shall minimize interference with natural functions of such beaches and dunes. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.5.9: [page 50] The County shall prohibit construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Control Line except as follows: a. Construction will be allowed for For public access; b. For protection and restoration of beach resources; c. In cases of demonstrated land use related hardship or safety concerns as specified in The 1985 Florida Coastal Zone Protection Act, there shall be no shore armoring allowed except in cases of public safety.; and d. As otherwise allowed by the Dennis L. Jones Beach and Shore Preservation Act of 2012 (Florida Statutes, Chapter 161, Parts I and II). *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 10.5.11: [page 50] The County will waive all other non-safety related setback requirements and site planning requirements before allowing construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Control Line. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment A CCME Exhibit A (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Amendment) CHAPTER 2015-69 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1094 An act relating to the peril of flood; amending s. 163.3178, F.S.; specifying requirements for the coastal management element required for a local government comprehensive plan; creating s. 472.0366, F.S.; defining terms; requiring a surveyor and mapper to submit a copy of each elevation certificate that he or she completes to the Division of Emergency Management within a specified period beginning on a specified date; authorizing the redaction of certain personal information from the copy; amending s. 627.715, F.S.; authorizing flexible flood insurance; specifying coverage requirements; deleting a provision that prohibits supplemental flood insurance from including excess coverage over any other insurance covering the peril of flood; revising the information that must be prominently noted on a certain page of a flood insurance policy; requiring the Office of Insurance Regulation to require an insurer to provide an appropriate credit or refund to affected insureds if the office determines that a rate of the insurer is excessive or unfairly discriminatory; revising the notice that must be provided to and acknowledged by an applicant for flood coverage from an authorized or surplus lines insurer if the applicant’s property is receiving flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program; allowing an authorized insurer to request a certification from the office which indicates that a policy, contract, or endorsement issued by the insurer provides coverage for the peril of flood which equals or exceeds the flood coverage offered by the National Flood Insurance Program; specify- ing requirements for such certification; authorizing such insurer or its agent to reference or include the certification in specified advertising, communications, and documentation; providing that misrepresenting that a flood policy, contract, or endorsement is certified is an unfair or deceptive act; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Paragraph (f) of subsection (2) of section 163.3178, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 163.3178 Coastal management.— (2) Each coastal management element required by s. 163.3177(6)(g) shall be based on studies, surveys, and data; be consistent with coastal resource plans prepared and adopted pursuant to general or special law; and contain: (f) A redevelopment component that which outlines the principles that must which shall be used to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities arise.The component must: 1 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment B House Bill 1094 GMP Amends (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP 1. Include development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions that reduce the flood risk incoastal areas which results from high-tide events, storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and the related impacts of sea-level rise. 2. Encourage the use of best practices development and redevelopment principles, strategies, and engineering solutions that will result in the removal of coastal real property from flood zone designations established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 3. Identify site development techniques and best practices that may reduce losses due to flooding and claims made under flood insurance policies issued in this state. 4. Be consistent with, or more stringent than, the flood-resistant construction requirements in the Florida Building Code and applicable flood plain management regulations set forth in 44 C.F.R. part 60. 5. Require that any construction activities seaward of the coastal construction control lines established pursuant to s. 161.053 be consistent with chapter 161. 6. Encourage local governments to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to achieve flood insurance premium discounts for their residents. Section 2. Section 472.0366, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 472.0366 Elevation certificates; requirements for surveyors and map- pers.— (1) As used in this section, the term: (a)“Division”means the Division of Emergency Management established within the Executive Office of the Governor under s. 14.2016. (b)“Elevation certificate”means the certificate used to demonstrate the elevation of property which has been developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency pursuant to federal floodplain management regulation and which is completed by a surveyor and mapper. (2) Beginning January 1, 2017, a surveyor and mapper shall, within 30 days after completion, submit to the division a copy of each elevation certificate that he or she completes. The copy must be unaltered, except that the surveyor and mapper may redact the name of the property owner. Section 3. Section 627.715, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 627.715 Flood insurance.—An authorized insurer may issue an insur- ance policy, contract, or endorsement providing personal lines residential Ch. 2015-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2015-69 2 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment B House Bill 1094 GMP Amends (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP coverage for the peril of flood on any structure or the contents of personal property contained therein, subject to this section. This section does not apply to commercial lines residential or commercial lines nonresidential coverage for the peril of flood. This section also does not apply to coverage for theperilof flood that isexcess coverage overany other insurancecovering the peril of flood. An insurer may issue flood insurance policies, contracts, or endorsements on a standard, preferred, customized, or supplemental basis. (1)(a)1. Standard flood insurance must cover only losses from the peril of flood, as defined in paragraph (b), equivalent to that provided under a standard flood insurance policy under the National Flood Insurance Program. Standard flood insurance issued under this section must provide the same coverage, including deductibles and adjustment of losses, as that provided under a standard flood insurance policy under the National Flood Insurance Program. 2. Preferred flood insurance must include the same coverage as standard flood insurance but: a. Include, within the definition of “flood,”losses from water intrusion originating from outside the structure that are not otherwise covered under the definition of “flood”provided in paragraph (b). b. Include coverage for additional living expenses. c. Require that any loss under personal property or contents coverage that is repaired or replaced be adjusted only on the basis of replacement costs up to the policy limits. 3. Customized flood insurance must include coverage that is broader than the coverage provided under standard flood insurance. 4. Flexible flood insurance must cover losses from the peril of flood, as defined in paragraph (b), and may also include coverage for losses from water intrusion originating from outside the structure which is not otherwise covered by the definition of flood. Flexible flood insurance must include one or more of the following provisions: a. An agreement between the insurer and the insured that the flood coverage is in a specified amount, such as coverage that is limited to the total amount of each outstanding mortgage applicable to the covered property. b. A requirement for a deductible in an amount authorized under s. 627.701, including a deductible in an amount authorized for hurricanes. c. A requirement that flood loss to a dwelling be adjusted in accordance with s. 627.7011(3) or adjusted only on the basis of the actual cash value of the property. d. A restriction limiting flood coverage to the principal building defined in the policy. Ch. 2015-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2015-69 3 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment B House Bill 1094 GMP Amends (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP e. A provision including or excluding coverage for additional living expenses. f. A provision excluding coverage for personal property or contents as to the peril of flood. 5.4.Supplemental flood insurance may provide coverage designed to supplement a flood policy obtained from the National Flood Insurance Program or from an insurer issuing standard or preferred flood insurance pursuant to this section. Supplemental flood insurance may provide, but need not be limited to, coverage for jewelry, art, deductibles, and additional living expenses. Supplemental flood insurance does not include coverage for theperil offlood that isexcess coverage over anyother insurance coveringthe peril of flood. (b)“Flood”means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land area or of two or more properties, at least one of which is the policyholder’s property, from: 1. Overflow of inland or tidal waters; 2. Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; 3. Mudflow; or 4. Collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or similar body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels that result in a flood as defined in this paragraph. (2) Any limitations on Flood coverage deductibles and or policy limits pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, deductibles,must be prominently noted on the policy declarations page or face page. (3)(a) An insurer may establish and use flood coverage rates in accordance with the rate standards provided in s. 627.062. (b) For flood coverage rates filed with the office before October 1, 2019, the insurer may also establish and use such rates in accordance with the rates, rating schedules, or rating manuals filed by the insurer with the office which allow the insurer a reasonable rate of return on flood coverage written in this state. Flood coverage rates established pursuant to this paragraph are not subject to s. 627.062(2)(a) and (f). An insurer shall notify the office of any change to such rates within 30 days after the effective date of the change. The notice must include the name of the insurer and the average statewide percentage change in rates. Actuarial data with regard to such rates for flood coverage must be maintained by the insurer for 2 years after the effective date of such rate change and is subject to examination by the office. The office may require the insurer to incur the costs associated with an examination. Ch. 2015-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2015-69 4 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment B House Bill 1094 GMP Amends (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP Upon examination, the office, in accordance with generally accepted and reasonable actuarial techniques, shall consider the rate factors in s. 627.062(2)(b), (c), and (d), and the standards in s. 627.062(2)(e), to determine if the rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.If the office determines that a rate is excessive or unfairly discriminatory, the office shall require the insurer to provide appropriate credit to affected insureds or an appropriate refund to affected insureds who no longer receive coverage from the insurer. (4) A surplus lines agent may export a contract or endorsement providing flood coverage to an eligible surplus lines insurer without making a diligent effort to seek such coverage from three or more authorized insurers under s. 626.916(1)(a). This subsection expires July 1, 2017. (5) In addition to any other applicable requirements, an insurer provid- ing flood coverage in this state must: (a) Notify the office at least 30 days before writing flood insurance in this state; and (b) File a plan of operation and financial projections or revisions to such plan, as applicable, with the office. (6) Citizens Property Insurance Corporation may not provide insurance for the peril of flood. (7) The Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund may not provide reim- bursement for losses proximately caused by the peril of flood, including losses that occur during a covered event as defined in s. 215.555(2)(b). (8) An agent must, upon receiving obtaining an application for flood coverage from an authorized or surplus lines insurer for a property receiving flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program, must obtain an acknowledgment signed by the applicant before placing the coverage with the authorized or surplus lines insurer. The acknowledgment must notify the applicant that, if the applicant discontinues coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program which is provided at a subsidized rate, the full risk rate for flood insurance may apply to the property if the applicant such insurance is later seeks to reinstate coverage obtained under the National Flood Insurance program. (9) With respect to theregulation of flood coverage written in this state by authorized insurers, this section supersedes any other provision in the Florida Insurance Code in the event of a conflict. (10) If federal law or rule requires a certification by a state insurance regulatory official as a condition of qualifying for private flood insurance or disaster assistance, the Commissioner of Insurance Regulation may provide the certification, and such certification is not subject to review under chapter 120. Ch. 2015-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2015-69 5 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment B House Bill 1094 GMP Amends (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP (11)(a) An authorized insurer offering flood insurance may request the office to certify that a policy, contract, or endorsement provides coverage for the peril of flood which equals or exceeds the flood coverage offered by the National Flood Insurance Program. To be eligible for certification, such policy, contract, or endorsement must contain a provision stating that it meets the private flood insurance requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. s. 4012a(b) and may not contain any provision that is not in compliance with 42 U.S.C. s. 4012a(b). (b) The authorized insurer or its agent may reference or include a certification under paragraph (a) in advertising or communications with an agent, a lending institution, an insured, or a potential insured only for a policy, contract, or endorsement that is certified under this subsection. The authorized insurer may include a statement that notifies an insured of the certification on the declarations page or other policy documentation related to flood coverage certified under this subsection. (c) An insurer or agent who knowingly misrepresents that a flood policy, contract, or endorsement is certified under this subsection commits an unfair or deceptive act under s. 626.9541. Section 4. This act shall take effect July 1, 2015. Approved by the Governor May 21, 2015. Filed in Office Secretary of State May 21, 2015. Ch. 2015-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2015-69 6 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment B House Bill 1094 GMP Amends (17619 : PL20210001271 EAR Based CCME GMP 08/19/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 11.A Item Summary: Proposed Collier County Planning Commission Continuation Resolution Meeting Date: 08/19/2021 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 07/22/2021 10:16 AM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 07/22/2021 10:16 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 07/22/2021 11:49 AM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 07/23/2021 4:26 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 07/27/2021 9:32 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 07/28/2021 10:29 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 07/28/2021 5:17 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/19/2021 9:00 AM 11.A Packet Pg. 382 [21-CMP-01105/1652047/1]16 7/21/21 1 of 2 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -____ A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A CONTINUATION POLICY. WHEREAS, on May 19, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 98- 167, which established procedures for presentations before the Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC); and WHEREAS, Section 2-1159 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances provides that “The Planning Commission shall, by a majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business,” and that “The Planning Commission may, from time to time, adopt and amend bylaws and rules of procedure not inconsistent with the provisions of these regulations”; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has recently seen a proliferation of continuances requested days before or at the Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, the CCPC desires to provide for efficient use of both staff and the public’s time by establishing a continuation policy for petitions advertised and placed on the CCPC agenda. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the CCPC hereby adopts the Collier County Planning Commission Continuation Policy attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein as part of its rules of procedure. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this ___ day of _______________, 2021. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ________________________________ By: __________________________________ James French, Deputy Department Head Edwin Fryer, Chairman Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legality: ________________________________ Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A – CCPC Continuation Policy 11.A.a Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: CCPC Resolution - Continuance Policy (17551 : Review of the proposed Collier County Planning Commission Continuation [21-CMP-01105/1652047/1]16 7/21/21 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Collier County Planning Commission Continuation Policy It is the expectation of the Planning Commission that every item that has been advertised and public notification has been given shall only occur when both staff and the applicant are prepared to have the application heard by the Planning Commission. Should either the applicant or staff wish to continue the item, they may do so by requesting a continuance. The Request for Continuance shall be in writing unless made at the hearing and, except for good cause shown, shall be signed by the party requesting the continuance. The request shall state all of the facts that the requester contends entitles them to a continuance. Requests first made at the hearing must demonstrate exceptional circumstances which excuse the written request, and be accompanied by a certification of the date they first become aware of such circumstances. If requested by the applicant, the Request for Continuance shall be e-mailed to both the Zoning Director and the assigned planner and well as to each of the individual members of the Planning Commission. If requested by staff, the Request for Continuance shall be e-mailed to the applicant and each of the individual members of the Planning Commission. Both the applicant and staff must appear before the Planning Commission at the advertised public hearing to address the request for a continuance. The Planning Commission may grant a Request for Continuance if and only if good cause is shown. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. The unavailability of a party, counsel or a material witness due to death, illness, or other extenuating circumstance. 2. Where the denial of a continuance creates an injustice for the requesting party. 3. Where the cause of the request was unforeseeable and not the result of dilatory conduct. If the Planning Commission determines by majority vote that good cause for a continuation has been shown, then the item will be continued to a date to be determined by the Planning Commission. If the request for continuance was at the applicant’s request, the applicant will pay a $1,000 continuance fee together with any and all costs in readvertising the item, if necessary. If the request for continuance was at Staff’s request, the County will pay all costs in readvertising the item, if necessary. The purpose of the continuance fee is to partially reimburse the County for the costs the County incurred arising from the hearing and is not intended as a fine. If the Planning Commission determines by majority vote that good cause for a continuation has not been established, then the item will be heard as advertised. The Planning Commission will weigh the inconvenience to the public in making its determination. 11.A.a Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: CCPC Resolution - Continuance Policy (17551 : Review of the proposed Collier County Planning Commission Continuation