Loading...
Agenda 01/25/2022 Item # 9A (Ordinance - PL20210000176- St. Matthew's CPUD)9.A 01/25/2022 This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance 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 the Devoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the General Commercial District within the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District, (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development within the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay (CPUD-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD, to allow a 150 bed homeless shelter and up to 130,000 square feet of commercial development on property located at the southeast corner of Airport Road and Glades Boulevard in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 11.89+/- acres; and providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 97-14, as amended, the Devoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development and Resolution No. 99-87 relating to a conditional use for a homeless shelter; and by providing an effective date. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff s findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above -referenced petition and render a decision regarding the petition, and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: St. Matthew's House is a homeless shelter that was originally an 84-bed facility on a 2.34± acre property. The Board approved an expansion to 104-beds in Conditional Use Resolution 99-87 on January 28, 1999. (See Attachment B-Resolution 99-87.) Saint Matthew's House Inc. has since acquired the former 9.55± acre DeVoe Pontiac property, which was a new and used automobile dealership. The DeVoe Pontiac PUD Ordinance 97-14 was approved by the Board on March 11, 1997. (See Attachment C-Ordinance 97-14.) The proposed CPUD seeks to unify the properties under St. Matthew's House, Inc. ownership into a single 11.89± acre PUD. The properties consist of the homeless shelter on Tract A which is zoned C-4- GTMUD-MXD, and the former DeVoe Pontiac car dealership on Tract B which is zoned DeVoe Pontiac PUD and C-4-GTMUD-MXD. Tract B, the DeVoe Pontiac PUD is also part of Activity Center #16 and also has a 60-foot wide access easement known as Great Blue Drive which connects The Point at Naples apartments to Airport Road. Tract A has been developed with a 104-bed men's and woman's shelter and Tract B is developed with commercial uses including a restaurant, thrift store, and ancillary uses. (See the Location Map and the Master Plan on pages 2 and 3 of the Staff Report). The petitioner proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150 beds and to specify a total of 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses within the 11.89± acre PUD. The Master Plan has also been updated to reflect the proposed changes on pages 3 and 4. See attached Attachment A -Proposed Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD Rezone (PUDR) by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build -out, will maximize its authorized level of development. However, if the PUD Amendment is approved, a portion of the land could be developed, and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. Packet Pg. 247 9.A 01/25/2022 The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUDR and the subject petition can be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard Petition PUDR-PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD on December 2, 2021. The CCPC voted 5-0 to continue this item to the December 16, 2021, CCPC hearing. The CCPC voted to 3-2 to approve the St.Matthew's House CPUD on December 16, 2021, with Commissioner Fryer and Commissioner Homiak dissenting. Commissioner Fryer recommended denial because of inadequate security provisions. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the St. Matthews House CPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners, should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for CPUD Rezones: Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in snaking a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: 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. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of 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 public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: 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. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD 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. Packet Pg. 248 01/25/2022 9.A 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change 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? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: 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. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art.11], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been reviewed as to form and legality, and an affirmative vote of four is necessary for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for Petition PUDR-PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD. Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Division Packet Pg. 249 9.A O1/25/2022 ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Staff Report 11-23-21 (PDF) 2. St. Matthew's House Supplemental Staff Report 12-8-21 (PDF) 3. Attachment A- Proposed Ordinance 12-21-21 (PDF) 4. Attachment B-Resolution 1999-087 (PDF) 5. Attachment C-Ord. 97-14 (PDF) 6. Attachment D-HEX 20-05 and HEX 20-29 (PDF) 7. Attachment E-NIM Transcript (PDF) 8. Attachment F-Emails of Objection 11-10-21 (PDF) 9. Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (PDF) 10. [Linked] Attachment F-2 Objections of West Shore 12-28-21 (PDF) 11. [Linked] Attachment F-3 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.4.22. W EXHIBITS compressed (PDF) 12. Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (PDF) 13. Attachment G-Ord. 96-09 (PDF) 14. [Linked] Attachment H-Application (PDF) 15. legal ad - agenda ID 20810 (PDF) Packet Pg. 250 01/25/2022 9.A COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.A Doc ID: 20810 Item Summary: Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance 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 the Devoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the General Commercial District within the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District, (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development within the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay (CPUD-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD, to allow a 150 bed homeless shelter and up to 130,000 square feet of commercial development on property located at the southeast corner of Airport Road and Glades Boulevard in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 11.89+/- acres; and providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 97-14, as amended, the Devoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development and Resolution No. 99- 87 relating to a conditional use for a homeless shelter; and by providing an effective date. Meeting Date: 01/25/2022 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 12/21/2021 11:41 AM Submitted by: Title: — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 12/21/2021 11:41 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Growth Management Department Zoning Growth Management Department Growth Management Department County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Diane Lynch Growth Management Department Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review James C French Growth Management Trinity Scott Transportation Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 12/21/2021 6:03 PM Completed 12/22/2021 2:56 PM Completed 12/23/2021 7:37 AM Completed 12/23/2021 9:25 PM Skipped 12/28/2021 8:58 AM Completed 01/10/2022 11:01 AM Completed 01/10/2022 11:14 AM Completed 01/12/2022 9:26 AM Completed 01/14/2022 11:40 AM Packet Pg. 251 9.A 01 /25/2022 County Manager's Office Board of County Commissioners Amy Patterson Level 4 County Manager Review Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending Completed 01/19/2022 11:34 AM 01/25/2022 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 252 9.A.a s Co =uev ampow County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2021 SUBJECT: PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Owners: St. Matthew's House, Inc. 2001 Airport Road Naples, FL 34112 Agents: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the General Commercial District within the Mixed -Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed -Use Overlay District, (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development within the Mixed -Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed -Use Overlay (CPUD-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD to allow a 150 bed homeless shelter and up to 130,000 square feet of commercial development on property; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 97-14, as amended, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development and Resolution No. 99-87 relating to a conditional use for a homeless shelter; and by providing an effective date. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 T N Cl) N 0 0. as o: �a co r c d E z M a Page 1 of 16 Packet Pg. 253 Z -0 O C Co m N C.W N O O N O � O V C7 rn 0 O 4 Da is BLVD PROJECT LOCATNON i t f� Location Map PUD -7d-Mi1 - Ardis CIR WINTER PARK O l Fr asdee BLVD RMF-16 CU LOCATION c-y - m ' y �q1 rem B a D"11) k to F. E o CALLMAV ESTATC Y r l.L X PUD o r.ccnF. arh S.iR � +' C� � PQ.U- , GU PUD yrlz$pn�j �C-3-GTM D-MXDCUIERCOUN DR I. YR_Ud RU. GCvrComm , V,CU Petition Number: PL20210000176 Zoning Map n W M n F42 Attachment: Staff Report 11-23-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) 9.A.a 1 V WIDE TYPE'D'- 1NDSQ*PE BUFFER 15' WIDE TYPE t 'D' LANDSCAPE II BUFFER I� Am 1, 15' WIDE TYPE'D'— LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1V UE [OR 2150. PG 1100, PG 1103 AND FG 1105) C GLADES BOULEVARD E1 i ZONED: RMF-6 cUSF: A MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I'A 15' WIDE TYPE PIT LANDSCAPE BUFFER �E4 M ^' LEGEND: r PROJECT OUNDARY 15' WIDE TYPE 'B' ANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL --E7 GREAT BLUE DRIVE EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE �'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ($DP 9"21 EXISTING IU WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ($pP gg 8,2) •rr WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 5699 PC. 2572) 4.29 AC. f WATER MANAGEMENT 0 PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ® DEVIATION LCRACCT A T 9 i 15' WIDE TYPE'2' rr rLANDSCAPE BUFFER r , • ZONED: DAVID A. rrr GALLMAN ESTATE PUD r USE, MULTI -FAMILY rr RESIDENTIAL r r 1� NO BUFFER REQUIREI] (SDP9&82, ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD n 10a, 209' USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES SCALE. 1" = 200' , Fh PI C?.. D.rA 5-x ,- ST'. MA7'it'MEW'S 110VER CPUD °t1` ExHIBIT C MASTER PLAN "�¢" G['adyklhior OJII.fi�xYp.RuIlA.9,l}! I,IJII IOh�'IdpEIN I.:d1d Fi W1Y}17Yx i.a ur.oi Pkux1,11 [rn.p w�.Ihtl0u813i P1BnY9h1 LSY,L¢LpE AItN6e�'�11 luuer lG lxMP6k REVISED M/02f2021 M*H prcrMl�y sir 1 aF 2 nxd. Rp upe xaa.wr.,l.1 rx.Is .soi il: n,ir.wa rnrycm paxanawvr PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 a Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 255 9.A.a CITG CI IhARAAPV TOTAL SITE AREA: 11,89± ACRES TRACT 'A': 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'S': 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS OPEN SPACE: REQ U I RE D: 30 % PROVIDED: 30% PRFCFRVF• REQUIRED: 0.29± ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2,90± ACRES X 10% = 0,29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572} DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E) !RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, 'GROUP HOUSING, TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES' RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: El- 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 3Q' INGRESSJEGRE$S (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 935 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1198 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PS 10; PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) ES - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) Ell- 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) MOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS_ ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD �J.,iai1 N,nr •rJ 5xafnrr. P.S. _..__..__. iy C.M. GradyMinnr ,V „a M 49; 111; EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN NOTES a;Ml WSy.een ie.d Sunz}nrg ft,rwry - 4e-d%opChJchilide rn.umniaaxnH o��ir..inemsisi r..`..x.cxu.aw REVISED a9J02/n21 e.oa!ir>.ae a7e,sir.ii+i .x�..rr.raiirronr_Rr�c w.+W„aznnuM-i�i lY6dT 2 OT 2 PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 4 of 16 Packet Pg. 256 9.A.a GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 11.89± acres, is located on the east side of Airport Road north of East Tamiami Trail in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: St. Matthew's House is a homeless shelter that was originally an 84-bed facility on a 2.34± acre property. The Board approved an expansion to 104-beds in Conditional Use Resolution 99-87 on January 28, 1999. (See Attachment B-Resolution 99-87.) Saint Matthew's House Inc. has since acquired the former 9.55± acre DeVoe Pontiac property, which was a new and used automobile dealership. The DeVoe Pontiac PUD Ordinance 97-14 was approved by the Board on March 11, 1997. (See Attachment C-Ordinance 97-14) The proposed CPUD seeks to unify the properties under St. Matthew's House, Inc. ownership into a single 11.89± acre PUD. The properties consist of the homeless shelter on Tract A which is zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD, and the former DeVoe Pontiac car dealership on Tract B which is zoned DeVoe Pontiac PUD and C-4-GTMUD-MXD. Tract B, the DeVoe Pontiac PUD is also part of Activity Center #16 and also has a 60-foot wide access easement known as Great Blue Drive which connects The Point at Naples apartments to Airport Road. Tract A has been developed with a 104-bed men's and woman's shelter and Tract B is developed with commercial uses including a restaurant, thrift store, and ancillary uses. (See the Location Map and the Master Plan on pages 2 and 3 of this Staff Report). The petitioner proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150 beds and to specify a total of 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses within the 11.89± acre PUD. The Master Plan has also been updated to reflect the proposed changes on pages 3 and 4. See attached Attachment A -Proposed Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Glades Boulevard, a two-lane road, and then developed commercial land, with a zoning designation of C-4-GTMUD-MXD East: Developed multi -family with a zoning designation of RMF-16, and The Point at Naples Apartment complex, with a zoning designation of David A Gallman Estate PUD South: Developed commercial land, with a zoning designation of C-4-GTMUD-MXD, and the Collier County Government Complex with a zoning designation of Collier County Government Complex PUD West: Airport Road, a 6-lane divided minor arterial roadway, and then professional office parks and restaurants with a zoning designation of C-4-GTMUD-MXD PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 5 of 16 Packet Pg. 257 9.A.a AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Rezone and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 6 of 16 Packet Pg. 258 9.A.a Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's June 29, 2021 (revised) Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) and revised PUD Document for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. 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 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR) or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five-year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " Staff finding: According to the TIS and revised PUD document the proposed change will allow an additional 46 shelter ALF beds for this facility. The TIS provided indicates that the proposed 46 beds will result in an additional +/- 12 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segment of Airport Pulling Road. The trip cap developer commitment in PUD Exhibit F, A, has been modified to include the additional +/-12 PM peak hour, 2-way trips. The additional trips generated by this change will occur on the following roadway network using the 2021 AUIR: Roadway/Link # Link 2021 Current Peak Projected 2021 AUIR Hour Peak P.M Peak Remaining LOS Direction Hour/Peak Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Direction Project Traffic 1 Airport Pulling Pine Ridge C 3,000/North 1/NB 986 Road /3.0 Road to Golden Gate Parkway. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 7 of 16 Packet Pg. 259 9.A.a Airport Pulling Golden Gate D 2,800North 2/NB 587 Road/4.0 Parkway to Radio Road Airport Pulling Radio Road to D 2,800/North 2/NB 670 Road/5.0 Davis Boulevard Airport Pulling Davis C 2,700/North 5/NB 1,036 Road/6.0 Boulevard to US 41 Davis US 41 to C 2,700/East 1/West 1,244 Boulevard/12.0 Airport Pulling Road Davis Airport Pulling C 2,000/East I/West 538 Boulevard/13.0 Road to Lakewood Boulevard Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is June 29, 2021; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant and the 2021 AUIR, the subject PUD Amendment can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff further finds this petition consistent and is recommending approval of this request. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff has found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP. A total of 0.29± acres of native vegetation was required to be retained for the PUD in accordance with Site Development Plan (SDP) 98-82. The existing 0.29± acres of native vegetation has been placed in a Conservation Easement and dedicated to Collier County (OR 5699 Page 2572). GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (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 Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the Collier County Planning Commission's (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 8 of 16 Packet Pg. 260 9.A.a Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of the Hearing Examiner Decision No. 2020-29 (PDI PL20200000201). (See Attachment D-HEX No. 20-29. As previously stated, 0.29± acres of native vegetation have been placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County (OR 5699 Page 2572). No listed animal species were observed on the property. 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. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Landscape Review: The applicant's deviation request includes one deviation from LDC landscape requirements. It is related to the South buffer. See Deviation Discussion section of this Staff Report. The remaining perimeter buffers are labeled consistent with the LDC and with Ordinance 97-14. Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area and south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD). Wastewater service is readily available via existing infrastructure on -site and connected to a County sewer within a County Utility Easement along the west side of the property, and sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available. Adequate downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit (SDP or Plans and Plat (PPL)) review through a thorough engineering analysis, which will be discussed at a mandatory pre -submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water -Sewer District's wastewater collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water -Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. In the Adequate Public Facilities Letter dated July 28, 2021, the City of Naples confirmed adequate water treatment capacity for the proposed project and indicated any water distribution system improvements necessary to serve this project would be the responsibility of the developer to design, permit, and construct. Staff notes that the applicant has reversed the values reported on the Statement of Utility Provisions (submittal 3) for peak and average daily sewer demand. The peak and average are 22,440 and 14,960 GPD respectively. Zoning and Land Development Review: Currently, the subject properties are developed with a 104- bed homeless shelter on 2.34 acres (Tract A) and 64,000 s.f. of commercial land uses on 9.55 acres PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 9 of 16 Packet Pg. 261 9.A.a (Tract B). As previously stated, the proposed CPUD seeks to unify the properties under St. Matthew's House, Inc. ownership into a single 11.89± acre PUD. Tract B, the former DeVoe used and new car dealership property, is approved for an unlimited quantity of C-1 thru C-5 and an Industrial land use. Tract B is currently the site of a restaurant, a thrift store, and ancillary uses. Tracts B and A are connected by a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection (See Attachment D- HEX NO. 20-05 and 20-29. The petitioner proposes to limit the commercial land uses to 130,000 square feet of C-1 thru C-5 throughout the PUD and proposes to increase the homeless shelter on Tract A to 150 beds. The proposed Development Standards are similar to the previously approved DeVoe Pontiac PUD standards. A minimum internal yard setback of 10 feet for principal structures and 5 feet for accessory structures has been added to the proposed St. Matthew's House PUD. The proposed building heights are the same as the previously approved building heights of 50 feet zoned and 60 feet actual in the DeVoe Pontiac PUD. The Shelter has a proposed building height of 35 feet zoned and 50 feet actual which is less than the prescribed building height of 75 feet in the base zoning C- 4 district and 56 feet in the GTMUD. The Master Plan depicts the 30% required open space and required landscape buffers. Staff finds the proposed changes compatible with the neighborhood. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map, and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as developed commercial to the north, south, and west, and residential to the east. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 10 of 16 Packet Pg. 262 9.A.a At the time the subject property was rezoned to a PUD, it was deemed to be of sufficient size and did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD Rezone does not change this finding. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to combine property under its' ownership into a single zoning district with standardizes development standards that will permit a unified development in the future. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with the County's land use policies upon adoption that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 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 the time of the 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 overall drainage system is in place. The proposed PUD Rezone will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed PUD Rezone will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas inside or outside the PUD. Furthermore, the PUD Document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of the existing preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 11 of 16 Packet Pg. 263 9.A.a 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff could find no evidence that the proposed PUD Rezone will adversely impact property values. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The properties around the proposed St. Matthew's House PUD are developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and PPL 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 contrasted with the public welfare. The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed Rezone 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 subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations. However, the petitioner is seeking this PUD Rezone to add property and additional land uses into the PUD in compliance with LDC provisions. The proposed Rezone meets the intent of the PUD district. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of'the neighborhood or the county. Based on staff s review of the proposed PUD Rezone, this petition has not been deemed as out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 12 of 16 Packet Pg. 264 9.A.a 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. A portion of the property is developed with buildings, parking, and water management. According to the petitioner, future development and redevelopment will require little site alteration. Furthermore, future development will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP approval process 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 GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 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 BCC during its advertised public hearing. 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:" 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. The subject site is already developed with commercial land uses: a restaurant, retail store, administrative offices and a homeless shelter. As stated in the Transportation Review section of this staff report the proposed PUD complies with the GMP and the LDC. The subject site receives potable water and wastewater services from the City of Naples and the CCWSD respectively, and there are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities available to future development as proposed by this petition. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for Rezones 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. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 13 of 16 Packet Pg. 265 9.A.a Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff has found this petition consistent with the overall GMP. 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. The landscaping and buffering standards are compatible with the adjacent uses. Staff has concluded that this Rezone will not change the project's compatibility, both internally and externally. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. As noted above, Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the LDC and 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. The City of Naples and the CCWSD have sufficient treatment capacities for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacities 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, including City water and County 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. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 14 of 16 Packet Pg. 266 9.A.a This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking two deviations related to habitable floor area and landscape buffering. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are found in PUD Exhibit E "List of Deviations." The deviation locations are depicted on the Master Plan. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Deviation #1 Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities," which requires a minimum habitable floor area (square feet) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 square feet per bed. Petitioners Justification: This proposed standard simplifies the minimum floor area per person calculation for the shelter. Almost all administration functions for the shelter are located on Tract `B' of the PUD. the shelter floor area can be expressed only on a per person/bed. There are no state standards that regulate the amount of square footage that is required for a homeless shelter. The proposed standard will assure a local minimum habitable floor area per shelter resident. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend Approval, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations." Deviation #2 Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications," which requires a 10-foot Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. Petitioners Justification: At the time of original development of the property, the conventional zoning district required no building setback and therefore no buffer was required. The property owner will provide the now required 10 foot wide Type A buffer at the time of redevelopment of the southernmost development area of the property if the existing parking and paved areas are impacted from the redevelopment. PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 15 of 16 Packet Pg. 267 9.A.a Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend Approval, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC section 10.02.13.13.51 the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on August 11, 2021, at Salvation Army Church, located at 3170 Estey Ave, Naples, Florida. Approximately one resident attended the meeting along with the Agent's team, the Applicant, and county staff. The residents and the Agent/Applicant discussed the proposed number of beds, the total amount of commercial square footage, and the two deviations being requested. For further information, see attached Attachment E NIM Transcript. Staff has received email correspondence opposing the proposed St. Matthew's PUD from an attorney representing The Pointe of Naples rental apartments, located to the east of the subject property and north of the Collier County Jail. Please see Attachment F-Emails of Objection and Attachment F-1- Letter to CCPC and Exhibits. The rental apartments were approved on March 22, 1996, for 260 dwelling units of which 243 were affordable housing units. Please see Attachment G-Ordinance 96- 9. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on November 15, 2021 RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDR- PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Resolution 99-87 Attachment C: Ordinance 97-14 Attachment D: HEXNo. 20-05 and HEXNo. 20-29 Attachment E: NIM Transcript Attachment F: Emails of Objection Attachment F-1: Letter to CCPC and Exhibits Attachment G: Ordinance 96-9 Attachment H: Application PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg. 268 9.A.b 10 Co =aev County .WWWW'%. —. SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2021 SUBJECT: PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) The St. Matthew's CPUD was continued from the December 2, 2021, CCPC hearing to the December 16, 2021, CCPC hearing by the petitioner to address an opposing parry's issues. The PUD Document has been updated. Please note, there may be additional revisions at the upcoming hearing from the Agent and opposing counsel. The following revisions have been made to the PUD Document: - Tract A Principal land uses are limited to ownership by a not -for -profit organization. - Probation offices, refugee services and public welfare centers are excluded from Tract A. - General warehousing and storage (4225) and refrigerated warehousing (4222) are accessory land uses. - Residential care, homeless shelters and group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. - A 50-foot setback is required from the eastern project boundary. - Deviation #1 related to a minimum floor area of 100 s.f. per person is limited to Tract A. - Overhead loading area doors will not face east. - Loading and unloading will be limited to between the hours of 7 am to 9 pm, Monday thru Saturday. - A 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer will be provided along the David A. Gallman PUD boundary at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP). Please see Attachment A -Proposed PUD Ordinance. Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 269 9.A.c ORDINANCE NO.2022- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATING TO ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE, 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 THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT, (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY (CPUD-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD, TO ALLOW A 150 BED HOMELESS SHELTER AND UP TO 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND GLADES BOULEVARD IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 11.89+/- ACRES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 97-14, AS AMENDED, THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 RELATING TO A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20210000176] WHEREAS, on March 11, 1997, by Ordinance No. 97-14, the Board of County Commissioners created the DeVoe Pontiac PUD, which was subsequently amended by Resolution 99-87, Resolution No. 10-88, HEX Decision 2020-05 and HEX Decision 2020-29; and WHEREAS, St. Matthew's House, Inc., represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property and repeal the DeVoe Pontiac PUD and conditional use for a homeless shelter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: [2 1 -CPS-02108/1686259/ l 1144 St. Matthew's House \ PL20210000176 1 of 2 12/7/21 Packet Pg. 270 9.A.c SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District and a General Commercial District within the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) Zoning District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development within the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay (CPUD- GTMUD-MXD) for a 11.89f acre project to be known as St. Matthew's House CPUD, to allow a 150 bed homeless shelter and up to 130,000 square feet of commercial development in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance No. 97-14, as amended, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD, and Resolution 99-87, establishing a conditional use for a homeless shelter, are hereby repealed. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2022. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko i }( 4V Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development and Design Standards Exhibit C - Master Concept Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - Deviations Exhibit F - Development Commitments [21-CPS -02108/1686259/11144 St. Matthew's House 1 PL20210000176 2 of 2 12/7/21 William L. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman Packet Pg. 271 9.A.c EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area, and up to 150 residential care or shelter beds on Tract A. All principal uses must be owned by a not -for -profit corporation. 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: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322); excluding non-residential probation offices, refugee services, public defenders' and public prosecutors' offices, and public welfare centers; and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and 3. Used vehicle sales (5521); and 4. Boat dealers (5551). 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. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5. Self-help groups; and (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 20, 2021) Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 272 9.A.c 6. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing (4222), cold or refrigerated only for a not - for profit food bank only and 4225). 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. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 20, 2021) Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 273 9.A.c EXHIBIT B The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS v i" �0 y "" i ry All. U511 �.TM CESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Northern Project Boundary 50 FEET *** 15 FEET MINIMyj nto Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or % sum of building heights * 10 FEET k MAXIMUM H Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. *** Setback applicable to principal structures and additions to principal structures constructed after 1/25/2022. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 20, 2021) Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 274 9.A.c 10' WIDE TYPE'D' - kNDSOAPE BUFFER 15' WIDE TYPE 'U LANDSCAPE BUFFER -15' UE (OR 2150, PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 1105) GLADES BOULEVARD E1 CT A 1-11 ZONED: RMF-6 USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER N I r=(,1=nlr). PROJECT BOUNDARY L15' WIDE TYPE 'B' ANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL E7 GREAT BLUE DRIVE E9 EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE � W LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) 15' WIDE TYPE'D'- LANDSCAPE BUFFER �/ WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 5699 PG 2572) 0.29 AC. / WATER MANAGEMENT mmPAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ® DEVIATION F15'WIDETYPE'B' { LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. TRACT A ;T B ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD Q. e,:dr Al,nnnJ lAe oa © GradyMinor :1no%to DrRey Bonito 6uringe.9Flurkla 31134 EXHIBIT C sNoo�r6�rn_2, r DATE: tj MASTER PLAN Civil Engineers Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects atE NAwe cert.,r AulA. F.66665151 cert. or Auth. 1.66005151 RoW.—LC 26W6266 REVISED 10/25/2021 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 s w 6. Qrady llina P. ro m For[ Myere: 239.690.436e Packet Pg. 275 9.A.c SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.89± ACRES TRACT 'A': 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'B': 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS (TO BE LOCATED ONLY ON TRACT A) OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% 1N:7OLyd:fl/a REQUIRED: 0.29± ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2.90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E) 1❑. RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES" (TRACT A ONLY) F21 RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: E1 - 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESS/EGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10- UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. SCALE: 1 ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD © GradyMinor CraJY Minor nnd1B1) Ni. 11 P.A. oe CODE 31I(10 kln ncl KrY su„ruo-zt F1.0w Spanks. f•9w•Idn 34134 EXHIBIT C DATE: MASTER PLAN NOTES —L m21 Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects a WA E: Cen. of Auth. F.0 0005151 Cen of Auth, w 0005161 6uul— LC 26000266 8onua springs: 239.947,1144 n wn. Qrady Uiaor. ram For[MYers: 239.690,4380 REVISED 12/14/2021 Packet Pg. 276 9.A.c ra IT!; X. •2 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89-41-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEETTO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00019'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 20, 2021) Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 277 9.A.c EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities", which requires a minimum habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 sq. ft. per bed with a maximum of 150 beds. On Tract A only. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 20, 2021) Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 278 9.A.c EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafterthe 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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: A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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. ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 20, 2021) Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 279 9.A.c PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses maybe provided on Tract 'B' and must be reflected on a Site Development Plan to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION: A. Any new overhead doors will not face adjacent residential uses. B. Loading and unloading will be limited to between 7 am and 9 pm Monday through Saturday. C. No deliveries, loading or unloading by tractor trailers. UTILITY: A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determine whether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on the Master Plan. If it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additional CUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING/BUFFERING/FENCING/SECURITY: A. At the time of the issuance of any SDP or SDPA for Tract B, the owner will provide a 15' wide type 'B" landscape buffer along the PUD boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development order to increase the number of beds on Tract A to greater than 104, the owner will install and thereafter maintain a minimum 6-foot-high security fence on Tract A of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, to connect to the existing wall on Tract B. C. Within six months of the approval of this PUD the owner will provide a fence consistent with the existing fence along the entire boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 20, 2021) Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 280 /3,q / RESOLUTION 99-$j_ A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY (20) BEDS TO AN EXISTING HOMELESS SHELTER CONDITIONAL USE "9" IN THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.15.3. OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the,State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use "9" of Section 2.2.15.3. in a C-4 Zone for an additional twenty (20) beds to an existing homeless shelter on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,. BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Collier County, Florida that:` Packet Pg. 281 The petition fi_,A by MarkµW =Minor,'"P.E., of Q. Grady Minor & :.. . , Associates, P.A., representing Robert Duncan for the Task Force for the Homeless with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 1, Block K, The Glades, Unit Two, as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 88, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. .r' be and the same is hereby approved �r;Conditional Use "9" of Section 2.2.15.3. of the C-4 Zoning District'•for an additional twenty (20) beds to an existing homeless shelter in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "B") and subject to the following conditions: *� Exhibit "C" which is attached hereto and incorporated by -. reference herein. i ;. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. 7 1 Done this - �day of 1999. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY:1 PAMELA S. MAC'KIE,CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST: �./ QWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk N• r^ �AtLelt as to Unalrean S s �3p 6%dr-a� to Form and Legal Sufficiency: lri: r " Marj ie M. Student Assistant County Attorney f/CU-98-24 RESOLUTION 1' a, a i 0 IL U m 0 x m t co 0 0 0 0 r N 0 N ^J (L r m IL a� c N 0 oo 0 N 0 0 rn rn rn C 0 O NN� 1.6 d t v Q c m L V fC a+ Q Packet Pg. 282 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-98-24 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.15.3.9 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes Y- No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingr ss & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, g are, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use wi2�LdNo istrict Yes Based on the above f}ndings, this conditional use should, with stipulations ( o� ttached) (should not) be recommended for approval ( L �'. DATE: CHAIRMAN: ---f f/FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN/CU-98-24 Exhibit A Packet Pg. 283 9.A.d .!lptoolftv., -OAD (12WROW) 4 , 75 !j J G 11 11 Ir IL I t 11 11 1I-Ow _1 AT fl, I Cn je CD ;4 N N f H it 7; (L J 0 N 00 C4 00 9 CD 7 T 910— u 1. us[. wAn.r.ft, RCSGC%'..: 0 ix it: r MT 2 3) 1998 f4 Cl C U 98-24 U Exh ibi t B Packet Pg. 284] 9.A.d Exhibit C Subject to the following conditions: ? a 1. An appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in v section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. O 2. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan for the site shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval �O O O O O T- N O N J a C '* :r d a c O' N O 00 O Eh,: N : s. v CO O O O O C O r 7 O N d m C d E t tl r+ Q C. d E Packet Pg. 285 9.A.e • r"= e`yO� t g �19g1 to ORDINANCE N0. 97-14 } ��lpl6PL AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE U14INCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, Lek VW FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 0512S; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM C-3 TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS DEVOE PONTIAC PUD, - LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD (C.R. 31), APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTH OF GLADES BOULEVARD IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 9.55 ACRES MORE OR LESS; AND BY,; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Bob Thinnes and Q. Grady Minor of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing DeVoe Family Limited Partnership and DeVoe's Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from C-3 to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the DeVoe Pontiac PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Map Number 0512S, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. -I- Packet Pg. 286 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners Of Collier County, Florida, this �,y� / _�_ day of —�'/�c-GIL. , 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: BY: DWIGIiT E. BROCK, CLE ///��� �/•f� APPR VED A5 ta�FORM PND LEGAL StFF�IICIE/1NCY MARJORVE M. STUD$NT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY PUD-97-2 ORDINANCE/19173 -2- This ordinor,:+ r.*!..f with the Secretary al $,,;it.;'y Office the and ocknew'cdgement of that filin received this 2 l� day of /9Y7 I 9.A.e I 0 F:DEV0MffV0E.PVD DEVOE PONTIAC PUD A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Regulations and Supporting Master Plan Governing the DeVoe Pontiac PUD A Planned Unit Development Pursuant to Provisions of The Collier C. snty Unified Land Development Lode Prepared For: DEVOE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4100 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34103 Prepared By: Bob Tdinncs, AICP Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. MIL ENGINEERS ♦ LAND SURVEYORS ♦ PLANNERS 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC 3 �� ORDINANCE NUMBER 7 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL EXHIBIT "A" Packet Pg. 288 Elm TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Compliance i SECTION 1 Property Ownership do Description 1-1 SECTION 2 Project Development Requirements 2-1 SECTION Commercial Plan 3-1 SECTION 4 Development Commitments 4-1 EXHIBIT A Master Plan I 9.A.e I Packet Pg. 289 I 9.A.e I CJ STATEMENT OF CON[PLIANCE The development of approximately 4.55 acres of property in Collier County, as a Commercial Planners Unit Development to be known as DeVoe Pontiac PUD, will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The project will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons; 1. The subject property is located in the Urban -Mixed Use District in the Growth Managemcnt Plan for Collier County and is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan as a consequence of evaluation through the Zoning Re-evaluation Process. (CEX-020 - EN 2. The Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate Planned Unit Developments where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. 3. The subject tract is located near the southeast corner of the C.R. 31 and Glades Boulevard intersection. This strategic location allows the site desirable access for commercial development as the site is currently zoned C-3. 4. The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations including the Growth Management Plan. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open space to enhance the project amenities. (1) Packet Pg. 290 9.A.e SECTION 1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCTJPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to sett forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of DeVoe Pontiac PUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIP77ON PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MOPE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMTNCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N 00�18'50" W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, FOR A DISTANCE OF c 2836.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89 41'10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO THE N POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N 00^18'50" W, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (100' R.O.W.)OF r AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31), FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE rn RUN N 89 41' 10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 00 18'50" E FOR A DISTANCE QF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89 41' 10" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.55 ACRES, MORE O 0 OR LESS. y Packet Pg. 291 I 9.A.e I CJ 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the ownership of the David A. Gallman Estate with SunB.mk Southwest Florida as personal representative of the Estate, c/o Jay A. Brett, Sheppard, Brett & Stewart, P.A. DeVoe Family Limited Partnership has a Contract for Sale and Purchase on a portion of the property which is contingent upon obtaining commercial zoning for an automobile dealership. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The project site is located in the west 1/2 of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, approximately 250 feet south of Glades Boulevard on the can side'of C.R. 31. B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PUD Document was C-3. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Elevations within the project site range from 6.4 to 8.0 feet NGVD. All of the site is in Flood Zone A.er (elev. 7.0) according to Firm Map 120067 0394 D, effective date of June 3, 1986. The soil type on the site is Immokalee fine sand. Soil characteristics were derived from the Collier County Interim Soil Survey & Narrative Report (Revised 1/90 - H. Yamataki). 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will be a commercial development. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This OrdWancc shall be known and cited as the De Yoe Pontiac PUD Planned Unit Development Ordinance." (1-2) Packet Pg. 292 SECTION 2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL. A. Regulations for development of DeVoe Pontiac PUD shalt be in accordance with the contents of this uocument, PUD-Planned Unit Development District and otL-er applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at tb : time of building permit application. Where dzse regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions unposed for the development of Devoe Pontiac PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code where applicable remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a conctirrtncy review under the provisions of Division 3.15 of the Adequate Public Facilities Section of the Collier County Land Development Code at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval or building permit issuance applicable to this development. 2.3 DESCRIMON OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Conceptual Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. (2-1) Packet Pg. 293 I 9.A.e I t 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan. the Collier County band Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A".DEVOE PONTIAC PUD MASTER PLAN, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. C. If necessary, appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD ."OCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code Section 2.7.3.5. (2-2) Packet Pg. 294 I 9.A.e I 0 SECTION 3 COMMU,'RCLAL PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the 4.55 acre DeVoe Pontiac PUD. The entire site will be developed as a commercial project. 3.2 USES PERMITTED No building: or structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land uses, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal U-is and Structures: 1. Uzless otherwise provided for in this section, all permitted uses of the C- 2 district. 2. Apparel and accessory stores (groups 5611-5699). 3. Auto and home supply stores (group 5531). 4. Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used, group 5511). 5. Business services (groups 7311, 7313, 7322-7338, 7361-7379, 7394, 7389 except auctioning services, field warehousing, bottle labeling, packaging and labeling, salvaging of damaged merchandise, scrap steel cutting and slitting). 6. Elting places (5812 only). All establishments engaged in retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premise consumption are subject to locational requirements of section 2.6.10. 7. Food stores (groups 5411-5499). 8. General merchandise stores (groups 5311-5399). 9. Group care facilities (Category I and I1, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; and nursing homes, subject to section 2.6.26. (3-1) Packet Pg. 295 I 9.A.e I W 10. Home furniture, furnishing and equipment stores (groups 5712-5736). 11. Libraries (8321). 12. Marinas (4493), subject to section 2.6.22. 13. Membership organizations (8611-8699) 14. Miscellaneous repair services (groups 7629-7631). 15. Miscellaneous retail (groups 5912-5963 except pawnshops and all u4,3 dealing with secondhand merchandise, 5992-5999). 16. 1 Museums and art galleries (8412) 17. Nondepository credit institutions (groups 6111-6163). 18. Paint, glass and wallpaper stores (5231). 19. Personal services (groups 7211, 7212, 7215, 7216 nonindustrial dry cleaning only, 7221-7251, 7291). 20. Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311. 9411-9451. 9511- 9532, 9611-9661). 21. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261). 22. Veterinary services (groups 0742, 0752 excluding outside kenneling). 23. Videotape rental (7841). 24. United States Postal Service (4311 except major distribution centers). 25. Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this district. (3-2) 0 a, UI m 0 x 3 m s= Cu to cfl ti 0 0 0 0 N 0 N J d_ r a) a ar c 0 N 0 T- oo O N ti L O I U c 0 E t U r a c m E t U r r Q Packet Pg. 296 I 9.A.e I 3.3 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS The following dimensional standards shall apply to all permitted and accessory uses: A. Mirdmum Lot Area: Ten Thousand (10,000) Square Feet. B. Minimum Lot Width: One Hundred Fifty (150') Feet C. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty-five feet (25') 2. Side Yard: Fifteen feet (15') 3. Rear Yard: Fifteen feet (15') 4. Waterfront: Twenty-five feet (25') 5. Building Separation for Principal Structures Fifteen feet (15') or distance equal to one half (1/2) the sum of their heights, whichever is the greater. D. Maximum Height: Fifty feet (50') E. Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: Seven Hundred (700) Square Feet F. Minimum Off -Street Parking and Off -Street Loading: As regiured in Division 2.3, Collier County Land Development Code G. Landscaping: As required in Division 2.4, Collier County Land Development Code H. Signs: As required in Division 2.5, Collier County Land Development Code (3-3) Packet Pg. 297 1 I 9.A.e I SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 4.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Final Site Development Plan and al� applicable State and local laws, codes and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even though the, land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be respom. ole for the commitments outlined in this document. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall agree to follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the PUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title to the developer shall be responsible for any commitments within this agreement. 4.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit W, PUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5of the Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 4.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION This PUD shall be subject to the Sunset Provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. (4-1) Packet Pg. 298 I 9.A.e 1 F 4.5 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Northbound right turn lanes shall be required as shown on the site plan when permits are approved authorizing a project entrance. Portions of the turn lanes are to be striped to inhibit continuous traffic movements along the property frontage. Compensating right-of-way for turn lanes and median areas shall be dedicated by the applicant to reimburse the County for use of existing right-of- way. B. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of arterial level street lighting at all project entrances at the time a project entrance is constructed. C. The County reserves tzc right to restrict and/or modify the location and use of median openings in accordance with Resolution 92-422, Collier County Access Management Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, and in consideration of safety or operational concerns. D. There shall be no additional driveways or access points permitted onto Airport Road along the entire frontage of this site except as shown on the master site plan submited with this applicaiton. 4.6 WATER MANAGEMENT The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following condition: Water Management design and construction shalt conform to Division 3.3.5.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. (4-2) Packet Pg. 299 I 9.A.e 1 4.7 UTILITIES The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. The sewage collection and transmission system to serve this project is to be, designed, constructed, conveyed and/or owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 88-76, as amended, and all other applicable State, Federal and County rules, regulations and policies. Sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted public rights -of -way shall be conveyed to the Collier County Water/Sewer District for ownership, operation and • maintenance. Sanitary sewer facilities constructed in private easements and/or private platted rights -of -way shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer, his assigns or successors. B. Upon completion of . v)nstruction of the sanitary sewer facilities within the project, the facilities shall be tested to insure they meet Collier County minimum requirements at which time they will be conveyed to Collier County and/or remain under private ownership, prior to being placed into service. C. The developer, his assigns or successors agree to pay all system development charges at the time building permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time of permit request. This requirement shall be made known to all prospective buyers of properties for which building permits will be required prior to the start of building construction. D. Water service will be provided to the site by a 16' water main on Airport Road that is operated by the City of Naples. 4.8 ENGINEERING The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Work within the Collier County right-of-way. shall meet the requirements of the Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance No. 93-64. B. Design and construciton of all improvements shalt be subject to compliance with the appropriate provision of the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 3.2. (4-3) Packet Pg. 300 1 4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. This Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Ccde and the Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element in effect at the time of final development order approvals. B. This PUD sha11 be requirr4 to retain 10% of the existing native vegetation on site, by area, in all thrrr strata, as required by the CCLDC Section 3.9.5.5.4. 4.10 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (44) 9.A.e Packet Pg. 301 9.A.e 0 wars cw DL tVO E PON77A C F.U.D. NAME PLM acnow �L TDML.. Wl Rwc( W. m.rr corn, nan. N wC LOCA71ON YAP M TV wf TWN Mi K�NNNO CA A PMi: Yr. iu.w lSYr N 4 M1[.YY! M TIKT tM runes O MOT T —� Packet Pg. 302 0 9.A.e • STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a tru8 copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 97-14 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the llth day of March, 1997, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 12th day of March, 1997. CD DWIGHT E. BROCK %16 0 Clerk of Courts andlqlerk'` ' Ex-officio to Board• -of County Commissiong :', ;�;~•`' ' •c. _ ' _ m E B Maureen Kenyon �•;; ,;0'- • �'. , Deputy Clerk ''••...�....•••`?' ` c z .• f ' cvo r a Packet Pg. 303 9.A.f HEX NO. 2020-05 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION a U a� N DATE OF HEARING. o x August 27, 2020 a� r w PETITION. Petition PDIPL20200000201: DEVOE PONTIAC PDI — A request for an Insubstantial Change to Ordinance Number 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development, to revise the Master Plan to add a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection with the adjacent property to the north. The subject property, consisting of 4.55+/- acres, is located on the east side of Airport Road, approximately 250 feet south of Glades Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 2. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person. 4. The Petitioner and!or Petitioner's representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 304 9.A.f DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL2020000020, filed by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. representing St. Matthews House, Inc., with respect to the property as described in the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD, Ordinance No. 97-14, for the following insubstantial change: • To add a vehicular and pedestrian interconnection within property under common ownership. Said changes are fully described in the Site Development Plan Amendment with Interconnection Note (PL20180002477) attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A -- Site Development Plan Amendment Sheet with Interconnection Note (PL2018002477) LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD. CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., 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. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 305 9.A.f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. v a� N 7 O 2 �7 p N t Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner r Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 306 9.A.f CONSERVATION AREA A NO CLEAPA"o OR OLWING ALLOWED msa .....r r aouaa PLmodow" wYYP.,. psnNG Il Ile — Mom J L Z. wAmWRmeLeRr.neA �: ._�,,n , _.—a���wR� - RN}EYLI.T ME2ERVE W•' ~ x3w= cm ®® Y Aw�m II vi.iv.X i ^ ,Ar ­� !+V I.er W � �—_ �L .Nw �r>: �v I.-u y •C , a A R. 311 PULLING RGaD 1C.R. all (GWNYV PIA4O1 0 scALe. r >o RLmc®Dcraiwn MEIFWATOOCALCWT" r+n 0.01.4 S< WITNEYI3 iRAaaaiGRE l S S 8 � LULU'S KITCHEN uNrrr.�...STNATTHEM'S yll4inor a"°w•"vSITE, SIGNING AND MARKING PLAN T.,.dyhlinor an 1..N ,al, u/a„fas I1n Llp. Yn HI.fLU '��� a1Wt S p IZ Packet Pg. 307 9.A.f HEX NO. 2020-29 CORRECTIVE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION (To Correct Scrivener's Error in Hex No. 2020-05) DATE OF HEARING. This CORRECTIVE DECISION is approved on December 15, 2020, in order to correct a scrivener's error in HEX Decision No. 2020-05, wherein an exhibit to the decision was inadvertently not included. PF.TTTInN_ Petition PDIPL20200000201: DEVOE PONTIAC PDI — A request for an Insubstantial Change to Ordinance Number 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development, to revise the Master Plan to add a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection with the adjacent property to the north. The subject property, consisting of 4.55+/- acres, is located on the east side of Airport Road, approximately 250 feet south of Glades Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 2. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 3. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person. 4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 308 9.A.f is sufficient competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. c DECISION. a The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL2.020000020, filed by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. representing St. Matthews House, C x Inc., with respect to the property as described in the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD, Ordinance No. 97-14, for the following insubstantial change: • To add a vehicular and pedestrian interconnection within property under common ownership. Said changes are fully described in the Site Development Plan Amendment with Interconnection Note (PL20180002477) attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A — Site Development Plan Amendment Sheet with Interconnection Note (PL2018002477) Exhibit B — DeVoe Pontiac PUD Master Plan LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD. CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., 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. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 309 9.A.f or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 310 9.A.f EXHIBIT "A" Packet Pg. 311 EXISTING ST. HOUSE ..,,HEWS HOOSE � eustmoo,nrz oeE Ir t -I I i �IIIIIII -� I��ei orouxHdYrctlae omix ax I L e I to CO) PL20180002477a^ca a SCALec1"=30' CONSERVATION AREA O NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION CALCULP Q NO CLEARING Isom-saez) O OR Q DUMPING ALLOWED ulccuncx r a N 5 axaixi ux[. xrwn°ucw ON PARK J xexexE,�>oe ,���t,xe �xxrrveesExE°�emT� a 1 PRESERVE SIGNAGE \\ Im — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------------------------------- _ \ I'i�l �urriorwr 1 EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT AREA- �.. 1 ur Oro.) ne rxvu O+nrx nfvmwcrtd) I. ,. , O �w.mxxr veu / axce 1 caxartrz nu , � °reRD PRESERVE I WATER MANAGEMENT / s.a, nc 0z,etsarA 'l Z m � u o° m. me P' c�xe mN) x,1 wawslmj E _------------- --__----___ __---_ _____- \ ,l m 5 w Y 3 LEGEND 1 xrc . b s' b w h� zhasc © z l 11k O KC .-STING �/ II MATrHEVIS THRIFT STORE Q Q 1,_1 ✓� r II 04 I 1� LULU�'S{SITGH■EN �II� ap�"O�T �. x/c J..W scx ma) nov IEs lrn) j1111 II �I y� rwse 21 II II II II II �! V: N ,5",m ,e I roe Paxccr�a I III n II I N F xw ne- sw 1 ,-z I I r "'� -� 3 _ tis i'knll - H- Or-- II - �L--- I II jl lI- r., PP xm rrrte � (u-t) fwF-e*1 'e cove OwJ I I 51ro rmrcuTee Om.) x sro (x,_0 y s�wx �" vu�w umxx cnsr 1x'P' corm (^i) V I� s' a aw rxs naa s airy `ar wens u.e. JI � ��H�----1'i -- I I I -Ul-----��, II - - O� � ql l ; Q-t------ x S I ffII JJII I N e m� _ o 1 II- - �_ z _��_O"- LL11 L 10 - - II vum sl��x Irtxce \ `t-j� �r {��T y�� T _- \ I�-J-=- -----1 _LJ _l =1==== G — - cc -_ N _� _- -- -- o —_ —__— esc bps; s) — so p ='rtQ -- aOPORT Pl GLLROAD— e_ (C.R. 31) (COUNTY PUBLIC) - - - - __ - - - - - _ _ _-_ -_ -- ��--__� - X W ----__ --- - _—_— _ WI Y U a z in a � a a a z a rr o OJ U J U O. Grsaye0eerexa Ased-,. P.A. GradyMinor 3>,PPV1e ORey © ST. MATTHEW'S LULU'S KITCHEN 0 M �xrc °Mxexe RP In, SPt4xge, FIPe1UP 34134 Civil Engineers' Land Surveyors P180ners Landscape Arahileale " � eA rA FP xxxs,s a N LC 2e000266 SITE, SIGNING AND MARKING PLAN a cee. x�IRP �r ePPxr, �MxExrt " scnta: 239.94'1.1144 www. Cra�yA/lnor. 10m Port Tlye1s: 239.090.4300 cLnnws sxarn xmeon um erseo uvox novm ruewew rmnncu Ptnu ,see (wro 's°) _.._................_.,._...,.,._.................., .._... ..... ...__.... _......_.. rw,xas coavx rare. ec. ...,e... ... ......... SHEET 0 o •, •' Packet Pg. 312 9.A.f EXHIBIT "B" Packet Pg. 313 9.A.f "CLDES BL 0. ZONING : C- 4 USE: ST MATTHEWS HOUSE PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INTERCONNECTION � TJ mut TTrt v tturrtrc WALKERS LANEAPPROXIMATE N 894I f0' f LOCATION OF O PROPOSED RIGHT A IN/ RIGHT OUT DRIVEWAY P s CAL0ONIA AVE. Q a 2 O CAL USA AVE. at Q 9 A ,I GOLDEN GATE \PARKWAY 0 0 ,I n m n a g RADIO ROAD m e N DAMS L1Lw. M r „SITE � z N PLES j'e 9 e v e C3 u � eM RA TLESNAKE iAMMOCK RD. ]' ZD �9 ]• I/ ]0 ]I 0 10' WIDE TYPE A" BUFFER* 0 15' WIDE TYPE B" BUFFER PROVIDED BY DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD ZONING. DAVID A. GALLMAN 11 ESTA TE PUD PROPOSED USE. THE POINT AT NAPLES ACCESS APARTMENTS EASEMENT 8 20200 5 89Ii'Id PROPOSED EXISTING PAVEMENT BUILDINGII sTINcE fl DEVO BUILDI Nc PONTIAC EXIS G l —4 DEALERSHIP ExISTINc suI�DINc EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING BIJI DING EXISTING PAVEMEN TPAVEMENT S 8941'10' W 66000' ZONING : C-3 USE : COURT PLAZA llI CONDOMINIUM 660 00" OPEN SPACE AND WATER LOCATION MAP MINIMUM ELEV. = 7 R 10' OR 15' BUFFER 1' FLAT F\ MAXIMUM 3:1 SLOPE TO RETURN J TO EXISTING GRADE. NOTE: IN AREAS WHERE PAVEMENT IS NOT ADJACENT TO BUFFER, A MINIMUM 7.5' PERIMETER BERM ELEVATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. SECTION OA N.T.S. ZONING. DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE THE POINT AT NAPLES APARTMENTS © GradyMinor Grady Minor and ,11 :dre. P.A. DEVOE PONTIAC PUD 311no \la nrl K0y RmiR. 8prinps. Zri a 34134 EXHIBIT A VASTER PLAN Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects Cert. of A,Lh. EB 0005151 Cert. oFAdh. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 a-6radyNinnr. com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 01/30/2020 N 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1" = 200' WHEN PLOTTED @ 8.5" X I I SCALE: CODE Oe SOB CODE Oe FILE N—E: SMH t Packet Pg. 314 I 9.A.f I SITE PANNING DATA GROSS AREA EXISTING ZONING EXISTING USE PROPOSED ZONING 4.55 ± ACRES C-3 VEHICLE DISPLAY - VACANT PUD PROPOSED USE ALL USES PERMITTED IN THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT AND AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS AS PERMITTED IN THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT NOTE: * TEN FOOT WIDE "A" TYPE BUFFER PROVIDED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.4.7.2. OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N 00°18'50" W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2836.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89°41'10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N 00°18'50" W, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (100' R.O.W.) OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31), FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89°41'10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 00°18'50" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89°41'10" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. �, e1.:,d Minn1.a11d nles.r,. m GradyMinor 101 .Dunn , In DO I;ry Bnulln Springs. Pluridn 34131 Civil Engineers Land Surveyors . Planners Landscape Architects C'n n1,\'rh. NB 000i1"1 fern. of Auth. 13000,51"1 Business LC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 uBn./; i,v Ay9/h1nP rom Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 DEVOE PONTIAC PUD EXHIBIT A MASTER PLAN NOTES REVISED 01/30/2020 FILE NAbtE: Packet Pg. 315 9.A.g St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Wayne Arnold: All right. Good evening. I'm Wayne Arnold of Grady Minor and here representing Saint Matthew's House Organization tonight. This is Steve Brooder, the COO of the organization. Jill Mesner is also with Saint Matthew's House. Debrah Forester is here with Collier County Gateway Triangle CRA. Nancy Gundlach is a principal planner with the zoning department for Collier County. Frank Feeney is one of our engineers with Grady Minor and this is Sharon Umpenhour, who's recording the meeting tonight and she's with Grady Minor and Associates. So, we're here representing the Saint Matthew's House. And the property is property that they own entirely, it's outlined in the aerial photograph. And it makes up what was the old Devoe Pontiac site as well as the existing Saint Matthew's House shelter facility at Glades Boulevard. And we are rezoning the properties into a consolidated, planned unit development for the organization. Part of the properties are zoned C4 Commercial. As part of the overlay. [00:01:001 And then, part of it's the old Devoe Pontiac PUD. A piece in the middle of the zone, PUD. It allows for certain uses. So, we're taking all of the C4 and PUD property and recombining them into one singular PUD to allow Saint Matthew's House to utilize that in the future for their campus and future development on the site. The shelter was approved back in, I think year 1999. [00:01:301 And it allows 104 beds. We're asking for that number to be increased up to 150 in the future. Steve Rigsbee: I'm hard of hearing, couldn't hear it. Wayne: Okay. What part didn't you hear? Steve R: I heard [inaudible] that's the last I heard. Wayne: No, I didn't. I said that's zoned for 104 beds, for their shelter. Steve R: Yeah. Wayne: That we're proposing to increase that number to 150 beds over time. Steve R: Absolutely unacceptable. Wayne: Okay, thanks. I'm gonna go ahead and finish the presentation, okay? [00:02:001 So, we're proposing a master plan that establishes Tract A, which would be where the existing shelter is located. And all the future shelter improvements would also be Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 316 9.A.g St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript located on that Tract. It's at the Glades Boulevard, Airport Road Facility. And then we've outlined Tract B, which allows conventional C4 Commercial type uses, and some other incidental uses that would be related to the administration of Saint Matthew's House and some other of their thrift store and things of that nature. [00:02:30] We have a list of permanent uses in the PUD document [inaudible] [00:02:361. And breaks it out by Tract A, the shelter facility. And Tract B, which would all be commercial uses. We've created development standards that are required. The standards are very comparable to what's allowed there today. And as for the present two deviations. [00:03:001 One related to the shelter, which allows a different per square foot conversion than the LDC requires. And we've also asked for a buffer deviation and staff has asked us to provide for because the original Devoe Pontiac building was constructed before buffer requirements were there. So, if we make substantial revisions, they've asked us to add in buffers for code. So, those are the two deviations from code that we've currently asked for. And just from a process standpoint, this is the required neighborhood information meeting. [00:03:311 So, we filed the zoning application. We've had a round of review comments from staff. We're required to hold this meeting before we can proceed to public hearing. So, at some point in the next few months, we will be holding a public hearing for the Collier County Planning Commission. And then they'll make a recommendation on our proposal to the Board of County Commissioners. And so, in a nutshell, it's a pretty simplistic application. They're presently allowed all the commercial uses today that we're asking for under the comprehensive plan and the overlay. [00:04:01] And then, we have the shelter, which really, the significance of the increase over time would be from the 104 beds to 150 beds as they grow that facility over time. So, in a nutshell, that's kinda where we are. We don't have hearing dates established yet. If you received a notice for this meeting, you'll get a notice for the upcoming planning commission hearing from staff. And then there will be signs posted on the property. The big 4 by 8 sheets of plywood that have the advertising information on them. [00:04:321 As we get closer to the hearing. So, with that in a nutshell, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 317 9.A.g St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Steve R: Why do you want to keep importing people from all over the country to a place only, that I know of after 38 years of being sober, two people have made it out of your Matt's House? Speaker: What is your name, sir? Steve R: Or the three people that were convicted of rape coming out of the Saint Matt's House. [00:05:001 Wayne: I don't think the comment deserves a response. Steve R: I'm sorry? Wayne: I don't think your question deserves a comment from me. Steve R: You don't think you should answer the public? Wayne: You provided an opinion and I'm happy to take it. We're recording the minutes and we'll let the others decide. But I don't think that's a fair question. Steve Brooder: It's irrelevant. Wayne: Any other comments? Steve R: Your people come into my neighborhood in Wilmer Heights, they rob, and they steal. [00:05:301 And that's acceptable? No, it's not. I live on Andrew Drive. Wayne: Okay. Steve R: Alusa is right across the street from where you put the other place. You'd be in 1,000 feet of your present situation if you incorporated all that, plus the other place down there where the old fire station used to be. [00:06:001 So, you're in violation of your own ordinance. Wayne: I'm not aware that we're in violation of any ordinance. Steve R: Well, I'm telling you, you have to be 1,000 feet away from a halfway house. That's the law. That's what's written. Wayne: The shelter is not within 1,000 feet of any other shelter. Steve R: I'm sorry? Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 318 9.A.g St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Wayne: The existing shelter is not within 1,000 feet of any other shelter. Steve R: Okay. Well, it wouldn't be within this expansion? [00:06:301 Wayne: The shelter is only allowed on the existing location where it's located today. Steve R: I'm sorry, sir. You're gonna get a fight from my area. Wayne: That's why we hold the meetings, you're allowed to express your opinion and participate in the public process. Do you have any other questions or comments for us? Steve R: Just that, I don't understand why you advertise all over the country to come here and get well. [00:07:001 And nobody makes it out of there. And then if they break the rules, you put them on the street. I've been at meetings where people say, we have nothing to do. Because we have to come back at 3:00. They don't do anything. They don't go out and look for jobs, they don't do anything. I've seen it more than half a dozen times. Wayne: I really can't comment on those incidents. [00:07:301 I stand behind Saint Matthew's House, they do great work in the community and they're more than just the shelter, as you can imagine. Steve R: And a multi -million -dollar enterprise. All you do is advertise and bring people into this community that can't get well, that don't know how to get well. Wayne: I'm not gonna debate you, sir. But I don't think the shelter advertises for people to come here from all over the country. Steve B: We don't advertise. No. Wayne: That's not true. Steve R: Maybe you don't. Wayne: No, sir. Steve B: No, sir. I can say, we don't advertise for people to come to our shelter. Steve R: I'm sorry, I'm hard of hearing. [00:07:591 Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 319 9.A.g St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Steve B: I can say, we do not advertise for people to come to our recovery programs or our shelter. Steve R: Okay. Steve B: Absolutely, do not. Steve R: Then I was mistaken, and I apologize for that. Steve B: Yeah. Okay. Wayne: Anything else? Appreciate you coming out. Steve R: Thank you. Wayne: Thank you. Anything else from Nancy or Deb? Then we're adjourned? Thank you. [End of Audio] Duration: 9 minutes 0 a. U a� 0 x r r 0 r c� ti 0 0 0 0 r N 0 N J a. m a. a� c 0 N 0 o 0 N r Q �L L C� C_ Z W d E t V a E 2 a Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 320 9.A.h GundlachNancy From: stephen.tiIbrook@akerman.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 5:25 PM To: GundlachNancy; BellowsRay Cc: cward@jcconsultinginc.net; george.powell@akerman.com Subject: Initial Questions: DeVoe Pontiac PUD Application Attachments: 1-3_1524414180-58960-16971-160-40.pdf, 1-11_3580269699-37091-17924-157-3.pdf, Access, Signage and Landscape Easement Agreement.PDF Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged 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. Hello Nancy and Ray: Thank you for speaking with us last week regarding the St. Matthew's House application. Although we have not received the requested records related to the underlying zoning and the existing conditional use approvals, please find below some of the initial questions that we raised during the recent call. This is submitted in response to your recent request for a list of the questions that we raised in our recent conference call. 1. The Application • It appears from the attached correspondence that the nature of the application has changed several times. The initial meetings were for an expanded conditional use approval to the St. Matthew's House. Then the pre -application was changed to an amendment to the Devoe Pontiac PUD. And now you are suggesting that it has turned into an application for a new PUD rezoning, although that is not clear from the application documents. How did all this transpire? Was the Applicant advised to avoid the conditional use approval process? Is this an effort to bypass the existing conditional use approval and conditions by going to a different board with different criteria? • The code outlines the process for amending a conditional use approval. Is the Applicant following that process? Is the revised application an effort to bypass the conditional use approval? Is that legally permissible when there is an existing conditional use approval? • The application does not appear to be complete. It does not include the analysis and documentation required to change the zoning. Has the applicant been asked to supplement the application with the required information and analysis? 2. The Property • The Application and Public Meeting materials include different data on the size of the property to be included in the PUD. In some places Parcel B is defined as 4.55 acres in size and in some places it is identified as 9.55 acres in size. Which is correct? • The existing Devoe Pontiac PUD includes a condition restricting homeless shelter uses. However, homeless shelter and shelter accessory uses appear to have taken over the Devoe Pontiac property in direct contravention of the exiting PUD requirements. How did this occur when there is an existing restriction against such uses? • The Property in the application appears to include Great Blue Drive, which is the sole access for The Point At Naples. Please see the attached survey for The Point at Naples that shows the access drive as appurtenant to The Point at Naples and part of the site plan approval. Please also see the attached Access Easement that shows the responsibility of The Point at Naples to building, maintain and operate Packet Pg. 321 9.A.h Great Blue Drive. How can this Application include Great Blue Drive in the property to be rezoned in a manner that is inconsistent with the property interests and use of The Point at Naples? The Applicant • The Application identifies St. Matthew's House as the owner, but does not recognize or identify the real estate interest owned by West Shore Point Naples LLC. See the attached Easement Agreement. The Application does not include the Covenant of Unified Control. The Applicant does not have unified control due to the ownership interest of West Shore Naples Point LLC. Neither the Applicant nor the agent represent the interests of West Shore Naples Point LLC. How can the Application be considered complete when the Applicant does not have Unified Control? 4. The Rezoning Changes • If the Application is considered a rezoning to a new PUD, then the application must address LDC Sect. 10.02.08 F- Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas, and the applicable criteria. Each of those criteria reference "the proposed change", however the application does not identify the proposed changes. In particular, the application does not address the proposed changes from the existing conditional use approval and also the proposed change from the existing restriction against homeless center uses on Parcel B. What are the proposed changes that the applicant is seeking? The Applicant has not addressed this foundational question. • Since the application does not identify the proposed changes in zoning and the permitted uses, the application also does not identify, address, analyze nor assess the impact of those changes both on adjacent properties and the community. How can the County accept and evaluate an application that neither identifies the proposed changes nor evaluates the proposed impact of those changes? Quasi -Judicial Procedures What are the quasi-judicial procedures for this application and the potential public hearings? What are the procedural rights of the parties that have an ownership interest in the property to be rezoned? How should our client become recognized as a party in the proceedings? How can our client (and our firm) receive advance notice of ex parte meetings or communications with the Applicant? Thank you for your attention in this regard. Please provide answers to these important initial questions as soon as possible. Please also provide notice of any advancement of the application or any scheduled upcoming meetings. Yours Very Truly, Steve Tilbrook Stephen Tilbrook Partner Akerman LLP 1 201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800 1 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 D: 954 3314132 1 T: 954 463 2700 1 F: 954 595 6815 stephen.tilbrook@akerman.com From: Tilbrook, Stephen (Ptnr-Ftl) Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 12:47 PM To: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: cward@jcconsultinginc.net Subject: RE: Thank You and Public Records Request Hello Nancy and Ray: Thank you again for speaking with us last week regarding questions related to the Devoe Pontiac PUD and the pending applications related to this property and the St. Matthews House. We are still going through the currently available documents and public records, so we are currently identifying all the relevant questions. So it looks like it may take a series of emails to identify most of the questions and concerns that we discussed last week, and that we identify related to the application. Packet Pg. 322 9.A.h I hope to forward an email later today with the basic and general questions about the application, the property, the Applicant and the applicable review process and review criteria. Thanks very much, Steve Tilbrook Stephen Tilbrook Partner Akerman LLP 1201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800 1 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 D: 954 3314132 1 T: 954 463 2700 1 F: 954 595 6815 stephen.tilbrook@akerman.com From: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, October 15, 20219:34 AM To: Tilbrook, Stephen (Ptnr-Ftl) <stephen.tilbrook@akerman.com>; cward@Icconsultinginc.net Cc: BellowsRay <Ray.Bel lows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Thank You and Public Records Request [External to Akerman] Hi Stephen and Cecelia, It was good to hear your concerns yesterday. Please send me the questions and comments that you had in our telephone conversation and I will forward them to our subject matter experts for their consideration. Respectfully, /YR r, Of Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Principal Planner Zoning Services (239)252-2484 Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov From: stephen.tilbrook@akerman.com <stephen.tiIbrook@akerman.com> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:45 PM To: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: cward@icconsultinginc.net Subject: Thank You and Public Records Request 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. Dear Ms. Gundlach. Thank you for your time today on the phone regarding the proposed PUD Rezoning at the St. Matthews House and the Devoe Pontiac PUD. Per your request, please accept this email as a public records request pursuant to Chapt.119, F.S. for the following public records: • Applications, staff reports and meeting minutes for the conditional use approval(s) for the St. Matthews House Homeless Shelter (Resolution 1999-087 and associated approvals); and Packet Pg. 323 9.A.h • Applications, staff reports and meeting minutes for the Devoe Pontiac PUD approval (Ordinance 97-14 and related approvals). We would be pleased to receive access to these documents in electronic format. Thanks for your help and consideration. Steve Tilbrook Stephen Tilbrook Partner Akerman LLP 1201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800 1 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 D: 954 3314132 1 T: 954 463 2700 1 F: 954 595 6815 stephen.tilbrook@akerman.com vCard I Profile ❑© CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. It 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. Packet Pg. 324 9.A.i EST. 1971 MARK J. WOODWARD &,ard Cerdcc& RL:d r t,tc (award inCcxdontinuun & PL nncd Dnr4imcnt Law ANTHONY P. Pius, JR Batas Cati6cti City C«nt}; ud L(x.d Gtnrrtunent Lmv J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY). DLMoRA Li mncd in FL:ud OH LENORET. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R. WOODWARD Scnu)r c an l Bo d Caritial: Real L:.tuc 1_:nr KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD Ross E. SCHUIMAN Liars"d in FL ens \l' F. SCOTr PAuzAR III CHRISTOPHERR. HEFLIN REPLY TO: 0 3200 TANIIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 P.O. BOX ONE MARCO ISLAND. FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWbV.WPL-LEGAL.COM WOOD WARD, P I RES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 22, 2021 Via Email: Edwin.fryer@colliercountvfl.gov Nancy.gundlach @ collliercountvfl.gov Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman and Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Objections to St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. PL20210000176; (the "Application"): Initial Objections and Concerns Regarding The Application Dear Mr. Fryer and Planning Commissioners: This law firm is co -counsel with the law firm of Akerman LLP, representing West Shore Point Naples, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida ("West Shore"). West Shore is the owner and manager of the well -established 248-unit residential apartment community known as The Point at Naples. The Point at Naples is located immediately adjacent and contiguous to the East property line of the properties that are the subject of the Application (see attached Exhibit A). West Shore has significant concerns relating to the Project and the Application. This letter is for the purposes of outlining some of the objections, comments and concerns of West Shore. ' West Shore, by separate communication provided to County Staff this date, has submitted a Memorandum regarding standing and being accorded party status at the Planning Commission and County Commission hearings on the Application. West Shore respectively requests that the Collier County Planning Commission forward the Application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. 1 No rights, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of West Shore concerning the Application and Project are waived by anything stated herein or omitted herefrom and the right to present, make and submit additional motions, objections, arguments and materials before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is specifically reserved. West Shore reserves the right to make additional objections, filings and submittals to protect its interests and to ensure the due process rights of West Shore. 1 Packet Pg. 325 9.A.i SOME BACKGROUND AS TO WEST SHORE AND THE POINT AT NAPLES The Point at Naples community fills an important work force housing need in Collier County providing a variety of community and apartment amenities with rental rates for apartment homes ranging from $1,151+ for a 709 sq. ft one bedroom unit to from $1,375+ for a 1,081 sq. ft three -bedroom unit. West Shore acquired The Point at Naples in 2016. At the time of that acquisition, West Shore performed its due diligence regarding surrounding land uses with the knowledge as to the zoning and land use limitations in place for the property that is the subject of the Application, i.e., St. Matthew's House. West Shore closed on the purchase of The Point at Naples in December of 2016 (see attached Exhibit B). Since that time, based on the current contiguous zoning and land uses, West Shore has expended substantial amounts of money to upgrade The Point at Naples. SOME BACKGROUND AS TO THE APPLICATION In January 2021, the applicant submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acre "Tract A" of the St. Matthew's House property. Tract "A" was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Collier County Resolution 99-87, that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. In March 2021, the applicant modified its request to a PUD rezoning application, to combine the 9.55 acres of "Tract B" with the 2.55 acres of "Tract A", to "unify" the St. Matthew's House properties, into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by: (a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District: and, (b) amending the existing Devoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The proposed rezoning would concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus, increasing the number of homeless beds located on "Tract A" from 104 to 150; increasing the total permitted square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130,000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The application further requests a deviation from the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") to reduce the otherwise required minimum square feet of habitable space for each occupant, in order to accommodate the approximately 50% increase in the number of beds, and, also requests relief from certain landscape buffer requirements. OBJECTIONS. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS As outlined in further detail below and in the attached "Expert Opinion by Cecelia Ward, AICP" dated November 22, 2021 ("Planning Report", attached Exhibit "C") based on: 1. the Collier County Growth Management Plan ("GMP"); 2. the criteria in the Collier County LDC to be applied in the evaluation of the Application; and, 3. the Collier County Community Character Plan; the Application and proposed PUD are: Packet Pg. 326 9.A.i 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. a. Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP; and, b. Inconsistent with the Conservation Element of the GMP; and, c. Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.13 for Planned Unit Developments. 3) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.08 for Rezonings. 4) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. 1. THE PROJECT SHOULD BE DENIED AS IT IS NEITHER COMPATIBLE WITH NOR COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES A. POLICY 5.6 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: The starting point and high threshold for all new development in Collier County is outlined in Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the GMP. All new development "shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." (see Exhibit D) In order to be consistent with Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e., "compatible with the surrounding land uses", the FLUE and zoning should only allow land uses, densities and intensities that are the same as or less intensive than the existing land use patterns, densities and intensities on surrounding improved, vested or exempt property. In order to be consistent with the compatibility requirement of Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e., "compatible with the surrounding land uses", the FLUE and zoning should only allow land uses, densities and intensities that are the same as or less intensive than the existing land use patterns, densities and intensities on surrounding improved, vested or exempt property. In order to be consistent with the complementary requirement of Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e., "complementary to the surrounding land uses", the proposed new development must complete, contribute and add to the surrounding properties in a way that enhances or improves the qualities of the surrounding land uses, "Combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another."z In addition, for a PUD rezoning, LDC Section 4.07.02.E states that "Development within a PUD District shall be compatible with established or planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods and property." As proposed in the Application, it is the opinion of West Shore that among other issues, the Project is inconsistent with Policy 5.6 of the FLUE. By virtue of the proposed intensity of use and density, the Project is neither compatible with nor complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. 1. THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH NOR COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. 2 See, example, on-line Oxford English Dictionary, US Dictionary, definitions of "complement and "complementary"; https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/complement and https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/complementary. 3 Packet Pg. 327 9.A.i a. The proposed density is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and well - established residential communities. This incompatibility has also been well analyzed and addressed by Cecelia Ward, AICP in her Planning Report concerning the Project's compatibility issues. b. The Applicant's/Applicant's agent(s) repeatedly assert that the current land use entitlements allow up to 130,000 square feet of commercial uses under the current zoning C. The proposed perimeter landscaping is woefully inadequate. B. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. From a review of the submitted Traffic Impact Statements ("TIS") we have the following comments and concerns: a. As noted above, the TIS and current trip generation rates were prepared based upon the assertion that the current land use entitlements allow up to 130,000 square feet of commercial. The basis for this assertion was not provided in the TIS. b. It is our understanding that it is a policy of St. Matthew's House that the homeless that stay at the shelter are required to leave the shelter frequently to find work or to attend work. This is part of the facility's goal to transition the homeless that stay at the shelter into self-sufficiency. For this reason, there are significantly more trips than there would be at an assisted living facility ("ALF"), the facility type utilized by the Applicant in its traffic analysis. C. ADDITIONAL ISSUES/CONCERNS While we have just received the Staff Report, the following are some initial observations concerning the Staff Report: 1. Transportation Element — no review of impact going from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf of commercial uses. 2. Conservation Element — Staff states that the application does not affect CCME requirements in that 0.29 acres is being maintained — which was a condition of the HEX decision — which pertained to the 4.55 acre DeVoe Pontiac site — in that the application is now for a much greater site — 11.89 acres - 15% of native vegetation and preservation is now required by Policy 6.1.1 (which is 1.78 acres) - Policy 6.1.1 (13) allows for a deviation request from the requirements — which has not been requested by the applicant. 3. Zoning and land development review —the applicant's approach is to present this as a limitation on the potential commercial that could otherwise be achieved under the current zoning. This is a disingenuous argument — in that all zoning is interpreted in terms of up to a maximum, with no guarantee of achieving the maximum amount of sf or units without meeting all other provisions of the code. 4. Staff also represents that what is being proposed is similar to the previously approved DeVoe Pontiac CPUD — even though what is being proposed doubles the amount of development of commercial space, and further adds refrigerated warehousing which in and of itself has its own impacts with respect to loading and distribution. 5. Staff also admits that the rezoning "is not necessary" to develop the site and further dismisses criteria for rezoning that speaks to the need to rezone the subject property. 6. Rezoning Criteria: n Packet Pg. 328 9.A.i Staff does not adequately address many of the rezoning criteria or PUD criteria— relieving the applicant from its responsibility to satisfy the evaluation criteria with information and data. By way of example the staff makes the following unsupported general "findings": • Rezoning will not adversely impact living conditions in the neighborhood —with insufficient evidence regarding traffic, access, parking, loading, noise, vagrancy issues already impacting the adjacent residential neighborhood. • No evidence that it will adversely impact property values — even though nothing was submitted by the applicant supporting this "finding". • "Should not' be a deterrent because the review process should give reasonable assurance. • Disregards review criteria to identify substantial reasons why property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. • Not out of scale with neighborhood or County — even though the application proposes a concentration of social service uses in support of a 30% expansion of the homeless shelter. PUD Criteria: • Ignores physical site constraints and access issues. • Current homeless facility operations that result in vagrancy issues in the residential neighborhood are not addressed by staff. • No articulated basis for the determination of consistency with GOPs, especially those which relate to requirement for compatibility with the adjacent residential. • Similar comments as those provided above. Deviations: • No review of impact by staff to demonstrate that the deviation in sf. per bed is justified. • No review of potential impact on homeless persons as well who may be residing in this much smaller space. D. CONCLUSION West Shore, respectfully requests that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend rejection and denial of the pending Project and Application. Enclosure(s) Cc: with enclosure(s) Collier County Planning Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Board of County Commissioners, Stephen Tilbrook Packet Pg. 329 Francs AVE �"� �� �:• - Glades wallow LN Calndonm AVE iAVE ST. MATTH EW'S HOUSE y THE POINT AT NAPLES MAP LEGEND Major Roads Street Names Elpatc els Aeflals 2021 Rural [2FTJ I —I Collier County _ PpPnyL_,, ' rFolio Number: 00389880006 Name: WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES ' LLC Street# & Name: 2155 GREAT BLUE DR Build# / Unit#: 010 / Legal Description: 12 50 25 FROM SW COR SEC RUN N 2836.80FT, E270 FT TO POB, N 990FT, E 1120FT, S 1320FT, W 660FT, N 330FT, W r ; ' 460FT TO POB �• "_ _• `_:ountp F•�pthv AFRraizrr. MaP its _ 3� s..�_J - .� �ra�tBlua 4 Vi Fit ' —lk Groonb-*CtRJ w #ilk- n 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are m provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. cs? co w c Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n INSTR 5346663 OR 5344 PG 2064 RECORDED 12/16/2016 2:25 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $241,500.00 REC $35.50 CONS $34,500,000.00 9.A.i EXHIBIT "B" 4PC 3,.,-.,-o THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY AND AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: POLSINELLI 900 W. 481h Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Attn: Robert M� Aaams Parcel ID Number: ('0389 80006 00 Cx�ns�d�-tr w-y 3 tfi : D tad SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED This Special Warranty=dee1 1 , is made this . day of December 2016, between HERON PARK PARTNERS, LTD., a Floi'ida•`F° . ted partnership, whose address is 3475 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 1640, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, Attn:J lin Strong ("Grantor"), and WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company hose address is 1 Huntington Avenue Apartment 401, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 ("Grantee"J. },:., )�SSETH• THAT the Grantor, for and in coiaSixl rho of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration to G" in hand paid by GRANTEE, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has GRANTED, BAR E'1) SOLD, and CONVEYED and by these presents does GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL, AND CONVE nt6•,,GRANTEE and GRANTEE'S heirs, successors and assigns forever, the land, situate, lying anntthe County of Collier, State of Florida, and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto the "Prat TOGETHER WITH all improvements therei5n aip' t*igreto, and all of the rights, privileges, appurtenances, hereditaments, easements, reversions, and<m�a' 'd s pertaining to or used in connection therewith (including, without limitation and to the extent'th `__.:sa� exist, all easements, rights -of -way, development rights, privileges, licenses and other rights and` ri fits..belonging to, and running with the owner of, or in any way relating to the Property), together with'` 7A t, title and interest, if any, of Grantor in and to gaps, strips or gores pertaining solely to the Prope y tiny land lying in the bed of any street, road, highway, avenue or alley (opened or unopened, exrstri r� roposed, now vacated or hereafter to be vacated) in front of or adjoining the Property, and all ri t, tit ,and interest of Grantor in and to any award made or to be made in lieu thereof and in and to an'- ai hward for damage to the Property by reason of change of grade of any such street, road, highway, av- 6,` 'o aIley. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. Without reimposing the same, this conve}ance is subject to, and by accepting this deed Grantee does hereby agree to assume the encumbrances set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto (the "Permitted Encumbrances"). And Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns that Grantor is lawfully seized of the Property in fee simple; that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the Property; that Grantor hereby fully WARRANTS the title to said Property and will FOREVER DEFEND the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor, and that the Property is free of all mortgages, encumbrances, and liens other than the Permitted Encumbrances. Packet Pg. 331 OR 5344 PG 2065 9.A.i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto executed this deed the day and year first above written. Witnesses: w STATE OFFI COUNTY OF Grantor: HERON PARK PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Waypoint Naples GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, General Partner r By. .� Name: Thomas S. Re, f Title: General COun4 The fore oing instrument was acknowl _r bJ ► Ms S- �1 � , on behalf of produced as identi (Notary Seal must be affixed) `�upuimirrrr�i� .P......... ss. *OTARy A 01. `'*UBL\G My Commission Expires: Oyu t ju me this day of Grim X016, by . He is j personally known to be or _ (Signature of Notary) (Print Name of Notary Public) , Notary Public, State of Florida I CA-, My: C {fission Expires: a0 Co micron No.: Packet Pg. 332 OR 5344 PG 2066 9.A.i Exhibit "A" to Deed (Legal Description of the Property) Parcel 1: A parcel of land located in the West Half of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida;;.be ' g more particularly described as follows: Commence at tt[e.. '. uEhwest corner of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence run , 00 egrees 18' 50" W, along the West line of said Section 12, for a distance of 2836.80 feet; thencdegrees 4F 10" E for a distance of 270.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel therein described, 7 ence run North 00 degrees 18 50 W a distance of 990.00 feet; thence run N 89 degrees 41' 10" E .. istance of H 20.00 feet; thence run S 00 degrees 18' 50" E a distance of 1320.00 feet; thence run S 89 degrees,-:4.:1' 0" W a distance of 660.00 feet; thence run N 00 degrees 18' 50" W a distance of 330.00 feet; tleacet"r S 89 degrees 41' 10" W a distance of 460.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel2:,._, An Access Easement on, over, ut that certain access, signage and I Page 6, Public Records of Collier A strip of and lying in the Southwest Quarter County, Florida and being more particularly di the following described parcel of land as described in it agreement recorded in Official Records Book 2267, 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section l tfle c>!ong the West line of said Section 12, N 00 degrees 18' 50" W 2506.80 feet; thence N 89 degrees;.q-';,70.00 feet to the East right-of-way line of Airport Pulling Road (C.R. No. 31), N 06 degrees 18' 50" 656't22 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue N 00 degrees 18' 50" W 60.00 feet; thence leav a, it-of-way line N 89 degrees 4F 10" E 200.00 feet; thence S 00 degrees 18' 50" E 60.00 feet; thericdegrees 41' 10" W 200.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the herein described lands. Parcel 3: Together with that certain Utility Easement Agreement in favor of Jon..D Jassy recorded In Official Records Book 2267, Page 23, Public Records of Collier County, Florida ` Packet Pg. 333 *** OR 5344 PG 2067 *** 9.A.i 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9, Exhibit `B" to Deed (Permitted Encumbrances) Taxes and assessments for the year 2017 and subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable. Easement., in favor of Florida Power & Light Company recorded in Official Records Book 674, Page 36;to, Parcels 2 and 3 only) Utility Easetn ttin'favor of East Naples Water Systems, Inc. recorded in Official Records Book 1172, Pages 158' ' d%r{559. (As to Parcels 2 and 3 only) Utility Easement,' tav r of Collier County Water -Sewer District recorded in Official Records Book 1401, Page 2166,...(As4o Parcel 2 only) Reservation of Right to'. se Access, Signage and Landscape Easement agreement in favor of John D. Jassy recorded i Offi'clfecords Book 2267, Page 6. Utility Easement Agreement�rdet�l in Official Records Book 2267, Page 23. Easement in favor of Florida Power<& '' 'i Company recorded in Official Records Book 2345, Page 2406. Deed of Conservation Easement in favg0 6' V"the South Florida Water Management District recorded in Official Records Book 2 6; P4,1,..,3162, as corrected by Corrective Deed of Conservation Easement recorded in Officiiil, dWOook 3401, Page 421. Drainage Easement in favor of Collier County ;po).tkcal subdivision of the State of Florida recorded in Official Records Book 2687, Page 18 a4 re -recorded in Official Records Book 2693, Page 1716. 10. Easement for Cable Television and Communication��Swllce in favor of Florida Cablevision Management Corporation (Time Warner, Inc.) an affiliate of �T�,.�� e Warner Cable, Inc., a Florida corporation recorded in Official Records Book 4078, Page 1',1'Q8 as amended by Amendment to Grant of Easement to Comcast of the South, Inc. recorded'inZffi _ "I'Records Book 4879, Page 997. 11. Rights of tenants in possession as of the date hereof, as tenants residential leases without options to purchase or rights of first refus prior unrecorded 55359274.3 Packet Pg. 334 9.A.i EXHIBIT "C" EXPERT OPINION BY CECELIA WARD, AICP PRESIDENT JC CONSULTING ENTERPRISES INC. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, Unit 313 Tequesta, Florida PH: (954) 815-4298 cward @icconsultinainc. net DATE PREPARED: November 22, 2021 Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit Development Number: Collier County, FL - PL20210000176 Outline of Expert Opinion Report Part I — Introduction and Application Background.................................................... 2 Part 11- Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion ................................................. 4 A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions......................................................................4 Part Ill— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria .................. 6 A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan6 B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning.............................................................................................................................. 6 C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria .......................... 7 EXHIBITS................................................................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT1.......................................................................................................................12 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals.............................................................12 EXHIBIT2.......................................................................................................................13 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan...............................13 EXHIBIT3.......................................................................................................................15 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.13, of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning..............15 EXHIBIT4....................................................................................................................... 21 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan......................................21 EXHIBIT5....................................................................................................................... 27 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria...............................................27 11Page Packet Pg. 335 Part I — Introduction and Application Background I, Cecelia Ward, AICP, President of JC Consulting Enterprises Inc., have been retained by West Shore Point of Naples LLCP to provide my expert planning opinions regarding the St. Matthew's House Inc. ["the applicant"] application for rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendments for property located in Collier County, just west of and adjacent to The Point at Naples multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point of Naples LLP. The Point at Naples Apartments West Shore Point of Naples LLP Property The subject property is comprised of two tracts of land owned by St. Matthews House Inc., with a total of 11.89 acres, located on the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road South and Glades Boulevard. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 336 9.A.i 1 I O—TYPE R— S'UE 'Ds9r. BU IOR 21f0, PO 11p0. PG IIGf /J:D — - C � PG 11051 pIPDEBBWLEVARO I/1' _/�. EI _ l� ,2 A �SE MVLTfAMar REBIOFJmM11 © W D;CA➢E J BUFFER 4 - ts•wIDETYPE E — D'w1OSCAPE %�� � LEGEND: BUFFER ^i'- O)ECT / BW.NOARY � µATER M1IANAGEMEIR CONSERVAnON I PASEMEM Idi fA0> FG DT310]i AC.I WATEq t 6'WIDETY>E8 �� W�OSCAPE BLF cR MaNAGe'ALM PAVEDaREAS 2 ' �I E# FASFMEMISEE NOTE II ESTATE ZONEEG—OLL YAN PUD USE: M1IULT4FMtRY REBIDEhT1AL Ilk I- PU B� ® OEVNn0.N E7 �O —GPEAT BLUE ORNE TRACT4 /�% y E9 II TRacre $I Exlsnrvo 10--E TYFE 4I I� a•L.wGscAPE a.IFFER � sD>oBsxl �� I I. ExIGN1NI:G lo'wIDE�PE. DBCa>E e lSOP a-sa IY WIDE TYPE IY LANDBCaFE BUFFER T7, I:'µ1OET"PE9' '. / WOSCAPE SURER h TRACT B ZON=D'. DAWA STATE PIID ■■yBUFFER .ESIDENf141 f A NI �� REOUI.iEO (SOP GB-921 2 ZONE6C+OlMUD#IKOANOCOLLIERCOU— GOVEgNM1IENTCEMER PUD UGE COMIAERCIK PNDGWEHNI.IEIRAL OFFICES SCALE; 1-2W In January 2021, the applicant initially submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acres (Tract A) of the St. Matthews House property. In March 2021, the applicant requested a change from the Conditional Use application to expand its request to include Tract B, which encompasses 9.55 acres, to unify the St. Matthew's House properties, and to provide for a rezoning from C-4 Commercial (Gateway Triangle Mixed Use) and an amendment to the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) and expanding the PUD designation to encompass the total development site of 11.89 acres. The Collier County staff administratively approved the change in application and did not require a new application to be submitted. The applicant proposes to combine the subject property into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District, and b) amending the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD, as reflected in Collier County Case No. PI-20210000176. Tract "A" of the subject property was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Resolution 99-87) that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 337 9.A.i The proposed rezoning would further concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus that increases the number of homeless beds located on Tract A from 104 to 150 and increases the total permitted square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130,000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional to administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The application further requests deviation from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to allow for less square feet of habitable space than what is required by the LDC to accommodate the increase in the number of beds and relief from certain landscape buffer requirements, as follows: o Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C. Group Housing to reduce the required minimum habitable floor area for homeless shelters from 1,500 s.f. plus 150 s.f. for each person over six, to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 s.f. per bed. o Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. Table 2.4 Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classification, which requires a 10 ft. Type A Buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the proposed PUD. The applicant proposes to include a 10 ft. wide Type A landscape buffer at the time of redevelopment of that portion of the PUD that is adjacent to the southern property boundary that impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line. A timeline of prior rezonings and recordation of approvals relative to the subject property has been provided in Exhibit 1. Part II - Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Based on my review of the information related to the St. Matthew's House CPUD Application PL L20210000176, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Collier County Community Character Plan and Collier County Land Development Code, it is my professional opinion that the application is: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Regulations Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. Part III of this report provides my findings of each of the evaluation criteria, with supporting documentation provided in Exhibits 2-5. Additionally, it is my professional opinion that the following issues have not been considered, 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 338 9.A.i but are required to be considered by Collier County in its review of this application: 1) The failure to review the elimination of prohibition of homeless shelter use: The proposed list of Permitted and Accessory Uses (Appendix A of the Application) would eliminate the current prohibition of homeless shelters on all of Tract "B", namely the 9.55- acre southerly portion of the subject property. This includes the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD site (Ordinance 97-14). As to current permitted uses, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD provides in part: "Group care facilities (Category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; and nursing homes, subject to section 2.6.26." This "change in permitted/prohibited use" by now permitting a homeless shelter on Tract "B" has not been clearly identified in the application and neither has it been addressed by the applicant nor addressed by the staff in its review of application. 2) The failure to review the potential future expansion of homeless beds: Approval of the rezoning in combination with increasing the total approved square footage on the entire site to 130,000 sf of commercial use could result in the development of additional homeless shelter beds across the entire 11.89 acre site. As such, it is unclear whether or not the requested additional commercial square footage could be converted to accommodate additional future homeless shelter beds. 3) The failure to review the potential impact resulting from requested deviation in required habitable space for homeless shelter beds: The applicant is seeking a deviation in the minimum square foot required per bed, i.e. from 150 sq. ft/bed to 100 sq. ft/bed, which would result in a much denser concentration of homeless beds on the subject property. a) We are not aware of any review by the County staff as to whether or not the request complies with the occupancy requirements of the Florida Building Code. b) We are not aware of any review regarding whether the direct increase in beds and potential conversion of additional square footage [without a standard for calculation of square footages] could have the effect of concentrating these uses and services to a single site, causing a saturation of such social service uses, that could adversely affect adjoining residential properties (people, vehicles, noise, litter, outdoor activities). c) We are not aware of any review of the potential impact on the welfare of the homeless residents caused by a significant reduction in the minimum required square foot area for each bed as proposed by the applicant: 4) The failure to review the traffic impacts and parking Impacts that have not adequately been addressed: There has been no independent review of the applicant's traffic analysis and the potential traffic, parking and loading impacts that may result from: a) Significant increase in commercial square feet and uses; and, b) Increase in the number of residents, adding more personnel and administrative staff; and, c) Parking, loading and trips generated from proposed restaurant, soup kitchen, used vehicle donations and sales. d) Traffic impacts on the Tract "B" 60-foot-wide access easement as recorded and shared with the adjoining Point at Naples residential development. 5 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 339 9.A.i 5) The failure to review the Health, Safety and Welfare Issues: a) Various code violations have been asserted in relation to vagrancy associated with the existing homeless shelter. These violations have impacted the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. There has been no review of the potential for increased vagrancy impacts as a result of the proposed increase in the number of beds of the existing facility. 2. There has been no operation and maintenance information provided by the applicant that addresses current and potential future vagrancy and property management impacts. b) The applicant should provide similar information in relation to the operation and maintenance of the existing thrift store and used vehicle sales lot at the south end of the proposed CPUD, which would require additional monitoring and maintenance. Part III— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 (PUD Criteria), 10.02.08 (Rezoning Criteria) and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code (Process), 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. The following provides a review of these evaluation criteria, which illustrates that the application does not comply with the review and evaluation criteria contained in said LDC Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.08, as further addressed herein. A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan According to Subsection A. Generally.l. PUD master plan. "The Community Character Plan For Collier County, Florida (April 2001) should be referenced as a guide for development and redevelopment in the PUD district. The Administrative Code shall establish the information to graphically illustrate the development strategy." Findings: While this is a guide that should be referenced for development and redevelopment of a PUD, the application does not include any review of compliance with the Community Character Plan for Collier County, which would otherwise demonstrate that the application is not in compliance with this Plan as further illustrated in Exhibit 2 of this report. B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings Generally: The application is not in compliance with the PUD rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.13, as discussed below. Additional supporting 6 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 340 9.A.i documentation for these findings is provided in Exhibit3. • Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. • Findings criteria (b): No comments. • Findings (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 4. • Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. • Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. • Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. • Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and resultant concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. • Findings criteria (h): The application does not provide justification for the deviations requested. C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria The LDC requires that the "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: " Findings Generally : The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein. Further documentation in support of these findings is provided in Exhibit S. 1 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 71Pagc Packet Pg. 341 9.A.i • Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (3) The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. • Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. • Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. • Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. • Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. • Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC. There is no indication in the application that such plan has been submitted to the County for this "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities" or "if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities."Z • Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Z See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 8 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 342 9.A.i Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. Findings criteria (11): The applicant attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelter. There is no justification provided to support this deviation. Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. The application for rezoning removes the current zoning and DeVoe Pontiac PUD restrictions that do not permit homeless shelter and soup kitchen uses on Tract B. This change would allow the use of Tract B. • Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. • Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. • Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics, as previously addressed in this report. • Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, 9 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 343 9.A.i which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 101 Page Packet Pg. 344 9.A.i EXHIBITS 111 Pa, Packet Pg. 345 9.A.i EXHIBIT 1 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals The following provides a summary of prior rezoning and recordation relative to the subject property: Tract "A" Total: 2.34 acres Parcel No 390000008. • Glades Unit Two Plat, Lot 1, Block K, Lot 1, DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Change of Use, CU 98-24, Resolution 99-87 dated 1.26.1999 • Rezoning to C4 - Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District GTMUD MXT, LDC Ordinance 06-08, dated 02.28.2006 Tract "B" Total: 9.55 acres Parcel No 34840520004. • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Permitted and Accessory Uses excludes Homeless Shelter • Requires 10% Open Space — 3 Strata Tract "B" (North 5.00 acres — includes LuLu's Diner) • DeVoe PUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 Tract "B" (South 4.55 acres aka Dealership Parcel) • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-05, dated 9.11.2020 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-29 (Scrivener's Error) dated 9.15.2020 Great Blue Drive (60-ft Private Access, Signage and Landscape Easement • Access, Signage and Landscape Easement Agreement, OR2267, Page 0006 o Non -Exclusive ingress, egress, regress, and access easement o Dated 16 DEC 1996 12 1 Page Packet Pg. 346 9.A.i EXHIBIT 2 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan The application is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan:3 1. Design... The spaces between buildings are as important as the private realms inside them. Development should be designed so that the architecture and neighborly arrangement impart an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity while making daily life more practical. Findings: The uses proposed for the subject property include heavy commercial uses that do not make daily living more practical. Neither will thrift store uses, restaurant/soup kitchens, thrift store and used vehicular sales, when adjacent to neighborhood residential uses, provide an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity. 2. Choice... Provide more housing choices in Collier County by reintroducing walkable traditional neighborhood development as a counterbalance to the multitude of gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years. Findings: The application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods. It instead could have an isolating effect on the location of the renovated and expanded shelter at a busy traffic intersection. 3. Balance... Create a balanced road network by improving Collier's principal arterial roads while simultaneously creating a secondary network of smaller roads that link neighborhoods. Findings: The application does not add any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the doubling of heavy commercial uses and 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network and shared access with adjacent residential uses. 4. Connections... Make frequent connections between new neighborhoods and the land around them, and fully integrate them with the secondary street network and with parks and other urban open spaces. Improve existing neighborhoods in the same way. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhoods that surround them. Rather they propose a social service campus that accommodates a homeless shelter that includes homeless beds and heavy commercial uses, and light industrial warehousing. 3 https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=63126 131 Page Packet Pg. 347 9.A.i Growing smart... All new development approvals should be based on a resilient pattern of streets and lots, because the initial street and lot pattern will long outlast the first generation of buildings and land uses that are placed on them. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not support a resilient pattern of streets and lots to support a 30% increase of homeless beds and a doubling of high intensity commercial uses. 6. Hold the line... Make much better use of the remaining vacant acreage within the existing urban boundary before allowing new development to creep further into the countryside. Findings: While the proposed development is located in the urban service area, the compatibility of the use cannot be merely supported by its location. 7. Respect environmentally sensitive places... Enhance the character of Collier's more rural and environmentally sensitive places through rural design techniques and further protection of the County's vital natural resources. Findings: The application does not add elements that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places, but rather merely maintains a surface management area that was required under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 141 Page Packet Pg. 348 9.A.i EXHIBIT 3 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.13, of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings: The application is not in compliance with the PUD and rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.6, as discussed below. 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. Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. 1. The North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200-feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will all likely result in limited useable space available for development. This would also likely result in a more typical "strip center" configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. 2. This PUD-amendment also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying approved square footage from the existing 64,000sf to a total of 130,000sf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 3. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity or compatibility with the adjacent residential uses, but rather serves to isolate and increase the incompatibility of the proposed uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, 151 Page Packet Pg. 349 9.A.i noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life for adjoining residents. 4. The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 5. The application does not include any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the substantial increase in heavy commercial uses (from 64,000 sf t0 130,000 s.f.) and proposed 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network. Potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 6. With respect to the suitability of development in relation to infrastructure, there has been no data provided by the applicant to demonstrate adequacy of services and facilities. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would essentially double the approved amount of existing heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 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 public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. Findings (b): No comments. 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.) Findings criteria (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 3. 4 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 161 Page Packet Pg. 350 9.A.i 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. Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. Tract'B" of the property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples residential apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incapability of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 2. Additionally, the application does not support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by Policy 6.1.1. of the Conservation Element of the GMP. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and result in a concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses 171Pagc Packet Pg. 351 9.A.i without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. 1. The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. 2. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (h): The applicant does not provide justification for the deviations requested. 1. The applicant proposes a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Ind! duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. 2. There has been no parking analysis that demonstrates that the amount of parking proposed is sufficient to meet the increase parking demand created by the increase in homeless shelter beds. Rather, the applicant points to the use of administrative parking that is located on Tract B of the Conceptual PUD Master Plan. As such, the applicant attempts to satisfy ancillary parking for the homeless shelter use on Tract B, which currently does not permit homeless shelters either as a primary or accessory use. a) Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, as well as the used vehicle sales have not been evaluated in terms of demand in parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off -site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. b) Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. 181 Page Packet Pg. 352 9.A.i 3. The applicant is also seeking deviation from the County's buffering requirements. a) The property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incompatibility of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 191 Page Packet Pg. 353 9.A.i 0 a t) m O x N 3 m co r O O O O r N O N J d C O r d d C O N O T- oo O N r N O N N r N L K LLJ C C O r v O 0 O N L d d J r LL C d E t V R r Q r.+ C N E t V 201'�t;€-� Q Packet Pg. 354 9.A.i EXHIBIT 4 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan Findings: The application is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan: Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 5.4 Findings: The application is inconsistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan in that the application is inconsistent with Policy 5.6, 5.8, 5.10 and provisions for Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Policy 5.6 Findings: The application is not compatible with and does not complement The Point at Naples residential apartments located just east of and abutting the subject property: 1. The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the PUD-amendment proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 2. The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless individuals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to 211 Page Packet Pg. 355 9.A.i adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet throughout the County. 3. Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, and particularly the used vehicle sales area have not been evaluated in terms of increased demand for parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off - site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. Further, the applicant does not assess or address increased demand for policing to maintain parking, accessible routes and emergency access within this portion of the property. 4. Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. Policy 5.8 Findings: The application does not propose an "innovative approach" that would otherwise conserve open space. Additionally, the application proposes to deviate from the buffer requirements of the County's LDC. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the Future Land Use Element's requirement for implementation of regulations such as minimum open space requirements and native vegetation preservation requirements. 2. The application does not include an assessment as to whether potential mitigation or remediation are required, nor does it address whether preservation strategies are required if the previously identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. The plan as proposed instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. Policy 5.10 Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent 221 Page Packet Pg. 356 9.A.i with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. Policy 5.10 Findings: The application proposes a campus for social services on the "unified properties", that provides for the expansion of homeless beds on Tract A and its support uses onto Tract B, which does not comply with the regulations of the County's LDC for group housing, as follows: 1. The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 2. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are not uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. 3. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. Policy 5.13: Properties whose zoning has been determined to comply with the former Commercial under Criteria provision of the Future Land Use Element shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. These properties are not subject to the building floor area or traffic impact limitations contained in this former provision. Policy 5.13 Findings: This policy does not permit circumvention or oviscapte the need to demonstrate consistency with all other policies of the County's Future Land Use Element and other elements of the Plan. Further, there is no direct indication that this policy applies to the subject property which has Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay land use designations. 231 Page Packet Pg. 357 9.A.i OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 Findings: The applicant claims that the application complies with Objective 7 and Policy 7. 1 because it includes internal interconnections and connection to Airport -Pulling Road. However, the context of Objective 7, frames the objective as being supportive of connections that promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adhere to existing development character. The application is inconsistent with all three objectives. It does not promote smart growth planning which otherwise promotes streets that are safe for people walking and bicycling and by protecting open green spaces. The expansion of the homeless shelter and doubling of heavy commercial uses on the land violates these smart growth planning principles. Additionally, the doubling of high intensity commercial uses does not substantiate compliance with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Findings: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, none of which lend 241 Page Packet Pg. 358 9.A.i themselves to uses that would otherwise incentivize the private sector to invest in this urban area, inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Overlay. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity with the adjacent residential use, rather serves the increase the incompatibility of the uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 1. Mixed -Use Development: A mix of residential and commercial uses is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed -use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. Mixed Use Development Findings: The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses or services, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. Findings The application is also inconsistent with the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Elements Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Coastal High Hazard Area Non -Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 5 acres. 10% Less than 2.5 acres 10% Equal to or greater than 5 acres tesidential and Mixed Use Development Equal to or greater and less than 20 acres. 15% than 2.5 acres 25% Equal to or greater than 20 ac. 25% s https://www.colliercountyfl.xov/home/showpublisheddocument/40905/635883137282O70000 251Page Packet Pg. 359 9.A.i Policy 6.1.1 Findings: The applicant claims compliance with this policy and these standards; however, the application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by this policy. Nor does it assess the existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD's compliance with environmental commitments made part of Ord 97-14. Specifically, Section 4.9 Environmental conditioned approval upon..."shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and retaining 10% of the existing native vegetation on site, by area, in all three strata"... The application does not include an assessment as to whether the potential mitigation and preservation strategies are required if the identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. It instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD of 0.29 acres. Nor does the application consider the increase in requirement for native vegetation preservation resulting from an increase in the total site area to 11.89 acres, which requires a 15% minimum per the above objective and policy. 261 Page Packet Pg. 360 9.A.i EXHIBIT 5 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria Findings: The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. 2. The existing land use pattern. Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD for the following reasons: a. Although the property has been developed under the existing zoning, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD and the C-4 zoning do not permit the homeless shelter use as proposed under the rezoning. L The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. ii. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. b. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. c. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. 271Page Packet Pg. 361 9.A.i d. Additionally, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts Findings criteria (3) As previously noted, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Additionally, the social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. To the contrary, the current zoning is C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and DeVoe Pontiac CPUD contain existing uses that have been approved under the current zoning, as either conditional uses, or as part of the PUD Resolution. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject 281 Page Packet Pg. 362 9.A.i property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. a) The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Indi duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. Further, the application includes no assessment of the effects this reduced space and increased occupancy has on living conditions at the facility. Additionally, no documentation was provided as to best practices and whether other communities in Florida have adopted such criteria and with what effect. b) The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to adversely affect the living conditions of the adjacent residential neighborhood by increasing noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 291Page Packet Pg. 363 9.A.i 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC, a "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities shall be granted" or " if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities."6 There is no indication in the application that such a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities plan has been submitted to the County for this determination. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would allow twice as much heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas: a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial 6 See Collier County LDC —Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements 301 Page Packet Pg. 364 9.A.i and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. a) That being said, it should be noted that the proposed change includes the intensification of social service uses and activates with the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which can result in adverse effect on the property values of the adjacent residential development. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Findings criteria 11: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelters. There is no indication in the application that such waiver of the code requirements has been granted to other group homes in the County. Nor is there any justification provided to support this deviation. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Findings criteria (13): The CA zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. The application for rezoning removes the current zoning and DeVoe Pontiac PUD restrictions that do not permit homeless shelter and soup kitchen uses on Tract B. This change would allow the use of Tract B. 311 Page Packet Pg. 365 9.A.i 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements that impart beauty, confidence, and societal continuity. b) This application includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) This concentration of site development would not make daily living more practical. It would in fact be contrary to the requirements of the Future Land Use Element at Overview Paragraph "C." Underlying Concepts, Attainment of High -Quality Urban Design, specifically ..."These Architectural and Site development standards include building design, parking lot orientation, pedestrian access, vehicular movement, landscaping and lighting. These standards will provide for quality development that is responsive to the Community's character..." d) Additionally, the application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods in that its focus is upon addressing the needs of the homeless and necessary ancillary support services. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. a) There has been no evidence provided in the record that it is "impossible" to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use, without the need to rezone the property or amend and expand the existing PUD, as is proposed for the subject property. Neither has there been any review of the 321 Page Packet Pg. 366 9.A.i potential to locate elements of the homeless shelter individually without the need to create an aggregation of the uses at this location of the County. 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. Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) Such physical constraints to the site would result in significant alterations to the existing structures, parking and water management system to support the proposed development. 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 [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended. Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. 331 Page Packet Pg. 367 9.A.i 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. Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 341 Page Packet Pg. 368 9.A.i Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. (VI I)(IX)(XXX)(XLIV) Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County's Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). (VII)(IX)(XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas. (VII)(IX)(XLIV) Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. (XLIV) Policy 5.9: Encourage recognition of identifiable communities within the urbanized area of western Collier County. Presentation of economic and demographic data shall be based on Planning Communities and commonly recognized neighborhoods. (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.10: Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. (XLIV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017-22 on June 13, 2017 19 Packet Pg. 369 9.A.i �C EST. 1971 MARK J. WOODWARD Bwrd Cc di at Rcd Esute Law.- d inCaxdun initun & Planned Dc%rloprncnt Law ANTHONY P. Pius, JR Band Cati6ai: City, Count); and Lord G Arnmtent Law ). CHRISfOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY J. DIMORA LicnL<d in FL and OFI LENORE T. BRAKEFI ELD CRAIG R WOODWARD knior Caine] Baxud Cadtiod: Real Fswe Lav KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD ROSS E. SCHULMAN Limed in FL and NY F. SCOTr PAu7Ap, II I CHRISTOPHER R. HEFLIN REPLY TO: W 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX J 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 P.O. BOX ONE MARCo ISLAND. FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL-LEGAL,COM WOODWARD, FIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 30, 2021 Via Email: Edwin.fryer@colliercountyfl.gov Nancy.gundlach@collIiercountyf1.gov Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman and Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Supplement to Previously Submitted Objections to St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. PL20210000176; (the "Application"): Dear Mr. Fryer and Planning Commissioners: This letter on behalf of West Shore Point Naples, LLC, ("West Shore"). supplements the previously submitted correspondence of November 22, 2021 that outlined various initial objections to the PUDR Application. Since the time of the initial submittal, we have had the opportunity to review the Staff Report, the materials in the agenda packet, and we met with the Applicant's agents. While we believe that progress has been made after the meeting, there remain significant areas of concern with the proposed PUD. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter is a redlined edited PUD Document, "Exhibits A-F", that we prepared and provided to the Applicant's agents yesterday. If the proposed PUD that is recommended for approval contains these provisions, it would allay the various concerns of West Shore to the Application. The Applicant's agent has advised that not all of the requested changes to the PUD document are acceptable to the Applicant. In reviewing our suggested PUD language, the attached Exhibit "B", pages from the 1991 and 1992 LDC illustrates that the current LDC minimum square footage applicable to homeless shelters (150 sq. ft. per bed for each bed over six (6) beds) is a well -established requirement in Collier County. We have also obtained the benefit of an analysis by a transportation consultant, Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE. His report and analysis is attached as Exhibit "C" to this letter along with an Errata Sheet from Planner Cecelia Ward, Exhibit "D". Page 11 Packet Pg. 370 9.A.i West Shore respectively requests that the Collier County Planning Commission forward the Application, as it exists, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. If there is to be a recommendation of approval, we respectfully request that the PUD Document, "Exhibits A-F" attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners as the operative document. Respectfully d, An orfy P. Pires, Jr. Esq. Enclosure(s) Cc: with enclosure(s) Collier County Planning Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Board of County Commissioners, Stephen Tilbrook; R. Yovanovich, W. Arnold Page 12 Packet Pg. 371 9.A.i EXHIBIT "A" TO 11-30-21 LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GN4PGMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area. - alld uUp to 150 residential care or shelter beds 4-�ae4:4i4itted withfi, the CPWPon Tract A. No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for otherthan the following: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322; excluding Alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; Offender rehabilitation agencies; Offender self-help agencies; Probation office! Ref 1gee services; and Public welfare centers, offices of ); and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and z--eiiral waFehousiAg and steF.Tse(4225) 3-2_ and 4-1. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and -54_Used vehicle sales (5521); and 6-.5. Boat dealers (5551). 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: Packet Pg. 372 (Si. Matthews House ('PUD PL20210000176) (Ocloher 13, 2021) Page 9.A.i Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5. Self-help groups *-6. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only(4222) (not - for profit food bank only) 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. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. Packet Pg. 373 (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (Oc lober 13. 20 21) Page 9.A.i EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Eastern Project Boundary 50 FEET 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or % sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET/ 60 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. Packet Pg. 374 (,51. Wafthew 's House CPUD PL 20210000176) (October 13. 0 21) Pa e 3 of 9 9.A.i 9.A.2.a 20 FEET 1 a WIDE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' WIDE TYPE'D'— WDS PEQ� BUFFER A I, (� 2 0 g C C S 20 FEET 1S WIDE TYPE'D'— LANDSCAPE BUFFER -15' U E (OR 2150• PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 1105) C GLADES —I ACT A BOULEVARD —E1 ZONED: RMF-6 USE MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE S' LANDSCAPE BUFFER M N PROJECT BOUNDARY L15WIDE TYPES' ANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LEGEND: r771 WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 5699 PG 2572) 0-29 AC. I WATER MANAGEMENT ElPAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ® DEVIATION TRACT A E7 r—GREAT BLUE DRIVE TRACT 8 EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SOP 98-82) EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 98.82) _ 15' WIDE TYPE S' LANDSCAPE BUFFER r r r� ZONED: DAVID A TRACT B r� ' , ESTATEN ESTATE PUD USE' MULTI -FAMILY jRESIDENTIAL r " N NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 98-82) 2 ZONED: C4-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY y GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD r rm zro USE. COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES SCALE: 1" = 200' , Wt*h Fl.OirFU p *S' M !I ST MA77H6W S HOUSE CPUD ® 1 fll'i�11vUlll))' f ,w11.«."1 .ar. rl .uli. YwV I1..L EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN �►1a Llyd I+,axrlr L jNllno MI-1• Lotopr 11+All l- ti ws rwr, ..w, vn: uu .. ,..... �,.-•,� In11h,-r.l�r,n ,. REVISED 09/02/2021 emr 1 os i PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 375 Pirko-i Pn_ 2.;"a 9.A.i SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.89± ACRES TRACT 'A': 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'B': 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% PRESERVE: REQUIRED: 0.29± ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2.90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E 1. RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES" ON TRACT ''A" ONLY. 2, RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY UU LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: E1 - 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESS/EGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10- UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NOTES THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ju I GradyMinor ';T. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD _XH131T C VIASItK 'LAN NOIES pne rs LandSum,ovors ? W.Y4T 1144 Planwrs I-andscaprArchllor REVISED 09/02/2021 Packet Pg. 376 1 9.A.i EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89-41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 25S.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89-41-00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00-19-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00'19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (:Si. Alallhew s House (TUD PL202/0000176) (Oclober /3, 2021) Page 6 of Packet Pg. 377 9.A.i EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS T21MI-M I'm .. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (St. Afalthew 'S House MID PL20210000176) (Ocroher 13, 2021) Page 7 of Packet Pg. 378 9.A.i EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafterthe 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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 theCounty Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations uponwritten 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 thePUD 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: A. _A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect atthe time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. ,4B. Prior to the time of the issuance of any development orders, SDP or SDPA for any property in the PUD that will use the access road known as Great Blue Drive, competent, substantial evidence must be submitted to Collier County, with a copy to the property owner of the residential community in the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive. (See section 5.5.D of the David A. Gallman Estate PUD]. (Sr. Matthews House ('PUD PL20210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 8 of Packet Pg. 379 9.A.i ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses may be provided on Tract 'B', after installation of the required landscaping outlined herein and must be reflected ona Site Development Plan SDP to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each -use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION A. Any new overhead doors will not face east. B. Loading/unloading and delivery hours will be limited to between 7am and 9pm, weekdays. UTILITY: A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport- Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determinewhether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on theMaster Plan. If it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additionalCUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with theCollier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING: A. At the time of the issuance of any development orders, SDP or SDPA for any portion of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, a 15' wide Type B landscape buffer shall be provided along the property boundary of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development orders for any portion of the PUD located within Activity Center #16, a 20' wide Type D landscape buffer shall be provided along the property boundary of the PUD adjacent to any road right-of-way external to the PUD. [See LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4 I (Sr Alarrhew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (Oclober 13, 2021) Page 9 o Packet Pg. 380 9.A.i 1991 AND 1992 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DAision 2.6 Supplemental District Regulations 2.6.26.1.2 Grot;1Q Cane Facility (Category I and Category 9): A Group Care Facility shall be governed by the development standards identified in the zoning district assigned to the property and the following standards: 1. Minimum Habitable Floor Area: A. Group Can Facility (Category I): 1,500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Category 11): (1) Homeless Shelters: 1,500 square feet plus 150 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than the Homeless Shelters: 1.500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 2. h inimum Lot Area: a. Group Care Facility (Category 1): 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live- in person, beginning with the seventh live-tn person. b. Group Care Facility (Category 11): (1) Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 400 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 3. Parking Rtquired: 2 parking spaces per 5 beds (Minimum requirement: 2 parking spaces) 4. Separation Reuuirements: a. A new Group Care Facility shall be required to he located greater than a radius of 1,200 feet from any other existing Group Care Facility (applicable to the RMF-6, RMF-12, RMF-16, RT, and VR zoning districts). b. A new Group Care Facility shall be required to be located greater than a radius of 500 feet from any other existing Group Care Facility (applicable to the A, Estates, and RSF 1-5 zoning districts). C. Distance requirements shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest point of the existing Group Care Facility property to the nearest point of the proposed new Group Care Facility property. Collier Counrn : 1 78 October 30, 1991 Land Deveiopment Code EXHIBIT h ��Pack�etPg. 381 9.A.i Division 2.6 Supplemental District Rettulotions 2.6.26.1 All Group Housing structures shall meet the following requirements specified for each type of structure: Site Development Plan (SDP) approval in conformance with Div. 3.3 (with the exception of a Family Care Facility). 2. All applicable State and County building and fire code standards. 3. All applicable State and County licensing requirements. 2.6.26.1.1 Family Care Facility: A Family Care Facility shall be treated as a single dwelling unit for the purpose of determining applicable development standards and, therefore, shall conform to the standards identified for a single-family dwelling unit or mobile home in the zoning district assigned to the property, as well as other applicable standards found in the Zoning Code . However, a new Family Care Facility shall not be located within a radius of one thousand feet (1,000') of another existing Family Care Facility. 2.6.26.1.2 Group Care Facility (Category I and Category II): A Group Care Facility shall be governed by the development standards identified in the zoning district assigned to the property and the following standards: 1. Minimum Habitable Floor Area: a. Group Care Facility (Category 1): 1,500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Category 11): (1 j Homeless Shelters: 1.500 square feet plus 150 square feet per Itve-tn person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than the Homeless Shelters: 1,500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 2. Minimum Lot Area: a. Group Care Facility (Category 1): 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live- in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Category II): (1) Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 400 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person, Collier Counn 2-1 &0 October 30. 1991 Land Development Code Amended October 14, 199: Packet Pg. 382 KEI TH Engineering Inspired Design. Anthony P. Pires, Jr., B.C.S. Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103 239-649-6555 Phone; 239-649-7342 Fax apires@wpl-legal.com Ref: The Point at Naples Review of Traffic Impact Statement for St. Matthews House dated June 29, 2021 Dear Mr, Pires: At the request of Lee Rosenthal, President, Westshore Point Naples, LLC, KEITH has conducted a review of the Traffic Impact Statement dated May 12, 2021 and revised on June 29, 2021 for the St. Matthews House development in Naples, Florida. The following summarizes our review of the Traffic Impact Statement. 1. Pre-COVID Traffic Volumes: The temporary reduction in traffic volumes due to COVID has not been taken into consideration while assessing the impact of the development. The pre-COVID peak hour volumes should have been grown using historical growth rate to develop 2021 volumes for the assessment of the impact. Attachment C of the 2021 AUIR shows that Airport Pulling Road has experienced anywhere from 10-20% reduction in traffic since 2020 and this reduction could be higher from 2019. The impact assessment is not conservative in nature. 2. Trip Generation: Land Use code 254 has only two data points and should not have been used to estimate trip generation for the group home/homeless shelter (Assisted Living Facility), Since this is an existing facility, existing trip generation data should have been collected from the site and extrapolated to estimate the trip generation for the proposed increase in number of beds. The trip generation procedure used in the traffic impact study does not follow the guidelines recommended below by ITE. Below is the process for estimating trip generation and is contained on Pages 26 and 28 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition. Use Fitted Curve Equation when: • A fitted curve equation is provided and the data plot has at least 20 data points OR . A fitted curve equation is provided. the curve has an R- of at least 0 75. the fitted curve falls within data duster, and the weighted standard deviation is more than 55 percent of the weighted average rate. Use Weighted Average Rate when: I� • The data plot has at least three data points (and preferably. six or morel: 1 • The R' value for the fitted curve is less than 0.75 or no fitted curve equation is provided. • The weighted standard deviation for the average rate !s less than 55 percent of the weighted average rate: and EXHIBIT • The weighted average rate is within data duster in plot Collect Local Data when: a • Study site is not compatible with ITE Land Use Code defindron, s • Data plot has only one or two data points (and preferably, when five or fewer): • The weighted standard deviation for the average rate is greater than 55 percent of the weighted average rate: • Independent variable value is not within range of data. or • Neither weighted average rate line nor fitted curve is within data duster at size of study site. 1 www.KEITHteam.corn Pompano Beach II jQ1 • roil lauderdalp • Miami 9 West Palm Beach • Orlando • i allal Packet Pg. 383 9.A.i November 30, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Figure 4.2 Process for Selecting Average Rate or Equation in Trip Generation Manual Data • l .remee•� 0 c,,... [ •a.ecn+ u.e r axa • �M'' a •e:s sa ar,: sw� ur negra A—.qa NAM MU res{ Cx lM sD n .e� r Cw.yn •e • Cv.►Eie.rr.I �M�{ro{ M w �e+ t1r 1M�q•�YC A.r�gr Rio M a ro DAB Pass -By Trips: Pass -by trips should not simply be deducted from the total trips for assessing the impact on roadway segments. These trips already exist on the roadway network, but they do change their travel pattern depending on the access to the site. The pass -by trips, otherwise destined as through trips, will make a left turn or a right turn into the development as pass -by trips, and should be graphically depicted on a figure. These trips accordingly get added or subtracted from turning movements at the intersections or access points. The Primary trips should accordingly be shown graphically on the roadway network. The combination of the pass - by trips and primary trips will become the basis for assessing the impact on the roadway segments. The traffic report fails to correctly assess the impact on roadway segments. 4. Trip Distribution: No adequate justification has been provided for trip distribution. This should be based on actual traffic volumes on the roadway segments. The peak hour volume split on Airport Pulling Road is 56% for the segment from Radio Road to Davis Blvd. and 44% for the segment from Davis Blvd. to US 41 based on 2021 AUIR peak hour volume data. The trip distribution shows 65% from the north and only 30% from the south. The project site is on the segment from Davis Blvd to US 41 and equal split from the north and the south would make more sense. According to the traffic report, the net change in trips will be from the St. Matthews House with the increase in number of beds from 104 to 150. It is important to note that St. Matthews House has a driveway on Airport Pulling Road and another one on Glades Blvd. Considering the access control on Airport Pulling Road and Packet Pg. 384 t� Engineering In re esrgn. 9.A.i November 30, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Glades Blvd., the driveway on Airport Pulling Road will be used by all vehicles entering the site from the south. The entering traffic from the north will use the driveway on Glades Blvd. The exiting traffic destined to go south will use the driveway on Glades Blvd. and make a westbound left at the signal on Airport Pulling Road. The exiting traffic destined to go north can use either of the driveways. An existing driveway count would indicate the use of this site and the driveways, and the trip distribution and assignment should be done accordingly based on actual data. 5. Trip Assignment and Site Access: The main access point to the site also provides access to the residential development (The Point at Naples) located on the east of the site. This access point does not have a full median opening and therefore, all exiting traffic from this driveway will have to go north on Airport Pulling Road and make a U-turn to go south. This results in 100% of the site traffic on this link of Airport Pulling Road and therefore, should be evaluated accordingly for impact assessment. 6. Future 2025 LOS: It is not clear from Table 4A how the future LOS letter grades were arrived at. No v/c ratios and corresponding LOS reference thresholds have been provided. 7. Increase in Commercial Land Use: The Zoning and Land Development Review section of the Staff Report (Page 9 and 10) identifies 64,000 sq.ft. of existing commercial land uses. The applicant in its submittals, including the TIS, has not analyzed the traffic impacts based upon a comparison of the existing 64,000 sq.ft to a greater amount of 130,000 sq. ft. of commercial land use. This potential increase in commercial land use has not been accounted for in the trip generation. This increase in commercial land use will potentially add additional 270 trips during the PM Peak Hour resulting in much more than 2% impact on the roadway segments. 8. Development Commitments — Transportation Condition A: As per Condition A, "the maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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'. The Traffic Impact Statement shows exactly 534 PM peak hour trips to be generated by the proposed development. The trip generation estimate based on actual data from the site could potentially increase the total trip generation. 9. Impacts On Great Blue Drive: No analysis has been performed for Great Blue Drive to evaluate the existing and the proposed conditions and establish that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive. (See section 5.5.D of the David A. Gallman Estate PUDJ' Should you need any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me on my email at pchoudharyCa�KEITHteam.com or call me at (407) 252-7606. Sincerely Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE Director of Traffic Engineering Packet Pg. 385 77 Engineering In esign. 9.A.i ERRATA SHEET NOVEMBER 26, 2021 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises Inc. Expert Opinion Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit Development Number: Collier County, FL - PL20210000176 PAGE PARAGRAH LINE FROM 2 1 2 "LLCP" 4 1 3 "permitted" mile] "LLP" "amount of Packet Pg. 386 Opposition to — St. Matthew's House Ines Application for Commercial Planned Unit Development Collier County, FL, PL20210000176 Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n W w 0o co Presenters • West Shore Point Naples, LLC • Adjacent Property Owner • Legal Counsel: • Steven Tilbrook, Esq. • Anthony Pires, Esq., BCS • Expert Planner: • Cecelia Ward, AICP • Expert Traffic Engineer • Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n W w 00 Summary of Objections and Issues • The Project is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan • The Project is not the Collier County 10.02.13 • The Project is not the Collier County 10.02.08 in compliance with LDC section in compliance with LDC section • The Project is inconsistent with the Colliery County Community Character Plan Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n X U Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the land development code ("LDC"), the impact of which has not been evaluated, such as vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. D Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n X CD to Objections and Issues Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. D Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Subject Property is located just West of and adjacent to The Point at Naples, multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point Naples, LLC Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) The Point at Naples • Workforce housing • Owner managed TIN Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Planner — Cecelia Ward, AICP n� Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Planning Review The Rezoning and PUD Application is: • Inconsistent with the County"s GMP, including: • the Future Land Use Element. • is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. • Not in compliance with: • the County"s LDC Evaluation Criteria for PUDs; and, • the County's LDC Evaluation Criteria for Rezoning. • Inconsistent with the County's Community Character Plan. Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Tract B: 2 3 4. 5. 6. Impact of rezoning on Permitted and Conditional Uses PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USES: All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and General warehousing and storage (4225); and Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only (4222) (not -for profit food bank); and Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and Used vehicle sales (5521); and Boat dealers (5551). Change in uses — proposed rezoning Expands C-4 permitted uses over entire 11.89-acre area Removes Conditional Use Review for the following, proposed new uses: and expansion of existing uses: • General Warehousing and Storage (4225); Legal counsel and prosecution (9222; Used vehicle sales (5521; Boat dealers (5551); and Homeless Shelter Allows uses that are currently only permitted in Industrial District [2.03.04.A.1.a.35]: • Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only (4222) Allows uses that are not currently permitted uses: • Not -for -profit food bank. • Homeless shelter use is not allowed in existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Significant difference between: Allowing the uses as conditional uses versus Allowing the uses as Proposed by the Application (permitted uses) Conditional Use Application Would Otherwise: • Allow imposition of various site/development conditions on any approval to assure adequate protection of impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. • Conditions and safeguards. In recommending approval of a conditional use, the Planning Commission may also recommend appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the LDC. Section 10.08.00 of the LDC Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Inconsistent with Growth Management Plan The Application is Inconsistent with FLUE Policy 5.6 in that it. ➢ Increases the opportunity for incompatibility with the adjacent multifamily residential neighborhood by proposing the expansion of Social Service Uses and Introduction of Commercial and Industrial Uses without the "protections" afforded under Conditional Use Review; and, ➢ Creates the potential for additional Impacts caused by vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter, lighting, loading, and the like from such proposed uses, which, without Conditional Use review, has the potential to result in impacting the quality of life of the nearby residents. The Application is Inconsistent with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and Mixed -Use Development in that it: ➢ Proposes a Social Service Campus that does not: ➢ Provide pedestrian connections with an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize uses that would otherwise be provided from a shopping center/retail type of mixed -use development. M o) n W CD U3 o 00 Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n Not in Compliance with County PUD and Rezoning Evaluation Criteria The Application: ➢ Lacks information and analysis in order to: • determine impacts on light and air to the adjacent residential neighborhood; • assure there will be no negative impacts on adjacent property values; • assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development; and, • justify the deviations requested. ➢ Potentially grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of square feet required by the LDC for homeless shelters. W Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Not in Compliance with County PUD and Rezoning Evaluation Criteria (Continued) ➢ Has not demonstrated a need for the rezoning. • According to both the County staff and the applicant, the C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow the nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. • Ownership of the property in and of itself should not be the sole basis for the rezoning. `o n Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) Traffic Engineer Pramod Choudhary, PE,PTOE o — Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement No Adjustment in Traffic Volumes for Fluctuations Caused by COVID: ➢ The pre-COVID peak hour volumes should have been grown using historical growth rate to develop 2021 volumes for the assessment of the impact. Trip Generation Estimate is not consistent with the ITE Guidelines: ➢ St. Matthews House is an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. ➢ Land Use code 254 has only two data points and should not have been used to estimate trip generation for the group home/homeless shelter (Assisted Living Facility). ➢ The trip generation procedure does not follow the guidelines on Pages 26 and 28 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. n X CD to o ^ Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact: ➢ Pass -by trips should not be deducted from the total trips for assessing the impact on roadway segments. ➢ The pass -by trips, otherwise destined as through trips, will make a left turn, U-Turn, or a right turn into the development as pass -by trips, and should accordingly be considered for impact assessment. No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions: ➢ Trip Distribution should be based on actual traffic volumes on the roadway segments. ➢ The project site is on the segment from Davis Blvd to US 41 and equal split from the north and the south would make more sense. T X CD to o Cl Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations: ➢ The Great Blue Drive access point does not have a full median opening and therefore, all exiting traffic from this driveway will have to go north on Airport Pulling Road and make a U-turn to go south. This results in 100% of the site traffic on this link of Airport Pulling Road and therefore, should be evaluated accordingly for impact assessment. Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for traffic impact assessment: ➢ Staff Report (Page 9 and 10) identifies 64,000 sq.ft. of existing commercial land use to be increased to 130,000 sq. ft. of commercial land use. This increase has not been accounted for in the trip generation. ➢ This increase in commercial land use will potentially add additional 270 trips during the PM Peak Hour resulting in much more than 2% impact on the roadway segments. Impacts on Great Blue Drive: ➢ No analysis has been performed for Great Blue Drive, the main access to the residential development, to evaluate the existing and the proposed conditions and establish that sufficient capacity exists on Great Blue Drive. [See section 5.5.D of the David A. Gallman Estate PUD] n X CD to m o A Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement • No Adjustment in Traffic Volumes for Fluctuations Caused by COVID. • As an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. • Trip Generation Estimate is not consistent with the ITE Guidelines. • Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact. • No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions. • Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations. • Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for in traffic impact assessment. • No Analysis of the impacts on Great Blue Drive. o O" Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n Summary of Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the land development code ("LDC"), the impact of which has not been evaluated, such as vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. n X CD to o Im Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n Summary Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. rAttachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) n n W M 0 co Requested Changesto Proposed PUDI As contained in our proposed revisions: • Prohibit homeless shelter, residential care and group care facilities on Tract B. • Exclude alcoholism counseling (nonresidential), offender rehabilitation agencies, probation offices, refugee services and public welfare centers on Tract A. • Eliminate warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as a principal use on Tract B. • Permit warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as an accessory use to not for profit food bank only on Tract B. • Eliminate deviation 1, that would otherwise reduce the minimum floor area for homeless shelter from 150 square feet per person to 100 square feet per person. • Provide for enhanced landscape buffers at the time of redevelopment of 15-foot wide, type B landscape buffer adjacent to residential, and 20-foot wide, type D for areas adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road located within the Activity Center #16. • Prohibit overhead loading doors facing East. • Limit loading/unloading and delivery house to between 7am and 9pm on weekdays. Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) In Conclusion: Respectfully request Planning Board deny the application as submitted. Or, if inclined to approve, respectfully request approving the PUD with West Shore's changes to the PUD, Attachment: Attachment F-1-Letters of Objection and Exhibits 12-20-21 (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's House CPUD) 9.A.1 jiloz; WN EST. 1971 MARKJ. WOODWARD Board Certified: Real Estate Law and inCo dominitun & Planned Development Law ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR Board Certified: City, County, and Local Government Law J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY J. DIMORA Licensod in FL and OH LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R WOODWARD Senior Cotuvsel Board Certified: Real Estate Law KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD ROSS E. SCHULMAN Licensed in FL and NY F. SCOTT PAUzAR, III CHRISTOPHERR. HEFLIN REPLY TO ® 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX ❑ 606 BALD EAGLE DRm SUITE 500 P.O. BOX ONE MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM WOODWARD, PIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW January 18, 2022 Board of County Commissioners Via Email Collier County, Florida William L. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman and Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Supplemental Filing; Objections to St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. PL20210000176; (the "Application") Dear Chairman McDaniel and Commissioners: This letter and submittal are for the purposes of supplementing the prior filings of West Shore Point Naples, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("West Shore"), objecting to the Project and Application.' 2 West Shore reiterates and incorporates herein its arguments, evidence, testimony and assertions and again respectively requests that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) deny the Project Application as proposed and as recommended for approval by the CCPC. Additionally, as the revised proposed PUD document was never reviewed nor approved in its final form by the CCPC, the BCC should remand the Application and the revised proposed PUD document back to the CCPC for its review. West Shore again requests that it be granted party status; that its attorneys be allowed to cross examine any witnesses for the Applicant; and, that West Shore and its attorneys and witnesses be provided with extended time to present West Shore's objections and evidence (including testimony by a planning expert) and testimony. Attached is an updated PowerPoint presentation that will be used by West Shore at the January 25, 2022 hearing. 1 West Shore's prior submittals of December 28, 2021 and January 4, 2022 (and all of their attachments) are incorporated fully herein. 2 No rights, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of West Shore concerning the Application and Project are waived by anything stated herein or omitted here from -and the right to present, make and submit additional motions, objections, arguments and materials before the and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is specifically reserved. West Shore reserves the right to make additional objections, filings and submittals to protect its interests and to ensure the due process rights of West Shore. Z w 2 U a t— a Packet Pg. 410 9.A.1 In doing so we reiterate and incorporate all of the objections raised and evidence presented at the CCPC as well as all subsequent submittals. Enclosure(s) Cc: with enclosure(s); Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Stephen Tilbrook z w x U a F- a Packet Pg. 411 Opposition to — St. Matthew's House Ines Application for Commercial Planned Unit Development Collier County, FL, PL20210000176 Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Presenters • West Shore Point Naples, LLC • Adjacent Property Owner • Legal Counsel: • Stephen Tilbrook, Esq. • Anthony Pires, Esq., BCS • Expert Planner: • Cecelia Ward, AICP • Expert Traffic Engineer • Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Summary of Objections and Issues • The Project is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan • The Project is not in compliance with the Collier County LDC section 10.02.13 • The Project is not in compliance with the Collier County LDC section 10.02.08 • The Project is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the County's land development code ("LDC"), and sets a precedent without analysis of the impact Countywide. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. 3 y "' Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Objections and Issues Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering and security for adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. 3 y °' Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Subject Property is located just West of and adjacent to The Point at Naples, multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point Naples, LLC Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's The Point at Naples ME ! s E�3 • Owner managed • Owner acquired in 2016 Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Planner — Cecelia Ward, AICP Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Planning Review The Rezoning and PUD Application is: • Inconsistent with the County's GIMP, including: • the Future Land Use Element. • is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. • Not in compliance with: • the County's LDC Evaluation Criteria for PUDs; and, • the County's LDC Evaluation Criteria for Rezoning. • Inconsistent with the County's Community Character Plan. Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's tract B: 2 3 4. 5. 6. Impact of rezoning on Permitted and Conditional Uses PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USES: All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and General warehousing and storage (4225); and Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only (4222) (not -for profit food bank); and Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and Used vehicle sales (5521); and Boat dealers (5551). Change in uses — proposed rezoning Expands C-4 permitted uses over entire 11.89-acre area Removes Conditional Use Review for the following, proposed new uses: and expansion of existing uses: • General Warehousing and Storage (4225); Legal counsel and prosecution (9222; Used vehicle sales (5521; Boat dealers (5551); and Homeless Shelter Allows uses that are currently only permitted in Industrial District [2.03.04.A.1.a.35]: • Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only (4222) Allows uses that are not currently permitted uses: • Not -for -profit food bank. Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's 7 J Significant difference between: Allowing the uses as conditional uses versus Allowing the uses as Proposed by the Application (permitted uses) Conditional Use Application Would Otherwise: • Allow imposition of various site/development conditions on any approval to assure adequate protection of impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. • Conditions and safeguards. In recommending approval of a conditional use, the Planning Commission may also recommend appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the LDC. Section 10.08.00 of the LDC Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Inconsistent with Growth Management Plan The Application is Inconsistent with FLUE Policy 5.6 in that it: Increases the opportunity for incompatibility with the adjacent multifamily residential neighborhood by proposing the expansion of Social Service Uses and Introduction of Commercial and Industrial Uses without the "protections" afforded under Conditional Use Review; and, ➢ Creates the potential for additional Impacts caused by vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter, lighting, loading, and the like from such proposed uses, which, without Conditional Use review, has the potential to result in impacting the quality of life of the nearby residents. The Application is Inconsistent with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and Mixed -Use Development in that it: Proposes a Social Service Campus that does not: ➢ Provide pedestrian connections with an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize uses that would otherwise be provided from a shopping center/retail type of mixed -use development. iV Y `'' Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Not in Compliance with County PUD and Rezoning Evaluation Criteria The Application: - Lacks information and analysis in order to: • determine impacts on light and air to the adjacent residential neighborhood; • assure there will be no negative impacts on adjacent property values; assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development; and, • justify the deviations requested. Potentially grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of square feet required by the LDC for homeless shelters. iV Y Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Not in Compliance with County PUD and Rezoning Evaluation Criteria (Continued) Has not demonstrated a need for the rezoning. • According to both the County staff and the applicant, the C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow the nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. • Ownership of the property in and of itself should not be the sole basis for the rezoning. iV Y "' Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Traffic Engineer Pramod Choudhary, PE,PTOE iV Y °' Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement Trip Generation Estimate is not consistent with the ITE Guidelines: r St. Matthews House is an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact: ➢ Pass -by trips should not be deducted from the total trips for assessing the impact on roadway segments. y The pass -by trips, otherwise destined as through trips, will make a left turn, U-Turn, or a right turn into the development as pass -by trips, and should accordingly be considered for impact assessment. No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions: ➢ Trip Distribution should be based on actual traffic volumes on the roadway segments. Y The project site is on the segment from Davis Blvd to US 41 and equal split from the north and the south would make more sense. v n W CD to iV Y Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations: ➢ The Great Blue Drive access point does not have a full median opening and therefore, all exiting traffic from this driveway will have to go north on Airport Pulling Road and make a U-turn to go south. This results in 100% of the site traffic on this link of Airport Pulling Road and therefore, should be evaluated accordingly for impact assessment. Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for traffic impact assessment: ➢ Staff Report (Page 9 and 10) identifies 64,000 sq.ft. of existing commercial land use to be increased to 130,000 sq. ft. of commercial land use. This increase has not been accounted for in the trip generation. ➢ This increase in commercial land use will potentially add additional 270 trips during the PM Peak Hour resulting in much more than 2% impact on the roadway segments. Impacts on Great Blue Drive: ➢ No analysis has been performed for Great Blue Drive, the main access to the residential development, to evaluate the existing and the proposed conditions and establish that sufficient capacity exists on Great Blue Drive. [See section 5.5.D of the David A. Gallman Estate PUD] n X M c� Fw iV y 00 Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement • As an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. • Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact. • No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions. • Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations. • Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for in traffic impact assessment. • No Analysis of the impacts on Great Blue Drive. iV Y t° Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Summary of Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the land development code ("LDC"), the impact of which has not been evaluated, such as vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. W y Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Summary Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. W y 3 Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Requested Changesto ' Proposed PUD , As contained in our proposed revisions: • Prohibit homeless shelter, residential care, and group care facilities on Tract B. • Exclude alcoholism counseling (nonresidential), offender rehabilitation agencies, probation offices, refugee services, and public welfare centers on Tract A. • Eliminate warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as a principal use on Tract B. • Permit warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as an accessory use to not for profit food bank only on Tract B. • Eliminate deviation 1, and do not reduce the minimum floor area for homeless shelter from 150 sq. ft./person to 100 sq. ft./person. • Prohibit overhead loading doors facing East. • Limit loading/unloading and delivery house to between lam and 9pm on weekdays. 21 v rt CQ CO D w — �' Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's Requested Changesto Proposed As contained in our proposed revisions: • At the time of issuance of any SDP or SDPA for Tract B, require a 15' wide type "B" landscape buffer along the property line of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman PUD. • At the time of the issuance of any development order to increase in the number of beds on Tract A to greater than 104, require installation and thereafter maintain a minimum 6-foot-high security fence on Tract A of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, to connect to the existing wall on Tract B. • Within six (6) months, install, maintain and repair a continuous screening and security gating (including the vehicle gate on Great Blue Drive) and fencing on Tract B of the PUD which is adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. • Within six (6) months, install and monitor security cameras for residential care, group care facility, homeless shelter, or social services uses and commercial uses, adjacent to residential uses. • Within six (6) months establish and maintain and provide to Collier County, a program that includes a direct line of communication with neighboring residential community to address issues of vagrancy or trespass related to users or residents of the facilities or services in or on the PUD property. >? v rt CQ CO D w - `'' Attachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's In Conclusion: Respectfully request County Commission deny the application. Or, if inclined to approve, respectfully request approving of the PUD with West Shore's changes to the PUD. rAttachment: Attachment F-4 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO BCC 1.18.22. W ATTACHMENT (20810 : Zoning Petition - PL20210000176, St. Matthew's JCZ; EST. 1971 MARKJ. WOODWARD Board Certified• Real Estate Law and in Condominium & Planned Development Law ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR Board Certified: City, County, and Local Government Law J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTHONY J. DIMORA Licensed in FL and OH LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R WOODWARD Senior Counsel Board Cerdfied: Real Estate Law KENNETH V. MUNDY ZACHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD ROSS E. SCHULMAN Licensed in FL and NY F. SCOTT PAUZAR, III CHRISTOPHER R. HEFLIN REPLY TO: ® 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX ❑ 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 P.O. BOX ONE MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM WOODWARD, FIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW December 28, 2021 Via Email Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida Penny Taylor, Chair and Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Objections to St. Matthew's House ("PUDR") Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. PL20210000176; (the "Application") Dear Chair Taylor and Commissioners, This law firm is co -counsel with the law firm of Akerman LLP, representing West Shore Point Naples, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida ("West Shore"). West Shore is the owner and manager of the well -established 248-unit residential apartment community known as The Point at Naples. The Point at Naples located immediately adjacent and contiguous to the East property line of the properties that are the subject of the Application. See attached Exhibit A. West Shore has significant concerns relating to the Project and the Application. This letter is for the purposes of outlining some of the objections, comments and concerns of West Shore. West Shore respectively requests that the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC") deny the Application as proposed and as recommended for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission ("CCPC"). WEST SHORE IS ENTITLED TO AND REQUESTS PARTY STATUS West Shore is a substantially impacted party and as such we are of the opinion that it is entitled to assert and attain party status and standing at all hearings relating to the Project and the Application. West Shore, by separate communication dated November 22, 2021 provided to County Staff a Memorandum regarding standing and being accorded party status at the CCPC 1 No rights, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of West Shore concerning the Application and Project are waived by anything stated herein or omitted herefrom and the right to present, make and submit additional motions, objections, arguments and materials before the and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is specifically reserved. West Shore reserves the right to make additional objections, filings and submittals to protect its interests and to ensure the due process rights of West Shore. 1 and County Commission hearings. West Shore respectfully requests that it be accorded party status at the hearing before the County Commission. In support of this request, West Shore reiterates and incorporates its arguments and assertions outlined in the certain Memorandum dated and submitted November 22, 2021 titled "Standing and Due Process Rights in Quasi - Judicial Zoning Proceedings in Florida' . See attached Exhibit B. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED The Application was heard by the CCPC, which received testimony and evidence on December 2, 2021 and the continued hearing of December 16, 2021.3 The concerns of West Shore were provided to the County staff and to the CCPC by way of various submittals, including those dated November 22, 2021 and November 30, 2021 (see attached Exhibits C and D); as well as a PowerPoint presentation (see attached Exhibit E). In addition, we, along with an eminently qualified planner and transportation engineer, appeared at the CCPC hearings on December 2 and 16, 2021. Our expert planner and transportation engineer provided competent and substantial testimony and evidence that the Project as proposed is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP); does not meet the criteria for a PUD rezoning; and should not be approved. At the conclusion of its December 16, 2021 hearing the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-2, voted to recommend a revised, modified PUD document to the Board of County Commissioners. After the CCPC hearing, the County staff and Applicant's agents worked together and prepared a revised proposed PUD document. The revised proposed PUD document, attached as Exhibit F, was not "finalized" and provided until December 20, 2021 and that document has not been reviewed by the CCPC. As the revised proposed PUD document was never reviewed nor approved in its final form by the CCPC, the BCC should remand the Application back to the CCPC for its review. The revised proposed amended PUD document does not allay the concerns of our client. West Shore's retained planning expert planner, Cecelia Ward, has reviewed the revised proposed PUD document. Her Expert Opinion Report, "Revised/Updated December 20,2021" is attached as Exhibit G. In summary, the Application, as revised, and the proposed amended PUD, are: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Regulations 2 West Shore's request for party status was denied. West Shore was advised that Collier County has no process which would authorize a party -intervenor in a quasi-judicial proceeding. It is our opinion that not having such a process or procedure results in the zoning hearing process not meeting basic due process requirements. 3 The December 2, 2021 CCPC hearing was continued to allow an opportunity for West Shore and the Applicant to continue discussions concerning the proposed PUDR that might resolve West Shore's well-founded concerns and objections. The concerns were not resolved. 2 Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. West Shore respectively requests that the BCC deny the Application as proposed and as recommended for approval by the CCPC. In doing so we reiterate and incorporate all of the objections raised, and evidence presented at the CCPC. A transcript of the December 2 hearing is attached as Exhibit H. We have ordered a transcript of the December 16, 2021 continued hearing and once received, we will timely file and submit it for the Board's review prior to the January 25, 2022 County Commission hearing.4 West Shore respectfully requests that the BCC reject and deny the proposed Project and Application as originally proposed and as recommended for approval by the 9CPC. Enclosures Cc: with enclosures: Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Stephen Tilbrook 4 Section CA. C) of the Exhibit "A" to BCC Resolution 98-167 allows materials submitted by January 4, 2022 to be included in the January 25, 2022 BCC hearing Agenda Packet and materials submitted by January 17, 2022 to be considered by the BCC at the January 25, 2022 hearing. See BCC Resolution 98-67, attached as Exhibit I to this letter. 3 Exhibit A ,y.,.... FallC!sAdC _ N• } {l 4+1• +'li I� µ yt• tVa:uar LN 'if'ti� L , J��' ' } GIB + MAP LEGEND dladoniaAVC Major R1343d9 J - '.y. Street Names ,+ F.+r•e _ Parcels - + AerMIS 2021 Rural 12FTI AVE fraYiA"LIR I —I C�Iller Gountp 1—I I ` T INS- ke 5,rt pp��4 - = Folio Number: 00389880006 N Name: WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES Street# &Name: 2155 GREAT BLUE DR Build# / Unit#: 010 / Legal Description: 12 50 25 FROM o SW COR SEC RUN N 2836.80FT, �. E270 FT TO POB, N 990FT, E 1120FT, - S 1320FT, W 660FT, N 330FT, W 460FT TO POB y; `R k Ikkj 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Exhibit B akerman Memorandum From: Alicia Bhambhani, Esq. To: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esq., County Attorney, Collier County Cc: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing County Attorney Stephen K. Tilbrook, Esq. Anthony Pires, Esq. Date: November 22, 2021 Alicia Bhambhani Akerman LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 T: 305 374 5600 F: 305 374 5095 DirF: 305 349 4858 alicia.bhambhani@akerman.com Subject: Standing and Due Process Rights in Quasi -Judicial Zoning Proceedings in Florida Question Presented Whether West Shore Point Naples, LLC ("West Shore"), as the owner of real property directly adjacent to, and an access roadway traversing, the Subject Property', is entitled to assert party status and standing at the upcoming quasi-judicial hearings in Collier County related to PUD Rezone Petition No. PL20210000176 ("Application") as submitted by St. Matthews House ("Applicant"). And whether West Shore is entitled to quasi-judicial due process rights as a party to the proceeding. I1. Short Answer Yes. As West Shore owns property directly abutting the property to be rezoned, has received mailed notice pursuant to Section 10.03.05 Collier County Code of Ordinances, and is vested in the existing character of the neighborhood, West Shore has standing and is entitled to assert party status in the hearings for the Application. As a parry to the quasi-judicial proceedings, West Shore is entitled to the following due process rights: ' A parcel in Collier County that is approximately 11.89 acres in size located at the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road and Glades Boulevard; see Collier County Development Petition No. PL20210000176 for additional descriptions. akerman.com 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 2 notice, a neutral decision maker, presentation of evidence, sworn testimony, and the questioning of witnesses. III. Background The Applicant submitted an application to Collier County to rezone the Subject Property to the St. Matthews House PUD and a quasi-judicial hearing on the Application is scheduled for December 2, 2021. West Shore is the owner of the property located at 2155 Great Blue Drive, Naples Florida, which is also known as The Point at Naples, an upscale rental residential community. The sole access roadway traverses the Subject Property, and the access road is an element of the site plan approval for The Point at Naples. Pursuant to Section 10.03.05, Collier County Code, West Shore received a Public Hearing Notice of the quasi- judicial hearing and the Public Notice is attached as Exhibit A. Generally, third parties must establish standing under the "special injury test2" that requires the party challenging a development order to show special damages peculiar to the party, which differ in kind (not degree), to the damages suffered by the community as a whole. It is well established that neighboring property owners affected by zoning changes have standing to challenge the changes3. It is clear that West Shore meets the requirements of the "special injury test" due to special interests and special damages that may accrue to West Shore as the directly abutting property owner. In addition, West Shore shares an access roadway with the Applicant, and may suffer unique damages due to the change in use of the access roadway. IV. Case Law — Third Party Standing Historically, courts in Florida have determined whether there is standing to enforce a valid zoning ordinance using the rule created in Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1958). In Boucher the court looked at whether an injury was caused to a particular citizen that was different in kind from the injury suffered by the people of the community as a whole. This test was, due to changing conditions, further expounded upon in Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1972), and given a more lenient interpretation. In Renard, the Florida Supreme Court listed several factors to be considered as to whether a party's interest is sufficient to determine standing, these factors include: (1) Proximity of the property to the property to be zoned or rezoned; 2 Rendard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d. 832 (Fla. 1972). s City of St. Petersburg, Bd. of Adjustment v. Marelli, 728 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. Dis. Ct. App. 1999). 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 3 (2) Character of the neighborhood, including the existence of common restrictive covenants or setback requirements; (3) Type of proposed change; or (4) Whether a person is among those entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance4. Generally, adjoining or nearby landowners are more likely to suffer special damages as a result of a zoning ordinance violation than other members of the community at large 5. The "special injury test" allows for property owners who will suffer particular injuries to obtain standing and participate as a party in local quasi-judicial proceedings to protect their interests. West Shore is a clear example of a property owner who will be greatly affected by the Application, easily fulfills the requirements of the "special interests test," and is therefore entitled to standing and party status in any hearings regarding the Application. The receipt of Public Notice is particularly significant in this calculation; a property owner who is required by ordinance to receive public notice has already been identified by the local authorities as one whose property interest is likely to be significantly affected by proposed zoning modifications. In regards to the current circumstances, The Point at Naples is located directly adjacent to the Subject Property; the Application would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood by changing the permitted uses and applicable development standards; and West Shore is among those required to receive notice pursuant to Section 10.03.05, Collier County Code of Ordinances. V. The Due Process Rights of Parties in a Quasi -Judicial Proceeding Quasi-judicial proceedings are required to provide for procedural due process which generally include notice, a hearing before a neutral decision maker, the presentation of evidence, sworn testimony, and the questioning of witnesses6 7. The right of an affected third party landowner to participate fully in a zoning hearing that can adversely affect their property have been regularly affirmed by courts. In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County. 528 So. 2d. 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987), the Court determined that the failure to allow Rinker, an adversely affected third party, to provide expert testimony was a decision that affected Rinker's legally cognizable property interests and the failure to allow such testimony effectively deprived Rinker of required due process rights. 4 Renard at 837. 5 Id. at 4. 6 See Florida Planning Official's Handbook at II-31-21. 7 h!Ws://www.floridabar.or,g/the-florida-bar journal/abcs-of-local-land-use-and-zoning-decisions/ - Florida Bar Journal ABCs of Local Land Use and Zoning Decisions, Gary K. Hunter and Douglas M Smith, Vol. 84 No. 1 January 2010 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 4 In Lee Cty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. P'ship, 619 So. 2d 996, 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993), the Court noted that any party adversely affected by a zoning decision is entitled to some form of direct appellate review and that circuit level review must ask whether due process was afforded, whether the administrative body applied the correct law, and whether the administrative bodies findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. The Court further noted that "It must be remembered that zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and similar enactments are (or should be) debated in a public forum with all affected parties having the right to be heard." Id. at 1006. As to the specifics of what due process rights are due to affected parties in the context of quasi-judicial proceedings, in Jennings v. Dade Cty., 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), the Court established the principal that the same due -process rights that are afforded in other types of quasi-judicial administrative proceedings also apply to the land use context. Specifically the court stated: At the outset of our review of the trial court's dismissal, we note that the quality of due process required in a quasi-judicial hearing is not the same as that to which a party to full judicial hearing is entitled. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Hadley v. Department ofAdmin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982). Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. See Astore v. Florida Real Estate Comm'n, 374 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Woodham v. Williams, 207 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1968). Nonetheless, certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to afford due process. See Hadley, 411 So.2d at 184; City of Miami v. Jervis, 139 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Consequently, a quasi-judicial decision based upon the record is not conclusive if minimal standards of due process are denied. See Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 480-81, 56 S.Ct. 906, 911-12, 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1936); Western Gillette, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 121 Ariz. 541, 592 P.2d 375 (Ct.App.1979). A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648, 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).1 Jennings v. Dade Ctv., 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) [Emphasis Added] 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 5 The existence of these due process rights are what has separated quasi-judicial hearings from quasi -legislative hearings in nature. In Harris v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642, 644 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963), the Court noted that "Such requirements must afford the affected party the opportunity of being present in person and by counsel, to present evidence in support of his position and to cross-examine adverse witnesses whose testimony is offered at the hearing. If the board, agency or commission intends to insist that its ruling or order to be entered upon the showing made at the hearing be reviewed only by certiorari, the obligation rests upon the board or agency to see that a proper record of the entire proceeding is made, which record shall include its ultimate findings and conclusions." As to the pending Application, West Shore is a substantially affected party, and as such, is entitled to the due process rights of a party at all quasi-judicial hearings related to the Application, including the opportunity of being present in person and represented by counsel, to present evidence in support of his position, to present expert witness evidence and testimony, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses whose testimony is offered at the hearing. VI. Conclusion Based upon the analysis set forth herein, it is clear that West Shore meets the criteria for standing and party status for the Application and subsequent proceedings. West Shore owns a residential community directly adjacent to the Subject Property; West Shore received notice per the relevant zoning ordinance; and West Shore is likely to be substantially impacted by the Application. Accordingly, West Shore is entitled to standing and party status in any proceedings associated with the Application. As a party to the quasi-judicial proceeding, West Shore is entitled to due process rights including notice, a neutral decision maker, presentation of evidence, sworn testimony, and the questioning of witnesses. 61010873;1 Exhibit A Co Ier C014VIty Growth Management Department PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Petition Type: Planned Unit Development to PUD Rezone Petition No.: PL20210000176 Planner Name: Nancy Gundlach Phone: (239) 252-2484 This is to advise you of an upcoming public hearing because you may have interest in the proceedings, or you own property located near the vicinity of the following property. Davis BLVD Cl) T 0 °- a�;a a Project Location a� `0 F tq ❑ m For more information, or to register to participate remotely: https://bit.IV/GMDEvents *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. 0 JD 72 For difficulties registering please call Thomas Clarke at (239) 252-2526 or email to Thomas. Clarke(a-CollierCountyFL.Gov. Collier County Planning Commission: Date: 12/02/2021 Time: 09:00 AM Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, Naples, FL 34112 Meeting information: Individual speakers may be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the agenda packets must submit materials a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing, to the county staff member noted above. All material used in presentations before the Collier County Planning Commission will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition and other pertinent information related to this petition is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. See reverse for more information Collier County Planning Commission to consider the following: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATING TO ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE, 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 THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT, (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY (CPUD-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD, TO ALLOW A 150 BED HOMELESS SHELTER AND UP TO 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND GLADES BOULEVARD IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 11.89+/- ACRES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 97-14, AS AMENDED, THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 RELATING TO A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20210000176] Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Florida Supreme Court. Boucher v. Novotny 102 SO. 2d 132 (1958) Daniel BOUCHER and Catherine Boucher, his wife, individually and as representatives of a class of persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. James A. NOVOTNY et al., O.H. Anderson, as Building Inspector of the City of Clearwater, the City of Clearwater, et al., Appellees. Supreme Court of Florida. April 16, 1958. *133 Thompson & Cooper, Clearwater, for appellants. Bussey & Simmons, St. Petersburg, for James A. Novotny and others. Ben Krentzman, Clearwater, for O.H. Anderson, as Building Inspector of the City of Clearwater and the City of Clearwater and others, appellees. THORNAL, Justice. Appellants Boucher, who were plaintiffs below, seek reversal of a decree of the Chancellor dismissing with prejudice their amended complaint in an action to enjoin alleged violations of setback requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance. The determining point is whether the appellants sufficiently alleged special damages peculiar to themselves to enable them to sustain a cause of action. The property of appellants Boucher is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Coronado Drive in the City of Clearwater. The property of appellees Novotny is located on the northeast corner of the intersection. The two parcels are separated by Coronado Drive, a street 6o feet wide, running north and south. Third Street runs east and west. Both parcels are situated in an area zoned R-4 by the municipal zoning ordinance. By the provisions of the ordinance there is a requirement that buildings located on plots in the stated zone be set back io feet from the side lot line and 20 feet from the front lot line. If applied to the property of appellees Novotny this would mean that any building constructed on their land should be set back 20 feet from Coronado Drive and to feet from Third Street. Apparently the Novotnys obtained from the municipal building official a permit to construct a motel, the plans for which indicated that certain projections of the building to be used as access ways, porches, sundecks and flower planters would extend beyond the building setback line of Coronado Drive a total of 20 feet and beyond the setback *134 line of Third Street a distance of 8 feet. The complaint alleges that appellants Boucher registered their objections when they noticed the scaffolding which had been set up as a part of the building project. Thereupon the original building permit was revoked by the building official but at a subsequent meeting of the City Council the permit was reinstated. Allegedly this reinstatement was brought about without public notice as required by the zoning ordinance. Subsequently the building was completed in accordance with the original plans. This proceeding was instituted by appellants Boucher to obtain mandatory injunctive relief to compel appellees Novotny to remove the allegedly illegal encroachments which they claim were constructed in violation of the setback provisions of the zoning ordinance. A motion to dismiss the complaint was sustained apparently on the theory that the Bouchers had failed to allege sufficiently damages peculiar to themselves as distinguished from the public generally. They amended their complaint to meet this objection by adding the following: "* * * The erection of said overhang in violation of the zoning ordinance aforesaid has caused the plaintiffs special damage by reason of its proximity to their property. Its continued existence in notorious violation of the zoning ordinance is a legal nuisance which depreciates the value of plaintiffs' property in that its continued existence destroys the protection of the zoning ordinance on the faith of which plaintiffs and others have purchased and improved their properties located within the limits of the zone's area." Both the City and the Novotnys assaulted the amended complaint by a motion to dismiss included in their answers in which they contended that the complaint failed to allege grounds for equitable relief and that the plaintiffs Boucher failed to show affirmatively that they had suffered or would suffer irreparable damage peculiar to themselves sufficient to entitle them to a mandatory injunction. The Chancellor agreed with the appellees -defendants and dismissed with prejudice the complaint as amended. Reversal of his order is now sought. It is the contention of the appellants that the mere violation of a zoning ordinance is sufficient to support a claim for relief in equity brought by one whose property is similarly zoned. Appellants further contend that if special damage is required, their complaint adequately meets the requirement. The appellees contend that one assaulting alleged violations of a zoning ordinance must show that he suffered damages different in kind from that suffered by the community generally and that the appellants have failed to bring themselves within the required rule. Appellees concede that appellants proceeded with dispatch and have not been guilty of laches. At the outset we point out that the zoning powers of the City of Clearwater apparently are exercised pursuant to the city charter which has been provided by local act, Section 79, Chapter 9710, Laws of Florida 1923, and Chapter 15671, Laws of 1931. We are not here concerned with the provisions of Chapter 176, Florida Statutes, nor with the application of decisions dealing with restrictive covenants in deeds or subdivision plats. Consequently, cases dealing with the latter subjects are not here applicable. We have on a number of occasions held that where municipal officials threaten or commit a violation of municipal ordinances which produces an injury to a particular citizen which is different in kind from the injury suffered by the people of the community as a whole then such injured individual is entitled to injunctive relief in the absence of an adequate legal remedy. With equal consistency, however, we have likewise held that in order to sustain a complaint for relief against threatened or *135 consummated municipal action such as the creation of a nuisance or the blocking of a street the injury suffered by the complaining individual must be special and peculiar to himself and not merely different in degree from that suffered by the remainder of the community. In other words, the complaining citizen along with all other people in the community might suffer some injury and it may be that the extent of the injury suffered by the one complaining is greater in degree than that suffered by many other citizens. Nevertheless, the complaining citizen is without redress in equity unless he can allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself and differing in kind rather than in degree from the damages suffered by the people as a whole. Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass'n, 59 Fla. 447, 52 So. 802; Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50, 200 So. 238; Richard v. Gulf Theatres, 155 Fla. 626, 21 So. 2d 715. The appellants appear to concede that this has been the rule in such matters as the abatement of nuisances and the obstruction of public highways. However, they assert that we have never announced this to be the rule in the case of a violation of a zoning ordinance. Indeed, it is their contention that the rule should not apply to zoning ordinance violations and that the courts of other states, particularly Georgia, Kentucky and some others, have held that the mere violation of a zoning ordinance, regardless of special damage, produces a right of action in favor of a complaining citizen the use of whose property has been restricted by the same ordinance. We have the view that the rule of our cases cited above with reference to the abatement of alleged nuisances resulting from threatened or consummated municipal conduct is equally applicable to actions to remedy or prevent breaches of municipal zoning ordinances. An investigation of the authorities leads us to the conclusion that the position which we here take is adequately supported by the numerical weight of authority and by what we consider to be the better reasoned cases. The sum of the rule is pointed out in McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 3rd Edition Revised, Section 25.351, where it is stated as follows: "To be entitled to maintain a suit to enjoin a zoning violation constituting a nuisance, a private party must, it has been variously ruled, be specially and irreparably injured or specially damaged in a way differing in character and kind from that common to the general public; his rights must have been injured; his property must have been materially damaged and depreciated or rendered less desirable and greatly depreciated in value and usefulness; or he must have suffered a special and private wrong. Moreover, it is one's own injury and damage and not that of others that determines the propriety of his bringing a suit for injunctive relief against zoning violations." See also Kooman, Florida Chancery Pleading and Practice, Section 265; 58 Am.Jur., Zoning, Section 189; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 22b, 123 and 182; Metzenbaun on Law of Zoning (2d ed.) Vol. 1, pp. 155-158, and Vol. 2, P. 1029; Yokley on Zoning Law and Practice (2d ed.) Vol. 1, P. 262, Section 112, and Vol. 2, pp. 7-12, Section 192. Also see Momeier v. John McAlister, 193 S.C. 422, 8 S.E.2d 737,129 A.L.R. 880 (annotated at page 885). We, therefore, align ourselves with the authorities which hold that one seeking redress, either preventive or corrective, against an alleged violation of a municipal zoning ordinance must allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself differing in kind as distinguished from damages differing in degree suffered by the community as a whole. We now return to the allegations of the amended complaint to ascertain whether the appellants Boucher have brought themselves within the announced rule. It seems to have been well settled that in the cases where individuals have sought to enjoin *136 obstructions in public highways or have sought relief against threatened violations of municipal ordinances the complaint should distinctly allege facts showing the special and peculiar injury. This should be done with sufficient clearness to enable the court to determine whether the complainant is entitled to maintain the suit. A bald allegation of irreparable injury which is not accompanied by specific allegations of fact will not warrant the granting of relief. Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass'n, 59 Fla. 447, 52 So. 802; Stoner v. South Peninsula Zoning Commission, Fla. 1954, 75 So. 2d 831. Although by the amended complaint the appellants apparently attempted to bring themselves within the requirements of the rule, we think that an examination of their complaint will reveal that they failed to do so. They allege generally that the violation of the zoning ordinance has caused the plaintiffs "special damage by reason of its proximity to their property." We are left to speculate just what the "special damage" is. The complaint further alleged that the continued existence of the violation of the ordinance "is a legal nuisance which depreciates the value of plaintiffs' property in that its continued existence destroys the protection of the zoning ordinance on the faith of which plaintiffs and others have purchased and improved their properties located within the limits of the zone's area." By this allegation the appellants apparently reached out for a specific fact on which to ground their complaint but the strength of the allegation is destroyed when they go on to explain it away by stating that the depreciation of land values as the result of a failure to enforce a municipal zoning ordinance is an injury suffered by the community as distinguished from a peculiar injury suffered by the immediately complaining citizens. In other words, we find from this complaint the substance of an allegation which points out that a failure to enforce a zoning ordinance produces a depreciation in land values throughout the community. While this may logically follow, it does not necessarily follow that a right of action springs into being in favor of a particular property owner unless it be shown that the violation of the ordinance results in a peculiar injury or special damages to that property owner different in kind from that suffered by the community as a whole. Appellants refer to our opinion in Hartnett v. Austin, Fla. 1956, 93 So. 2d 86. The plaintiffs in that case alleged peculiar damages to themselves as the result of an illegal exception to the zoning ordinance by the allowance of a commercial enterprise in a residence district. Similarly, in Josephson v. Autrey, Fla. 1957, 96 So. 2d 784, the parties were proceeding under Chapter 176, Florida Statutes, to obtain a review of an alleged illegal act of a board of adjustment and in addition special damage was alleged. Appellants also refer to our opinion in Larkin v. Tsavaris, Fla. 1956, 85 So. 2d 731. We think the decision last cited supports the conclusion which we here reach. There two violations of the zoning ordinance were alleged. The sum of our conclusion was that with reference to the violation that caused no peculiar injury to the complaining property owner, relief was denied. On the other hand the violation which did cause special injury to the complainant resulted in the granting of the requested relief. None of the parties makes reference to our opinion in Fortunato v. City of Coral Gables, Fla. 1950, 47 So. 2d 321. The situation revealed by the opinion in that case bears a striking resemblance to the matter before us. In order to avoid any apparent conflict between this opinion and the one last cited we deemed it advisable to point out that an examination of the record in the Fortunato case reveals that the plaintiff there carefully and in thorough detail delineated special and peculiar damages to himself which resulted from the violation of the setback requirements by his next door neighbor. There is, therefore, no conflict between our opinion in the Fortunato case and our opinion in the instant case. *137 This opinion is not to be construed as any endorsement of the zoning procedures that were employed in the instant case nor as an encouragement to ignore the requirements of municipal zoning ordinances. Comprehensive planning and zoning, and the regulation of uses of property have been productive of much good in the improvement of land values and the protection of the general welfare. In the case before us it appears that the appellees came dangerously close to creating a situation that could have given rise to a cause of action in the appellants. Fortunately for the appellees the complaint failed to present factual allegations that would sustain the granting of the relief requested. For that reason the motion to dismiss was properly granted and the decree under assault is, therefore, Affirmed. TERRELL, C.J., THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., and PARKS, Circuit Judge, concur. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now 1§000 casetext Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Renard v. Dade County Supreme Court of Florida Apr 19, 1972 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972) Copy Citation i Download Fm Treatment No. 41388. April 19,1972. Help Sign In Sign Up 833 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Grady L. Crawford, J. *833 Eugene P. Spellman, of Law Offs es of Eugene P. Spellman, Miami, for petitioner. Stuart Simon, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., and Paul Siegel, of Sinclair, Louis, Sand Siegel, Miami, for respondents. BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 249 So.2d Soo. Jurisdiction is based on the certification of the District Court 834 under Article V, § 4(2) of *834 the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., that the decision sought to be reviewed passes upon a question of great public interest, to -wit: "The standing necessary for a plaintiff to (1) enforce a valid zoning ordinance; (2) attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as not being fairly debatable and therefore an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of legislative power; and (3) attack a void ordinance, i.e., one enacted without proper notice required under the enabling statute or authority creating the zoning power." Petitioner Renard and respondents Richter, owned certain adjoining properties in the unincorporated area of Dade County zoned IU-2, industrial. The Richters applied for a rezoning of their parcel. The Board of County Commissioners ultimately permitted a rezoning from IU-2 to multiple family residence with certain exceptions relative to a nine -hole golf course and a variance for private, in lieu of public, roads. This was in accordance with the recommendations of the planning board as approved by the zoning appeals board of the county. Petitioner was an objector in the zoning proceedings held before the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board and an objector before the Board of County Commissioners. Following adverse rulings by the appeals board and County Commission, petitioner sought certiorari before the Circuit Court pursuant to applicable county ordinances! 1 Metropolitan Code of Dade County, § 33-316: "No person aggrieved by any zoning resolution, order, requirement, decision or determination of an administration official or by any decision of the zoning appeals board may apply to the Court for relief unless he has first exhausted the remedies provided for herein and taken all available steps provided in this article ... it is intended and suggested that such decision may be reviewed by the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in accordance with the procedures and within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules for the review of the rulings of any commission or board; and such time shall commence to run from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed." (Emphasis supplied.) The Circuit Court ruled that petitioner, not having alleged a special interest, had no standing to prosecute the matter in the Circuit Court and, even if she had standing, the record adequately demonstrated that the issue was fairly debatable and petitioner would not have been entitled to the relief sought. On appeal, the District Court held that petitioner had sufficient standing to institute suit in the trial court but, that the rezoning in question was fairly debatable and therefore within the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. The District Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest. The decision of the District Court on the question certified is as follows:2 2 Renard v. Dade County, 249 So.2d Soo, 502 (F1a.App.3rd 197). "First, as indicated above, the appellant as an abutting property owner to the property rezoned would, in fact, suffer a special damage by virtue of the increased setback restriction different in kind from the community generally; and this would meet the test of special damage. But, even without meeting this test, we hold that these cases would not be applicable to a property owner within the area wherein actual notice was required to be sent to him prior to any rezoning hearing. Anything to the contrary said in S.A. Lynch Investment Corporation v. City of Miami, supra, is hereby specifically receded from. We further note that there is a distinction in the cases relied on by the County when there is a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks to enforce an existing zoning ordinance, such as a violation of a setback requirement, special damage is necessary, 835 and no special damage is necessary when a plaintiff seeks to 'F835 have an act of a zoning authority declared void or is within the immediate area to be affected. Hartnett v. Austin, Fla.1956, 93 So.ad 86; Josephson v. Autrey, Fla. 1957, 96 So.2d 784. In other words, we hold special damage must be shown when a taxpayer or property owner seeks to enjoin the violation of an existing ordinance [i.e. Boucher v. Novotny, Fla. 1958,1oa So.2d 132; Conrad v. Jackson, Fla. 1958,107 So.2d 369], but need not be shown if the taxpayer or property owner is within the aff cted range of the property which requires actual notice before the rezoning made may be considered by the legislative body [Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Elwyn v. City of Miami, F1a.App. 1959, 113 So.Zd 849; Friedland v. City of Hollywood, F1a.App.1961,130 So.Zd 3o6; Vol. 3, American Law of Zoning, Anderson, § 21.05, P. 558], or when he seeks to review an alleged void act. Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Josephson v. Autrey, supra; Rhodes v. City of Homestead, F1a.App. 1971, 248 So.ad 674 (opinion filed May 25,1971). Therefore, we find that in the instant case the appellant had the standing to institute the suit in the trial court." (Emphasis supplied.) In the years following this Court's decision in Boucher v. Novotny,3 a split has developed between the various District Courts on the issue of standing to sue in zoning matters. The Boucher case was a suit to enjoin the violation of the setback requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance. The Bouchers sought to obtain mandatory injunctive relief to compel the Novotnys to remove allegedly illegal encroachments constructed on their motel. The City had approved the building plans for the Novotny's motel which included the complained of encroachment. The properties of the parties located in the City of Clearwater, were separated by a sixty -foot wide street. The Bouchers attempted to allege special damages by reason of proximity and by reason of being within the zoning area subject to the same setback requirements as the Novotny's property. This Court held, however, that the Bouchers did not have suffi ient standing to sue and stated the following rule:4 3 102 SO.ad 132 (Fla.1958)• 4 Id. at 135• "We, therefore, align ourselves with the authorities which hold that one seeking redress, either preventive or corrective, against an alleged violation of a municipal zoning ordinance must allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself differing in kind as distinguished from damages differing in degree suffered by the community as a whole." (Emphasis supplied.) The "special damage" rule of the Boucher case is an outgrowth of the law of public nuisance.5 Zoning violations have historically been treated as public nuisances not subject to suit by an individual unless that individual has suffered damages different in kind and degree from the rest of the community. The Boucher rule was not intended to be applied to zoning matters other than suits by individuals for zoning violations.6 5 Boucher v. Novotny, io2 So.2d 132,135 (Fla. 1958); North Dade Bar Assoc. v. Dade -Commonwealth Title Ins.,143 So.2d 2oi, 2o5 (F1a.App.3rd 1962): "' * * * A public nuisance is an offense against the State, and as such is subject to abatement or indictment on the motion of the proper governmental agency. *** "' x' * * An individual cannot maintain an action for a public nuisance as such. But when an individual suffers special damage from a public nuisance, he may maintain an action.' "This rule has been applied in Florida to suits to enjoin a zoning violation. Boucher v. Novotny, Fla. 1958, io2 So.2d 132." 6 Boucher has been subject to criticism even as applied to zoning violations:1z Univ. F1a.L.Rev., Third Parties in Zoning, 16, 23, 40 (1959)• The general rule regarding standing to contest the action of a zoning 836 authority was *836 stated by this Court in Josephson v. Autrey:7 7 96 So.2d 784, 787 (Fla. 1957)• "We have on numerous occasions held that persons adversely affected by zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agencies have a status as parties suffi ient to entitle them to proceed in court to seek relief." To like effect is this Court's decision in Hartnett v. Austin.8 8 93 So.2d 86, 90 (Fla.1956): "We encounter no difficulty in concluding that the appellees were entitled to bring the suit. They occupied their homes immediately across the street from the proposed parking area. They relied on the existing zoning conditions when they bought their homes. They had a right to a continuation of those conditions in the absence of a showing that the change requisite to an amendment had taken place. They allege that the contemplated change would damage them and that it was contrary to the general welfare and totally unjustified by existing conditions. This gave them a status as parties entitled to come into court to seek relief. True their rights were subject to the power of the city to amend the ordinance on the basis of a proper showing. Nonetheless, they have a right to insist that the showing be made." See also, 35 F1a.Jur., Zoning Laws, § 30: "Persons adversely affected by zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agencies have a status as parties sufficient to entitle them to proceed in court to seek relief." In Wags Transportation System v. City of Miami Beach,9 this Court held that homeowners in a zoning district would be permitted to intervene in an appeal from a decree breaking zoning restrictions and commercializing the area where their homes were located. 9 88 So.ad 751, 752 (Fla. 1956): "The petition for leave to intervene alleges that petitioners are within the same zoning district as the property described in the complaints in the consolidated causes, that the decree destroys the value of their property because petitioners have homes on said property which they use for residential purposes, therefore the decree of the lower court breaking these zoning restrictions and commercializing the district renders their property less suitable for residential purposes. Petitioners' property was purchased on the strength of the zoning ordinance and in reliance upon the fact that all property within the zoning district would be maintained as residential property. "We think the petition to intervene showed such an interest in the res that the ends of justice require that it be granted. * * * Nothing is more sacred to one than his home and the petitioners should have been permitted to come in and bring their rights in this to the attention of the court." The District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Elwyn v. City of Miami,10 held that abutting homeowners were entitled to maintain a suit challenging an ordinance granting a variance for a gasoline service station. On petition for rehearing, the Boucher case was raised by the zoning authority and distinguished by the District Court as follows: 10 ��3 So.ad 849 (F1a.App.3rd); cert. denied 116 So.zd 773, (Fla. 1959)• "That case [Boucher] was not applicable here because of material difference in the factual situations presented in the two cases. "The instant case was not one dealing with the violation of a zoning ordinance, but one which challenged the validity of an amendatory zoning ordinance, which, by granting a variance amounting to spot zoning, permitted appellees to put their property to a liberal business use (gasoline service station), prohibited in the more restricted R-3 classification for which the area involved was zoned. The right of an adjacent or nearby home owner directly affected by an alleged improper intrusion of such liberal business to challenge the validity thereof, is recognized." A similar case is that of Friedland v. Hollywood," wherein the District Court 831 of '837 Appeal, Second District, held void an ordinance which would have allowed the variance for the construction of a service station in the vicinity of property owned by the plaintiffs. 11 130 So.2d 3o6 (F1a.App.2d 1961). Some of the foregoing cases attacking the validity of zoning ordinances came to the Circuit Court as petitions for writ of certiorari to review actions of the zoning board of adjustment under Florida Statutes Chapter 176, F.S.A.; others originated in the Circuit Court. On the question of standing to sue there is no basis for distinguishing between cases reaching the courts after appeal to a zoning board, in areas where such boards exist, and those cases originating in the court system.12 Florida Statutes § 176.11, F.S.A., provides for appeals to the zoning board of adjustment by "any person aggrieved." Florida Statutes § 176.16, F.S.A., provides that "any person aggrieved" by the decision of the zoning board of adjustment may petition the Circuit Court for writ of certiorari. 12 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, 36-1 (1971): "Generally, any person who can show that the existence or enforcement of a zoning restriction adversely affects, or will adversely affect, a property interest vested in him or that the grant of a permit to another or rezoning of another's land will similarly affect him, has the requisite justiciable interest in the controversy, and is a proper party plaintiff. In this aspect, the right of a litigant to sue for declaratory judgment or for an injunction is based upon the same criteria as are determinative of the status of a petitioner as a party aggrieved' to bring certiorari to review the determination of a board of appeals or adjustment. The difference, if any, relates only to the forum and form of the remedy." (Emphasis supplied.) An aggrieved or adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question. The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. An individual having standing must have a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good share in common with all citizens. So-called "spite suits" will not be tolerated in this area of the law any more than in any other. In determining the suffi iency of the parties' interest to give standing, factors such as the proximity of his property to the property to be zoned or rezoned, the character of the neighborhood, including the existence of common restrictive covenants and set -back requirements, and the type of change proposed are considerations. The fact that a person is among those entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance is a factor to be considered on the question of standing to challenge the proposed zoning action. However, since the notice requirements of the many zoning laws throughout the State vary greatly, notice requirements are not controlling on the question of who has standing. Persons having sufficient interest to challenge a zoning ordinance may, or may not, be entitled to receive notice of the proposed action under the zoning ordinances of the community. It is to be remembered that even though a person has sufficient standing to challenge the action of the zoning authority, he must still carry the burden of proving that the challenged action of the zoning authority was not fairly debatable.l3 �3 City of Miami v. Hollis, 77 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1959); City of Jacksonville v. Imler, 235 So.2d 526 (F1a.App.ist 1970). The question certified to this Court, set out supra, has three parts. Part (1) deals with standing to enforce a valid zoning ordinance. The Boucher rule requiring special damages still covers this type of suit. However, in the twenty years since the Boucher decision, changed conditions, including 838 increased population growth and *838 density, require a more lenient application of that rule. The facts of the Boucher case, if presented today, would probably be suffi ient to show special damage. Part (z) of the question certified to this Court deals with standing to attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as being an unreasonable exercise of legislative power. As indicated above, persons having a legally recognizable interest, which is adversely affected by the proposed zoning action, have standing to sue. Part (3) of the question certified deals with standing to attack a zoning ordinance which is void because not properly enacted, as where required notice was not given. Any affected resident, citizen or property owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge such an ordinance.14 �4 See e.g., Rhodes v. City of Homestead, 248 So.zd 674 (F1a.App.3rd 1971); Knowles v. Town of Kenneth City, 247 So.zd 748 (F1a.App.2d 1971). The District Court found that petitioner Renard had sufficient standing to attack the rezoning here in question, but, on review of the record, determined that the rezoning was "fairly debatable" and so was a valid exercise of power by the zoning authority. We agree. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the District Court of Appeal is affi med. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and McCAIN, JJ., concur. 839 *839 Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext's legal research suite. Get a Demu Casetext research Parallel Search Compose Pricing Switch Big firm Coverage SmartCite Public records search Partnerships and Resources Law school access Bar associations About us Jobs Blog Podcast News Twitter Facebook UnKegln Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Privacy Terms © 2021 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now 1§000 casetext Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details Help Sign In Sign Up Rinker Materials Corp, v. Dade County District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District Dec 22, 1987 528 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) Copy Citation ♦ Download Fm Treatment No. 86-3135. December 22, 1987. Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Maria Korvick, J. John G. Fletcher, South Miami, Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Schuster Sachs, Miami, for appellant. Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty., and Scott D. Fabricius, Asst. Co. Atty., Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadows Olin and Joel S. Perwin, Miami, for appellees. Before HENDRY, NESBITT, and FERGUSON, JJ. On Motion for Rehearing NESBITT, Judge. On rehearing, we withdraw the opinion filed November 3,1987, and replace it with the following opinion. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Help Sign In Sign Up Search all cases and statutes... ix Opinion Summaries Case details 9o5 relatively isolated portion of west Dade County. *9os Rinker uses blasting in order to quarry. In 1984, Inversiones Armadeni, S.A. (Inversiones) and Statewide Land Development Corporation (Statewide) filed an application with the Dade County Commission requesting an amendment to the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan. The application sought to have 267 acres of land adjacent to Rinker's operations reclassified from open land to low -density residential land. The Dade County Commission conducted public hearings, at which Rinker presented evidence. At the conclusion of the hearings, the commission enacted ordinance number 85- 49, approving the application. In 1985, Rinker filed an original action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in Dade County Circuit Court. Rinker challenged Dade County Ordinance number 85-49 as an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the county's authority and section 2-116.1 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code, which establishes the procedure for amending the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, as unconstitutionally vague.' Rinker asserted that granting the amendment, which permitted the re -zoning of the land to low - density residential use, was unreasonable and arbitrary because such a usage was incompatible with the zoning of Rinker's adjacent property, which is used for blasting. Rinker is required to obtain permits to blast, Metropolitan Dade County, F1a.Code § 13-5 (1977), and its right to blast on its property is subject to termination or limitation even after it has obtained a permit, see Metropolitan Dade County, F1a.Code § 13-13(c) (1977). Rinker asserted, therefore, that the county's action, which would inevitably bring complaining residents who would have Rinker's blasting permits revoked or restricted, adversely affected the value of its operations. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the county, Inversiones, and Statewide, holding that section 2-116.1 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code is not unconstitutionally vague. The trial court held a trial on Rinker's Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details Help Sign In Sign Up In its final judgment the trial court held that Rinker failed to prove that the county's action affected its legally recognizable interests. The court concluded, therefore, that Rinker lacked standing to challenge the ordinance. The court went on, however, to hold that the ordinance was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable but was fairly debatable. Rinker appeals. I. Posture of the Proceedings The trial court's ruling that witnesses who had not appeared before the commission could not testify at the trial was erroneous. The trial court's ruling appears to be predicated upon its improper assessment of the posture of the case. The trial court incorrectly treated the case as either an appeal from quasi-judicial action taken by the commission, or a petition for a writ of certiorari from a commission's zoning action. The case before the circuit court was neither. Instead, it was an original action properly mounting a direct attack on an ordinance. As such, Rinker was entitled to present evidence to prove its contention that the ordinance was unreasonable and arbitrary. See Coral Gables Federal Says. Loan v. City of Lighthouse Point, 444 So.2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Graham v. Talton, 192 So.2d 324 (Fla. ist DCA 1966); compare Graham, (writ of certiorari improper method of challenging re -zoning ordinance on the basis that it was unreasonable; proper method is a direct challenge in circuit court) with Albright v. Hensley, 492 S0.2d 852, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (writ of certiorari proper remedy to challenge county's grant of variance where record in the circuit court limited solely to the record of proceedings before the board) and Eastside Properties, Inc. v. Dade County, 358 S0.2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (when reviewing zoning action of the county commission on petition for writ of certiorari the circuit court is 906 to consider only the *906 record of proceedings before the commission). Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 11/23. Subscribe Now casetext Help Sign In Sign Up Search all cases and statutes... ix Opinion Summaries Case details 3u-Ly1-,/),'3'-t- L'LLJu cur "L, ivccJ lvv1-r JC.I IA,.), AI I,U.I .tiv u.L was therefore entitled to not only oppose the passage of the ordinance at the county commission hearing but it also had every right to challenge the legality of the ordinance in an original action in circuit court. In an original action Rinker was not limited to presenting only the record developed before the commission but could introduce admissible evidence whether it had been considered by the commissioners or not. See Coral Gables Federal Savings Loan, 444 S0.2d at 92. Consequently, the trial court's ruling, which precluded Rinker from presenting additional evidence to prove that the ordinance was unreasonable, arbitrary, and not fairly debatable, was erroneous. 2 As the county correctly pointed out on rehearing, although an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Development Master Plan is legislative in nature, proceedings on applications for zoning changes, variances, or special exceptions and which provide interested parties with procedural due process are generally considered quasi-judicial. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see City of New Smyrna Beach v. Barton, 414 So.2d 542 (Fla. Sth DCA) (Cowart, J., concurring), review denied, 424 So.2d 76o (Fla.1982). II. Standing to Challenge the Ordinance Whether a party has standing to challenge the zoning action or inaction of a county depends on the nature of the challenge the party seeks to bring. See Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.ad 832 (Fla. 1972). A party challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance as an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the county's legislative power must show that the zoning action adversely affects its legally recognizable interests. Renard, 261 S0.2d at 838; Citizens Growth Management Coalition, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, 45o S0.2d 204, 2o6 (Fla. 1984); Exchange Invs., Inc. v. Alachua County, 481 So.2d 1223,1225 (Fla. ist DCA 1985); see Albright, 492 S0.2d at 855; Carlos Estates, Inc. v. Dade Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 11/23. Subscribe Now casetext Help Sign In Sign Up Search all cases and statutes... ix Opinion Summaries Case details In considering whether a property owner has standing because its interests have been adversely affected, a court is to consider "the proximity of [its] property to the area to be zoned or rezoned, the character of the neighborhood.... and the type of change proposed." Renard, 261 So.ad at 837; see Paragon Croup, Inc. v. Hoeksema, 475 So.ad 244, 246 (Fla. Zd DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So.2d 597 (Fla. 1986). If Rinker could have demonstrated that the commission's action had adversely affected the value of its property interests, which surely represents a legally recognizable interest, cf. Yarbrough v. Villeneuve, 16o So.2d 747 (Fla. ist DCA 1964) (although revocable license confers no vested rights in a constitutional sense, it does amount to property in a commercial sense), it would have established that it had standing to pursue its suit. Cf. Renard, 261 So.2d at 832 (re -zoning of petitioner's neighbor's adjoining property from industrial to residential use conferred standing upon petitioner to challenge validity of zoning action as unreasonable because it adversely affected her legally recognizable interests by increasing her setback requirements); Hoeksema, 475 So.2d at 244 (owner of single family home directly across from land re- zoned for apartment and condominium buildings had been affected by zoning and hence had standing to bring action questioning interpretation of 907 zoning'907 ordinance); Elwyn v. City of Miami, 113 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA) (property owners whose property values would be adversely affected by variance granted to adjacent property owner had standing to challenge the validity of the granted variance), cert. denied, 116 S0.2d 773 (Fla. 1959), approved Renard, 261 So.2d at 832. Since the trial court improperly prevented Rinker from presenting expert testimony concerning the effect the ordinance had on the value of its interests, its decision that Rinker's legally recognizable property interests were not adversely affected and, therefore, that Rinker lacked standing, was erroneous. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Help Sign In Sign Up Search all cases and statutes... JX Opinion Summaries Case details ordinance is invalid, we reverse the trial court's final judgment, and we remand this cause for a new trial consistent with this opinion. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext's legal research suite. Get a Demo Casetext research Parallel Search Compose Pricing Switch Big firm Coverage SmartCite Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now 1§000 casetext Search all cases and statutes... Opinion About us Jobs Blog Podcast News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Privacy Terms Summaries Case details © 2021 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Help Sign In Sign Up JX Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now 1§000 casetext Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District Jun 16, 1993 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) Copy Citation i Download Fm Treatment No. 92-03948. May 14,1993. Rehearing Denied June 16,1993• Help Sign In Sign Up Petition for review from the Circuit Court for Lee County, James R. 997 Thompson, J. *997 James G. Yaeger, County Atty., and Thomas L. Wright, Asst. County Atty., Fort Myers, for petitioner. Steven C. Hartsell, Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison Jensen, Fort Myers, for respondent. PER CURIAM. We review Lee County's petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Education Development Center, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals, 541 So.2d 1o6 (Fla.1989) and City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 S0.2d 624 (Fla. 1982). Finding that the circuit court did not apply the correct law to the facts and issues presented in this case, we grant the petition. I. BACKGROUND This action stems from a request for rezoning submitted by respondent Sunbelt Equities II (hereafter "Sunbelt"). Sunbelt owns a parcel currently zoned for agricultural use, upon which it wishes to construct a commercial/offi e development. Apparently the proposal is consistent with future land use projections as embodied in the Lee County comprehensive plan. However, opponents of the proposal have asserted that continuing the present zoning classification is preferable, at least for the time being! Although county planning staff and a hearing examiner recommended 999 approval of the ,999 proposal with changes, the county commission overruled that recommendation and denied the rezoning. In so doing the commission issued a written resolution which made three separate findings of fact:' 1 A collateral issue in the proceedings below was Sunbelt's contention that "the real reason the application was denied" was the vocal opposition of residents of a neighboring development. Clearly, such opposition, to the extent it reflects a subjective "polling" rather than a discrete legal argument, is not a valid basis for denying a permit or rezoning application. Pollard V. Palm Beach County, 56o So.zd 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 199o). However, accepting the notion that rezonings are quasi-judicial does not operate to exclude the public from those proceedings where such applications are considered on their merits. The need to allow such public access, which includes the right to voice objections (at least on the part of those claiming to be substantially affected by the pending action), points out the difficulty in completely depoliticizing such proceedings. The requirement of providing specific reasons for a ruling, in accord with the characterization of such proceedings as quasi judicial, should diminish (if not altogether eliminate) the likelihood those mandatory findings will only mask the "real reason [an] application was denied." a Sunbelt attempts to depict all three of these findings as "erroneous." It may be that the circuit court agreed with Sunbelt's evaluation. If this were the only issue before us, we would be compelled to uphold the circuit court so long as it otherwise applied the correct principle of law. That is, we would not reweigh the circuit court's determination whether or not adequate evidence was presented. (i) The proposal is inconsistent with the site location standards for Neighborhood Commercial Development as set forth in ... the Lee County Comprehensive Land Use Plan ... which requires Neighborhood Commercial Developments to be located at the intersection of a collector and arterial or an arterial and arterial road so as to allow access to two roads. (a) The proposal would result in unreasonable development expectations which may not be achievable because of commercial acreage limitations on the "Year 2010 Overlay [map]" for the subdistrict in question in violation of.... the Lee County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (3) The proposal would permit a commercial development to locate in such a way as to open new areas to premature, scattered, or strip development.... Sunbelt then sought relief in circuit court via a proceeding the county aptly describes as a "hybrid."3 The circuit court granted certiorari, "find[ing] that there was no substantial, competent evidence to support the decision of the Lee County Board of County Commissioners in ... denying [Sunbelt]'s application for rezoning." The county now asks us to review that decision. 3 In addition to a petition for certiorari, Sunbelt filed an original action pursuant to § 163.32-15, Fla. Stat. (1991). The county claims that certain statutory prerequisites were overlooked which require dismissal of the civil action. Because the circuit court addressed the certiorari petition on its merits, the second case is not before us at this time. II. REZONING: LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING? The circuit court, in asserting its power to review the matter via certiorari, appears to have relied upon Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, 595 So.Zd 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), jdn. accepted, 6o5 So.ad 1262 (Fla. 1992), which states that owner initiated, site -specific rezoning proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature. The county had moved to dismiss Sunbelt's petition because, in its view, all zoning decisions are legislative rather than judicial. The difference between these concepts affects both the accepted method of subsequent judicial review and the scope of that review. (a) Is there conflict between Snyder v Brevard County and prior holdings of this court? The county contends that Snyder conflicts with cases from this court describing rezoning as a legislative activity. See, e.g., Lee County v. Morales, 557 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 564 So.2d io86 (Fla.199o); Hirt v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners, 578 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).4 Sunbelt disputes that conflict exists, and notes that our court has employed certiorari review in settings factually similar to the present case. Manatee County v. Kuehnel, 542 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 548 So.2d 663 (Fla.1989). 4 But see Grady v. Lee County, 458 So.2d 1211 (Fla.2d DCA 1984) (discussing the effect of a Lee County zoning ordinance which prescribes review by certiorari). We agree that no material conflict arises between Lee County v. Morales and Snyder. Morales involved a comprehensive downzoning of an environmentally sensitive barrier island initiated by the county, and did not involve an owner initiated zoning change. Moreover, any conflict between Snyder and Hirt v. Polk County exists only in dicta. Hirt was not a rezoning, but rather a neighboring property owner's challenge to approval of a Planned Unit Development. The case was disposed of on procedural grounds — the circuit court had dismissed Hirt's certiorari petition, and i000*t000 this court, finding the county's construction of applicable rules to have been a "judicial" undertaking, ordered the petition reinstated and decided on its merits. In Hirt Judge Scheb engaged in a functional analysis of the underlying administrative proceedings quite similar to that in Snyder (and which was cited with approval in Snyder). Hirt states that the legislative versus judicial determination turns on (1) the nature of the challenge; and (2) the manner in which the zoning authority went about making its decision. Snyder, Sunbelt urges, is "the logical culmination of [this] functional analysis." However, Judge Scheb did remark in passing that rezonings were "legislative." 578 So.zd at 417. He did not distinguish between a county - initiated, broad -based rezoning, as in Morales, and a site -specific, owner initiated rezoning as in Kuehnel. (b) When, if ever, is rezoning a "judicial" matter? Florida's appellate courts are neither unanimous nor consistent on the question whether rezonings are legislative or quasi judicial.5 Neither are they consistent about the method or scope of review. For example, in St. Johns County v. Owings, 554 So.zd 535 (Fla. Sth DCA 1989), rev. denied, 564 So.zd 488 (Fla.199o), and Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So.zd 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So.zd 1183 (Fla. 1988), the courts applied the "fairly debatable" standard appropriate for legislative decisions, but reviewed the proceedings by certiorari as if they were judicial in nature. 5 If, indeed, such distinction can be clearly drawn. As one commentator concluded, after a lengthy analysis of the functional approach of Fasano v. Washington County, infra, "some zoning decisions are difficult to characterize as distinctly legislative or quasi-judicial." Peckingpaugh, "Burden of Proof in Land Use Regulation: A Unified Approach and Application to Florida," 8 F1a.St.U.L.R. 499 (198o)• "A judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present facts and under laws supposed already to exist ... Legislation, on the other hand, looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power." Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 2267 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, 53 L.Ed. 15o, 1S8 (19o8), quoted in Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.zd 1337, 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA i99i), rev. denied, 598 So.zd 75 (Fla. 1992) (Ferguson, J., concurring). A judicial decision involves a controversy over how existing law affects a set of facts — what Judge Scheb called "enforcing" the current ordinance. 578 So.zd at 417. Placed in the zoning/code enforcement context, the court or agency asks: "Has the party done something in violation of the law?" or "Will the law allow the party to do what it wants?" By contrast, legislation changes the existing law. Arguably, it is immaterial whether such change stems from the fiat of the governing body ( e.g a comprehensive rezoning) or from an individual request to "change the law for me" (the Snyder/Sunbelt rezonings). Snyder, in concluding that owner initiated rezoning proceedings are nevertheless quasi-judicial in character, borrows heavily from two sources. One, Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648, 652 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), declares that "it is the character of the administrative hearing leading to the action of the administrative body that determines the label to be attached to the action...." The court in Coral Reef was deciding whether "administrative res judicata" operated to bar a second rezoning application; though they eventually determined that the nature of these rezoning hearings made them "judicial," the court went on to afford considerable deference to the local government in deciding whether circumstances had suffi iently changed to defeat application of the res judicata principle. Another source is the widely -cited opinion of the Oregon Supreme Court, Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (1973). The plaintiffs in Fasano had unsuccessfully opposed a zoning change before their county commission, but prevailed at all levels of iooi the Oregon court *iooi system because the rezoning was not shown to be consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The supreme court began its analysis by stating, "Any meaningful decision as to the proper scope of judicial review of a zoning decision must start with a characterization of the nature of that decision." 507 P.2d at 25-26. Most jurisdictions, including Oregon itself, heretofore had "state [d] that a zoning ordinance is a legislative act and is thereby entitled to presumptive validity." 507 P.2d at 26. This approach, however, may have been "ignoring reality." Id. Ordinances laying down general policies without regard to a specific piece of property are usually an exercise of legislative authority, are subject to limited review and may only be attacked upon constitutional grounds for an arbitrary use of authority. On the other hand, a determination whether the permissible use of a specific piece of property should be changed is usually an exercise of judicial authority and its propriety is subject to an altogether different test. Id 6 6 Fasano is not universally accepted as a correct statement of law or desirable judicial policy. One commentator, comparing decisions from "major comprehensive planning states," notes that California continues to adhere to the "legislative" option, and describes Fasano as "significantly discredited." Gougelman, The Death of Zoning As We Know It, F1a.B.J., March 1993, at 31 n. 35. It is notable that Fasano, like most of the "consistency" cases we will discuss, involved a challenge to a rezoning that (initially) was successfully obtained despite a claim it was not only bad policy but not in compliance with the law. That is, Fasano (like Hirt) asked the question, unarguably judicial in character, "Does the existing law permit it?" The fact remains, however, that many rezoning decisions are properly reviewable by certiorari. While legislative authority (that is, the discretion to determine what the law should be) may not be delegated, a legislative body may delegate to a board or official the authority to apply the law if suffi ient standards and procedural safeguards are adopted to ensure a proper application of legislative intent. Most zoning ordinances delegate, with standards, the authority to decide such things as variances or conditional use approvals, and these quasi-judicial determinations are reviewable by certiorari. Similarly, the authority to decide what zoning district to apply to each property could, with adequate standards, become a delegated, quasi-judicial determination. Far more often, however, rezoning decisions are held to be reviewable by certiorari merely because a zoning ordinance, charter or special act provides that they shall be. LaCroix, The Applicability of Certiorari Review to Decisions on Rezoning, F1a.B.J., June 1991, at io5 ( footnotes omitted). We believe a fair and workable solution is to adopt the functional analysis of Snyder, which is consistent procedurally with our prior decision in Manatee County v. Kuehnel. That is, we agree that site -specific, owner initiated rezoning requests are suffi iently judicial in character that final administrative orders are thereafter appropriate for appellate review. (c) What Does It Mean to Label a Proceeding "Judicial"? Our decision to adopt this portion of the Snyder opinion will measurably affect those local governments who, in continuing to regard Snyder -type rezonings as purely legislative, may utilize overly informal procedures when considering such requests. "When acting in a truly legislative function, a legislative body ... is not required to make findings of fact and statement of reasons supporting its decision as is necessary in order for the courts to effectively review governmental action for compliance with constitutional and statutory rights and limitations." Snyder, 595 So.ad at 68. The effect of labeling rezoning decisions as quasi-judicial is to refer them to an independent forum that is isolated as far as is possible from the more politicized activities of local government, much as the judiciary is constitutionally independent of the legislative and executive branches. loot Because *iooz these decisions today are inextricably linked with property rights -related claims, we view this shift toward enforced neutrality as salutary. The evolving law of property rights, exemplified by Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, U.S. , iiz S.Ct. z886, izo L.Ed.zd 798 (1992), does not augur well for local governments who are reluctant to justify their decisions with explicit references to evidence and public policy. If reached under a veil of silence, even honest land -use decisions are vulnerable to charges of arbitrariness or improper motive. Moreover, it is debatable whether the new procedural requirements implicit in our adoption of Snyder should be viewed either as onerous or as infringing upon powers traditionally reserved for local elected officials. [W]e note that the quality of due process required in a quasi- judicial hearing is not the same as that to which a party to a full judicial hearing is entitled. Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. Nonetheless, certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to afford due process.... A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross- examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.ad at 1340. III. THE SCOPE OF REVIEW AT THE CIRCUIT AND D.C.A. LEVELS It necessarily follows that any party adversely affected by a rezoning decision is entitled to some form of direct appellate review. Therefore, we turn to the standard of review that should be employed by the circuit and district courts when presented with such cases. At the outset we acknowledge the existence of several terms of art which warrant (and may sometimes lack) clear definition, among them "fairly debatable," "substantial competent evidence;' and, in the wake of mandatory statewide comprehensive planning, "consistency" and "strict scrutiny." All come into play in Snyder and in the present case. (a) "Fairly debatable" and "substantial competent evidence" The terms "fairly debatable" — generally applied to sustain actions thought of as legislative — and "substantial competent evidence" — which must exist to support quasi-judicial determinations — may in fact be more similar than some decisional and textual authorities suggest. The "fairly debatable" rule is a rule of reasonableness; it answers the question of whether, upon the evidence presented to the municipal body, the municipality's action is reasonably based. The primary purpose of the "fairly debatable" test is to allocate decision - making authority over zoning matters between the legislative municipal body and the judiciary. The test purports to prevent the court from substituting its judgment with regard to zoning ordinance enactments for that of the zoning authority. In other words, the "fairly debatable" test was created to review the legislative -type enactments of zoning ordinances. Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So.2d 37,39 (F1a.5th DCA 1981), approved, 419 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1982) ( citations omitted; emphasis in original). At issue in DeGroot [v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d gi2 (Fla.1957M was the proper method and scope of review of a quasi-judicial county board determination. The DeCroot court held that where ... notice and hearing are required and the judgment of the board is contingent on the showing made at the hearing, the action is judicial or quasi- judicial ... The court then explained that "competent substantial evidence" was evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The DeCroot "competent substantial evidence" standard of review of quasi-judicial action effectively provides the same standard the "fairly debatable" test provides for 1003 review of legislative municipal zoning action: For *1003 the action to be sustained, it must be reasonably based in the evidence presented." 400 So.2d at 40 ( citations omitted).? 7 In fact the terms were employed virtually interchangeably in Shaughnessy v. Metropolitan Dade County, 238 So.2d 466,469 (Fla.3d DCA 1970), wherein the court found "competent, substantial evidence that the granting of the unusual or special use was at least fairly debatable." (b) "Consistency" and "Strict Scrutiny' In Florida, all zoning and development permitting must now be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city or county in question. See § 163.3161(S), Fla. Stat. (1991). The comprehensive plan has been likened to a "constitution" and has been described as "a limitation on a local government's otherwise broad zoning powers." Machado v. Musgrove, Sig So.2d 629, 632 (Fla.3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, S29 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1988).8 See also, Hillsborough County v. Putney, 495 So.2d 224 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). And cf. City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher, 467 So.2d 468,471 (Cowart, J., concurring specially). 8 But see § 163.3161(8), Fla. Stat. (1991): "It is the intent of the legislature that [this Act] shall not be interpreted to limit or restrict the powers of municipal or county officials, but shall be interpreted as a recognition of their broad statutory and constitutional powers to plan for and regulate the use of land." According to Machado, "where a zoning action is challenged as violative of the comprehensive land use plan, the burden of proof is on the one seeking a change to show by competent and substantial evidence that the proposed development conforms strictly to the comprehensive plan and its elements." Id. Thus arises the term "strict scrutiny." Apparently there is conflict, between Machado and Southwest Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla.4th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1987), as to when "strict scrutiny" should be employed. See Mitchell, "In Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan: The Rise of Strict Scrutiny in Florida," 6 F1a.St. U.J.Land Use Envtl.L. 79 (1990).9 9 In Southwest Ranches, neighbors of a proposed solid waste facility objected that the rezoning which permitted the facility was more intensive than, and therefore inconsistent with, the comprehensive plan. The district court held that "[w]here the zoning authority approves a use more intensive than that proposed by the plan ... the decision must be subject to stricter scrutiny than the fairly debatable standard contemplates." 5o2 So.2d at 936 ( emphasis ours). See also Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 16o,163 n. 2 (Fla.1st DCA). By contrast, Machado holds that strict scrutiny applies "to [all] cases addressing the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan, regardless of the direction of the change." Mitchell, at 89. (c) Scope of judicial review The standards for judicial review of local government administrative actions were established by our supreme court in Education Development Center v. West Palm Beach and Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant. At the circuit level, three questions are asked: whether due process was afforded, whether the administrative body applied the correct law, and whether its findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. This last requirement is susceptible to misunderstanding. It involves a purely legal question: whether the record contains the necessary quantum of evidence. The circuit court is not permitted to go farther and reweigh that evidence ( e.g., where there may be conflicts in the evidence), or to substitute its judgment about what should be done for that of the administrative agency. Bell v. City of Sarasota, 371 So.ad 5215 (Fla.ad DCA 1979) On further review by certiorari in the District Courts of Appeal, only the first two questions are considered. Where (as in the present case) there is no suggestion of a due process violation in the initial appeal, the district court determines only whether the circuit court "applied an incorrect principle of law." Education Development Center, 541 So.ad at 1o8. We may not exceed these extremely restrictive parameters and "disagree with the circuit court's evaluation of the evidence." 541 So.ad at 1o8-9. Thus, if the correct rule of law for a circuit court to apply were the "substantial competent 1004evidence" standard, *1004 and the court did apply that standard, its decision should be sustained. Our power of review would entitle us to quash the circuit court's decision only if it imposed a dif' rent standard upon the parties than that required by law. Kuehnel. Our reading of Snyder convinces us that the district court in that case, having reached a supportable conclusion that site -specific rezonings are quasi-judicial proceedings, thereafter embarked upon a considerable departure from prior holdings in the realm of land use law. We decline to adopt the remainder of the Snyder decision, for reasons we will explain in due course. Accordingly, by imposing upon Lee County certain burdens of proof required by Snyder, the circuit court did apply the incorrect law to the dispute between the county and Sunbelt, justifying our issuance of a writ of certiorari. IV. WHERE SNYDER HAS DEPARTED FROM PRECEDENT (a) What Must Be Shown Under Snyder After a lengthy discussion of related legal issues ranging from the legislative/judicial distinction to private property rights, the Snyder court stated its conclusions, beginning with the statement that "[t]he initial burden is on the landowner to demonstrate that ... the use sought is consistent with the applicable comprehensive zoning plan." S9S So.2d at 81. Assuming this can be done, the landowner is presumptively entitled to use his property in the manner he seeks unless the opposing governmental agency asserts and proves by clear and convincing evidence that a specifically stated public necessity requires a specified, more restrictive use. After such a showing the burden shifts to the landowner to assert and prove that such specified more restrictive land use constitutes a taking of his property for public use for which he is entitled to compensation.... Id. ( emphasis ours; footnote omitted). (b) The Distinction Between Zoning and Comprehensive Planning Perhaps we read too much into the use, in Snyder, of the term "comprehensive zoning plan,"but it gives us pause. As is made clear in Machado and other "consistency" cases, comprehensive planning and zoning are interrelated but different functions of local government. "As the court in [ Jacksonville Beach v.] Grubbs noted, the purpose of a comprehensive plan is to set general guidelines for future development, and not necessarily to accomplish immediate land use changes." Southwest Ranches, Sot So.2d at 936. A comprehensive plan might accommodate a range of permissible zoning categories for a given area. In a case decided after the advent of comprehensive planning but before the 1985 Growth Management Act mandated such planning statewide, the Third District Court of Appeal held that it is within the discretion of a local government to impose a zoning category at the low end of that range. Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 36o So.2d 1130 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). Until Snyder there was no reason to suspect this was not still a correct statement of law.10 to For example, § 163.3164(22), Fla. Stat. (1991), defining "land development regulations," implies the persistence of legislative recognition of the separate concept of zoning. In contrast to Inversiones Rafamar, Snyder seems to place little credence in zoning classifications, as opposed to the broader land use projections embodied in a comprehensive plan, particularly where the zoning in question would allow only low -intensity uses of the land. Perhaps this skepticism might be supportable based on record evidence presented in the Snyder hearings and circuit court proceedings, but we find the district court's pronouncements unacceptably overbroad if intended for general application to all jurisdictions statewide: Most communities in actual practice have zoned their undeveloped 1005 land under a highly restrictive classification such as *loos "general use" and agriculture.... The original intent was not to permanently preclude more intensive development but to adopt a "wait and see attitude toward the direction of future development. Most government ofri ials have little motivation to incur the "wrath of neighbors by zoning vacant land for industrial, commercial, or intensive residential development in advance of an actual proposal for development." In reality, therefore, at the inception of zoning most land was zoned according to its then use, exceptions were grandfathered in and most vacant land was under -zoned or "short -zoned." In order for development to proceed, rezoning becomes not the exception, but the rule ... [R]ezoning is granted not solely on the basis of the land's suitability to the new zoning classification and compatibility with the use of surrounding acreage, but, also and perhaps foremost, on local political considerations including who the owner is, who the objectors are, the particular and exact land improvement and use that is intended to be made and whose ox is being fattened or gored by the granting or denial of the rezoning request. 595 So.ad at 72-3 ( citations omitted).11 " Contrast such timid politics as described in Snyder with the reaction of the Fasano court to suggestions that "planning authorities be vested with the ability to adjust more freely to changed conditions": "[H]aving weighed the dangers of making desirable change more difficult against the dangers of the almost irresistible pressures that can be asserted by private economic interests on local government, we believe that the latter dangers are more to be feared." 507 P.ad at 29-3o. And see Machado at Sig So.zd 634: "[T]he opponents, neighboring landowners, contend that conditions change in rapid and uncontrolled fashion in Dade County, increasing the need for costly public services and facilities, due to loose enforcement of the land use planning scheme." As we have elsewhere implied, most "strict scrutiny" cases prior to Snyder have invoked "consistency" to place brakes on development some thought too intensive, rather than to enforce a right to more intensive development than has been allowed. Reassessing site - specific rezonings as quasi-judicial should help place limits both on questionable runaway development and on intransigent, unrealistic underzoning of developable property. It has long been the law that when the applicant makes a threshold showing that existing zoning is unreasonable, the local government must prove otherwise. See, e.g., City of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, 217 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1968); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.ad 16o (Fla.1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 469 So.ad 749 (Fla. 1985). However, absent the assertion of some enforceable property right, an application for rezoning appeals at least in part to local offs ials' discretion to accept or reject the applicant's argument that change is desirable. The right of judicial review does not ipso facto ease the burden on a party seeking to overturn a decision made by a local government, and certainly does not confer any property -based right upon the owner where none previously existed. An old saying has it, "If you bought a swamp, there is some presumption you wanted a swamp." Put another way, there must be some presumption, even if only an easily rebuttable one, that land zoned for agricultural use is best suited for that purpose. This does not mean that comprehensive planners, with an eye toward conditions years hence, might not expect that same land someday to be crowded with houses, industrial plants, or commercial establishments. Nor does it mean that zoning authorities, during their initial (and truly "legislative") attempts to classify properties, always act wisely or fairly in designating low -intensity uses. However, implicit in Snyder is a suggestion that the future -oriented comprehensive planning process12 always will result in a more accurate and appropriate use designation than will the more immediate act of zoning a specific parcel. We believe that both a comprehensive plan and a zoning classification are presumptively valid, and that one seeking a change in either has the burden of showing its invalidity. 12. See, e.g., §§ 163.3167(i),163.3177(l), and 163.3177(6) (a), Fla. Stat. (i99i), all of which are distinctly future -oriented. Moreover, when it is the zoning classification that is challenged, the =6comprehensive plan is relevant only when the *ioo6 suggested use is inconsistent with that plan. Where any of several zoning classifications is consistent with the plan, the applicant seeking a change from one to the other is not entitled to judicial relief absent proof the status quo is no longer reasonable. It is not enough simply to be "consistent"; the proposed change cannot be inconsistent, and will be subject to the "strict scrutiny" of Machado to insure this does not happen. (c) "Clear and Convincing Evidence" The use, in Snyder, of the term "clear and convincing evidence" (as opposed to "substantial competent evidence") is derived from Department of Latin Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.ad 957 (Fla. i99i), and numerous other cases, all of which involve a clear and acknowledged deprivation of property or other fundamental legal rights. See 595 So.zd at 81 n. 70. Heretofore it has never been a requirement in zoning cases that an existing classification be substantiated to this degree.13 We believe this shift in the burden of proof derives from an incorrect assumption about the nature and extent of a landowner's property rights. �3 Definitions of "clear and convincing evidence" abound. For example, the supreme court, in The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So.zd S94 (Fla.197o), appears to have contemplated something stronger than the "preponderance of evidence" standard ordinarily seen in civil cases, but less than the criminal "reasonable doubt" standard. Perhaps the best-known attempt to define the term occurs in Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.ad 797, Boo (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), wherein the court spoke of evidence or testimony that is 'credible," 'distinctly remembered," "precise," and "explicit" — evidence which "must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief and conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established." This would appear to us to be considerably more rigorous a standard of proof than the relatively deferential "competent substantial evidence" test applied to the quasi- judicial decisions of administrative bodies. This test requires "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." DeGrooty. Sheffield, 95 So.2d gig, 916 (Fla. 1957)• It has never been the law that a landowner is always entitled to the "highest and best" use of his land. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978). This is not to suggest that a local government, in enacting land use codes, may disregard the landowner's rights. First of all, land use restrictions must substantially advance some legitimate state interest, or they are invalid. Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825,107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). Second, they cannot be so intrusive as to deprive the landowner of reasonable economic use of the property, nor should previously permissible or "grandfathered" uses be incautiously rescinded. Lucas. However, assuming a regulation is necessary for the welfare of the public, and is not physically invasive or confiscatory of some existing property right, it is probably within the government's "police power" to enact it. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). It must be remembered that zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and similar enactments are (or should be) debated in a public forum with all affected parties having the right to be heard. Thereafter, the dissatisfied landowner has several avenues of redress, including injunctive relief against the enforcement of the offending ordinance or a suit for inverse condemnation. Even the landowner who is temporarily satisfied with the status quo is not without options when conditions change and undercut what once were reasonable expectations of fruitful use. This is the occasion for the Snyder -type individualized rezoning application, which we now declare to be quasi-judicial and therefore subject to procedural safeguards. That such a system is not flawless is to be expected — repairing the errors that sometimes occur may expend resources and judicial labor. The alternative, however, is to reject or at least fundamentally undercut the power of local governments to superintend the use of real property. The Supreme Court, whose most "conservative" statement may have come in 1007 Lucas, has never interpreted the Fifth Amendment '1007 "just compensation" clause (the source of "takings jurisprudence") as demanding this. In the wake of Lucas, Nollan, and related cases, those favoring land use restrictions may find their activities the subject of heightened scrutiny into their reasonableness and intrusiveness. However, and despite the apprehensions (or hopes) of some observers, more fundamental change than this did not occur in Lucas. 14 14 This portion of our opinion analyzes the tension between regulation and property rights in light of decisions interpreting relevant portions of the United States Constitution. The test for "takings" under the Florida Constitution is substantially the same. See Graham v. Estuary Properties, 399 So.ad 1374 (Fla.), cert. denied sub nom. Taylor v. Graham, 454 U.S.1083,102 S.Ct. 640, 7o L.Ed.ad 618 (1981). (d) Reconciling Our Views with the Procedure Adopted in Snyder The courts, reviewing a rezoning application, should not presume the landowner does or can assert an enforceable property right, one which triggers application of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, every time a more intensive use of the property is sought. Instead, the landowner must prove the existence of such a right, not just consistency with a comprehensive plan, before so rigorous a burden will be imposed upon the local government. The question arises, however, just how much the landowner must prove before the burden shifts. In this regard, we have no quarrel with the procedure adopted in Snyder up to a point. Snyder accepts, for example, that the initial burden is still upon the applicant, who must demonstrate something more than that a rezoning is subjectively desirable. Before the advent of mandatory statewide comprehensive planning, that "something" was whether "the existing ordinance was confiscatory in effect." St. Petersburg v. Aikin, aid So.ad at 317. For the most part Snyder can be interpreted as easing this burden without actually changing the law. Its emphasis on "consistency" means that wherever planners have determined a particular use is someday acceptable, the local government must now prove that the present zoning is not confiscatory rather than requiring the landowner to prove it is confiscatory. So far this shifting of burdens, which emphasizes that governments must bear some responsibility to act carefully when restricting property rights, can be accommodated without abandoning traditional notions about the "police power" that underlies all zoning ordinances. It is at this point that Snyder most clearly departs from precedent. According to Snyder, once a rezoning proposal is shown to be "consistent," the local government must prove by clear and convincing evidence, that "public necessity requires a ... more restrictive use." Instead, we believe that the local government is required only to show by substantial competent evidence that the existing (obviously more restrictive) zoning classification was enacted in furtherance of some legitimate public purpose and that the public interest is legitimately served by continuing that classification. If the zoning ordinance was constitutional ab initio, and it remains constitutional in the face of whatever changes have prompted the landowner to request rezoning, the rezoning may be refused provided the local government can justify this conclusion with evidence on the record. Assuming it can do that, Snyder thereafter correctly shifts the burden back to the landowner "to assert and prove ... a taking" — that is, that the ordinance is confiscatory. V. RESOLVING THE SUNBELT REZONING APPLICATION Implicit in the circuit court's holding is an acceptance of Sunbelt's argument that its design is consistent with the Lee County comprehensive plan. There is evidence to support this argument, albeit contradicted by the county commission ordinance. Although Sunbelt's property is currently zoned "agricultural," a Future Land Use Map depicts the surrounding area as "suburban." Such a designation limits commercial development to "neighborhood centers," which in turn are limited to a maximum of ioo,000 ioo8square feet. Sunbelt *=8 has projected only 65,000 square feet of commercial space.'s A hearing offi er did find that a final development order cannot be issued until after certain amendments are made to the Sunbelt application; Sunbelt "is fully aware of this impediment," and the mere acts of rezoning and approval of the "master concept plan" do not ipso facto "bestow or vest any development rights." is Sunbelt also wants to construct an additional 85,000 square feet for offices. Opponents of the project argued that the office space should be counted when calculating the total square footage, but a hearing officer found that the county's planning policy clearly dictates otherwise. However, if (as we believe) Snyder is incorrect, it is not enough that Sunbelt's proposal is consistent with what Lee County planners envision as the eventual buildout of this area. One must also look to the present character of the area, which is reflected in the existing zoning classification. This aspect of the comprehensive plan represents, in effect, a future ceiling above which development should not proceed. It does not give developers carte blanche to approach that ceiling immediately, or on their private timetable, any more than a city or county is entitled to view its planning and zoning responsibilities as mere make-work. Nothing in this opinion is intended to imply that Sunbelt, after remand, cannot establish a present right to the rezoning it desires. However, the mere fact of consistency with the comprehensive plan, even if undisputed by the county, would not mandate such a result. To sustain the county's decision to deny, it is suffi ient that the record reflect substantial competent evidence favoring continuation of the status quo. i6 This decision likely will require analysis of the reasons underlying the present zoning classification — whether it represents a considered belief that agriculture is the most appropriate use, or was idly chosen as the court suggested had occurred in Snyder. i6 Though the circuit court's order states that no such evidence was presented to support denial of the rezoning, the record suggests that the court did hold the county to the more rigorous burden of proof required by Snyder. There appears to have been no examination or consideration of the reasonableness of the existing zoning classification. The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby granted, the order of the circuit court is quashed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HALL, A.C.J., and THREADOILL and BLUE, JJ., concur. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext's legal research suite. Get a Demo Casetext research Parallel Search Compose Pricing Switch Big firm Coverage SmartCite Public records search Partnerships and Resources Law school access Bar associations About us Jobs Blog Podcast News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Privacy Terms © 2021 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. LEAGLE f in f1 Home / Browse Decisions / So.2d / 58 S9 o.2d / 589 So.2d 1337 (1991) JENNINGS v. DADE COUNTY Nos. 88-1324, 88-1325. Email I Print I Comments (o) View Case Cited Cases Citing Case 589 S0.2d 1337 (1991) Milton S. JENNINGS, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTYand Larry Schatzman, Appellees. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. August 6,1991. On Rehearing Granted December 17,1991. Attorneys) appearing for the Case John G. Fletcher, South Miami, forappellant. RobertD. Korner and Roland C. Robinson, Miami, Robert A. Ginsburg, CountyAtty., and Eileen Ball Mehta and CraigH. Coller, Asst. CountyAttys., for appellees. Joel V. Lumer, Miami, for The Sierra Club asAmicus Curiae. Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ. ON REHEARING GRANTED NESBITT, Judge. The issue we confront is the effect of an ex parte communication upon a decision emanating from a quasi-judicial proceeding of the Dade County Commission. We hold that upon proof that a quasi-judicial officer received an ex parte contact, a presumption arises, pursuant to section 90.304, Florida Statutes (1989), that the contact was prejudicial. The aggrieved party will be entitled to a new and complete hearing before the commission unless the defendant proves that the communication was not, in fact, prejudicial. For the reasons that follow, we quash the order under review with directions. Respondent Schatzman applied for a variance to permit him to operate a quick oil change business on his property adjacent to that of petitioner Jennings. The Zoning Appeals Board granted Schatzman's request. The county commission upheld the 1589 S0.2d 13401 board's decision. Six days prior to the commission's action, a lobbyist Schatzman employed to assist him in connection with the proceedings registered his identity as required by section 2-11.1(S) of the Dade County Ordinances. Jennings did not attempt to determine the content of any communication between the lobbyist and the commission or otherwise challenge the propriety of any communication prior to or at the hearing. Following the commission order, Jennings filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in circuit court wherein he alleged that Schatzman's lobbyist communicated with some or all of the county commissioners prior to the vote, thus denying Jennings due process both under the United States and Florida constitutions as well as section (A)(8) of the Citizens' Bill of Rights, Dade County Charter. Jennings requested the court to conduct a hearing to establish the truth of the allegations of the complaint and upon a favorable determination then to issue an injunction prohibiting use of the property as allowed by the county. Based upon the identical allegations, Jennings also claimed in the second count of his complaint that Schatzman's use of the permitted variance constituted a nuisance which he requested the court to enjoin. The trial court dismissed Count I of the complaint, against both Dade County and Schatzman. The court gave Jennings leave only against Dade County to amend the complaint and to transfer the matter to the appellate division of the circuit court. The trial court denied Schatzman's motion to dismiss Count II and required him to file an answer. Jennings then timely filed We have jurisdiction based on the following analysis. The trial court's order dismissed Jennings' equitable claim of non -record ex parte communications while it simultaneously reserved jurisdiction for Jennings to amend his complaint so as to seek common law certiorari review pursuant to Dade County v. Marca, S.A., 326 So.2d 183. (Fla. 1976). Under Marca, Jennings would be entitled solely to a review of the record as it now exists. However, since the content of ex parte contacts is not part of the existing record, such review would prohibit the ascertainment of the contacts' impact on the commission's determination. This order has the effect then of so radically altering the relief available to Jennings that it is the functional equivalent of requiring him to litigate in a different forum. Thus, Jennings' timely petition activates our common law certiorari jurisdiction because the order sought to be reviewed a) constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, and b) requires him to litigate a putative claim in a proceeding that cannot afford him the relief requested and for that reason does not afford him an adequate remedy. See Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1956); Norris v. Southern Bell Tel & Tel Co., 324 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA i96o). The same reasoning does not apply against Schatzman. Nonetheless, because we have jurisdiction, there is no impediment to our exercising it over Schatzman as a party. At the outset of our review of the trial court's dismissal, we note that the quality of due process required in a quasi-judicial hearing is not the same as that to which a party to full judicial hearing is entitled. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Hadley v. Department of Admin., -411 So.2d 184. (Fla. 1982). Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. See Astore v. Florida Real Estate Comm'n, 374 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970 Woodham v. Williams, 207 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Nonetheless, certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to afford due process. See Hadley, 411 So.2d at 184; City of Miami v. Jervis, 13 5�513. (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Consequently, a quasi-judicial decision based upon the record is not conclusive if minimal standards of due process are denied. See Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 480-81, 56 S.Ct. 906, 911-12, 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1936); Western Gillette, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. COmm'n, 121 Ariz. 5_41, 592 P.2d 375 (Ct.App. 1979). A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity 1589 SO.2d 13411 to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. BabcockCo., _4 o So.2d 648, 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).1 The reported decisions considering the due process effect of an ex parte communication upon a quasi-judicial decision are conflicting. Some courts hold that an ex parte communication does not deny due process where the substance of the communication was capable of discovery by the complaining party in time to rebut it on the record. See, e.g., Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 410, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1431-32, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); United Air Lines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 3oq F.2d 238 (D.C. Cir.1962); Jarrott v. Scrivener, 225 F.Supp. 827, 834 (D.D.C. 1964). Other courts focus upon the nature of the ex parte communication and whether it was material to the point that it prejudiced the complaining party and thus resulted in a denial of procedural due process. E.g., Waste Management v. Pollution Control Bd.,17 IS 11.App.3d io23, 125 I11.Dec. 524, 53o N.E.2d 682 (Ct.App. 1988), appeal denied, 125 I11.2d 575, 130 I11.Dec. 490, 537 N.E.2d 81g (1989); Professional Air Traffic Controllers Org. (PATCO) v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 685 F.2d 5-47, 564-65 (D.C. Cir.1982); Erdman v. Ingraham, 28 A.D.2d 5, 280 N.Y.S.2d 865, 870 (Ct.App.1967). The county adopts the first position and argues that Jennings was not denied due process because he either knew or should have known of an ex parte communication due to the mandatory registration required of lobbyists. The county further contends that Jennings failed to avail himself of section 33- 316 of the Dade County Code to subpoena the lobbyist to testify at the hearing so as to detect and refute the content of any ex parte communication. We disagree with the county's position. Ex parte communications are inherently improper and are anathema to quasi-judicial proceedings. Quasi-judicial officers should avoid all such contacts where they are identifiable. However, we recognize the reality that commissioners are elected officials in which capacity they may unavoidably be the recipients of unsolicited ex parte communications regarding quasi-judicial matters they are to decide. The occurrence of such a communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding does not mandate automatic reversal. Nevertheless, we hold that the allegation of prejudice resulting from ex parte contacts with the decision makers in a quasi-judicial proceeding states a cause of action. E.g., Waste Management; PATCO. Upon the aggrieved party's proof that an ex parte contact occurred, its effect is presumed to be prejudicial unless the defendant proves the contrary by competent evidence. § 90.304. See generally Caldwell v. Division of Retirement, 372 So.2d 438 (Fla. 1979) (for discussion of rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof). Because knowledge and evidence of the contact's impact are peculiarly in the hands of the defendant quasi-judicial officer(s), we find such a burden appropriate. See Technicable Video Sys. v. Americable, 4.79 So.2d 810 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Allstate Finance Corp. v. Zimmerman, 33o F.2d 740 (5th Cir.1964). In determining the prejudicial effect of an ex parte communication, the trial court should consider the following criteria which we adopt from PATCO, 685 F.2d at 564-65: [w]hether, as a result of improper ex parte communications, the agency's decisionmaking process was irrevocably tainted so as to make the ultimate judgment of the agency unfair, either as to an innocent party or to the public interest that the agency was obliged to protect. In making this determination, a number of considerations may be relevant: the gravity of the ex parte communications; whether the contacts may have influenced the agency's ultimate decision; whether the party making the improper contacts benefited from the agency's ultimate decision; whether the contents of the communications were unknown to opposing parties, who therefore had no opportunity to respond; and whether vacation of the agency's decision and remand for new proceedings would serve a useful purpose. Since the principal concerns of the court are the integrity of the process and the fairness of the result, mechanical rules have little place in a judicial decision whether to vacate a voidable agency proceeding. Instead, any such decision must of necessity be an exercise of equitable discretion. Accord E & E Hauling, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd., 116 Ill.App.3d 586, 71 Ill.Dec. 587, 603, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571 (Ct.App. 1983), affd, 107 I11.2d 33, 89 111.Dec. 821, 481 N.E.2d 664 (1985). Accordingly, we hold that the allegation of a prejudicial ex parte communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding before the Dade County Commission will enable a party to maintain an original equitable cause of action to establish its claim. Once established, the offending party will be required to prove an absence of prejudice. 2 In the present case, Jennings' complaint does not allege that any communication which did occur caused him prejudice. Consequently, we direct that upon remand Jennings shall be afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint. Upon such an amendment, Jennings shall be provided an evidentiary hearing to present his prima facie case that ex parte contacts occurred. Upon such proof, prejudice shall be presumed. The burden will then shift to the respondents to rebut the presumption that prejudice occurred to the claimant. Should the respondents produce enough evidence to dispel the presumption, then it will become the duty of the trial judge to determine the claim in light of all the evidence in the case. 3, 4 For the foregoing reasons, the application for common law certiorari is granted. The orders of the circuit court are quashed 5 and remanded with directions. BARKDULL, J., concurs. FERGUSON, Judge (concurring). I concur in the result and write separately to address two arguments of the appellees: (1) This court in Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rejected attempts to categorize county commission hearings on district boundary changes as "legislative," while treating hearings on applications for special exceptions or variances as "quasi-judicial"; and (2) the petitioner does not state a cause of action by alleging simply that a lobbyist discussed the case in a private meeting with members of the County Commission prior to the hearing. It is clear from Judge Nesbitt's opinion for the court that neither argument is accepted. Legislative and Quasi -Judicial functions Distinct In support of its argument, that "[t]his Court has previously rejected attempts to categorize county commission hearings on district boundary changes as 'legislative', while treating hearings on applications for special exceptions or variances as 'quasi-judicial', " Dade County cites Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Company, _4 o So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The argument is made for the purpose of bringing this case within what the respondents describe 1589 SO-2d 13431 as a legislative -function exception to the rule against ex parte communications. Indeed, there is language in the Coral Reef opinion, particularly the dicta that "it is the character of the administrative hearing leading to the action of the administrative body that determines the label" as legislative or quasi-judicial, Coral Reef at 652, which, when read out of context, lends support to Dade County's contentions. As an abstract proposition, the statement is inaccurate. Whereas the character of an administrative hearing will determine whether the proceeding is quasi-judicial or executive, De Groot v. Sheffield, .9 S5 o.2d 912, 915 (Fla. 1957), it is the nature of the act performed that determines its character as legislative or otherwise. Suburban Medical Center v. Olathe CommunityHosp., 226 Kan. 320, 328, 5-97 P.2d 65-4, 661 (1979). See also Walgreen Co. v. Polk County, 524 So.2d 111% 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) ("The quasi-judicial nature of a proceeding is not altered by mere procedural flaws."). A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present facts and under laws supposed already to exist. That is its purpose and end. Legislation, on the other hand, looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power. Suburban Medical Center, 597 P.2d at 661(quoting Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, 53 L.Ed.150 (1908)).' It is settled that the enactment and amending of zoning ordinances is a legislative function — by case law, Schauer v. City of Miami Beach,112 So.2d 838 (Fla.1950 Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (en banc), rev. denied, 529 S0.2d 694 (Fla. 1988), by statute, sections 163.3161 and 166.041, Florida Statutes (1989), and by ordinance, Dade County Code § 35-303. See also Anderson, Law of Zoning, § 1.13 (2d Ed. 1976) (zoning is a legislative act representing a legislative judgment as to how land within the city should be utilized and where the lines of demarcation between the several zones should be drawn); io1 C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning § 1 (1958) (same). It is also fairly settled in this state that the granting of variances, 2 and special exceptions or permits, are quasi-judicial actions. 3 Walgreen Co. v. Polk County, 524 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); City of New Smyrna Beach v. Barton, _414 So.2d 5-42 (Fla. 5th DCA) (Cowart, J., concurring [589 S0.2d 13"] specially), rev. denied, 424 So.2d76o (Fla. 1982); City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So.2d 65_7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade,166 So.2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). A variance contemplates a nonconforming use in order to alleviate an undue burden on the individual property owner caused by the existing zoning. Rezoning contemplates a change in existing zoning rules and regulations within a district, subdivision or other comparatively large area in a given governmental unit. Troup v. Bird, 5 S3 o 2d 717 (Fla. 1951); Mayflower Property, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale,13.7 5o.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); 1o1A C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning§ 231(1979). Coral Beef Case Clarified Coral Reef involved a legislative action. The issue before the court was whether there was a showing of substantial and material changes in a 1979 application for a rezoning so that a 1978 denial of an application for the same changes, on the same parcel, by the same applicant, would not be precluded by res judicata principles. It was not necessary to hold the 1978 hearing quasi-judicial in character in order to find that the 1978 resolution had preclusive effect on the 1979 zoning hearing. There is a requirement for procedural fairness in all land use hearings, whether on an application for a boundary change or a variance. Adherence to that constitutional standard, however, does not alter the distinct legal differences between quasi-judicial and legislative proceedings in land use cases. We clarify Coral Reef, in accordance with its facts, as holding only that legislation denying an application for rezoning has a preclusive effect on a subsequent application for the same rezoning, unless the applicant can show substantial and material changes in circumstances. Treister v. City of Miami, 5-75 S0.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA i99i), relying on Coral Reef. An interpretation of Coral Reef as holding that there is no longer a distinction between legislative actions and quasi-judicial actions of a county commission in land use cases goes far beyond the actual holding of the case, and is clearly erroneous. See note 1 supra. we held that county commissioners, when acting in their legislative capacities, have the right to publicly state their views on pending legislative matters. Izaak Walton League does not address the issue of ex parte communications or prehearing pronouncements in quasi-judicial proceedings. Lobbying Jennings argues here that the behind -the -scenes lobbying 4 of the commissioners by Schatzman, for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an appeal from a quasi-judicial proceeding, violated the Citizens' Bill of Rights 5 of the Dade County Charter, as well as the due process provisions of 1589 SO -ad 13451 the United States and Florida Constitutions. We agree, obviously, that the lobbying actions were unlawful. Dade County and Schatzman respond that Jennings is entitled to no relief because he has not alleged and demonstrated a resulting prejudice. In the opinion on rehearing this court now clearly rejects that argument. Prejudice is to be presumed, without further proof, from the mere fact that any county commissioner granted a private audience to a lobbyist, whose purpose was to solicit the commissioner to vote a certain way in an administrative proceeding for reasons not necessarily addressed solely to the merits of the petition, and that the commissioner did vote accordingly. Starting with the legal definition of lobbying, see note 4 supra, and applying common knowledge as to how the practice works, there is a compelling reason for placing the burden of proving no prejudice on the party responsible for the ex parte communication. Although an ex parte communication with a quasi-judicial tribunal makes its final action voidable, rather than void per se, the presumption which is drawn from the fact of the improper conduct, is applied to promote a strong social policy and is sufficient evidence to convince the fact -finder that the innocent party has been prejudiced; the rebuttable presumption imposes upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof concerning the nonexistence of the presumed fact. 6 § 90.304, Fla. Stat. (1991); Department of Agriculture & Consumer Servs. v. Bonanno, 568 So.2d 24, 31-32 (Fla. 1990); Black's Law Dictionary 1349 (4th ed.1968). Ex parte lobbying of an administrative body acting quasi -judicially denies the parties a fair, open, and impartial hearing. Suburban Medical Center v. Olathe CommunityHosp., 226 Kan. 320, 5-Q7 P.2d 65-4. (1979)• Adherence to procedures which insure fairness "is essential not only to the legal validity of the administrative regulation, but also to the maintenance of public confidence in the value and soundness of this important governmental process." Id. 597 P.2d at 662 (citing 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 351). The constitutional compulsions which led to the establishment of rules regarding the disqualification of judges apply with equal force to every tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. 1 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 64, at 860 (1962); City of Tallahassee v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 441 So.2d 620 (Fla. 1983) (standard used in disqualifying agency head is same standard used in disqualifying judge). See also Rogers v. Friedman, 4 83 F.SupP_418 (E.D.Tex.1977) (rule as to disqualification of judges is same for administrative agencies as it is for courts) (citing K. Davis, Administrative Law§ 12.04, at 250 (1972)). Ritter v. Board ofComm 'rs ofAdams County, 96 Wn.2d 503, 63.7 P.2d 940 (1981) (same). FootNotes * Judge Barkdull participated in decision only. 1. It was conceded at oral argument that the hearing before the commission in this case was quasi-judicial. 2. In such a proceeding, the principles and maxims of equity are applicable. See 22 F1a.Jur.2d Equity§§ 44, et seq. (1980). 3. In rebutting the presumption of prejudice, respondent may rely on any favorable evidence presented during the claimant's case -in -chief, including that adduced during respondent's cross-examination of claimant's witnesses. 4. Under the PATCO test adopted, one of the primary concerns is whether the ex parte communication had sufficient impact upon the decision and, therefore, whether the vacation of the agency's decision and remand for a new proceeding would be likely to change the result. 5. Nothing in this decision shall affect our holding in IzaakWalton League ofAmerica v. Monroe County, 448 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (county commission acting in a legislative capacity). 1. Relying on Coral Reef, the majority opinion refers to "quasi-judicial zoning proceedings," a confounding phrase which has its genesis in Rinker Materials Corp. v. Dade County, 528 So.2d 204, 906, n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). There Dade County argued to this court that the according of "procedural due process" converts a legislative proceeding into a quasi-judicial proceeding, citing Coral Reef. That proposition runs afoul of an entire body of administrative law. If an act is in essence legislative in character, the fact of a notice and a hearing does not transform it into a judicial act. If it would be a legislative act without notice and a hearing, it is still a legislative act with notice and a hearing. See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L.Ed.150 (1908); Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., i5_4U_S. 362,14 S.Ct.1047, 38 L.Ed.1014 (1894). 2. A variance is a modification of the zoning ordinance which may be granted when such variance will not be contrary to the public interest and when, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. 7 F1aJur2d, Building, Zoning, and Land Controls, § 140 (1978). The normal function of a variance is to permit a change in "building restrictions or height and density limitations" but not a change in "use classifications". George v. Miami Shores Village, 15-4So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). 3. An administrative body acts quasi -judicially when it adjudicates private rights of a particular person after a hearing which comports with due process a cyuaa 1.aacaaw, aaau aaaanca aaaaun ra va L-a aaau cvaacauaavaaa va MVV vaa Luc -FULcu aaauco. L-1-v.us wu auuLaaaae.c yuaaa-Iuuauaa Qc a uy aavaa- deferential judicial standards. See City of Apopka v. Orange County, 29q So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)• On review of legislative acts, the court makes a deferential inquiry, i.e., is the exercise of discretionary authority "fairly debatable." Southwest Ranches Homeowners Assn v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1987). Further, there is no requirement that a governmental body, acting in its legislative capacity, support its actions with findings of fact and conclusions of law. 4. "'Lobbying is defined as any personal solicitation of a member of a legislative body during a session thereof, by private interview, or letter or message, or other means and appliances not [necessarily] addressed solely to the judgment, to favor or oppose, or to vote for or against, any bill, resolution, report, or claim pending, or to be introduced ..., by any person ... who is employed for a consideration by a person or corporation interested in the passage or defeat of such bill, resolution, or report, or claim, for the purpose of procuring the passage or defeat thereof." Black's Law Dictionary 1086 (rev. 4th ed.1968). (Emphasis supplied). The work of lobbying is performed by lobbyists. A lobbyist is one who makes it a business to "see" members of a legislative body and procure, by persuasion, importunity, or the use of inducements, the passing of bills, public as well as private, which involve gain to the promoters. Id. 5. Section a(8), Citizens' Bill of Rights, Dade County Charter, provides in pertinent part: At any zoning or other hearing in which review is exclusively by certiorari, a party or his counsel shall be entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The decision of any such agency, board, department or authority must be based upon the facts in the record. 6. PATCO v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 685 F.2d 5_47 (D.C. Cir.1982), relied on by Judge Nesbitt, supports this view. There the court was construing section 557(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, governing ex parte communications. The Act provides, in subsection (C), that a member of the body involved in the decisional process who receives any prohibited communication shall place the contents of the communication on public record. Subsection (D) states that where the communication was knowingly made by a party in violation of this subsection, the party may be required "to show cause why his claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed, denied, disregarded, or otherwise adversely affected on account of such violation." 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(d)(1)(C), (D). Comment Your Name Your Email Comments Submit 1000 Characters Remaining Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. Copyright © 2019, Leagle, Inc. Disclaimer I Terms of Use I Privacy Statement I Corporate Social Responsibility I About Us I Contact Us Cited By (21)1 (/feed/search/?type=o&q=cites%3A(1666417)) This case has been cited by other opinions: • Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co. (1982) (/opinion/1115503/coral-reef-nurseries-inc-v-babcock-co/?) • BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS v. Casa Dev. Ltd. (1976) (/opinion/1716713/board-of-cty-comrs-v-casa-dev-Itd/?) • City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel's, Inc. (1977) (/opinion/1658337/city-of-miami-beach-v-mr-samuels-inc/?) • Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade (1964) (/opinion/1696610/sun-ray-homes-inc-v-county-of-dade/?) • Dade County v. YUMBO, SA (1977) (/opinion/1933206/dade-county-v-yumbo-sa/?) View Citing Opinions (/?q=cites%3A(1666417)) Q Get Citation Alerts (/?show_ alert_ modal =yes&q=cites%3A(1666417)) Authorities (3) This opinion cites: • Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1959) (/opinion/1783431/schauer-v-city-of-miami-beach/?) (1 time) • Friedland v. City of Hollywood, 130 So. 2d 306 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961) (/opinion/1691430/friedland -v-city-of-hollywood/?) (1 time) • Mayer v. Dade County, 82 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1955) (/opinion/1786657/mayer-v-dade-county/?) (1 time) View All Authorities (/opinion/1666417/harris-v-goff/authorities/?) Share F71 (mailto:? subject= Hard s%20v.%20Goff%2C%20151%20So.%202d%20642%20at%20CourtListener.com&body=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666417/harris- v-goff/) In (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https:Hwww.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666417/harris-v-goff/&t=Harris v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 at CourtListener.com) ©(http://twitter.com/home?status=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666417/harris-v-goff/) https://www.courtiistener.com/opinion/1 66641 7/harris-v-goff/ %7 Harris v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963) District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: April 9th, 1963 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 151 So. 2d 642 Docket Number: E-86 Author: John T. Wigginton (/person/7122/john-t-wigginton/) 151 So. 2d 642 (1963) Bob HARRIS, Ray Greene, Lem Merrett, Julian E. Warren and Fletcher Morgan, as Members of the Board of County Commissioners of Duval County, Florida, St. Johns Enterprises, Inc., a corporation, and Sskib Corporation, a corporation, Appellants, V. H.A. GOFF, individually, and as President of Arlingwood Civic Association, a corporation not for Profit under the Laws of Florida, and Robert T. MacGill, individually and as President of Alderman Park Civic Association, a corporation, not for profit under the laws of Florida, Appellees. No. E-86. District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District. April 9, 1963. J. Henry Blount, Frederick H. Lenczyk, and Thomas D. Oakley, Jacksonville, for appellants. John S. Duss, Jacksonville, for appellees. *643 WIGGINTON, Judge. This interlocutory appeal presents for our decision the single question as to the proper method of obtaining judicial review of a county zoning resolution or ordinance. The complaint in this case alleges that after public hearing appellant board adopted a resolution rezoning a parcel of land in Duval County, changing the use classification from rural to business. Appellees objected to the adoption of the resolution at the public hearing held by the Board, and its subsequent petition for rehearing on the board's action was denied. The public hearing was held pursuant to published notice, but no witnesses were sworn, no testimony was taken, no evidence was adduced and no record of the proceedings was made. After exhausting their administrative remedies appellees brought this suit in which they allege that the resolution in question is unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. It is further alleged that as applied to their property the resolution deprives them of equal protection of the laws and constitutes a taking of their property without due process of law contrary to the guarantees of our State Constitution. The complaint prays for a decree declaring the resolution null, void and of no effect, and for an injunction restraining the board from enforcing or giving effect to the resolution and enjoining other defendants from using the rezoned land except for purposes permitted by the original zoning ordinance previously in effect. The statute authorizing the board to zone and rezone property in the county provides that its ordinances and resolutions shall not become effective until after a public hearing of which notice is given by two weeks publication in a newspaper.0] The statute further provides that any person aggrieved by any zoning ordinance or resolution adopted by the Board may apply to the Circuit Court of the County for relief. The statute does not provide the procedure to be followed in seeking the relief permitted thereby. Appellant board moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the only proper method for reviewing the board's action is by certiorari, and that appellees' attempt to assault the board's action in a direct proceeding brought in equity for injunction is unauthorized. From an order denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint this interlocutory appeal is taken. Appellants rely for reversal upon Rule 4.1, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., which provides that: "All appellate review of the rulings of any commission or board shall be by certiorari as provided by Florida Appellate Rules." Summarized, it is appellants' position that the foregoing rule is exclusive and the procedure prescribed therein must be followed in all cases wherein review of the ruling of any board or commission is sought. In the DeGroot case[�1 our Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Thornal, devoted a substantial part of its opinion to an explanation of the manner in which rulings of administrative boards, commissions and agencies may be reviewed by the judicial branch of government. It is there held that where the statute under which the board or agency purports to act requires notice and hearing, and the judgment of the board is contingent on the showing made at the hearing, then its judgment becomes judicial or quasi-judicial in character. It was there held that the decision of the board in that case was reached only after a full hearing pursuant to notice based on evidence submitted in accordance with the statute involved. A record of the proceedings was made which was susceptible "644 of review by the court in certiorari proceedings. In the Bloomfield casei31 this court was confronted with a similar problem regarding the appropriate method of reviewing the action of an administrative agency. In that case we held that before an administrative order may be considered quasi-judicial in character and therefore subject to review by certiorari, the statute authorizing the entry of such an order must also require that the administrative agency give due notice of a hearing to be held on the question to be considered, and provide a fair opportunity to be heard in a proceeding in which the party affected is accorded the basic requirements of due process of law. Such requirements must afford the affected party the opportunity of being present in person and by counsel, to present evidence in support of his position and to cross-examine adverse witnesses whose testimony is offered at the hearing. If the board, agency or commission intends to insist that its ruling or order to be entered upon the showing made at the hearing be reviewed only by certiorari, the obligation rests upon the board or agency to see that a proper record of the entire proceeding is made, which record shall include its ultimate findings and conclusions. In DeGroot, supra, we were reminded that certiorari is a discretionary writ bringing up for review by an appellate court the record of an inferior tribunal or agency in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. It was held that in certiorari, the reviewing court will not undertake to reweigh or evaluate the evidence presented before the tribunal or agency whose order is under examination, but will merely examine the record made to determine whether the lower tribunal had before it competent substantial evidence to support its findings and judgment which must also accord with the essential requirements of law. In Bloomfield, supra, we held that since no record had been made of the proceedings conducted by the administrative agency there concerned, there was no record capable of being reviewed on a proceeding in certiorari. The action by the administrative agency in Bloomfield was held to have been executive rather than quasi- judicial in character, and therefore not reviewable by the process of certiorari. Reverting to Florida Appellate Rule 4.1 we are convinced, and so held in Bloomfield, supra, that the review by certiorari of the rulings of commissions and boards as authorized thereby pertains only to such rulings as have been made in a quasi-judicial proceeding, and which are quasi-judicial in character as distinguished from those which are purely administrative or legislative in character. Since the zoning ordinance under attack in this case is not quasi- judicial in character, and was entered pursuant to a hearing having none of the characteristics or safeguards of a quasi-judicial proceeding, it cannot be made the subject of appellate review by certiorari. The "fairly debatable" rule by which the reasonableness of zoning ordinances or resolutions is tested would be impossible of application in the absence of a record of the hearing containing the evidence upon which the questioned action is predicated. This holding does not apply to zoning ordinances adopted by municipalities proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Ch. 176, F.S.A. This statute specifically provides that review of municipal zoning ordinances adopted pursuant thereto may be had by writ of certiorari issued by the courts in which complaint against the ordinance is filed, and the proceedings had thereon will be in the nature of a trial de novo. An explanation of the operation of this statute was made by our Supreme Court in the Josephson case.141 It is noted, *645 however, that this statute has no application to boards of county commissioners adopting zoning ordinances or resolutions pursuant to other statutory authorization. It has been uniformly held in this state that the function of a board or commission in the enactment of zoning ordinances is a purely legislative function.i51 The decisions on this subject dispel any contention that a zoning ordinance or resolution is quasi-judicial in character. Suits in equity seeking injunctive relief against a zoning ordinance or resolution on the ground that it is arbitrary, capricious, confiscatory or impinges on some right or guarantee of the Constitution of this State has long been the traditional method of assaulting the validity of zoning ordinances or resolutions As said by the Supreme Court in De Groot, supra: "Injunction has been many times employed to assault legislative action at the state and local level where such action allegedly impinged on some constitutional right. Attacks on municipal zoning ordinances are typical." The foregoing procedure has been repeatedly recognized, and approved by the appellate courts of this state .isl Based upon the foregoing authorities it is our conclusion, and we so hold, that the suit in equity instituted by appellees to directly attack the validity of the questioned zoning resolution adopted by appellant board is properly brought, and the chancellor was correct in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the procedure adopted was improper and unauthorized. The order appealed is accordingly affirmed. CARROLL, DONALD K., Chief Judge, and STURGIS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Ch. 17833, Laws of Florida, 1937, as amended by Ch. 25510, Laws of Florida, 1949. [2] DeGrott v. Sheffield et al., (Fla. 1957) 95 So. 2d 912 [3] Bloomfield v. Mayo, (Fla.App. 1960) 119 So. 2d 417. [4] Josephson v. Autry, et al., (Fla. 1957) 96 So. 2d 784. [5] Alianell v. Fossey, et al., (Fla.App. 1959) 114 So. 2d 372; Schauer et al. v. City of Miami Beach, et al. (Fla. 1959) 112 So. 2d 838 (/opinion/1783431/schauer-v-city-of-miami-beach/), 71 A.L.R. 2d 562; Josephson v. Autry, et al., see footnote 4. [6] Friedland, et al. v. City of Hollywood et al., (Fla.App. 1961) 130 So. 2d 306 (/opinion/1691430/friedland-v-city-of-hollywood/); Schauer et al. v. City of Miami Beach, et al., see footnote 5; Hartnett et al. v. Austin et ux. (Fla. 1956) 93 So. 2d 86; Mayer et al. v. Dade County, (Fla. 1955) 82 So. 2d 513 (/opinion/ 1786657/mayer-v-dade-county/). Newsletter Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. Email Address ID Subscribe Compiled Cited Case Law Exhibit C � CR EST. 1971 1 MaaxJ.wooDwAnD e�,ac�d:Rol�p I.wardo,Cadmuuuo& ANixONYP. PIRFS,fR vdlaalCmmmwrclaw J.CHNSTOPHERLOMBARDO ANTHONYJ.DIMOBA L mPL OH LENORET.BR FIELD CRAIG R WOODWARD emd Cau6ei:RW Fiv¢Law I(ENNETH V. MUNDY ]ACIWO'W.LOMRARDO CA64EWN G. WOODWARD ROss E. ScHUUAAN L InmL lNY F. SC=PAUwt In CHRISTOPHERR. HEFLIN REPLYTO: M 3200TAMIAi,u TMILN. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-6494342 FAX ❑ 6 ]luDEAGLEDRNE SUITEsao P.O. BOX ONE MARCOISEAND.FL34146 239-394-5161 239-W2-6402 FAX WW WPL—LEGALCOM WOODWARD, PIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 22, 2021 Via Email., Edwin.f ryer G colliercountvfl.gov Nancy.gu ndlach @ collliercountvfl.gov Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman and Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Objections to St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. P1.20210000176; (the "Application"): Initial Objections and Concerns Regarding The Application Dear Mr. Fryer and Planning Commissioners: This law firm is co -counsel with the law firm of Akerman LLP, representing West Shore Point Naples, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida ("West Shore"). West Shore is the owner and manager of the well -established 248-unit residential apartment community known as The Point at Naples. The Point at Naples is located immediately adjacent and contiguous to the East property line of the properties that are the subject of the Application (see attached Exhibit A). West Shore has significant concerns relating to the Project and the Application. This letter is for the purposes of outlining some of the objections, comments and concerns of West Shore. I West Shore, by separate communication provided to County Staff this date, has submitted a Memorandum regarding standing and being accorded party status at the Planning Commission and County Commission hearings on the Application. West Shore respectively requests that the Collier County Planning Commission forward the Application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. ' No rights, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of West Shore concerning the Application and Project are waived by anything stated herein or omitted herefrom and the right to present, make and submit additional motions, objections, arguments and materials before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is specifically reserved. West Shore reserves the right to make additional objections, filings and submittals to protect its interests and to ensure the due process rights of West Shore. SOME BACKGROUND AS TO WEST SHORE AND THE POINT AT NAPLES The Point at Naples community fills an important workforce housing need in Collier County providing a variety of community and apartment amenities with rental rates for apartment homes ranging from $1,151+for a 709 sq. It one bedroom unit to from $1,375+ for a 1,081 sq. ft three -bedroom unit. West Shore acquired The Point at Naples in 2016. At the time of that acquisition, West Shore performed its due diligence regarding surrounding land uses with the knowledge as to the zoning and land use limitations in place for the property that is the subject of the Application, i.e., St. Matthew's House. West Shore closed on the purchase of The Point at Naples in December of 2016 (see attached Exhibit B). Since that time, based on the current contiguous zoning and land uses, West Shore has expended substantial amounts of money to upgrade The Point at Naples. SOME BACKGROUND AS TO THE APPLICATION In January 2021, the applicant submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acre 'Tract A" of the St. Matthew's House property. Tract "A" was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Collier County Resolution 99-87, that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. In March 2021, the applicant modified its request to a PUD rezoning application, to combine the 9.55 acres of "Tract B" with the 2.55 acres of "Tract A", to "unify the St. Matthew's House properties, into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by: (a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District: and, (b) amending the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The proposed rezoning would concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus, increasing the number of homeless beds located on "Tract W from 104 to 150; increasing the total permitted square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130,000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The application further requests a deviation from the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") to reduce the otherwise required minimum square feet of habitable space for each occupant, in order to accommodate the approximately 50 % increase in the number of beds, and, also requests relief from certain landscape buffer requirements. OBJECTIONS. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS As outlined in further detail below and in the attached "Expert Opinion by Cecelia Ward, AICP" dated November 22, 2021 ("Planning Reporr', attached Exhibit "C") based on: 1. the Collier County Growth Management Plan ("GMP"); 2. the criteria in the Collier County LDC to be applied in the evaluation of the Application; and, 3. the Collier County Community Character Plan; the Application and proposed PUD are: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. a. Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP; and, b. Inconsistent with the Conservation Element of the GMP; and, c. Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.13 for Planned Unit Developments. 3) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.08 for Rezonings. 4) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. 1. THE PROJECT SHOULD BE DENIED AS IT IS NEITHER COMPATIBLE WITH NOR COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES A. POLICY 5.6 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT The starting point and high threshold for all new development in Collier County is outlined in Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the GMP. All new development "shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code" (see Exhibit D) In order to be consistent with Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e., "compatible with the surrounding land uses', the FLUE and zoning should only allow land uses, densities and intensities that are the same as or less intensive than the existing land use patterns, densities and intensities on surrounding improved, vested or exempt property. In order to be consistent with the compatibility requirement of Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e., "compatible with the surrounding land uses", the FLUE and zoning should only allow land uses, densities and intensities that are the same as or less intensive than the existing land use patterns, densities and intensities on surrounding improved, vested or exempt property. In order to be consistent with the complementary requirement of Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e., "complementary to the surrounding land uses", the proposed new development must complete, contribute and add to the surrounding properties in a way that enhances or improves the qualities of the surrounding land uses, "Combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another."2 In addition, for a PUD rezoning, LDC Section 4.07.02.E states that "Development within a PUD District shall be compatible with established or planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods and property." As proposed in the Application, it is the opinion of West Shore that among other issues, the Project is inconsistent with Policy 5.6 of the FLUE. By virtue of the proposed intensity of use and density, the Project is neither compatible with nor complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. 1. THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH NOR COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. 2 See, example, on-line Oxford English Dictionary, US Dictionary, definitions of "complement and "complementary'; https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/complement and https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/complementary. a. The proposed density is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and well - established residential communities. This incompatibility has also been well analyzed and addressed by Cecelia Ward, AICP in her Planning Report concerning the Project's compatibility issues. b. The Applicant's/Applicant's agent(s) repeatedly assert that the current land use entitlements allow up to 130,000 square feet of commercial uses under the current zoning. C. The proposed perimeter landscaping is woefully inadequate. B. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND CONCERNS From a review of the submitted Traffic Impact Statements ("TIS") we have the following comments and concerns: a. As noted above, the TIS and current trip generation rates were prepared based upon the assertion that the current land use entitlements allow up to 130,000 square feet of commercial. The basis for this assertion was not provided in the TIS. b. It is our understanding that it is a policy of St. Matthew's House that the homeless that stay at the shelter are required to leave the shelter frequently to find work or to attend work. This is part of the facility's goal to transition the homeless that stay at the shelter into self-sufficiency. For this reason, there are significantly more trips than there would be at an assisted living facility ("ALF"), the facility type utilized by the Applicant in its traffic analysis. C. ADDITIONAL ISSUES/CONCERNS While we have just received the Staff Report, the following are some initial observations concerning the Staff Report: 1. Transportation Element — no review of impact going from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf of commercial uses. 2. Conservation Element — Staff states that the application does not affect CCME requirements in that 0.29 acres is being maintained — which was a condition of the HEX decision — which pertained to the 4.55 acre DeVoe Pontiac site — in that the application is now for a much greater site — 11.89 acres - 15 % of native vegetation and preservation is now required by Policy 6.1.1 (which is 1.78 acres) - Policy 6.1.1 (13) allows for a deviation request from the requirements — which has not been requested by the applicant. 3. Zoning and land development review —the applicant's approach is to present this as a limitation on the potential commercial that could otherwise be achieved under the current zoning. This is a disingenuous argument — in that all zoning is interpreted in terms of up to a maximum, with no guarantee of achieving the maximum amount of sf or units without meeting all other provisions of the code. 4. Staff also represents that what is being proposed is similar to the previously approved DeVoe Pontiac CPUD — even though what is being proposed doubles the amount of development of commercial space, and further adds refrigerated warehousing which in and of itself has its own impacts with respect to loading and distribution. 5. Staff also admits that the rezoning "is not necessary" to develop the site and further dismisses criteria for rezoning that speaks to the need to rezone the subject property. 6. Rezoning Criteria: Staff does not adequately address many of the rezoning criteria or PUD criteria— relieving the applicant from its responsibility to satisfy the evaluation criteria with information and data. By way of example the staff makes the following unsupported general 'findings": • Rezoning will not adversely impact living conditions in the neighborhood — with insufficient evidence regarding traffic, access, parking, loading, noise, vagrancy issues already impacting the adjacent residential neighborhood. • No evidence that it will adversely impact property values — even though nothing was submitted by the applicant supporting this'Yinding". • "Should not" be a deterrent because the review process should give reasonable assurance. • Disregards review criteria to identify substantial reasons why property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. • Not out of scale with neighborhood or County — even though the application proposes a concentration of social service uses in support of a 30% expansion of the homeless shelter. PUD Criteria: • Ignores physical site constraints and access issues. • Current homeless facility operations that result in vagrancy issues in the residential neighborhood are not addressed by staff. • No articulated basis for the determination of consistency with GOPs, especially those which relate to requirement for compatibility with the adjacent residential. • Similar comments as those provided above. Deviations: • No review of impact by staff to demonstrate that the deviation in at. per bed is justified. • No review of potential impact on homeless persons as well who may be residing in this much smaller space. D. CONCLUSION West Shore, respectfully requests that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend rejection and denial of the pending Project and Application. Enclosure(s) Cc: with enclosure(s) Collier County Planning Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Board of County Commissioners, Stephen Tilbrook ,y.,.... FallC!sAdC _ N• } {l 4+1• +'li I� µ yt• tVa:uar LN 'if'ti� L , J��' ' } GIB + MAP LEGEND dladoniaAVC Major R1343d9 J - '.y. Street Names ,+ F.+r•e _ Parcels - + AerMIS 2021 Rural 12FTI AVE fraYiA"LIR I —I C�Iller Gountp 1—I I ` T INS- ke 5,rt pp��4 - = Folio Number: 00389880006 N Name: WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES Street# &Name: 2155 GREAT BLUE DR Build# / Unit#: 010 / Legal Description: 12 50 25 FROM o SW COR SEC RUN N 2836.80FT, �. E270 FT TO POB, N 990FT, E 1120FT, - S 1320FT, W 660FT, N 330FT, W 460FT TO POB y; `R k Ikkj 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. INSTR 5346663 OR 5344 PG 2064 RECORDED 12/16/2016 2:25 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $241,500.00 REC $35.50 CONS $34,500,000.00 THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY AND AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: POLSINELLI 900 W. 481h Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Attn: Robert M. Adams Parcel ID Number "389 80006 �n -1— aLlI -9J SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED This Special Warranty dee4 is made this 11 day of December 2016, between HERON PARK PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida li �lted partnership, whose address is 3475 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 1640, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, Attm:Viin,Strong ("Grantor"), and WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company-whipse address is 1 Huntington Avenue Apartment 401, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 ("Grantee"),.',.. THAT the Grantor, for and in confide other good and valuable consideration to G1 hereby acknowledged, has GRANTED, BAR( does GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL, AND COP and assigns forever, the land, situate, lying described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the' ESSETH: of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00), and :kin hand paid by GRANTEE, the receipt whereof is i'D), SOLD, and CONVEYED and by these presents into, GRANTEE and GRANTEE'S heirs, successors ing"'irl0he County of Collier, State of Florida, and TOGETHER WITH all improvements thereom.an thereto, and all of the rights, privileges, appurtenances, hereditaments, easements, reversions, and remainders pertaining to or used in connection therewith (including, without Limitation and to the extent thea , exist, all easements, rights -of -way, development rights, privileges, licenses and other rights and fits belonging to, and running with the owner of, or in any way relating to the Property), together with� right, title and interest, if any, of Grantor in and to gaps, strips or gores pertaining solely to the Prope'hy,1or any land lying in the bed of any street, road, highway, avenue or alley (opened or unopened, exrstin or --proposed, now vacated or hereafter to be vacated) in front of or adjoining the Property, and all rgt, title and interest of Grantor in and to any award made or to be made in lieu thereof and in and to an�y�i�i award for damage to the Property by reason of change of grade of any such street, road, highway, av,oueso alley. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. F� Without reimposing the same, this conve}ance is subject to, and by accepting this deed Grantee does hereby agree to assume the encumbrances set forth on Exhibit `B" attached hereto (the "Permitted Encumbrances"). And Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns that Grantor is lawfully seized of the Property in fee simple; that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the Property; that Grantor hereby fully WARRANTS the title to said Property and will FOREVER DEFEND the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor, and that the Property is free of all mortgages, encumbrances, and liens other than the Permitted Encumbrances. OR 5344 PG 2065 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto executed this deed the day and year first above written. Witnesses: STATE OF Ff= COUNTY OF D � W I b Grantor: HERON PARK PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Waypoint Naples GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, General Partner r By: Name: Thomas S. Ref >> Title: General Counsel' The fore oing instrument was acknowl Yi U i11 MS S. �61 , on behalf of produced as identi {Notary Seal must be affixed) My Commission Expires J �Lj � jv SO-. ;:'*UBI\G O. me this day of (: // � P016, by He is _ personally known to be or (Signature of Notary) (Print Name of Notary Public) Notary Public, State of Florida I G� mission Expires: ssibn No.: OR 5344 PG 2066 Exhibit "A" to Deed (Legal Description of the Property) Parcel 1: A parcel of land located in the West Half of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida;: being more particularly described as follows: Commence at't'he uth vest corner of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence run , 00'� egrees 18' 50" W, along the West line of said Section 12, for a distance of 2836.80 feet; thenoc`run. t89 degrees 41' 10" E for a distance of 270.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel therein described;, -Thence run North 00 degrees 18' 50" W a distance of 990.00 feet; thence run N 89 degrees 41' 10" E`"istauce of 1120.00 feet; thence run S 00 degrees 18' 50" E a distance of 1320.00 feet; thence run S 89 degrees 41' 1,0" W a distance of 660.00 feet; thence run N 00 degrees 18' 50" W a distance of 330.00 feet; th ce r�'n S 89 degrees 41' 10" W a distance of 460.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel 2: An Access Easement on, over, unde that certain access, signage and lanc Page 6, Public Records of Collier Cc A strip of and lying in the Southwest Quarter County, Florida and being more particularly df the following described parcel of land as described in it agreement recorded in Official Records Book 2267, Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 12, tl degrees 18' 50" W 2506.80 feet; thence N 89 degrees A Airport Pulling Road (C.R. No. 31), N 06 degrees 18' 5 continue N 00 degrees 18' 50" W 60.00 feet; thence lez 200.00 feet; thence S 00 degrees 18' 50" E 60.00 feet; Point of Beginning of the herein described lands. Parcel 3: 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier rig the West line of said Section 12, N 00 70.00 feet to the East right-of-way line of .22 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence fight -of --way line N 89 degrees 41' 10" E 84deerees 41' 10" W 200.00 feet to the Together with that certain Utility Easement Agreement in favor of Join 6. Jassy recorded In Official Records Book 2267, Page 23, Public Records of Collier County, Florida:,. i *** OR 5344 PG 2067 *** Exhibit `B" to Deed (Permitted Encumbrances) 1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2017 and subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Easement in favor of Florida Power & Light Company recorded in Official Records Book 674, Page 36${ I to. Parcels 2 and 3 only) 3. Utility Easem_Prit in favor of East Naples Water Systems, Inc. recorded in Official Records Book 1172, Pages�j,' 58;44�j559. (As to Parcels 2 and 3 only) 4. Utility Easement irt" favor of Collier County Water -Sewer District recorded in Official Records Book 1401, Page 2166._,(As to Parcel 2 only) 5. Reservation of Right to se Access, Signage and Landscape Easement agreement in favor of John D. Jassy recorded ii Offici�I Records Book 2267, Page 6. 6. Utility Easement Agreement recorded"in Official Records Book 2267, Page 23. 7. Easement in favor of Florida Pow jor & ,Light Company recorded in Official Records Book 2345, Page 2406. 8. Deed of Conservation Easement in fivo oVthe South Florida Water Management District recorded in Official Records Book 2A 06; P. ge, 3162, as corrected by Corrective Deed of Conservation Easement recorded in Officialeords,Book 3 40 1, Page 421. 9. Drainage Easement in favor of Collier County' po)itcal subdivision of the State of Florida recorded in Official Records Book 2687, Page 18(I0,'an re -recorded in Official Records Book 2693, Page 1716., .� 10. Easement for Cable Television and Communications' -ice in favor of Florida Cablevision Management Corporation (Time Warner, Inc.) an affiliate of Tpi. M e,Warner Cable, Inc., a Florida corporation recorded in Official Records Book 4078, Page 1198,- and as amended by Amendment to Grant of Easement to Comcast of the South, Inc. recorded in ffiotdI%Records Book 4879, Page 997. 11. Rights of tenants in possession as of the date hereof, as tenants 01 residential leases without options to purchase or rights of first refusal. prior unrecorded 55359274.3 EXPERT OPINION BY CECELIA WARD, AI CP PRESIDENT JC CONSULTING ENTERPRISES INC. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, Unit 313 Tequesta, Florida PH: (954) 815-4298 cward@icconsultinginc.net DATE PREPARED: November 22, 2021 Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit Development Number: Collier County, FL - PL20210000176 Outline of Expert Opinion Report Part 1— Introduction and Application Background.................................................... 2 Part 11- Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion ................................................. 4 A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions......................................................................4 Part 111— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria .................. 6 A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan6 B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning.............................................................................................................................. 6 C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria .......................... 7 EXHIBITS................................................................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT1.......................................................................................................................12 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals.............................................................12 EXHIBIT2.......................................................................................................................13 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan...............................13 EXHIBIT3.......................................................................................................................15 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.13. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning..............15 EXHIBIT4....................................................................................................................... 21 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan......................................21 EXHIBIT5....................................................................................................................... 27 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria...............................................27 1 Part I — Introduction and Application Background I, Cecelia Ward, AICP, President of JC Consulting Enterprises Inc., have been retained by West Shore Point of Naples LLCP to provide my expert planning opinions regarding the St. Matthew's House Inc. ["the applicant"] application for rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendments for property located in Collier County, just west of and adjacent to The Point at Naples multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point of Naples LLP. t Naples Apartments Point of Naples LLP Property The subject property is comprised of two tracts of land owned by St. Matthews House Inc., with a total of 11.89 acres, located on the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road South and Glades Boulevard. 2 1 P a g e I� iNEM° A J 0 I E EGEND a FFER III ..U.-NY R ' US FEA U ��,°M �.,w ❑ A EDARE s E# �, ENT [sEE Now 11= USE UUUTUFAM—RESIDE— ®oE a,DN —A �Q GAEA,DLUED— u� E9 m �LANN— T-.T. I' �A—E— (NDI ,SDP osDA�E°—E. TRACT B KNEE—==U. 1 NDD�EFEa aEDD�aED ISDa ��zi p 1EIDD DNE — USE .C—MER—AND G—NENru MICEs SCALE�V=200' In January 2021, the applicant initially submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acres (Tract A) of the St. Matthews House property. In March 2021, the applicant requested a change from the Conditional Use application to expand its request to include Tract B, which encompasses 9.55 acres, to unify the St. Matthew's House properties, and to provide for a rezoning from C-4 Commercial (Gateway Triangle Mixed Use) and an amendment to the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) and expanding the PUD designation to encompass the total development site of 11.89 acres. The Collier County staff administratively approved the change in application and did not require a new application to be submitted. The applicant proposes to combine the subject property into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District, and b) amending the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD, as reflected in Collier County Case No. PL20210000176. Tract "A" of the subject property was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Resolution 99-87) that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. 3 1 P a g e The proposed rezoning would further concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus that increases the number of homeless beds located on Tract A from 104 to 150 and increases the total permitted square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130,000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional to administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The application further requests deviation from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to allow for less square feet of habitable space than what is required by the LDC to accommodate the increase in the number of beds and relief from certain landscape buffer requirements, as follows: o Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C. Group Housing to reduce the required minimum habitable floor area for homeless shelters from 1,500 s.f. plus 150 s.f. for each person over six, to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 s.f. per bed. o Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. Table 2.4 Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classification, which requires a 10 ft. Type A Buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the proposed PUD. The applicant proposes to include a 10 ft. wide Type A landscape buffer at the time of redevelopment of that portion of the PUD that is adjacent to the southern property boundary that impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line. A timeline of prior rezonings and recordation of approvals relative to the subject property has been provided in Exhibit 1. Part II - Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Based on my review of the information related to the St. Matthew's House CPUD Application PL L20210000176, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Collier County Community Character Plan and Collier County Land Development Code, it is my professional opinion that the application is: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Regulations Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. Part III of this report provides my findings of each of the evaluation criteria, with supporting documentation provided in Exhibits 2-5. Additionally, it is my professional opinion that the following issues have not been considered, 4 1 P a g e but are required to be considered by Collier County in its review of this application: 1) The failure to review the elimination of prohibition of homeless shelter use: The proposed list of Permitted and Accessory Uses (Appendix A of the Application) would eliminate the current prohibition of homeless shelters on all of Tract "B", namely the 9.55- acre southerly portion of the subject property. This includes the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD site (Ordinance 97-14). As to current permitted uses, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD provides in part: "Group care facilities (Category I and 11, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; and nursing homes, subject to section 2.6.26." This "change in permitted/prohibited use" by now permitting a homeless shelter on Tract "B" has not been clearly identified in the application and neither has it been addressed by the applicant nor addressed by the staff in its review of application. 2) The failure to review the potential future expansion of homeless beds: Approval of the rezoning in combination with increasing the total approved square footage on the entire site to 130,000 sf of commercial use could result in the development of additional homeless shelter beds across the entire 11.89 acre site. As such, it is unclear whether or not the requested additional commercial square footage could be converted to accommodate additional future homeless shelter beds. 3) The failure to review the potential impact resulting from requested deviation in required habitable space for homeless shelter beds: The applicant is seeking a deviation in the minimum square foot required per bed, i.e. from 150 sq. ft/bed to 100 sq. ft/bed, which would result in a much denser concentration of homeless beds on the subject property. a) We are not aware of any review by the County staff as to whether or not the request complies with the occupancy requirements of the Florida Building Code. b) We are not aware of any review regarding whether the direct increase in beds and potential conversion of additional square footage [without a standard for calculation of square footages] could have the effect of concentrating these uses and services to a single site, causing a saturation of such social service uses, that could adversely affect adjoining residential properties (people, vehicles, noise, litter, outdoor activities). c) We are not aware of any review of the potential impact on the welfare of the homeless residents caused by a significant reduction in the minimum required square foot area for each bed as proposed by the applicant: 4) The failure to review the traffic impacts and parking Impacts that have not adequately been addressed: There has been no independent review of the applicant's traffic analysis and the potential traffic, parking and loading impacts that may result from: a) Significant increase in commercial square feet and uses; and, b) Increase in the number of residents, adding more personnel and administrative staff; and, c) Parking, loading and trips generated from proposed restaurant, soup kitchen, used vehicle donations and sales. d) Traffic impacts on the Tract "B" 60-foot-wide access easement as recorded and shared with the adjoining Point at Naples residential development. 5 1 P a g e 5) The failure to review the Health, Safety and Welfare Issues: a) Various code violations have been asserted in relation to vagrancy associated with the existing homeless shelter. These violations have impacted the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. There has been no review of the potential for increased vagrancy impacts as a result of the proposed increase in the number of beds of the existing facility. 2. There has been no operation and maintenance information provided by the applicant that addresses current and potential future vagrancy and property management impacts. b) The applicant should provide similar information in relation to the operation and maintenance of the existing thrift store and used vehicle sales lot at the south end of the proposed CPUD, which would require additional monitoring and maintenance. Part III— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 (PUD Criteria), 10.02.08 (Rezoning Criteria) and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code (Process), staffs 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. The following provides a review of these evaluation criteria, which illustrates that the application does not comply with the review and evaluation criteria contained in said LDC Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.08, as further addressed herein. A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan According to Subsection A. Generally.l. PUD master plan. "The Community Character Plan For Collier County, Florida (April 2001) should be referenced as a guide for development and redevelopment in the PUD district. The Administrative Code shall establish the information to graphically illustrate the development strategy." Findings: While this is a guide that should be referenced for development and redevelopment of a PUD, the application does not include any review of compliance with the Community Character Plan for Collier County, which would otherwise demonstrate that the application is not in compliance with this Plan as further illustrated in Exhibit 2 of this report. B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings Generally: The application is not in compliance with the PUD rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.13, as discussed below. Additional supporting 6 1 P a g e documentation for these findings is provided in Exhibit 3. • Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. • Findings criteria (b): No comments. • Findings (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as illustrated in Exhibit 4. • Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. • Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. • Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. • Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and resultant concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. • Findings criteria (h): The application does not provide justification for the deviations requested. C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria The LDC requires that the "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: " Findings Generally : The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein. Further documentation in support of these findings is provided in Exhibit 5. I Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 7 1 P a g e • Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (3) The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. • Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. • Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. • Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. • Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. • Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC. There is no indication in the application that such plan has been submitted to the County for this "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities" or "if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities.112 • Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas. z See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 8 1 P a g e • Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. • Findings criteria (11): The applicant attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. • Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelter. There is no justification provided to support this deviation. • Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. The application for rezoning removes the current zoning and DeVoe Pontiac PUD restrictions that do not permit homeless shelter and soup kitchen uses on Tract B. This change would allow the use of Tract B. • Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. • Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. • Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics, as previously addressed in this report. • Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. • Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, .01 which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 101 Page EXHIBITS 11 1 Page EXHIBIT 1 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals The following provides a summary of prior rezoning and recordation relative to the subject property: Tract "A" Total: 2.34 acres Parcel No 390000008. • Glades Unit Two Plat, Lot 1, Block K, Lot 1, DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Change of Use, CU 98-24, Resolution 99-87 dated 1.26.1999 • Rezoning to C4 - Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District GTMUD MXT, LDC Ordinance 06-08, dated 02.28.2006 Tract "B" Total: 9.55 acres Parcel No 34840520004. • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Permitted and Accessory Uses excludes Homeless Shelter • Requires 10% Open Space — 3 Strata Tract "B" (North 5.00 acres — includes LuLu's Diner) • DeVoe PUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 Tract "B" (South 4.55 acres aka Dealership Parcel) • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-05, dated 9.11.2020 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-29 (Scrivener's Error) dated 9.15.2020 Great Blue Drive (60-ft Private Access, Signage and Landscape Easement • Access, Signage and Landscape Easement Agreement, OR2267, Page 0006 o Non -Exclusive ingress, egress, regress, and access easement o Dated 16 DEC 1996 12 1 Page EXHIBIT 2 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan The application is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan:' 1. Design... The spaces between buildings are as important as the private realms inside them. Development should be designed so that the architecture and neighborly arrangement impart an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity while making daily life more practical. Findings: The uses proposed for the subject property include heavy commercial uses that do not make daily living more practical. Neither will thrift store uses, restaurant/soup kitchens, thrift store and used vehicular sales, when adjacent to neighborhood residential uses, provide an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity. 2. Choice... Provide more housing choices in Collier County by reintroducing walkable traditional neighborhood development as a counterbalance to the multitude of gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years. Findings: The application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods. It instead could have an isolating effect on the location of the renovated and expanded shelter at a busy traffic intersection. 3. Balance... Create a balanced road network by improving Collier's principal arterial roads while simultaneously creating a secondary network of smaller roads that link neighborhoods. Findings: The application does not add any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the doubling of heavy commercial uses and 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network and shared access with adjacent residential uses. 4. Connections... Make frequent connections between new neighborhoods and the land around them, and fully integrate them with the secondary street network and with parks and other urban open spaces. Improve existing neighborhoods in the same way. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhoods that surround them. Rather they propose a social service campus that accommodates a homeless shelter that includes homeless beds and heavy commercial uses, and light industrial warehousing. s https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=63126 13 S. Growing smart... All new development approvals should be based on a resilient pattern of streets and lots, because the initial street and lot pattern will long outlast the first generation of buildings and land uses that are placed on them. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not support a resilient pattern of streets and lots to support a 30% increase of homeless beds and a doubling of high intensity commercial uses. 6. Hold the line... Make much better use of the remaining vacant acreage within the existing urban boundary before allowing new development to creep further into the countryside. Findings: While the proposed development is located in the urban service area, the compatibility of the use cannot be merely supported by its location. 7. Respect environmentally sensitive places... Enhance the character of Collier's more rural and environmentally sensitive places through rural design techniques and further protection of the County's vital natural resources. Findings: The application does not add elements that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places, but rather merely maintains a surface management area that was required under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 141 Page EXHIBIT 3 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings: The application is not in compliance with the PUD and rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.13, as discussed below. 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. Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. 1. The North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200-feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will all likely result in limited useable space available for development. This would also likely result in a more typical "strip center" configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. 2. This PUD-amendment also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying approved square footage from the existing 64,000sf to a total of 130,000sf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 3. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity or compatibility with the adjacent residential uses, but rather serves to isolate and increase the incompatibility of the proposed uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, 15 1 Page noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life for adjoining residents. 4. The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 5. The application does not include any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the substantial increase in heavy commercial uses (from 64,000 sf tO 130,000 s.f.) and proposed 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network. Potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 6. With respect to the suitability of development in relation to infrastructure, there has been no data provided by the applicant to demonstrate adequacy of services and facilities. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would essentially double the approved amount of existing heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 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 public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. Findings (b): No comments. 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.) Findings criteria (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 3. 4 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 161 Page 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. Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. Tract "B" of the property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples residential apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incapability of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 2. Additionally, the application does not support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by Policy 6.1.1. of the Conservation Element of the GMP. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and result in a concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses 171 Page without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. 1. The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. 2. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (h): The applicant does not provide justification for the deviations requested. 1. The applicant proposes a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Indi duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. 2. There has been no parking analysis that demonstrates that the amount of parking proposed is sufficient to meet the increase parking demand created by the increase in homeless shelter beds. Rather, the applicant points to the use of administrative parking that is located on Tract B of the Conceptual PUD Master Plan. As such, the applicant attempts to satisfy ancillary parking for the homeless shelter use on Tract B, which currently does not permit homeless shelters either as a primary or accessory use. a) Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, as well as the used vehicle sales have not been evaluated in terms of demand in parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off -site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. b) Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. 181 Page I The applicant is also seeking deviation from the County's buffering requirements. a) The property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incompatibility of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 191 Page 20 1 Page EXHIBIT 4 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan Findings: The application is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan: Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 5.4 Findings: The application is inconsistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan in that the application is inconsistent with Policy 5.6, 5.8, 5.10 and provisions for Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Policy 5.6 Findings: The application is not compatible with and does not complement The Point at Naples residential apartments located just east of and abutting the subject property: 1. The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the PUD-amendment proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 2. The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless individuals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to 21 1 Page adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet throughout the County. 3. Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, and particularly the used vehicle sales area have not been evaluated in terms of increased demand for parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off - site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. Further, the applicant does not assess or address increased demand for policing to maintain parking, accessible routes and emergency access within this portion of the property. 4. Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. Policy 5.8 Findings: The application does not propose an "innovative approach" that would otherwise conserve open space. Additionally, the application proposes to deviate from the buffer requirements of the County's LDC. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the Future Land Use Element's requirement for implementation of regulations such as minimum open space requirements and native vegetation preservation requirements. 2. The application does not include an assessment as to whether potential mitigation or remediation are required, nor does it address whether preservation strategies are required if the previously identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. The plan as proposed instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. Policy 5.10 Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent 221 1 a g e with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. Policy 5.10 Findings: The application proposes a campus for social services on the "unified properties", that provides for the expansion of homeless beds on Tract A and its support uses onto Tract B, which does not comply with the regulations of the County's LDC for group housing, as follows: 1. The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the Devoe Pontiac CPUD. 2. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are not uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. 3. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. Policy 5.13: Properties whose zoning has been determined to comply with the former Commercial under Criteria provision of the Future Land Use Element shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. These properties are not subject to the building floor area or traffic impact limitations contained in this former provision. Policy 5.13 Findings: This policy does not permit circumvention or oviscapte the need to demonstrate consistency with all other policies of the County's Future Land Use Element and other elements of the Plan. Further, there is no direct indication that this policy applies to the subject property which has Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay land use designations. 23 1 Page OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 Findings: The applicant claims that the application complies with Objective 7 and Policy 7. 1 because it includes internal interconnections and connection to Airport -Pulling Road. However, the context of Objective 7, frames the objective as being supportive of connections that promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adhere to existing development character. The application is inconsistent with all three objectives. It does not promote smart growth planning which otherwise promotes streets that are safe for people walking and bicycling and by protecting open green spaces. The expansion of the homeless shelter and doubling of heavy commercial uses on the land violates these smart growth planning principles. Additionally, the doubling of high intensity commercial uses does not substantiate compliance with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Findings: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, none of which lend 241 1 a g e themselves to uses that would otherwise incentivize the private sector to invest in this urban area, inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Overlay. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity with the adjacent residential use, rather serves the increase the incompatibility of the uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 1. Mixed -Use Development: A mix of residential and commercial uses is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed -use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. Mixed Use Development Findings: The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses or services, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. Findings The application is also inconsistent with the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Elements Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Coastal High Hazard Area Non -Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 5 acres. 10% Less than 2.5 acres 10% Equal to or greater than 5 acres 2esidential and Mixed Use Development Equal to or greater and less than 20 acres. 15% than 2.5 acres 25% Equal to or greater than 20 ac. 25% s https://www.colliercountvfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/40905/635883137282O70000 25 1 Page Policy 6.1.1 Findings: The applicant claims compliance with this policy and these standards; however, the application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by this policy. Nor does it assess the existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD's compliance with environmental commitments made part of Ord 97-14. Specifically, Section 4.9 Environmental conditioned approval upon..."shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and retaining 10% of the existing native vegetation on site, by area, in all three strata"... The application does not include an assessment as to whether the potential mitigation and preservation strategies are required if the identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. It instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD of 0.29 acres. Nor does the application consider the increase in requirement for native vegetation preservation resulting from an increase in the total site area to 11.89 acres, which requires a 15% minimum per the above objective and policy. 261 Page EXHIBIT 5 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria Findings: The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. 2. The existing land use pattern. Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD for the following reasons: a. Although the property has been developed under the existing zoning, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD and the C-4 zoning do not permit the homeless shelter use as proposed under the rezoning. i. The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. ii. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. b. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. c. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. 271 Page d. Additionally, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Findings criteria (3) As previously noted, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Additionally, the social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. To the contrary, the current zoning is C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and DeVoe Pontiac CPUD contain existing uses that have been approved under the current zoning, as either conditional uses, or as part of the PUD Resolution. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject 281 Page property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. a) The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Indi duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. Further, the application includes no assessment of the effects this reduced space and increased occupancy has on living conditions at the facility. Additionally, no documentation was provided as to best practices and whether other communities in Florida have adopted such criteria and with what effect. b) The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to adversely affect the living conditions of the adjacent residential neighborhood by increasing noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 291 1 a g e 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC, a "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities shall be granted" or " if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities."6 There is no indication in the application that such a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities plan has been submitted to the County for this determination. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would allow twice as much heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas: a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial 6 See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 301 Page and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. a) That being said, it should be noted that the proposed change includes the intensification of social service uses and activates with the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which can result in adverse effect on the property values of the adjacent residential development. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Findings criteria 11: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelters. There is no indication in the application that such waiver of the code requirements has been granted to other group homes in the County. Nor is there any justification provided to support this deviation. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. The application for rezoning removes the current zoning and DeVoe Pontiac PUD restrictions that do not permit homeless shelter and soup kitchen uses on Tract B. This change would allow the use of Tract B. 31 1 Page 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements that impart beauty, confidence, and societal continuity. b) This application includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) This concentration of site development would not make daily living more practical. It would in fact be contrary to the requirements of the Future Land Use Element at Overview Paragraph "C." Underlying Concepts, Attainment of High -Quality Urban Design, specifically ..."These Architectural and Site development standards include building design, parking lot orientation, pedestrian access, vehicular movement, landscaping and lighting. These standards will provide for quality development that is responsive to the Community's character..." d) Additionally, the application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods in that its focus is upon addressing the needs of the homeless and necessary ancillary support services. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. a) There has been no evidence provided in the record that it is "impossible" to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use, without the need to rezone the property or amend and expand the existing PUD, as is proposed for the subject property. Neither has there been any review of the 321 1 a g e potential to locate elements of the homeless shelter individually without the need to create an aggregation of the uses at this location of the County. 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. Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) Such physical constraints to the site would result in significant alterations to the existing structures, parking and water management system to support the proposed development. 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 [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended. Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. 33 1 Page 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. Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 341 Page Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. (Vll)(IX)(XXX)(XLIV) Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County's Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). (VII)(IX)(XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas. (VII)(IX)(XLIV) Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. (XLIV) Policy 5.9: Encourage recognition of identifiable communities within the urbanized area of western Collier County. Presentation of economic and demographic data shall be based on Planning Communities and commonly recognized neighborhoods. (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.10: Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. (XLIV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017-22 on June 13, 2017 19 Exhibit D EST. 1971 WOODWARD, PIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 30, 2021 M11AP1J WOOo`"""O Via Email: ma,acw�eRaB� lawmdinCo,dmN,mun&. Edwin.fryer@colliercountyfl.gov Nancy.gundlach 0collliercountyfl.gov ANExoNYP. PIKES, IR BmACa6ni:G�Gxw,; vdlmlEmmiu,x Lsw Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman 1 aEwsrorNERLOMaAnno and „'Fl°,,,1A4Oao"H Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division LFNORE T.BPAIO:FlELD Re: Supplement to Previously Submitted Objections to St. Matthew's House CPAIGRwoODwARD (PUDR) Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. PL20210000176; (the em,ace,:r�w "Application"): Dear Mr. Fryer and Planning Commissioners: KENN V MUNDY ZACIwo'w LoMReRDD This letter on behalf of West Shore Point Naples, LLC, ("West Shore"). CA t NG.WODDWARD supplements the previously submitted correspondence of November 22, 2021 that Ross E. Sceuu>,w outlined various initial objections to the PUDR Application. Since the time of the initial ��P wNv submittal, we have had the opportunity to review the Staff Report, the materials in the F. scam eAuuR III agenda packet, and we met with the Applicant's agents. CRIUMI'HERR. HEFl While we believe that progress has been made after the meeting, there remain significant areas of concern with the proposed PUD. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter is a redlined edited PUD Document, "Exhibits A-F', that we prepared and provided to the Applicant's agents yesterday. If the proposed PUD that is recommended for approval contains these provisions, it would allay the various concerns of West Shore to the Application. The Applicant's agent has advised that not all of the requested changes to the PUD document are acceptable to the Applicant. FLEPLYTD' In reviewing our suggested PUD language, the attached Exhibit "B", pages M 3200 TAMw.0 TBAIL N. from the 1991 and 1992 LDC illustrates that the current LDC minimum square footage SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 applicable to homeless shelters (150 sq. ft. per bed for each bed over six (6) beds) 339-619-6555 239-W-7342 FAX is a well -established requirement in Collier County. ❑ 606 BALD EAGLE DRNE SUEEESIX) We have also obtained the benefit of an analysis by a transportation consultant, P.O. BOX ONE AA 151AND, FL 34146 Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE. His report and analysis is attached as Exhibit "C" 29-39-6Q4-5161 to this letter alongwith an Errata Sheet from Planner Cecelia Ward, Exhibit "D". 239-6d12AX FAX W W W.WPL-LEGALCAM Page 11 West Shore respectively requests that the Collier County Planning Commission forward the Application, as it exists, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. If there is to be a recommendation of approval, we respectfully request that the PUD Document, "Exhibits A-F attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners as the operative document. Enclosure(s) Cc: with enclosure(s) Collier County Planning Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Board of County Commissioners, Stephen Tilbrook; R. Yovanovich, W. Arnold Page 12 EXHIBIT "A" TO 11-30-21 LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMDG MP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area_—&Rd-eUp to 150 residential care or shelter beds be -^•fitted within the rn"^^n Tract A. No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for otherthan the following: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322; excluding Alcoholism counseling. nonresidential: Offender rehabilitation agencies; Offender self-help agencies: Probation offices: Refugee services: and Public welfare centers, offices of ); and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and ^.d4222) (^_. L^-_-„a.L,.,.d bank); and 43_Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and .5-4_Used vehicle sales (5521); and Fr.S_Boat dealers 15551). 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: (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (October 73, 2021) Page 1 of 9 1. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5_Self-help groups sr.6. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only(4222) (not - for profit food bank only) 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. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I PRINCIPALUSES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOTAREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Eastern Project Boundary 50 FEET 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or %sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET/ 60 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET/ 60 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Shelter/ Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET/ 50 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOORAREA 700 SQUARE FEET** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail/Office 130,0005QUARE FEET N/A Shelter/ Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first Floor. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 3 of 9 19WIDETYPETY 15 UE PE BUFFER (OR 21 W. PG 1100, PG 1 IW AND PG 1 IN) C GLADE$ BOULEVARD — III ZOD:RMFfi USENEMULTFFAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS WIDETYPE V LPNDSGIPE BUFFER I ^' LEGEND: WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY B ON EASEMENT TOR 5699 PG 2572) 029 AC.I WATER 15 WIDE TYPE TY MANAGEMENT T I-ANOSCAPE BUFFER ® PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT IEEE NOTE SHEET) ZONED: DAMD A. GALLMAN ® DEVIATION ESTATE PUD USE: MULTWAMILY RESIDENTIAL TRACT A Do E7 GREAT BLUE DRIVE E9 I TRACTS EAISPNGW WIDE TYPE 20FEET �'K iANDSCAPE BUFFER 1 (SDP 9elun U151ING IO' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 9 I 1 ' WIDE TYRE V, 15 W DE TYFE Tr IANOSCAPE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVIDA ESTATE PUD ESTATE TRACT B N USE: MUOFEAMY RESIDENTIAL NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SOP 9 82) 'z ZONED: C+GTMUDPM%D AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUO USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL. FFICES SCALE, 1'=200' , rrtoges St. W7LTHEI'S HOUSE CPUD _ ®Gra&Mlnor ""'r�«„ ExBIBO C MASTER PIAN Isl�onnm 11uum. Y�.Lx'uR Ye4MV _ REVISED 09/02/2021 o-...... u...... ... PUDR-PL20210000176, ST. MATTHEW S HOUSE CPUD November 23, 2021 Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 25 SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.89t ACRES TRACT'A': 2.34t ACRES TRACT'B': 9.55t ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% PRESERVE: REQUIRED: 0.29t ACRES (PER SDP 98-82; 2.90t ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.293 ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E) 1. RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES" ON TRACT "A" ONLY. .2, RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LJ LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: E1 - 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESS/EGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10- LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NOTES THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUO Minor of.•m,.1.^,. .. ,,,.0 ., 7XH131T C MASTER -1 N NOTES WdSu— . Pl wm I ap Aml <..wunumu" 2EV5E0 09/02/2021 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89"41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89"41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00-19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89-41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00"19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS ar.t7rrnRsxrre'r. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, 'Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications', which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (St. Matthew's House CPUD P620210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafterthe 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. Atthe time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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 theCounty Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations uponwritten 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: A. A. —The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect atthe time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. A-B. Prior to the time of the issuance of any development orders, SDP or SDPA for any property in the PUD that will use the access road known as Great Blue Drive, competent, substantial evidence must be submitted to Collier County, with a copyto the property owner of the residential community in the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive. [See section S.5.D ofthe David A. Gallman Estate PUDI. (St Matthew's House CPUD PL20110000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 8 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses may be provided on Tract'B', after installation of the required landscaping outlined herein and must be reflected ona Site Development Plan ISDP to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION A. Any new overhead doors will not face east. B. Loading/unloading and delivery hours will be limited to between 7am and 9pm, weekdays. UTILITY: A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport- Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determinewhether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on theMaster Plan. If it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additionalCUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with thecollier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING: A At the time of the issuance of any development orders, SDP or SDPA for any portion of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD a 15' wide Type B landscape buffer shall be provided along the property boundary of the PUD adjacenttothe David A. Gallman Estate PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development orders for any portion of the PUD located within Activity Center #16 a 20' wide Type D landscape buffer shall be provided along the property boundary of the PUD adjacent to any road right-of-way external to the PUD. [See LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4I (St. Matthew's Horse CPOD PL20210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 9 of 9 1991 AND 1992 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Di i m 2.6 Suevtrnimuf D(rm11 RrauWaeru 2.6.26.1.2 Group Care Facility (Calevory I and Caleaory M A Group Care Facility shall be governed by the development standards identified in the zoning district assigned to the property and the following standards: 1. Minimum Habitable Floor Area: a. Group Care Facility (Category I): 1,500 square feu plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Cue Facility (Category 11): � (1) kgWess Shelters: 1,500 square feet plus 150 square fat per live -I person, beginning with the sevmtb live-in person. (2) Uses other than the Homeless Shelters: 1,500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 2. Minimmn Lot Area: A. Group Care Facility (Category 1): 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live- in person, beginning with the seventh livein person. b. Group Care Facility (Category 11): (1) Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 400 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 3. Parkine Rmuired: 2 puking spaces per 5 beds (Minimum requireena: 2 parking spaces). 4. Separation Requirements: a. A new Group Care Facility shall be required to be located greater than a radius of 1.200 feu from any other existing Group Care Facility (applicable to the RMF-6, RMF-12, RMF-16, RT, and VR zoning districts). b. A new Group Care Facility shall be required to be located greater than a radius of 500 feet from my other existing Group Care Facility (applicable to the A, Estates. and RSF 1-5 zoning districts). C. Distance requirements shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest point of the existing Group Care Facility property to the purest point of the proposed new Group Care Facility property. 2-126 b De.ri,p . Cole S D vnvn 2.6 B.ov/rmm a( INSW Rro d,n�... 2.6.26.1 All Group Housing structures shell meet the following requirements specified for each type of structure: 1. Site Development Plan (SDP) approval in conformance with Div. 3.3 (with the exception of a Family Cue Facility). 2. All applicable State and County building and fire code standards. 3. All applicable State and County licensing requirements. 2.6.26.1.1 Family Care Facility: A Family Care Facility shall be treated as a single dwelling snit for the purpose of determining applicable development standards and, therefore, shall conform to the standards identified for a single-family dwelling unit or mobile home in the zoning district assigned m the property, as well as other applicable standards found in the Zoning Code . However, a new Family Care Facility shall not be located within a radius of one thousand feet (1,000') of soother existing Family Care Facility. Group Care Facility (Calory I and Catmom M: A Group Care Facility shall be governed by the development standards identified in the roving district assigned to the property and the following standards: 1. Minimum Habitable Floor Area: a. Group Care Facility (Category 1): 1,500 square fat plus 200 square feu per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Category 11): (1) Homeless Shelters: 1,500 square feet plus 150 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than the Homeless Shelters: 1.500 square feel plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 2. Knimurn Lot Area: a. Group Can Facility (Category 1): 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live- in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Category 11): (1) Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 400 square fat per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feu plus 1,500 square fat per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. Collier Cvunn 2-180 010b" 30. M fend Drvelapmem Cede ,tmerded @uEer 14, JW2 Z KEI TH Engineenng Inspired Design. Anthony P. Pires, Jr., B.C.S. Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103 239-649-6555 Phone; 239-649-7342 Fax apires@wpi-legal.com Ref: The Point at Naples Review of Traffic Impact Statement for St. Matthews House dated June 29, 2021 Dear Mr, Pires: At the request of Lee Rosenthal, President, Westshore Point Naples, LLC, KEITH has conducted a review of the Traffic Impact Statement dated May 12, 2021 and revised on June 29, 2021 for the St. Matthews House development in Naples, Florida. The following summarizes our review of the Traffic Impact Statement: 1. Pre-COWD Traffic Volumes: The temporary reduction in traffic volumes due to COVID has not been taken into consideration while assessing the impact of the development. The pre-COVID peak hour volumes should have been grown using historical growth rate to develop 2021 volumes for the assessment of the impact. Attachment C of the 2021 AUIR shows that Airport Pulling Road has experienced anywhere from 10-20% reduction in traffic since 2020 and this reduction could be higher from 2019. The impact assessment is not conservative in nature. 2. Trip Generation: Land Use code 254 has only two data points and should not have been used to estimate trip generation for the group home/homeless shelter (Assisted Living Facility). Since this is an existing facility, existing trip generation data should have been collected from the site and extrapolated to estimate the trip generation for the proposed increase in number of beds. The trip generation procedure used in the traffic impact study does not follow the guidelines recommended below by ITE. Below is the process for estimating trip generation and is contained on Pages 26 and 28 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition. use latled Curve Equedon when: • A fitted curve equation is provided and the data plot has at least 20 dala points � OR • A fated curve equation Is provided. the curve has an R� of at least 0.75. Me fired curve falls within data duster, and the weighted standard deviaton is more Oran 55 percent of the weighted average rate. Use Weghted Avenge Rafe when: • The data plot has at least three data pares (and preferably, six or more); • The R value for the fitted curve is less Man 0.75 or no fired wove equatew is provided: • The weighted standard deviation for the average rate is less than 55 percent of the weighted average rate: and EXHIBIT • The weighted average rate is within data duster in plot Catlett Local Data when: n . Study site is hot compatible with ITE Land Use Code definition is• Data plot has only one or two data points tend preferably, when five or fewer): • The weighted standard deviation for the average rate is greater than 55 percent of the weighted avenge rate: • independent variable value is not warns range of data. or • Neither weighted average We Gre nor fitted curve is wain data duster at we of study site. i wwvckEITHteam.com Pompano Beach (HQ) • Fort Lauderdale • Miami • West Palm Beach 9 Orlando 0 Tallahassee November 30, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Figure 4.2 Process for Selecting Average Rate or Equation in Tnp Generation Manual Data 3. Pass -By Trips: Pass -by trips should not simply be deducted from the total trips for assessing the impact on roadway segments. These trips already exist on the roadway network, but they do change their travel pattern depending on the access to the site. The pass -by trips, otherwise destined as through trips, will make a left turn or a right turn into the development as pass -by trips, and should be graphically depicted on a figure. These trips accordingly get added or subtracted from turning movements at the intersections or access points. The Primary trips should accordingly be shown graphically on the roadway network. The combination of the pass - by trips and primary trips will become the basis for assessing the impact on the roadway segments. The traffic report fails to correctly assess the impact on roadway segments. 4. Trip Distribution: No adequate justification has been provided for trip distribution. This should be based on actual traffic volumes on the roadway segments. The peak hour volume split on Airport Pulling Road is 56% for the segment from Radio Road to Davis Blvd. and 44% for the segment from Davis Blvd. to US 41 based on 2021 AUIR peak hour volume data. The trip distribution shows 65% from the north and only 30% from the south. The project site is on the segment from Davis Blvd to US 41 and equal split from the north and the south would make more sense. According to the traffic report, the net change in trips will be from the St. Matthews House with the increase in number of beds from 104 to 150, It is important to note that St. Matthews House has a driveway on Airport Pulling Road and another one on Glades Blvd. Considering the access control on Airport Pulling Road and iI Engineering Inspired Design. November 30, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Glades Blvd., the driveway on Airport Pulling Road will be used by all vehicles entering the site from the south. The entering traffic from the north will use the driveway on Glades Blvd. The exiting traffic destined to go south will use the driveway on Glades Blvd. and make a westbound left at the signal on Airport Pulling Road. The exiting traffic destined to go north can use either of the driveways. An existing driveway count would indicate the use of this site and the driveways, and the trip distribution and assignment should be done accordingly based on actual data. 5. Trip Assignment and Site Access: The main access point to the site also provides access to the residential development (The Point at Naples) located on the east of the site. This access point does not have a full median opening and therefore, all exiting traffic from this driveway will have to go north on Airport Pulling Road and make a U-turn to go south. This results in 100% of the site traffic on this link of Airport Pulling Road and therefore, should be evaluated accordingly for impact assessment. 6. Future 2025 LOS: It is not clear from Table 4A how the future LOS letter grades were arrived at. No vlc ratios and corresponding LOS reference thresholds have been provided. 7. Increase in Commercial Land Use: The Zoning and Land Development Review section of the Staff Report (Page 9 and 10) identifies 64,000 sq.ft. of existing commercial land uses. The applicant in its submittals, including the TIS, has not analyzed the traffic impacts based upon a comparison of the existing 64,000 sq.ft to a greater amount of 130,000 sq. ft. of commercial land use. This potential increase in commercial land use has not been accounted for in the trip generation. This increase in commercial land use will potentially add additional 270 trips during the PM Peak Hour resulting in much more than 2% impact on the roadway segments. B. Development Commitments — Transportation Condition A: As per Condition A, "the maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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 SDPISDPA or subdivision plat approval'. The Traffic Impact Statement shows exactly 534 PM peak hour trips to be generated by the proposed development. The trip generation estimate based on actual data from the site could potentially increase the total trip generation. 9. Impacts On Great Blue Drive: No analysis has been performed for Great Blue Drive to evaluate the existing and the proposed conditions and establish that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive. (See section 5. 5.D of the David A. Gellman Estate PUDf Should you need any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me on my email at ochoudharv(o)KEITHteam.com or call me at (407) 252-7606. Sincerely Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE Director of Traffic Engineering TEngineering Inspired Design. ERRATA SHEET NOVEMBER 26, 2021 Cecelia Ward, AICP JC Consulting Enterprises Inc. Expert Opinion Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit Development Number: Collier County, FL- PL20210000176 PAGE PARAGRAH LINE FROM TO "LLCP" "LLP" "permitted" "amount of MIT 9 Exhibit E Opposition to — St. Matthew's House Ines Application for Commercial Planned Unit Development Collier County, FL, PL20210000176 Presenters • West Shore Point Naples, LLC • Adjacent Property Owner • Legal Counsel: • Stephen Tilbrook, Esq. • Anthony Pires, Esq., BCS • Expert Planner: • Cecelia Ward, AICP • Expert Traffic Engineer • Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE Summary of Objections and Issues • The Project is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan • The Project is not in compliance with the Collier County LDC section 10.02.13 • The Project is not in compliance with the Collier County LDC section 10.02.08 • The Project is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan III Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the land development code ("LDC"), the impact of which has not been evaluated, such as vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. III Objections and Issues Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. Subject Property is located just West of and adjacent to The Point at Naples, multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point Naples, LLC �j The Point at Naples • Workforce housing • Owner managed • Owner acquired in 2016 Planner — Cecelia Ward, AICP Planning Review The Rezoning and PUD Application is: • Inconsistent with the County's GMP, including: • the Future Land Use Element. • is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. • Not in compliance with: • the County's LDC Evaluation Criteria for PUDs; and, • the County's LDC Evaluation Criteria for Rezoning. • Inconsistent with the County's Community Character Plan. Impact of rezoning on Permitted and Conditional Uses PROPOSED COMMERCIAL Change in uses — proposed rezoning USES: Expands C-4 permitted uses over entire 11.89-acre area Tract B: 1. All C-4,general commercial permitted uses; and Removes Conditional Use Review for the following, 2. General warehousing and storage (4225j; and proposed new uses: and expansion of existing uses: I Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only General Warehousing and Storage (4225); Legal counsel (4222j(not-for profit food bank); and and prosecution (9222; Used vehicle sales (5521; Boat 4. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and dealers (5551); and Homeless Shelter 5. Used vehicle sales (5521); and Allows uses that are currently only permitted in Industrial 6. Boat dealers (5551). District [2.03.04.A.1.a.35]: • Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only (4222) Allows uses that are not currently permitted uses: • Not -for -profit food bank. • Homeless shelter use is not allowed in existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD 10 Significant difference between: Allowing the uses as conditional uses M0111,96VIN Allowing the uses as Proposed by the Application (permitted uses) Conditional Use Application Would Otherwise: • Allow imposition of various site/development conditions on any approval to assure adequate protection of impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. • Conditions and safeguards. In recommending approval of a conditional use, the Planning Commission may also recommend appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the LDC. Section 10.08.00 of the LDC Inconsistent with Growth Management Plan The Application is Inconsistent with FLUE Policy 5.6 in that it: ➢ Increases the opportunity for incompatibility with the adjacent multifamily residential neighborhood by proposing the expansion of Social Service Uses and Introduction of Commercial and Industrial Uses without the "protections" afforded under Conditional Use Review; and, ➢ Creates the potential for additional Impacts caused by vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter, lighting, loading, and the like from such proposed uses, which, without Conditional Use review, has the potential to result in impacting the quality of life of the nearby residents. The Application is Inconsistent with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and Mixed -Use Development in that it: ➢ Proposes a Social Service Campus that does not: ➢ Provide pedestrian connections with an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize uses that would otherwise be provided from a shopping center/retail type of mixed -use development. 12 Not in Compliance with County Rezoning Evaluation Criteria The Application: ➢ Lacks information and analysis in order to: PUD and • determine impacts on light and air to the adjacent residential neighborhood; • assure there will be no negative impacts on adjacent property values; a7i • assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development; and, • justify the deviations requested. ➢ Potentially grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of square feet required by the LDC for homeless shelters. Not in Compliance with County PUD and Rezoning Evaluation Criteria (Continued) ➢ Has not demonstrated a need for the rezoning. According to both the County staff and the applicant, the C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow the nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. • Ownership of the property in and of itself should not be the sole basis for the rezoning. Traffic Engineer Pramod Choudhary, PE,PTOE Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement No Adjustment in Traffic Volumes for Fluctuations Caused by COVID: ➢ The pre-COVID peak hour volumes should have been grown using historical growth rate to develop 2021 volumes for the assessment of the impact. Trip Generation Estimate is not consistent with the ITE Guidelines: ➢ St. Matthews House is an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. ➢ Land Use code 254 has only two data points and should not have been used to estimate trip generation for the group home/homeless shelter (Assisted Living Facility). ➢ The trip generation procedure does not follow the guidelines on Pages 26 and 28 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. 16 Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement I I Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact: ➢ Pass -by trips should not be deducted from the total trips for assessing the impact on roadway segments. ➢ The pass -by trips, otherwise destined as through trips, will make a left turn, U-Turn, or a right turn into the development as pass -by trips, and should accordingly be considered for impact assessment. No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions: ➢ Trip Distribution should be based on actual traffic volumes on the roadway segments. ➢ The project site is on the segment from Davis Blvd to US 41 and equal split from the north and the south would make more sense. Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations: ➢ The Great Blue Drive access point does not have a full median opening and therefore, all exiting traffic from this driveway will have to go north on Airport Pulling Road and make a U-turn to go south. This results in 100% of the site traffic on this link of Airport Pulling Road and therefore, should be evaluated accordingly for impact assessment. Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for traffic impact assessment: ➢ Staff Report (Page 9 and 10) identifies 64,000 sq.ft. of existing commercial land use to be increased to 130,000 sq. ft. of commercial land use. This increase has not been accounted for in the trip generation. ➢ This increase in commercial land use will potentially add additional 270 trips during the PM Peak Hour resulting in much more than 2% impact on the roadway segments. Impacts on Great Blue Drive: ➢ No analysis has been performed for Great Blue Drive, the main access to the residential development, to evaluate the existing and the proposed conditions and establish that sufficient capacity exists on Great Blue Drive. [See section 5.5.D of the David A. Gollmon Estate PUD] Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement • No Adjustment in Traffic Volumes for Fluctuations Caused by COVID. MI I • As an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. • Trip Generation Estimate is not consistent with the ITE Guidelines. • Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact. • No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions. • Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations. • Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for in traffic impact assessment. • No Analysis of the impacts on Great Blue Drive. II` Summary of Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the land development code ("LDC"), the impact of which has not been evaluated, such as vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. III Summary Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. Requested Changesto Proposed PUDI As contained in our proposed revisions: • Prohibit homeless shelter, residential care, and group care facilities on Tract B. • Exclude alcoholism counseling (nonresidential), offender rehabilitation agencies, probation offices, refugee services, and public welfare centers on Tract A. • Eliminate warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as a principal use on Tract B. • Permit warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as an accessory use to not for profit food bank only on Tract B. • Eliminate deviation 1, that would otherwise reduce the minimum floor area for homeless shelter from 150 square feet per person to 100 square feet per person. • Provide for enhanced landscape buffers at the time of redevelopment of 15-foot wide, type B landscape buffer adjacent to residential, and 20-foot wide, type D for areas adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road located within the Activity Center #16. • Prohibit overhead loading doors facing East. • Limit loading/unloading and delivery house to between 7am and 9pm on weekdays. 22 In Conclusion: Respectfully request Planning Commission recommend denial of the application as submitted. Or, if inclined to recommend approval, respectfully request recommending approval of the PUD with West Shore's changes to the PUD. Exhibit F EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GM- GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area, and up to 150 residential care or shelter beds be peFrnitt d within the CPI I^on Tract A. All principal uses must be owned by a not -for -profit corporation. 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: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322); excluding non-residential probation offices, refugee services, public defenders' and public prosecutors' offices, and public welfare centers; and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 4.2. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and 5.3. Used vehicle sales (5521); and 64. Boat dealers (5551). 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: (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 1 of 9 Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5. Self-help groups; and 6. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing (4222), cold or refrigerated only for a not- for profit food bank only and 4225). 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. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Northern Project Boundary 50 FEET *** 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or% sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET/ 60 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. *** Setback applicable to principal structures and additions to principal structures constructed after 1/25/2022. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 3 of 9 10' WIDE TYPED' 15' UE WDS /pq PE BUFFER (OR 2150, PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 1105) GLADES BOULEVARD 15' WIDE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER D 15' WIDE TYPE'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 6 E9 E1 ZONED: RMF-6 CT A USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER :--E4 m gym,, ^' LEGEND: PROJECT BOUNDARY 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL E7 -GREAT BLUE DRIVE I EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) i WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 5699 PG 2572) 0.29 AC. / WATER MANAGEMENT ❑ PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ® DEVIATION 15' WIDE TYPE'B' i f LANDSCAPE BUFFER i i i ZONED: DAVID A. TRACT A 'T B TRACT B / ESTATEN � �� ESTATE PUD � USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL i N NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 97-145� ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES 0 100, 200' SCALE: 1 rr = 200' WHEN PLOTTED @ 8.5" X 1 V © GradyMinor Q. Grady lilloralld 1s.1us: irs. R'y �1111111 \ i:l t, Roy Roolla Springs. FWrida 31131 ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD SCALE: z EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN SOH CODE: sM - 21 DATE: g P Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architects „�NAMD Cert. oFAdh. EB 0005151 Cert. oFAdh. LB 0005151 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 owo. GradyNinor. com Business LC 26000266 Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 10/25/2021 SHEET 1 OF 2 SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.89± ACRES TRACT 'A': 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'B': 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS (TO BE LOCATED ONLY ON TRACT A) OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% REQUIRED: 0.29± ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2.90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E) 1❑ RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES" (TRACT A ONLY) 2❑ RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: E1 - 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESS/EGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD SCALE ((ly1q�7 �/�j y� y1 V Grady A1iuor auJ 1ssu3•J:ilrs, P.A. aor cone: lJ 1 U dyMi n o r 13f1111I v Ia nni Rey s Bmaln Springs. Fimhde 34134 EXHIBIT C DATE MASTER PLAN NOTES : APR - Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects C,o,fA,Ah. hn30005151 Cer,.of AULh. 1,130005151 Business CC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 .—.Grady9/hmr.rom Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 12/14/2021 SHEET 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00-19-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89-41-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00°19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities", which requires a minimum habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 sq. ft. per bed with a maximum of 150 beds. On Tract A onlv. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafterthe 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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: A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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. ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 8 of 9 meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses may be provided on Tract 'B' and must be reflected on a Site Development Plan to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION: A. Any new overhead doors will not face adjacent residential uses. B. Loading and unloading will be limited to between 7 am and 9 pm Monday through Saturday. C. No deliveries, loading or unloading by tractor trailers. UTI LITY: A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determine whether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on the Master Plan. If it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additional CUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING/BUFFERING/FENCING/SECURITY: A. At the time of the issuance of any SDP or SDPA for Tract B, a 15' wide type 'B" landscape buffer shall be provided along the PUD boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development order to increase in the number of beds on Tract A to greater than 104, install and thereafter maintain a minimum 6 foot high security fence on Tract A of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, to connect to the existing wall on Tract B. Co Within six months of the approval of this PUD the entire boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD shall have a w,;n;rnung se) {^^*fence consistent with the existing44g4 fence Ar IL (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 9 of 9 Exhibit G EXPERT OPINION BY CECELIA WARD, AICP PRESIDENT JC CONSULTING ENTERPRISES INC. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, Unit 313 Tequesta, Florida PH: (954) 815-4298 cward @icconsul tinginc. net DATE PREPARED: Revised/Updated December 20, 2021 Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit Development Number: Collier County, FL - PL20210000176 Outline of Expert Opinion Report Part 1— Introduction and Application Background ................................................... 2 Part 11- Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion ................................................ 4 A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions.....................................................................4 Part 111— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria .................. 5 A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan5 B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning............................................................................................................................6 C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria ..........................7 EXHIBITS............................................................................................................... 10 EXHIBIT1.....................................................................................................................11 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals.............................................................11 EXHIBIT2.....................................................................................................................12 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan ............................12 EXHIBIT3.....................................................................................................................14 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.13. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning ..............14 EXHIBIT4.....................................................................................................................20 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan......................................20 EXHIBIT5.....................................................................................................................26 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria...............................................26 1 1 P a g e Part I — Introduction and Application Background I, Cecelia Ward, AICP, President of JC Consulting Enterprises Inc., have been retained by West Shore Point of Naples LLP to provide my expert planning opinions regarding the St. Matthew's House Inc. ["the applicant"] application for rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendments for property located in Collier County, just west of and adjacent to The Point at Naples multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point of Naples LLP. This Revised/Updated December 20, 2021 Expert Opinion addresses what I believe is the proposed PUD recommended for approval on December 16, 2021, based upon my viewing of the Planning Commission meeting video from CollierTV. The Point at Naples Apartments West Shore Point of Naples LLP Property The subject property is comprised of two tracts of land owned by St. Matthews House Inc., with a total of 11.89 acres, located on the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road South and Glades Boulevard. 2 1 P a g e (DR z)w.PB 1)ro. Pc ))o9 ANDw)Im) ^ — c = BLaDES BOVLEvaRD — kONED'RMF-0 LEGEND: b IANDSGPE I L,... ..• ATER MANAGEMEM BUFFED �IK'•" PROJECT W ::•�BOUNDaRY CONSERVATON 25 2EMENT IOR SSBB PG )B3B ac.iwATER rIP WIDE TYPE 9' MANAGEMENT —LaNDSLPPE BUFFER PAVED AREPS a' E# sREMNT (SEE NDTE US� U It USE MULTI S.Y RESIDENTML E i TRACTA yoGRFATBLUED— &II E9 I Ew .D. �D--BUTvvEL cre 3 ; BIUF ER -I "-NI=IE YPE •a• uNDscavE BUFFER ISOP BB-B]) 1E'WIDETYPE'O IANDBCAPE BUFFER i LANDSCAPE BUFFER TRACT B SSTA-N II ; USE MULT AMILY t I\I RESIDENIwL NOBIiFER REWWED(SDPBBSt) ZONED:C4-OTAUDM%D rWD COLLIER COUMY USE COMMERCMLANDGOVENMMENTALOFFICES SCALE: U1 200' In January 2021, the applicant initially submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acres (Tract A) of the St. Matthews House property. In March 2021, the applicant requested a change from the Conditional Use application to expand its request to include Tract B, which encompasses 9.55 acres, to unify the St. Matthew's House properties, and to provide for a rezoning from C-4 Commercial (Gateway Triangle Mixed Use) and an amendment to the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) and expanding the PUD designation to encompass the total development site of 11.89 acres. The Collier County staff administratively approved the change in application and did not require a new application to be submitted. The applicant proposes to combine the subject property into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District, and b) amending the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD, as reflected in Collier County Case No. PI-20210000176. Tract "A" of the subject property was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Resolution 99-87) that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. 3 1 P a g e The proposed rezoning would further concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus that increases the number of homeless beds located on Tract A from 104 to 150 and increases the total amount of square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130,000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional to administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The original application further requested deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to allow for less square feet of habitable space than what is required by the LDC to accommodate the increase in the number of beds and relief from certain landscape buffer requirements, as follows: o Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C. Group Housing to reduce the required minimum habitable floor area for homeless shelters from 1,500 s.f. plus 150 s.f. for each person over six, to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 s.f. per bed. o Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. Table 2.4 Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classification, which requires a 10 ft. Type A Buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the proposed PUD. The applicant proposes to include a 10 ft. wide Type A landscape buffer at the time of redevelopment of that portion of the PUD that is adjacent to the southern property boundary that impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line. A timeline of prior rezonings and recordation of approvals relative to the subject property has been provided in Exhibit 1. Part II - Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Based on my review of the information related to the St. Matthew's House CPUD Application PL L20210000176, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Collier County Community Character Plan and Collier County Land Development Code, it is my professional opinion that the application is: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Regulations Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. Part III of this report provides my findings of each of the evaluation criteria, with supporting documentation provided in Exhibits 2-5. Additionally, it is my professional opinion that the following issues have not been considered, 4 1 P a g e but are required to be considered by Collier County in its review of this application: 1) The failure to review the potential impact resulting from requested deviation in required habitable space for homeless shelter beds: The applicant is seeking a deviation in the minimum square foot required per bed, i.e. from 150 sq. ft/bed to 100 sq. ft/bed, which would result in a much denser concentration of homeless beds on the subject property. 2) The failure to review the traffic impacts and parking Impacts that have not adequately been addressed as further described in the traffic analysis prepared by Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE, of Keith and Associates, including but not limited to: a) Significant increase in commercial square feet and uses; and, b) Increase in the number of residents, adding more personnel and administrative staff; and, c) Parking, loading and trips generated from proposed restaurant, soup kitchen, used vehicle donations and sales. d) Traffic impacts on the Tract "B" 60-foot-wide access easement as recorded and shared with the adjoining Point at Naples residential development. 3) The failure to review the Health, Safety and Welfare Issues: a) Various code violations have been asserted in relation to vagrancy associated with the existing homeless shelter. These violations have impacted the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. There has been no review of the potential for increased vagrancy impacts as a result of the proposed increase in the number of beds of the existing facility. 2. There has been no operation and maintenance information provided by the applicant that addresses current and potential future vagrancy and property management impacts. b) The applicant should provide similar information in relation to the operation and maintenance of the existing thrift store and used vehicle sales lot at the south end of the proposed CPUD, which would require additional monitoring and maintenance. Part III— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 (PUD Criteria), 10.02.08 (Rezoning Criteria) and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code (Process), staffs 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. The following provides a review of these evaluation criteria, which illustrates that the application does not comply with the review and evaluation criteria contained in said LDC Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.08, as further addressed herein. A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan According to Subsection A. Generally.l. PUD master plan. "The Community Character Plan For 5 1 P a g e Collier County, Florida (April 2001) should be referenced as a guide for development and redevelopment in the PUD district. The Administrative Code shall establish the information to graphically illustrate the development strategy." Findings: While this is a guide that should be referenced for development and redevelopment of a PUD, the application does not include any review of compliance with the Community Character Plan for Collier County, which would otherwise demonstrate that the application is not in compliance with this Plan as further illustrated in Exhibit 2 of this report. B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings Generally: The application is not in compliance with the PUD rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.13, as discussed below. Additional supporting documentation for these findings is provided in Exhibit 3. • Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. • Findings criteria (b): No comments. • Findings (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 4. • Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. • Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. • Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. • Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and resultant concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses without I Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 6 1 P a g e analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. • Findings criteria (h): The application does not provide justification for the deviations requested. C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria The LDC requires that the "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: " Findings Generally : The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein. Further documentation in support of these findings is provided in Exhibit S. • Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (3) The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. • Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. • Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. • Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for adjacent residential uses to the east. • Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 7 1 P a g e • Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC. There is no indication in the application that such plan has been submitted to the County for this "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities' or "if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities."Z • Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and airto adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas. • Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. • Findings criteria (11): The applicant attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. • Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelter. There is no justification provided to support this deviation. • Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. • Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. • Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. • Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics, as previously addressed in this report. z See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 8 1 P a g e Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. • Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. 9 1 P a g e EXHIBITS 101 Page EXHIBIT 1 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals The following provides a summary of prior rezoning and recordation relative to the subject property: Tract "A" Total: 2.34 acres Parcel No 390000008. • Glades Unit Two Plat, Lot 1, Block K, Lot 1, DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-21 Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Change of Use, CU 98-24, Resolution 99-87 dated 1.26.1999 • Rezoning to C4 - Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District GTMUD MXT, LDC Ordinance 06-08, dated 02.28.2006 Tract "B" Total: 9.55 acres Parcel No 34840520004. • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Permitted and Accessory Uses excludes Homeless Shelter • Requires 10% Open Space — 3 Strata Tract "B" (North 5.00 acres — includes LuLu's Diner) • DeVoe PUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 Tract "B" (South 4.55 acres aka Dealership Parcel) • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-05, dated 9.11.2020 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-29 (Scrivener's Error) dated 9.15.2020 Great Blue Drive (60-ft Private Access. Signaee and Landscape Easement • Access, Signage and Landscape Easement Agreement, OR2267, Page 0006 o Non -Exclusive ingress, egress, regress, and access easement o Dated 16 DEC 1996 111 Page EXHIBIT 2 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan The application is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan:' 1. Design... The spaces between buildings are as important as the private realms inside them. Development should be designed so that the architecture and neighborly arrangement impart an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity while making daily life more practical. Findings: The uses proposed for the subject property include heavy commercial uses that do not make daily living more practical. Neither will thrift store uses, restaurant/soup kitchens, thrift store and used vehicular sales, when adjacent to neighborhood residential uses, provide an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity. 2. Choice... Provide more housing choices in Collier County by reintroducing walkable traditional neighborhood development as a counterbalance to the multitude of gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years. Findings: The application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods. It instead could have an isolating effect on the location of the renovated and expanded shelter at a busy traffic intersection. 3. Balance... Create a balanced road network by improving Collier's principal arterial roads while simultaneously creating a secondary network of smaller roads that link neighborhoods. Findings: The application does not add any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the doubling of heavy commercial uses and 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network and shared access with adjacent residential uses. 4. Connections... Make frequent connections between new neighborhoods and the land around them, and fully integrate them with the secondary street network and with parks and other urban open spaces. Improve existing neighborhoods in the same way. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhoods that surround them. Rather they propose a social service campus that accommodates a homeless shelter that includes homeless beds and heavy commercial uses, and light industrial warehousing. a https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=63126 121 Page 5. Growing smart... All new development approvals should be based on a resilient pattern of streets and lots, because the initial street and lot pattern will long outlast the first generation of buildings and land uses that are placed on them. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not support a resilient pattern of streets and lots to support a 30% increase of homeless beds and a doubling of high intensity commercial uses. 6. Hold the line... Make much better use of the remaining vacant acreage within the existing urban boundary before allowing new development to creep further into the countryside. Findings: While the proposed development is located in the urban service area, the compatibility of the use cannot be merely supported by its location. 7. Respect environmentally sensitive places... Enhance the character of Collier's more rural and environmentally sensitive places through rural design techniques and further protection of the County's vital natural resources. Findings: The application does not add elements that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places, but rather merely maintains a surface management area that was required under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 131 Page EXHIBIT 3 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings: The application is not in compliance with the PUD and rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.113, as discussed below. 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. Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. 1. The North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200-feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will all likely result in limited useable space available for development. This would also likely result in a more typical "strip center" configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. 2. This PUD-amendment also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying approved square footage from the existing 64,000sf to a total of 130,000sf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 3. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity or compatibility with the adjacent 141 11age residential uses, but rather serves to isolate and increase the incompatibility of the proposed uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life for adjoining residents. 4. The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 5. The application does not include any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the substantial increase in heavy commercial uses (from 64,000 sf t0 130,000 s.f.) and proposed 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network. Potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 6. With respect to the suitability of development in relation to infrastructure, there has been no data provided by the applicant to demonstrate adequacy of services and facilities. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would essentially double the approved amount of existing heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 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 public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. Findings (b): No comments. 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.) 151Page Findings criteria (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 3. 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. Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples residential apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incapability of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 2. Additionally, the application does not support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. a) The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by Policy 6.1.1. of the Conservation Element of the GMP. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 4 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 161 Page Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and result in a concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. 1. The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. 2. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (h): The applicant does not provide justification for the deviations requested. 1. The applicant proposes a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. 2. There has been no parking analysis that demonstrates that the amount of parking proposed is sufficient to meet the increase parking demand created by the increase in homeless shelter beds. Rather, the applicant points to the use of administrative parking that is located on Tract B of the Conceptual PUD Master Plan. As such, the applicant attempts to satisfy ancillary parking for the homeless shelter use on Tract B, which currently does not permit homeless shelters either as a primary or accessory use. a) Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, as well as the used vehicle sales have not been evaluated in terms of demand in parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off -site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. 171 Page b) Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. 3. The applicant is also seeking deviation from the County's buffering requirements. a) The property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incompatibility of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 181 Page 191Page EXHIBIT 4 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan Findings: The application is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan: Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 5.4 Findings: The application is inconsistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan in that the application is inconsistent with Policy 5.6, 5.8, 5.10 and provisions for Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Policy 5.6 Findings: The application is not compatible with and does not complement The Point at Naples residential apartments located just east of and abutting the subject property: 1. The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the PUD-amendment proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Track A and the existing thrift store uses. 2. The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless individuals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to 201 Page adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet throughout the County. 3. Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, and particularly the used vehicle sales area have not been evaluated in terms of increased demand for parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off - site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. Further, the applicant does not assess or address increased demand for policing to maintain parking, accessible routes and emergency access within this portion of the property. 4. Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. Policy 5.8 Findings: The application does not propose an "innovative approach" that would otherwise conserve open space. Additionally, the application proposes to deviate from the buffer requirements of the County's LDC. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the Future Land Use Element's requirement for implementation of regulations such as minimum open space requirements and native vegetation preservation requirements. 2. The application does not include an assessment as to whether potential mitigation or remediation are required, nor does it address whether preservation strategies are required if the previously identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. The plan as proposed instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. Policy 5.10 Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent 211 11age with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. Policy 5.10 Findings: The application proposes a campus for social services on the "unified properties", that provides for the expansion of homeless beds on Tract A and its support uses onto Tract B, which does not comply with the regulations of the County's LDC for group housing, as follows: 1. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: a) Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. b) Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). c) Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. Policy 5.13: Properties whose zoning has been determined to comply with the former Commercial under Criteria provision of the Future Land Use Element shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. These properties are not subject to the building floor area or traffic impact limitations contained in this former provision. Policy 5.13 Findings: This policy does not permit circumvention or oviscapte the need to demonstrate consistency with all other policies of the County's Future Land Use Element and other elements of the Plan. Further, there is no direct indication that this policy applies to the subject property which has Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay land use designations. OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: 221 Page The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 Findings: The applicant claims that the application complies with Objective 7 and Policy 7. 1 because it includes internal interconnections and connection to Airport -Pulling Road. However, the context of Objective 7, frames the objective as being supportive of connections that promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adhere to existing development character. The application is inconsistent with all three objectives. It does not promote smart growth planning which otherwise promotes streets that are safe for people walking and bicycling and by protecting open green spaces. The expansion of the homeless shelter and doubling of heavy commercial uses on the land violates these smart growth planning principles. Additionally, the doubling of high intensity commercial uses does not substantiate compliance with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. F. Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Findings: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, none of which lend themselves to uses that would otherwise incentivize the private sector to invest in this urban area, inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Overlay. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no 231 11age interconnectivity with the adjacent residential use, rather serves the increase the incompatibility of the uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 1. Mixed -Use Development: A mix of residential and commercial uses is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed -use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. Mixed Use Development Findings: The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses or services, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. Findings The application is also inconsistent with the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Elements Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) ntial and Mixed Use Development Coastal High Hazard Area than 2.5 acres 10% it to or greater 2.5 acres 25% Non -Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 5 acres. 10% Equal to or greater than 5 acres and less than 20 acres. 15% Equal to or greater than 20 ac. 25% Policy 6.1.1 Findings: The applicant claims compliance with this policy and these standards; however, the application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by this policy. s https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/40905/635883137282O70000 241Page Nor does it assess the existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD's compliance with environmental commitments made part of Ord 97-14. Specifically, Section 4.9 Environmental conditioned approval upon..."shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and retaining 10% of the existing native vegetation on site, by area, in all three strata"... The application does not include an assessment as to whether the potential mitigation and preservation strategies are required if the identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. It instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD of 0.29 acres. Nor does the application consider the increase in requirement for native vegetation preservation resulting from an increase in the total site area to 11.89 acres, which requires a 15% minimum per the above objective and policy. 251Page EXHIBIT 5 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria Findings: The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. 2. The existing land use pattern. Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD for the following reasons: a. Although the property has been developed under the existing zoning, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD and the C-4 zoning do not permit the homeless shelter use as of right as proposed under the rezoning. i. The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. ii. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. b. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. c. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. 261 Page d. Additionally, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Track A and the existing thrift store uses. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Findings criteria (3) As previously noted, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Additionally, the social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. To the contrary, the current zoning is C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and DeVoe Pontiac CPUD contain existing uses that have been approved under the current zoning, as either conditional uses, or as part of the PUD Resolution. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject 271 Page property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. a) The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Indi duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. Additionally, no documentation was provided as to best practices and whether other communities in Florida have adopted such criteria and with what effect. b) The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to adversely affect the living conditions of the adjacent residential neighborhood by increasing noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Track A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not adequately address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at 281 Page Naples apartment community, as further addressed in the traffic analysis prepared by Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE of Keith and Associates. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC, a "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities shall be granted" or " if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities.116 There is no indication in the application that such a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities plan has been submitted to the County for this determination. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would allow twice as much heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas: a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former 6 See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 291Page dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. a) That being said, it should be noted that the proposed change includes the intensification of social service uses and activates with the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which can result in adverse effect on the property values of the adjacent residential development. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Findings criteria 11: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelters. There is no indication in the application that such waiver of the code requirements has been granted to other group homes in the County. Nor is there any justification provided to support this deviation. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 301 Page Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Parcel B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements that impart beauty, confidence, and societal continuity. b) This application includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) This concentration of site development would not make daily living more practical. It would in fact be contrary to the requirements of the Future Land Use Element at Overview Paragraph "C." Underlying Concepts, Attainment of High -Quality Urban Design, specifically ..."These Architectural and Site development standards include building design, parking lot orientation, pedestrian access, vehicular movement, landscaping and lighting. These standards will provide for quality development that is responsive to the Community's character..." d) Additionally, the application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods in that its focus is upon addressing the needs of the homeless and necessary ancillary support services. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. a) There has been no evidence provided in the record that it is "impossible" to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use, without the need to rezone the property or amend and expand the existing PUD, as is proposed for the subject property. Neither has there been any review of the potential to locate elements of the homeless shelter individually without the need to create an aggregation of the uses at this location of the County. 311 Page 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. Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Parcel B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) Such physical constraints to the site would result in significant alterations to the existing structures, parking and water management system to support the proposed development. 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 [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended. Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. 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. 321 Page Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 331 Page Exhibit H Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 EXCERPT TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 2, 2021 Agenda Item PL20210000176 - St. Matthew's House 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 (present when indicated) Paul Shea Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The following is the requested excerpt of proceedings.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: The second matter coming before us today is PL20210000176. It's the St. Matthew's House CPUD. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Mr. Eastman, please. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, public record only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. I made a site visit to St. Matthew's. I had communications with and materials from staff, and similarly with the applicant, members of the public. Also, I've reviewed the public code enforcement records pertaining to this property. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I amend mine? I did make a staff visit -- a site visit as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 2 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Mr. Yovanovich, you're on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Do you want me to start even though the County Attorney's chair is empty at this point? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's wait. But while we're waiting, let's talk about your traffic consultant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. As I talked to the Chair, Jim Banks, our traffic consultant, is -- he said I could tell this on the record. He previously had colon cancer, and he's having issues ever since the surgery for that. Sometimes he has flare-ups that makes it very uncomfortable for him. So he's going to -- with your indulgence, would appear by phone and on Zoom because he just, candidly, doesn't feel well enough to be here in person. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand completely, and I don't think there will be any objection from the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 3 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- for that to happen. All right. So let's proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. As I said, my name for the record. The individuals who are here in person that will be discussing the petition are Steve Brooder, who's the chief executive officer for St. Matthew's House. Steve's right there; myself; Mr. Arnold, who you're familiar with; Frank Feeney is not going to make a presentation but is here to answer any questions you may have that are civil engineering related; and then Jim Banks, after Mr. Arnold, will do a brief overview of his TIS. The location of the property is on the screen. What we're here to do is actually consolidate three parcels of property that are currently owned by St. Matthew's House that have three different zoning designations. The most northern piece up here is where the current St. Matthew's House is, which is going to remain. That is zoned C-4, and it's within the overlay, Bayshore/Gateway Overlay, and it has a conditional use. The middle 4.5 acres, roughly right here, is zoned the DeVoe U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com I Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUD. And, finally, the most southern piece where the former dealership was, right here, is zoned C-4. So we're coming in to consolidate the properties into one commercial PUD. The essence of the petition, and Mr. Arnold will get into greater detail, is to increase the number of homeless shelter beds on the existing homeless shelter site and, if approved within the existing homeless shelter, from 104 beds to 150 beds, and to establish within the PUD a maximum of 130,000 square feet of commercial -related development. Right now there is no cap on the commercial -related development. It's whatever you can fit on the two C-4 parcels you can have as long as you meet the development standards. C-4 height is 75 feet. Mr. Arnold will explain in greater detail that we're reducing that to 50 feet. So there are some changes that are being made through this petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that zoned or actual? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is -- that's actually -- that is zoned height, and we have an actual height in there as well. But right now, as you know, straight zoning districts only have zoned height in U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 5 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What we're not here to do -- and which was I, think, miss -- I'm assuming you've read materials from Mr. Pires and the planner who provided testimony. We are not here to allow for the homeless shelter beds to be on Tract B. And, in fact, if you look at the C-4 zoning district allowable uses, the C-4 zoning district makes it clear that group housing excludes homeless shelter beds. So we've never asked for the ability to put homeless shelter beds on Tract B. We have agreed to say it more clearly by putting another express prohibition for homeless shelter beds on Tract B, but we've never asked for homeless shelter beds on Tract B. We are -- Mr. Brooder is going to come up and explain to you the vision for St. Matthew's House. They do more than just provide a homeless shelter. He will explain how the homeless shelter works, because I think there may be some misconceptions out there about how the homeless shelter actually works. Terms like "we're going to increase vagrancy" is not a fact, because the homeless shelter takes great care in making sure both those U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com I Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 who need the services are safe but the surrounding community is safe. And I'm going to have Mr. Brooder come up and explain in detail how that works, how they do that, their goal for this campus, and then Mr. Arnold will come up and provide his planning testimony, and after that Mr. Banks will provide some transportation testimony. MR. BROODER: Good morning. I'm Steve Brooder, St. Matthew's House CEO. I wanted to give some background, as Rich said, and be able to answer any questions. For over 34 years now, St. Matthew's House has been focused on serving people experiencing homelessness, hunger, and addiction. That's our focus. That's what we do. That's our mission. And today, we operate the only two homeless shelters in Collier County. The focus of today's meeting is the Campbell Lodge in Naples with 104 beds, and we also have the Immokalee Friendship House in Immokalee with 44 beds. Both shelters are operated very much in the same way, and I'll describe that a little more. Our Naples shelter was built in 1994 and underwent extensive renovation in the past few U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 7 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 years. While we were constrained by the conditional use to the number of beds and air conditioned space, we were able to create more efficient space during the renovation and add non -air conditioned space, which is a multipurpose space. Now we're able to make this application to increase our capacity to 104 beds within the existing footprint. Today our current waitlist daily is averaging 50 to 60 people. Now, that's a mix, and it varies every day between men and women and moms with kids. With the renovation we actually increased our ability to serve moms with children by creating more secure apartments for them. We have a very extensive intake process when folks come to us. They're drug screened. There's a daily Breathalyzer. We also do a thorough background check. So we have rules. We don't allow certain offenders into the shelter. This makes our shelters, both of them, what we call high -barrier shelters. You may be familiar with the terms "wet shelter," "damp shelter," "low barrier." Ours is a high barrier in the sense that there's no drugs, no alcohol is allowed, no disruption is allowed. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com I Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We also, through the renovation, were able to establish a much better controlled access to the property. So as you visited the property, you saw the fence and the gates. That's to make both the people inside secure and the populations inside the facility secure. So we separate, with a controlled access, the men from the women from the moms with kids. Anybody can leave any time, but it's a very controlled access to enter the shelter. We also assign a bunk and a locker to everyone that comes in, and after intake our goal is to provide intensive case management to everybody that we serve. That means everybody has a case file. Everybody meets with a case manager. And the whole process is to get people experiencing homelessness back on their feet back to a normal life. We view this model -- we call it transformative rehabilitation. It's very different from some shelters in other cities where people can line up for a bunk every night. That's not how we operate. So once you're assigned a bunk and a locker, you can stay up to 90 days. Right now our typical stay is about 68 days. Some folks stay longer. There are exceptions. If you're working on things U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com I Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that are very important getting back to your regular life, then we can extend that 90 days. We work with a lot of partners which are invaluable to the shelter operation: Neighborhood Health Clinic, NCH, David Lawrence Center. These are all invaluable partners to us. You probably heard about the annual point in time count. That's one night in January all across the country. Basically all the coalitions in every county or every municipality, with volunteers, go out to seek to count the number of homeless in that municipality. One night in January. So it's an estimated count. And in Collier County, the latest numbers are between 600 and 700 individuals experiencing homelessness. That's what they counted. But it's widely recognized that's about a third, typically, as you look across the country, of the actual number of homeless in any area. It's just hard to find people when they don't want to be found. So as we get into our transformative rehabilitation, we're really focused on helping people find employment, taking care of matters that have affected their ability to find a home, and get back to a normal life. And part of that is we have U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 10 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 transitional housing. We operate Wolfe Apartments. So folks that are doing well can transition to apartment living and then move on from there. But, basically, our shelters can only accommodate those wishing to be served, wishing to improve their situation, and are willing to come in and abide by the rules. So there are many chronic homeless on the streets that don't wish to be sheltered. Many are suffering with mental illness. Another problem, of course, with homelessness is addiction. In 2010, when we saw a revolving door of folks coming into the shelter, leaving and then coming back, addiction was part of their problem. So in 2010 we started a men's recovery program so that people coming into the shelter that were suffering from addiction could move right into -- be referred to our recovery program, and in 2013 we started our women's program. So that's worked very well to transition people from the state of homelessness when they're in addiction into recovery. Our county drug court has been a great partner in referring people to the shelter to avoid incarceration, and we've worked very closely with the drug court. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 11 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I mentioned our three core mission items, and hunger is foremost in that. That's how St. Matthew's House began those 34 years ago was feeding hungry people. And then COVID came along in March and April of 2020 and had a huge impact on our food assistance program. So we met the challenge to date. We have delivered over 270,000 meal boxes to people suffering from food insecurity at 12 different distribution sites. These are mainly our church partners. And we work together with our food bank partners, Harry Chapin and Midwest Food Bank and individual donors and contributors to provide that food. We now have a 10,000-square-foot warehouse that didn't exist pre-COVID, but that's to serve our food and emergency assistance in the county. We acquired the DeVoe property, I think Richard mentioned, in 2013 with the help of a generous donor, and we've maintained and improved that property over these years. This acquisition really allowed us to expand in this area to meet the growing needs of our services and to operate one of our thrift stores. We have six thrift stores. We operate those as social enterprises that provide job training for U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 12 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 folks that are in our shelters and in our programs, and they provide the revenue to help fund the programs. We operate other social enterprises. Lulu's Kitchen is the newest on Tract B. That's an 8,000-square-foot facility that was built ground up for our purpose, and that's a great facility. If you haven't visited the Fresh Start Cafe at Lulu's Kitchen, I would encourage you to do that because it benefits the mission. The whole building is to serve the mission. As a social enterprise, we operate the Fresh Start Cafe and Delicious by Design Catering, but we also create all of our mission meals; those are all the meals that go to all of our campuses and other centers, assisted living centers, senior centers, every day. And, lastly, we operate a culinary training center inside Lulu's Kitchen. So folks that are in our shelter or in our programs can get that culinary training to then move on to jobs in hospitality. The other social enterprises we operate, I mentioned we operate Delicious by Design Catering. We also operate the Port LaBelle Inn in Hendry County as a full hotel with meeting rooms, meeting space. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 13 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So all of these are integral parts of our mission, and it's really about serving people, meeting the -- it's a growing need. And so we're there to expand and deliver services as best we can. So we're requesting the help today to continue to serve, really, the most vulnerable in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wayne, if you don't mind, I wanted to ask Mr. Brooder a few questions. MR. ARNOLD: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Brooder, thank you for that overview, and I appreciate it. Some questions just in reading some of the opposition to this and just in better understanding your mission. Under what circumstances are moms and children accepted? Is it generally a hunger? Is -- it just -- MR. BROODER: Into the shelter? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. BROODER: They're experiencing U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 14 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER FRY: Homelessness? MR. BROODER: So they're living in cars with relatives, and they have nowhere else to turn. The shocking part of that waitlist every day is the moms with kids that have nowhere to go. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that a significant portion of that waitlist? MR. BROODER: It varies every day, but it can be as many as 10 moms, and right now we're full. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So one of the deviations is to reduce the square footage per occupant from 150, as in the codes, to 100. You mentioned that you can build -- you can grow from 104 to 150 in the same footprint. So explain to us why that reduction is sensible, and I guess part of that is why the 150-foot limitation that's in the codes is not applicable. MR. BROODER: Yes. We've been very successful with the space to date, but then with the renovation we realized that, when it was built in 194, there were a lot of inefficient utilizations of the space. So being creative, we worked with a consultant out of California that only works on design of homeless shelters, and we were able to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 15 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take a look at the space dedicated to offices and other areas and dorm space and actually carve out more bed space in the existing footprint. COMMISSIONER FRY: So no need to -- the other option would have been, I think, to add to the square footage, maintain the 150, and just build a bigger footprint, but you decided that it was detrimental to the residents to have a smaller footprint? Is the current facility 150 square feet, or is it -- is it 100 square feet already? MR. ARNOLD: If I might. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and I'll try to answer that question. With their renovations, they just meet the standard for the 104 beds that they have, and as Steve mentioned, they've recaptured space. And not to mention the fact that if you've toured the facility, they no longer have the St. Matthew's House organizational business offices there. Those are above the thrift store on the south end of this property. So they have space that they can recapture. And the standard that we asked for -- essentially, the building today is about 15,000 square feet. Our idea was, let's keep it in the same footprint as they did when they added the 20 U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 16 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beds back in 1999. The idea was, we can keep the footprint the same, have less impact to any of our neighbors by doing that. So the standard we've written is a really simple opportunity to get 150 beds in about 15,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. Next question, it was intended for Mr. Brooder, if he's able to come back up. Mr. Brooder, what is your vision for the 130,000 square feet of commercial that's been requested? In the opposing letter it mentioned that 64,000. That was not mentioned by Mr. Yovanovich, but they seem to imply that it grew from 64,000 to 130,000 in the application, which appears to be a doubling of that footage. It's general C-4 uses in a lot of cases. So I guess my question is, what is your vision for it? Why do you need general C-4 versus just some specific uses that are complementary to your mission? MR. BROODER: Yes. As Rich was going through the different tracts, it's -- we have been talking for a number of years to clean it up, to get it under one zoning designation. In fact, the line between the PUD and the C-4 designation to the south runs right through part of the building, the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 17 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 old DeVoe dealership. So this would clean it up. I don't -- I don't know if that 64,000 number is right, because when you look at the dealership, second floor, the warehouse space we have, and then we just added 8,000 square feet. So I think it's more -- existing square footage is more than that. The only immediate plan that we would have for any commercial expansion is to potentially add two bays to our warehouse, and we've been discussing this. So that's at the furthest south portion of the property. Our warehouse space was the old service -- were the old service bays for the DeVoe dealership. And as we've grown to now have six stores, it would be beneficial to have two extra bays. But we have no immediate plans to do that. We don't have bids for it or anything at this point. Some of the other structures on the property, the ancillary warehouse space is quite old. It's metal, super structure, and potentially in the future we could see improving that. But there are no immediate plans beyond that. COMMISSIONER FRY: And there are -- it doesn't sound like there are any plans for general for -profit commercial uses on the property. It's U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 18 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all complementary uses to -- MR. BROODER: The mission. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- St. Matthew's House? MR. BROODER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think that's all I have. Thank you very much for the clarifications. MR. BROODER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions before the applicant continues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Again, Wayne Arnold. I'm a certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And I'm going to run you through a few of the slides. You know, we've talked already about the zoning on the property, and I've highlighted sort of the three distinct areas. So going from north to south, on the north is considered Tract A in our proposed PUD. It's currently zoned C-4, part of the mixed -use overlay for the CRA. The middle piece is what is known as the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD, and that allows a variety of C-3 type uses as well as auto dealership and things of that nature, specifically prohibits homeless shelters in U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 19 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 its today version. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In that CPUD, is there actual and a zoned height limitation? MR. ARNOLD: It does not have an actual and zoned height limitation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And the southern blue piece that's highlighted -- and you can see what Mr. Brooder mentioned -- the zoning line goes through a portion of the building. So a thrift store's not technically allowed in the C-3 DeVoe PUD that allows C-3 type uses. So that portion -- and Steve can correct me. I haven't been in the building for a while, but it was operated as a cafe, a little, small Starbucks cafe, because that was a permitted use in the DeVoe PUD. So it's a quirky scenario. You know, that original DeVoe building goes back into the early 1970s when it became an auto dealership, and it grew. The DeVoe PUD grew out of the need for the DeVoe dealership to expand. And those of us who've been around long enough know that that was the used car lot for the DeVoe sales lot for many, many years. And then, of course, St. Matthew's House came U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 20 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 along in the mid 1980s and was an 84-bed facility and then grew into the 104-bed facility with a conditional use. So until, I think it must have been 1991-ish time frame, maybe late 1980s, C-4 permitted homeless shelters by right in the C-4 zoning district, and it subsequently changed to require a conditional use for soup kitchens and homeless shelters. So the 20-bed expansion was required to go through the conditional use process. And the minutes are very short. It was approved unanimously by the Board at that time. And the idea was let us utilize the existing footprint that we have. We don't need to expand our building to do that. And I don't know the history of this calculation with regard to the 1,500 square feet plus 150 square feet per person for those over seven. I don't know where that came from. I don't think anybody on current staff knows. I was at the county in 1990 through 1998, and I have no idea where that standard came from, but it's been in your code for some time. But we've done some research. We don't find anything that would prohibit us from a building code or fire code standpoint to utilize that U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 21 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard. Rich has done some research, and military barracks are, like, 73 square feet per person. ALFs have various standards depending on where you look, but those standards can range from 75 to 90 square feet per person as a guideline for design purposes. So we think that the 100 square feet we've asked for, it just makes that a really simple opportunity for us to come in and make that standard work and let them recapture some of these spaces that they've renovated and no longer have the need for other than for bed space, because there's such a demand for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't necessarily need to interrupt you, Wayne. I just was signaling that I have questions maybe at an appropriate point. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Sure. So one of the other highlights here, and I don't think it was brought out in the opposition letter, but this property is in the Activity Center No. 16. All of the property is, with the exception of the Tract A, which is the homeless shelter, and it's reflected on both of these. The one shows a closer version, and the one on the right shows the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 22 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entirety of the activity center boundary. So it's in an activity center. You know, under the Comprehensive Plan, we can seek almost any commercial or light industrial use that is deemed to be compatible. Knowing that this has been largely used for a car lot and a homeless shelter for the last 25-plus years, we honestly don't think we're changing the dynamic of what's going on around us. We're simply making this a consolidated PUD with consistent development standards. It's easy for all of us to understand what the rules are, and it will be easier for our neighbors to understand what the rules are as well. Some of the surrounding uses. The Point at Naples Apartments are our most immediate neighbor to the east. They have an access easement across a portion of our property that serves as their only form of access to the apartment complex. I think there are about 290 units that have been constructed. They're two- and three-story units. Our property is outlined in yellow on that page. The government center is a very close proximate use to us. And then, of course, Home Depot is our nearest neighbor on this side of U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 23 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Airport Road across Glades Boulevard. And, you know, to talk a little bit about compatibility. And I know Mr. Brooder said they don't have immediate plans for building some of the other facilities, but given the location and adjacency to the government center, we think that there are a whole series of potential uses that St. Matthew's House may use to supplemental their other social service issues that they're dealing with, and that could be leasing out office space. They could build an office building, for instance, and we know that that can fit. They could tear down the existing thrift store building that was the dealership and make a true office building out of it and capture more space and then, more importantly, rather than leasing 10,000 square feet or more for food storage offsite, there's an opportunity to build legitimate warehousing here for them to do it on site, and it wouldn't be a food distribution center like I know that -- Ms. Homiak, in your conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, it was whether this is a place where people are going to line up for a mile with hundreds of cars and get a food distribution, and that's not the case. As Mr. Brooder mentioned, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 24 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they do that through their connection with other churches that they serve. So you'll see on the news in the morning, when they're having these distributions, it will be at the First Baptist Church campus or the Presbyterian Church campus or some other church campus that they have an affiliation with that can accommodate the large volumes of people who, unfortunately, need the food service. So those are some ideas of how we can get to the square footage. And as it's been said, there is no limitation today. And, you know, we obviously did a traffic analysis, and we looked at what would be a maximum footprint that we could fit here legitimately, keeping in mind that we've shrunk the two C-4 pieces from 75 feet down to 50 feet. So those would probably support three-story office buildings. We know in the City of Naples they have a 42-foot height limit. You can build a three-story office building and 42 feet if you choose to do so. So 50 feet was our established height. It was consistent with C-3 and the middle piece that was Devoe PUD. And we can fit the 130,000 square feet in some form. You know, we've looked at can we fit U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 25 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an office building of, you know, 10,000 square feet per floor and do a 30,000 square foot office building that could be leased to their partners, to attorneys who want to be close to the government center and the courts, or to any other viable business that's allowed under C-4. So that's why it's important for them to have other uses in the long run here, Mr. Fry. The existing site plan, this is the Tract A. This is the shelter building itself. And in orange is highlighted everything that's currently under roof today. And the area in the little northeast corner of the site that you can see with the shading, that is a -- it's an unenclosed screen room. And, you know, they could recapture that space, for instance, by walling it in and getting the square footage to the square footage that would support our calculation of 100 square feet per person. And, again, not changing the overall footprint of the building. One of the other changes that was recently made -- and you probably saw in your backup, we went through -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Wayne, I'm sorry. I will interrupt, just because it's timely. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 26 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you showed the gray area. You're going to reclaim that. You're going to convert it to air conditioned space. Mr. Brooder mentioned bunks, and I'm curious, does each resident have their own room with a bunk in it, or is it a bunk room? MR. ARNOLD: It's a bunk room. It's -- the women and children's areas are separate rooms. The men sleep in the bunk room, so there are multiple cots, if you will, beds for -- COMMISSIONER FRY: In one large room? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So would the unshaded areas be reconfigured in any way, or are you simply making changes to the shaded area? MR. ARNOLD: What we're proposing to do -- and not to say that it would preclude them from making future changes, Mr. Fry, but under the square footage calculation that I'm trying to show you is we're limiting ourselves to 150 beds maximum, and that would equate to 15,000 square feet minimum that I need to do that. That area still will have dining space for them. The meals are not prepared on site anymore. They're prepared at Lulu's U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 27 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kitchen next door, and they're brought over for feeding there. As I said, the administrative offices have been -- except for the residents who -- the resident administrative people who are there for the shelter purposes only, the administrative business offices are all located at the thrift store building on the second floor. So there are spaces that are no longer needed to serve the overall administrative functions for St. Matthew's House as an organization. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you can add the remaining bunk beds in that area that's shaded, and that's the plan? MR. ARNOLD: That's the plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to -- okay. So -- okay. So you would not necessarily have to change the layout of the existing building in order to meet the objective. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And just to that, if you go through the math and calculate what we would need to satisfy 150,000 [sic] people by the formula that's in the code today, it's about 24,000 feet. So if you deny the deviation, it would require St. Matthew's House, to get to their 150 beds, to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 28 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 modify that footprint to increase it by about 10,000 square feet. And it's possible to do that. It's just not the ideal situation for a charity that's trying to help others. They'd like to do it in the least costly way that they can and still be the good neighbor that they've proven to be. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: This was the existing master plan and, again, highlights the fact that we've got a building that overhangs two different zoning districts. This was the master plan that was originally created, oddly enough, for the DeVoe PUD, for the middle piece, but it showed the existing dealership on it. And there was some confusion over the years that this was how big the DeVoe PUD was. It was never a 10-acre PUD. It was always about a four -and -a -half -acre PUD, but over time people sort of thought that the DeVoe dealership was one -- it was one parcel under the tax records, but it was never consolidated zoning. So in our proposed master plan, we show a Tract A, which is the homeless shelter. And as Rich mentioned, if we need to expressly prohibit the shelter to be on Tract B, we're happy to do that. And, likewise, I mentioned the warehousing U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 29 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 use. we've added that as a permitted use, the refrigerated warehousing. And if we need to make that an accessory use only, we're happy to do that as well if that alleviates some of the concern from our neighboring property owners. And on this plan, just north of the southern Tract B, you see a box, and that box represents an area where we think we could fit a small office building in the future that could house either truly the administrative offices for St. Matthew's House or some other business function that's a permitted use under C-4. So these are our permitted uses. And as I said, the only place that the homeless shelter is permitted is on Tract A. And as Rich mentioned in his opening remarks, you can't get -- and I think there was some representation from the opposition's expert that somehow we were allowing the homeless shelter to be throughout Tract B. But if you go to the -- and I'm sure Mr. Bellows or Ms. Gundlach can affirm this, but if you look at the C-4 permitted uses, it does allow certain social services, but it specifically excludes homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Those are only found as conditional uses. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 30 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: With respect to the principal uses on Tract A, you cite SIC Code 8322. Are you wanting all of those uses? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Fryer, in our brief conversation yesterday, you mentioned that to us, and I think there are certain uses that we can certainly give up. And I can -- when we move on to another expert, I can sort of maybe jot down some of those uses. You mentioned parole office and, I think, probation offices -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ARNOLD: -- refugee services. And those are uses we can certainly expressly prohibit in that list of uses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So you'll give us a list before we deliberate? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I will. You also mentioned legal counsel services to us, and that's one of the 9000s, and it allows for Public Defender Offices and things like that. I'm not sure that we need those, but it's larger legal counsel type facilities. I'm not sure if there's a concern there or not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It wasn't -- my concern was not with public defender. It was with parole and U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 31 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probation offices. Now, I realize that across the street the county has such an office -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but I don't see why you would need one as well. MR. ARNOLD: I think we would agree with that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just so I understand -- I'm not sure that I do -- if you expanded the footprint to stay at 100 square foot per bed, you could proceed without any -- any application, any process -- MR. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- from us or -- MR. ARNOLD: I would -- if we weren't going through the PUD process, I would be coming before you for a conditional use change, and that would be to increase the beds. Right now it's limited to 104. So I would, either by conditional use or this PUD vehicle, get to the 150. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No other questions from up here, so please continue. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. And we've talked a lot U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 32 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about the deviation on group housing and the need for that. One other deviation that we requested was at the request of your landscape review person. When this project was built, your code did not require a buffer between commercial uses. So there is no buffer on our southern boundary between our most immediate commercial use. So staff asked us to write a deviation that, in the form of redevelopment of the site, if we decide to raze portions of it that affect the southern property line, that we would put back in a buffer to code, so that's what that deviation purports to do. So we added that as a deviation. And I would say, just from the standpoint of overall compatibility that, in my opinion, we're not changing the relationship to our neighbors. And I know that they've raised several issues, but the reality is, there is no cap on our square footage. If you tell us no to the PUD, St. Matthew's House will find a way to continue to operate under its existing zoning. They may have to come back to you for a conditional use regarding the beds. And that's not ideal, obviously, because they do have the need today for this, and I think they've proven over time to be very good neighbors, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 33 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I don't know that you're going to find immediate neighbors from the Glades community here, for instance, which, back in the day, was of great concern. And I think they've grown to be good neighbors with them. And the other thing I would say is you're looking at a site that's, literally, 100 percent developed. I mean, it's been a commercial site now for years. And the apartment complex developed after the site was developed for a car dealership, and the current ownership of The Point Apartments acquired their property after the homeless shelter was there. So I'm not changing my footprint, or I'm proposing to not change my footprint for the homeless shelter. I'm proposing to lower my heights. And I'm asking for uses that are already permitted there today. And from a traffic standpoint, I know Mr. Banks is here to talk about that. But knowing that the car dealership is not operating there, I mean, think about if you're concerned about the traffic going into the apartment complex and I'm trying to offload 18 Wheelers full of cars. I can't think of anything that's probably more incompatible from a use standpoint than having to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 34 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deal with that because, you know, we are aware of that, and I think when you look at -- not to steal Mr. Banks' thunder, but if you look at that traffic analysis, he concludes that there's only 12 p.m. peak hour change from the situation that we have today as opposed to the 130,000 square feet that we're asking for with the increased homeless shelter. And I know that there was some concern over the homeless shelter, whether or not an assisted living facility was the appropriate thing to use, and I'll let Mr. Banks get into that. I'm not going to go through all of the criteria, the findings. You have 18 or so of those criteria. I identified those in my application. Staff has analyzed those as part of their staff report. I'm 100 percent confident we're consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. This isn't subject to a community character plan. This is subject to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. We're largely in the activity center. All the uses we're proposing are allowed. The compatibility and the relationship to our neighbors is remaining as it has been. It's not an incompatible relationship. You have other U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 35 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commercial uses that could be there, could be much more, I think, inappropriate than what we could have in the situation we have today. So I'm happy to continue to answer questions, or if you want to have Mr. Banks do a brief description of the traffic analysis, we can do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a couple of questions for him, if that's all right. Oh, and Commissioner Fry's also signaling. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a couple more for you, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: You mentioned a Starbucks on the portion that is not zoned. It's part of the vertical part of Tract B. Will that be -- is that still a Starbucks? Will that be re -purposed now once the zoning is unified and become part of the thrift -- MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Brooder's nodding his head yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- become part of the thrift store then at that point? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Speak to what could be done U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 36 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 today without this application in terms of commercial development on the DeVoe part of the parcel. MR. ARNOLD: On the DeVoe parcel that's zoned PUD in the middle, it allows for C-3 uses as well as new and used automobile sales and some other uses. It specifically prohibits this homeless shelter, which we're continuing to prohibit today. On the C-4 piece, that's where the thrift store has been constructed and the administrative offices are located, you could recapture that as an automobile dealership. It's allowed under the C-4 use. Any of the C-4 uses would be permitted there. I could carve it up into three outparcels and put in fast-food restaurants. I could do a lot of things that would maybe not generate square footage, but they certainly generate trips. So all the underlying zoning stays the same. This is part of the overlay. The overlay allows different uses. They don't use SIC codes. They use some, you know, more general terms for uses. But the PUD that we have would prevail anyway, as does the C-4. You can elect to use all the underlying zoning, or you can elect to go into the overlay. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 37 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER FRY: Let me rephrase it slightly and just under the assumption that the St. Matthew's House will continue the operations as are currently on the footprint. What could you add in that -- in that middle, the vertical section in terms of, could you build an office building, a three- or four-story office building today that you are contemplating for the future under the rezone. MR. ARNOLD: So this is our proposed master plan. And on Tract B, the first Tract B designation that's outlined, that roughly is where Lulu's Kitchen is located and the cafe that exists that was recently built. South of Great Heron Drive is a small rectangular area -- square area. That's where we think an office building would fit and where one might want to be assuming that St. Matthew's House on the south end would increase its warehouse space, administrative function space, thrift store, perhaps, or whatever other social enterprises they have. You'll notice that we added the ability to sell used boats and cars because they do have donations for those items to the thrift store, and they obviously want to continue to sell those items. So that's why that was added as a potential use. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 38 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER FRY: But that operation of the used cars and boats would only be in support of the St. Matthew's House mission, not a retail lot that -- and you're willing to stipulate that in the -- MR. ARNOLD: We can stipulate that, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Yovanovich just pointed out that I misspoke on the DeVoe PUD. It allows C-2 plus uses not C-3. I just wanted to correct the record on that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Being -- and that being the middle -- the vertical section, the central section? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The narrow section? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the office building still allowed? MR. ARNOLD: It's still allowed as a permitted use in C-2, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you could build that office building today without coming before us? MR. ARNOLD: We could. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 39 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comments from up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have anything further at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to see if Jim Banks is on the line. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, good, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Jim, you there? MR. BANKS: Yes, I am. Good morning. I don't know if you can hear me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're good. We can hear you. We can hear you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can hear you, Mr. Banks, and best wishes for a speedy recovery. Thank you for participating remotely. MR. BANKS: And I want to take a moment just to thank the Planning Commission for allowing me to participate video. I never know when I'm going to have these events happen. And it started yesterday and kept me up all night last night. So I do appreciate you allowing me to participate in this manner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We wish you a speedy recovery. MR. BANKS: Thank you very much. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 40 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a question or two, unless you want to make a preliminary statement, Mr. Banks. MR. BANKS: Why don't you ask your questions, and then maybe we can go from there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. First of all, the concern that I had is analogizing to an assisted living facility. I realize there is no direct analogy to be selected from the TIS codes that you use. But when I think of an ALF, I think of a place where people -- sort of their terminal habitat. That's where they're going to go live out the remaining years of their life without necessarily being out and about in the community trying to find work. And, so to me, the ALF analogy is, I think, not as appropriate as, for instance, an adult daycare center would be. For the most part, if I understand correctly, at St. Matthew's you have people coming and going during the day to receive food and to receive other services. Some people spend the night there, but for the most part people are out of there by the close of business. I realize that some are pedestrians and some ride bikes. Some take public transit. But there U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 41 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are, undoubtedly, people who get driven in a privately owned vehicle. And to me, that sets up a distinction between what St. Matthew's is proposing and what you would expect from an ALF. Do you have a comment on that, sir? MR. BANKS: I do, and I appreciate the question. When we were looking at what we thought was a good representative land use by ITE, we considered how the ALF and the homeless shelter operate and function in some of their similarities. And I'll briefly touch upon those. For one, both require staff to help the needs of those that are there. The ALF, however, requires much more staff than what a homeless shelter does because of the daily care needs required for elderly folks. You've got medical needs. You've got common -- things that we take for granted today, just getting up and taking a shower, whatever. Typically at the ALF, there's a much more attentive and higher level of service by staff than what's necessary at the homeless shelter. So the ALF generates much more traffic from the staff standpoint than what the homeless shelter U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 42 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Also, both facilities have food delivered to their location. They prepare the food, and they serve the food to those that are staying at the ALF as well as the homeless shelter. But in this case, some of the folks that are there at the homeless shelter actually assist with the meal servings and cleanup and that type of thing. So an ALF requires all staff for all the cooking and all the cleaning and all the -- and therefore [sic]. So in that respect it also requires more staff in an ALF than does a homeless shelter. Now, with respect to the folks at the homeless shelter, I believe, when I spoke with the operator of St. Matthew's, he has explained to me that on average, about 10 percent of the people that visit the shelter actually have automobiles, and most walk and ride bikes. And I think we've all been on Airport Road, and we've seen some of those folks walking and riding bikes going in and out of the homeless shelter. And although at an ALF obviously the ownership of automobiles is much lower, they also have family and friends that come visit on a daily basis, and U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 43 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know, check up on those that are staying at the elderly. So we think that that pretty much offsets the fact that some of the homeless people have automobiles but, yet, there's family and friends that drive to and from the ALF. And so, again, we submitted this -- we prepared the Traffic Impact Statement methodology, and we outlined this in the report, and we submitted it to your staff, and they reviewed it, and they agreed that it was a representative land use for estimating similar amounts of traffic demands. Again, they don't -- they don't function identical to one another, but their patterns and the way they operate does have some similarities. And I also would like to point out that the ALF -- if we would have just went out and did a survey of what is generated today at St. Matthew's House, try to correlate that with the increase, I don't believe that would be as accurate as the ALF because that would have only been a one -day survey. The ALF in ITE had nine survey sites for the a.m. peak hour and nine survey sites for the p.m. peak hour, and the average number of beds at the ALFs that were surveyed by ITE was 123. So some of the ALFs had more than 123 beds. Some have less. So U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 44 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's right around where we are. So we just (unintelligible) as myself and your staff agreed that that ALF would be a fairly good representation of the amount of traffic generated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Did you -- well, let me rephrase it. It's my understanding that one of the services that St. Matthew's performs is it facilitates folks getting jobs. And so my question is, is part of facilitation driving people to potential job locations? MR. BANKS: I would -- all I could say is, Mr. Fryer, is that we base it on the ALF traffic patterns. We did not -- we did not, you know, microanalysis that type of (unintelligible) that might occur from the homeless shelter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll hear from the CEO who -- MR. BANKS: The answer to your question is, no, we did not consider that. MR. BROODER: We do operate two vans, passenger vans, for appointments that the folks from the shelter have. That could be to CareerSource or other job search opportunities. Making different appointments over at Neighborhood Health Clinic, so that's how those are handled with U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 45 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the transport van. That is parked in the adjacent parking lot in Tract B. CHAIRMAN FRYER: About how many times per day would such a van ingress or egress to the property? MR. BROODER: It varies every day. I would say there's probably two trips per day per van -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BROODER: -- on average. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jim -- Jim Banks, these are for you. MR. BANKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: In your ALF comparison -- and I understand, I mean, the comparisons you're making, the conclusions you're drawing make sense to me on one level. I guess one level where they don't necessarily, you mentioned the average ALF is 123 beds. They're asking for 150 beds. So that's roughly 20 percent less or about 23, 24 percent more than the ALF -- the subject average ALF. So would you not, then, have to add 23, 24 percent to the traffic counts to arrive at a reasonable number for this facility? MR. BANKS: Yes, it's in the -- it's in the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 46 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 computations. Because we have the additional beds and the trips are based on the number of beds, it's a linear equation. So if you increase the number of beds, you're going to generate more traffic, and that's what we did. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you did factor in 150, MR. BANKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Speak to -- one of the concerns of the neighbors was the impact on, I think it's called Great Blue Drive, just in terms of the redefined use of this. You've got an office building that they're contemplating right beside the -- you know, right beside Great Blue Drive, and the residents that access their property through Great Blue Drive are concerned that the traffic on that road will become more congested. Can you speak to that, please. MR. BANKS: Yes. As it relates to the increase in the number of beds, 44 [sic] beds, the a.m. peak hour, the additional trips that we expect to be generated will be nine two-way trips. That's, you know, a lot more than -- one every 45 seconds. That's two ways. Then in the p.m. peak hour, it was 12 additional trips. And we -- not U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 47 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all of the trips will come in and out on that segment of road. There's other points of access onto Airport -Pulling Road as well as Davis Road [sic] to the north. So there are other means of ingress and egress into the site, so we're not expecting that those additional trips generated from the increased number of beds will all use that southern route. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you did factor in the potential traffic from 130,000 square feet of commercial, correct? MR. BANKS: I did for looking at the adjacent links. And the only reason that we did that is, as I understand it, we're not asking -- we're not proposing today to raze the site and build 130,000 square feet, but it's the potential that it could happen. And so I could at two -- I looked at two scenarios. I looked at the additional traffic that would be generated by the 44 beds. We analyzed its impact on the adjacent roads and found that there is adequate capacity on those adjacent roads to accommodate the 44 beds, and then we also did the hypothetical analysis that we would -- that the site would be razed. There would be 130,000 square U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 48 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feet of mixed commercial use built, plus the 150 beds for the homeless shelter, and then what would its impact be on the adjacent road, and there was still adequate capacity to accommodate that type of intense development which, again, it's not being requested here today. And to another point -- because I do know that there was a memo where somebody suggested that maybe the traffic counts that we used were during COVID, and maybe we should be trying to factor them up to future conditions because of the possible reduction in traffic on these adjacent roads during the height of the COVID lockdowns or not -- maybe not lockdowns. It's not a good word, but the protocol that took place at the time. As it turns out, the 2021 AUIR report actually reflects that there is a decrease in the amount of traffic on those adjacent roads in 2021. So there was actually more traffic on our adjacent roads in 2020 than there was in 2021 except for one link of Airport Road, which is 10 additional trips, which is negligible. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think that's Segment 6 of Airport, and I believe we've had testimony in previous hearings that, broadly U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 49 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stated, that is on account of COVID. Would you disagree with that? MR. BANKS: I think -- I think that the 2020 volumes and 2021 volumes reflect what was going on with COVID, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. The Tract B, how many -- how many square feet are developed on Tract B? I made a site visit, and I've seen some of the ancillary uses accessory to the main use of St. Matthew's, but I was not able to estimate the square feet of those improvements. Are you able to do that, Mr. Banks? MR. BANKS: I think Wayne would probably have a better idea of that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: They whispered in my ear that it's 56,000 square feet that -- approximately 56,000 square feet that exist there today with Lulu's and the existing buildings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So 54,000 square feet is being used now, and you're asking for a maximum of 130,000 square feet. And I have not heard a sufficient explanation as to why you would need all that much. MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 50 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is right now the number is -- there is no cap, okay. We have C-4 zoned property. We have C-2 plus zoned property. And we don't know what our future will be. So we did a reasonable layout on the property to figure out what could fit on the property, and we came up with 130,000 square feet. Another factor is, we're required now to do trip caps as part of PUDs, so we had to have a reasonable number of square feet that we thought we could fit on the site for purposes of the trip cap, and that's where the 130,000 came forward. Right now we don't think we're going to hit the 130-, but we don't know, and we thought that was a reasonable amount of square feet that could fit on this property based upon laying out what we thought we could fit. So that's where the 130,000 square foot came from, because we didn't want to have to come back in the future and ask for an increase in the square footage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think there's a person in this room who has anything other than the very highest regard for the work that St. Matthew's does. It's an important asset to our community. That stated, there are outer limits that it is our responsibility to respect with regard to the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 51 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adjoining neighborhoods and the potential for adverse and unintended consequences of what may be being requested. And the thing that concerns me most is not what St. Matthew's is asking for because, frankly, Segment 6 on Airport -Pulling has got a lot of capacity left. My concern is is that if some day a very generous benefactor decides to award St. Matthew's a very, very large sum of money and takes that money and wants to find a site that's two or three times the size of this and it's going to sell the property, and the property, as you're proposing, would be zoned CPUD with all kinds of opportunities that we are all comfortable would not be exploited by St. Matthew's but might well be exploited by its successor in interest. MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's figure out what happens if you don't like the 130,000 square feet and you ultimately vote no. What's there today? The benefactor comes along and decides we're going to sell the site. I don't think that's ever going to happen, because I don't like the chances of actually getting a homeless shelter approved through the rezoning process anywhere in Collier County. I don't like U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 52 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 my chances, but let's just say we find that magical site that actually is in the right location to serve the homeless and we can move, so you tell us no. I have existing C-4 with all the uses allowed in C-4 that we're asking for. No cap on square footage. I have existing C-4 on Tract A uses we're asking for; no cap on square footage. I'm actually -- I'd be 75 feet in height zoned versus the 50 feet I'm asking for, so I could probably fit more. And then I've got Tract B which is C-2 plus at 50 feet zoned height. So I think we could probably fit more than 130,000 square feet if we removed all the infrastructure, and you would have uses that we're asking for today under the existing zoning. So if you tell me no, we're in the same place that we are today with no cap on square footage and taller buildings. Now, that is -- with all due respect to the opposition, that's what they bought into: C-4 zoning on the homeless shelter piece of property with a conditional use; C-4 zoning on the most southern piece of property which includes used and new cars and all the other C-4 uses; and C-2 plus U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 53 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zoning in the middle piece. That person who built that apartment complex and that person who bought the apartment complex determined they were okay with those allowed uses and those allowed heights and those potential impacts to them. We think we're doing a better job for them than what the existing zoning does. And they knew it was compatible because -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we could do better still and still, at least in my personal opinion, get almost everything that St. Matthew's wants by means of associating all of the commercial uses all the way up to your 130,000 provided that they are accessory to the uses of St. Matthew's primary goal or a successor 501 (c) (3) . MR. YOVANOVICH: So let me ask what that means. Let's just say that St. Matthew's House has the benefactor come along, and they're willing to replace the Tract B piece, the most southern Tract B piece with an office building. They want to replace it with an office building. Some of the space would be used by St. Matt's, but the remainder of the space would be rented to whoever wants to rent that space, because it could be a revenue source for operating the mission. Am I U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 54 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 allowed to do that? Because those office users are not there to support St. Matthew's House other than by paying them rent and, you know, substituting funds for the mission. Is that an allowed use? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would give you more than just 501(c)3. I would give you public facilities PUD because of the proximity to the courthouse, to the other offices. I think there would be quite a robust market for -- in the event of a sale. But right now what you're asking for is something that I could certainly vote for if I thought it was always going to be St. Matthew's, because of the great job they do, but I don't want to see the door open without having to come back here. And people can always come back here and ask for a rezone, and with the advantage of knowing what has happened, in the future they could very well grant much more liberal uses than I'm asking for. MR. YOVANOVICH: So let me flip the question, if you don't mind. What use that we're asking for in this PUD is raising a concern for their surrounding community? Because I can't think of a use other than the C-4 uses we're asking for that are already allowed on the property and the few additional SIC codes. Which one of those U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 55 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional SIC codes is troubling you, Mr. Chair, that you can't support this PUD with 130,000 square foot cap? CHAIRMAN FRYER: My view of the future is that if this property is sold to a developer that is not focusing upon or dedicated to community service in the same very beneficial way that St. Matthew's is, that they would have all the benefits without any of the restrictions. And that I find very troubling. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm asking which uses are creating the ultimate benefit for that developer who may come along in the future that doesn't already exist with a property that's in an activity center that your Comprehensive Plan says we can ask for up to C-5 uses and some light industrial uses under the Comprehensive Plan, and I've already got 3 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Personally, I would -- I would favor giving St. Matthew's all uses, within reason, not probation and parole and not refugee, and there are a few others -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They'll come out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- which you said they'll come out, as long as they are accessory to the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 56 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 organization's main service. And I don't care if it's a car wash. If the proceeds are going to go help homeless people, that's fine with me. Now, this is just me personally speaking. But what I'm afraid of is after we're all gone, and memories are short, and another kind of a development comes in. Now, granted you've got entitlements now, but they weren't sufficient for your purposes or you wouldn't be here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the main reason we're here is because the -- there are some uses that we would like to have on the campus, but one of the primary purposes this all started was to address the lack of homeless beds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are those uses accessory to the main mission? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which ones? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The ones that you said you would like to have. MR. YOVANOVICH: The additional ones that are not C-4? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: So why don't we say -- are you okay with this? MR. BROODER: Yes. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 57 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we say everything that's not C-4 has to be accessory to St. Matt's. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I can -- I think I can get to a point of accepting that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we'll delete, you know, the probation officer, things like that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to call on Commissioner Shea, who's been signaling, for him to speak, and also so that I may excuse myself for a brief minute. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm a little farther behind understanding what's going on. Why wouldn't you just drop your request for a cap if there's no cap now? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was -- you know, that's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why don't you just drop it, and then we don't even have this discussion? MR. YOVANOVICH: The reason the cap is in there is because I had to have that for the TIS to establish a trip cap. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would love -- I've offered to drop the cap. I'm willing to drop the cap. And U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 58 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know what, we'll fit what we fit, and we'll meet the development standards. I'll be 50 feet zoned height. And I forget my actual height right now; it's blanking on it. But happy to do that and drop the cap. But we're now in the -- we're in the world now where we have to have a trip cap, and that's why we -- I'm happy to drop it. If staff is willing to drop it, we'll drop it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just use the numbers for the trip cap and say that's the basis of your trip cap. But I'm not asking for a cap on the development. I mean, does that make the TIS useless? MR. YOVANOVICH: If staff -- if staff is comfortable with you get X trips, peak -hour trips with no trip cap and then I've got to stay under the trip cap and it turns out I can only do 90,000 square feet or I can do 170,000 square feet, depending on what the uses are, I'm fine with that. But that cap was just there -- the cap [sic] was to establish the trip cap. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Rich, a couple of different uses on the Tract B have been brought up, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 59 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and a couple of them were addition of warehouse space and auxiliary refrigerated warehouse, this type -- storage bays and those types of things, and those things make perfect sense to me. They're direct support of the St. Matthew's House mission. And then you talk about -- and I think Chairman Fryer alluded to a car wash; he'd be okay with that. You've talked about an office building, which is basically, I think, a revenue -generating idea -- MR. ARNOLD: Could be. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- to raise funds for St. Matthew's House. So this is where I'm -- if I'm struggling with this in any one major area, it's really you're in a -- St. Matthew's House has a -- there's no way this problem is going to reduce over time. The homelessness, the hunger, these things, we're not -- we're not solving these problems. There are more and more homeless people. I mean, I can only see their mission increasing. So where I struggle is, why not have the entire footprint reserved for uses that are accessory or directly supportive of the St. Matthew's House mission, not commercial enterprises to raise money like an office building, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 60 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but simply allow the growth of St. Matthew's House to utilize that footprint for directly supporting uses, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's exactly where I am, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got 150 beds if we get approved; that's my max. There are other uses that -- for instance, I could go eat at Lulu's. It's a commercial venture that makes money for St. Matt's. It also trains and employs people who come from that program. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What happens if we want to expand and have another homeless facility? We find that magical space somewhere in Collier County that I can actually get it approved, but in order to make the money work, I need to build an office building on this site to generate additional revenue so I can build beds somewhere else. Because I agree with you; this problem's not going away, and I'm sure Steve will tell you this problem's not going away, and this has been -- I used to be on the Immokalee Friendship House board way back when before St. Matthew's came in and made U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 61 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it a much better facility. This is a problem, and we need -- and they are looking for opportunities. They've got thrift stores, you know, throughout Collier County to raise money. Why can't they use this site for property they already own to operate a venture that may make more money? Why are you asking to limit uses we can already have on the property? We've already said any of the additional above C-4 have to be -- have to be accessory to St. Matt's. Why are you limiting rights they already have to put on that property because something may change in the future and they may want to re -purpose a portion of the property? I don't understand why you're doing it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure that you understand what we're saying. I would be quite satisfied with whatever revenues are to be made on Tract B being used on any other St. Matthew's site. It doesn't have to be here. I like -- the mission of St. Matthew's is a great one, and if they could make money with an office building here and spend it somewhere else, I'm fine with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So as long as St. Matt's is the landlord, they could have an office building? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 62 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Or another 501(c)3. MR. YOVANOVICH: What if St. Matt's says, you know what, this site would be perfect to sell to an office developer and -- or the county even, and said -- but you're probably going to tell me that's a 501(c)3. But let's just say I win mega -millions and I want to build a building here. I want to buy it from them, and I want to build an office building and they say, you know what, we can get a lot of money out of Rich. He's feeling pretty generous. Why would you tell them -- why would you say no to that opportunity? I already can do that building. I can already do that building -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't say no. MR. YOVANOVICH: You did. You said it -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I didn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- has to be owned and operated by a 501(c)3, and Rich Yovanovich is not a 501(c)3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you sell the property, a portion of Tract B, and the proceeds go to a 501(c)3 like St. Matthew's, I'm all for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you just told me you weren't, because you said you don't want me to sell this property to a developer because they want to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 63 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 raise money for -- through the sale. Maybe I misunderstood that, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're not understanding what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. But I'm going to -- I'm going to withdraw for now, and I know you'll be back for rebuttal, and we can continue this if appropriate. Any other planning commissioner want to be heard at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to say anything more at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but, you know, perhaps -- well, I don't know if you want to keep going and let whoever's the public speak or staff speak. At some point we would like to be able to talk about just -- what we've been discussing, and I don't know if that makes sense or not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, certainly you'll be coming back for rebuttal, and we can also use a lunch hour. We can figure out a way to get our heads together on this that maybe works for everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we have nothing further. I think staff goes next, so... U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 64 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Staff? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the zoning division. And staff is recommending approval of the St. Matt's petition. And if you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody signaling at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I do think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- part of what we're talking about is full support for St. Matthew's mission and maybe concerns about Pandora's box here where we open up unintended uses of the property not in direct support of their mission that yield additional traffic, additional impacts change the character of it, and the relationship, the compatibility with the neighborhood, and all that. So speak to staff's analysis of that and put us at ease, if you can, about why you think this is a safe application to approve if you were in our shoes. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 65 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Did you want to also -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. And I would just add a recognition. The land -use arrangements within our county ultimately originate from our Growth Management Plan. And our Growth Management Plan anticipates where we have the highest intensity of uses, and then we blend those uses down away from that intensity. This entire facility is within an activity center. It's where we say the most intense uses are going to be from our Growth Management Plan, from the highest regulatory document, from how we arrange our land use -- our land uses. This petition places a cap upon something that right now isn't capped. And the amount that could be developed with good engineering in the height limitations that are associated at 75 feet could be much more intense than 130,000 square feet. We understand the concern if a future owner would occupy this, but if a future owner would occupy this and was following the Growth Management Plan and the guidance of the Growth Management Plan, a wide variety of C-4 and C-5 uses are things that the Growth Management Plan says is appropriate in this location. And from that standpoint, we U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 66 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 view that, the capping of the square footage that's proposed, as improvement for the immediate neighbors because it is going to place a much lower threshold than what could have been entitled with the endorsement of the Growth Management Plan, of the Future Land Use Map. And from that standpoint, we viewed these as an improvement. Now, I understand the concerns that the Planning Commission have, but from purely a standpoint of how our Growth Management Plan arranges land uses, what's currently -- what currently exists from the existing zoning, the height limitations that are associated with that zoning, and the intensity and the wide range of uses that are associated with that, we view that having more finite limitations how much can fit within this box, so to speak, we think is an improvement, and that's where we ultimately arrived upon our recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. That was very helpful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Mike. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further for staff? (No response.) U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 67 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, let's talk quickly about our schedule for today. It's about 20 minutes of noon. What is going to be the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we know how many public speakers we have on this matter? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. Mr. Youngblood, what do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any registered public speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: What about Mr. Pires -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Pires, I think. MR. PIRES: Yeah. We didn't know that we had to register as being the party. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, you'll have every opportunity. How many -- if you -- whether you've registered or not, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. MR. PIRES: We will sign everybody up, Mr. Chairman, if that's the preference. MR. YOVANOVICH: I need to address something he just said. He just said he didn't think he had to sign up because he's a party. He's not a party to these proceedings. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 68 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: We haven't conceded he's a party. MR. YOVANOVICH: But he just said it on the record. I want to make clear he's not a party to the record, and he should have signed -- he's not a party to the proceeding, and he should have signed up. He can speak because you always allow people to speak who don't sign up. But I just want the record to reflect he's not a party. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the record will so reflect. He's not. The party is the applicant and the county. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, we will all submit speaker slips. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you come up so that we can hear you. MR. PIRES: Tony Pires, Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, for the record. Good morning, almost afternoon -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning. MR. PIRES: -- to the Planning Commission. And we were under the impression we did not need to sign up. We will sign up to speak. We have our team. We have our presentation. And we will ask for some consideration of about 45 minutes U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 69 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what we needed to know. No harm; no foul. We'll -- MR. PIRES: Mr. Bosi has a question, I think. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Chair, I forgot to recognize, we did invite Mr. Eric Short, one of our Code Enforcement officers, down here in case the issue of Code Enforcement complaints, issues associated with anything related to the various sites, and I just wanted to make the Planning Commission aware. I didn't know if there was any questions in those regards as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So those people will be prepared to speak but won't necessarily do so. MR. BOSI: Yeah. They're prepared to address any questions that the Planning Commission may have. No formal presentation. MR. PIRES: And, Mr. Chairman, we have one transportation expert. We would ask the Commission's consideration of allowing him to testify remotely and appear remotely. He's signed up for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I've noticed that there are two sheriff's deputies in U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 70 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the audience and would like to know, gentlemen, are you here to testify? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You are? MR. YOVANOVICH: If asked. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come on up, sir, so we can hear what you're saying. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: We have -- we have a brief -- just a few statistics that I was asked to present to you guys just about St. Matt's surrounding areas like The Point, Justin's Place, and Home Depot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we do him before we break for lunch so they don't have to sit around here? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can certainly do that now, yeah. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you testifying for the applicant? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: I'm just here -- I was asked to come here for the Sheriff's Office. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Commissioner, staff asked their assistance. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 71 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. Would you please identify yourself, Officer, and then you have the floor. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: My name is Sergeant Adam Kallenberg. I'm currently one of the day -shift supervisors in East Naples. Like I said, I was asked to come here and just present some things for you. It's just some of our calls for service. Over the past three months, six months, nine months, and then we went back to 2018 to 2021. I will be brief. Don't worry, we won't go line by line, I promise you. I know everybody's ready for lunch. So, like I said, the properties that our analysts provided us with was St. Matthew's House, Justin's Place, the Home Depot, and The Point Apartment complex. So some of these that we're going to go over is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does this include Lulu's? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: It is just the entire St. Matt's property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: So some of the calls for U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 72 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 service include intoxicated persons, suspicious incidents, disturbances, trespassings, anything drug related, and then medical calls, which can be from the mundane all the way up to the most serious and everything in between. So, like I said, it was broken down into three months, six months, nine months, and then a comparison between 2018 and 2021. Just some of the higher numbers just for some of these things: Suspicious incidents, in 2018 at St. Matt's House, we had 19 total. In 2021 so far to date we have 23; disturbances are even between 2018 and 2021 with both coming in at 18; and for medical calls, we have -- 2018 we had 35, and then in 2021 to date we have 89. So moving on to Justin's Place, some of the suspicious incidents, there was one in 2018; in 2021 we have 12; trespasses, one and one for each, 2018 and 2021, we received only one call for service for that. Medical calls, 2018, we have four, and then 2021 we have 18. Moving on to Home Depot, suspicious incidents for 2018, we have 33, and for 2021 we have 38. A lot of these calls, like a trespassing, in 2021 we don't have any calls, and in 2018 we only U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 73 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have one. And then medical -related calls, 2021 we have 12, and then 2018 we have five. And then moving on to The Point, suspicious incidents, even -- pretty even across the board. 2018, we had 27. In 2021 to date we have 28. Disturbances, again, fairly even. 2018, we had 32; in 2021 we have 34. And then, lastly, for medical -related issues, 2018 we had 18, and 2021 we're coming in at 39 so far. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you keep records with respect to the residents of the subject in question? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: We do. It would be in our -- what's called our CAD system. It's our computer automated dispatch system. That's all public record that -- things that we can pull up. We also have an in-house system called Wings 4, which has people's names, addresses, all that kind of stuff, who we come in contact with to take reports for, whether it be accident reports, suspicious incidents, disturbances. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So when you -- oh, I'm sorry. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 74 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know how you normalize that. For somebody like me, that doesn't mean anything. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if you took a similar area of town that had similar apartments and Home Depot, something like that, are those numbers high? Are they unusual? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: It's all relative. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Relative to what? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: It would depend on where you are, the time of year, all those kind of things. They ebb and flow. So I couldn't give you a direct answer on, yes, this is higher here; no, it's lower here. It pretty much depends on the day, the time of year, and where it's at. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So do you feel that you're being called there more than you might be to other areas of the community? That would stand out. After a while somebody would say, oh, no, we've got another call over here again. We keep getting -- you're not -- the force is not feeling like there's an inordinate amount of calls associated with this facility versus regular areas that don't have a U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 75 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 homeless shelter? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: As far as the Sheriff's Office, we're neutral on it. You know, our motto is it's the duty of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to protect, preserve the lives, property, and constitutional guarantees of all people. So whether it's an area that's got a lot going on or an area that doesn't, we're going to come either way. So it's -- I'm just here to kind of present you guys with just some numbers for our calls of service. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You need to run for office. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Well, I don't know about that. I don't know about that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, then Commissioner [sic] Eastman. COMMISSIONER FRY: You need to outright lie more. So I agree with Commissioner Shea. I'm not sure what the numbers mean exactly. So I guess my question and one of the concerns was that I think The Point, perhaps, are they having intrusions from people from St. Matthew's House that are -- are U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 76 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these calls for disturbances and trespassing and all these things that are happening in The Point, are they St. Matthew's House residents, or is there any data that would let us know whether increasing the use in the St. Matthew's House facility with additional residents creates an additional risk to the neighbors? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: That would probably be something more for our analysts to figure out. I will level with you; that's definitely a job that's not for me. So I couldn't give you a definitive answer on it at this point. I'm sure all that stuff could be drawn up and figured out, but as far as just the numbers, that's all I have for today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions of the Sergeant? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: So what I'm gathering is that you're not really comfortable to give an opinion or a conclusion. You're just here to give the numbers and the data and let those speak for themselves? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Correct. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: I'm just here for a U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 77 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 factual statistic basis. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Deputy. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Thank you very much. Appreciate it, guys. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's -- I would recommend that we break for lunch now and then come back and hear members of the public, but I'm open to suggestions from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRY: It doesn't sound like we will -- I mean, we have a 45-minute presentation to come and then some discussion rebuttal. Have we heard from staff yet? Did we hear -- we did hear staff. So we really -- we're into the 1:30, 2:00 if we just stay, I'm afraid. So having lunch now would make sense to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone disagree? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's 11:48. How much time do we need? COMMISSIONER FRY: I usually ask for the full hour, but today I would be -- personally I'm okay U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 78 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with a 45-minute lunch if -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is -- the place that you used to be Zach's, is that open? Do they serve -- do they serve food there? MR. BOSI: Yes, it has transitioned more to a Mexican style eatery, but it's good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can get lunch there. MR. BOSI: And it's open. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we do 40 minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. What's 40 plus 49, E:1s5 COMMISSIONER FRY: 12:30. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 12:30 it is. We're in recess until 12:30. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:49 a.m. to 12:33 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you've got a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before we call upon members of the public, the applicant has requested an opportunity to indicate to us what concessions they're prepared to make as a result of the hearing so far, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Based upon what we understood U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 79 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the feedback to be from the Chair and what we perceive to be feedback from others, it appears that -- as there's not an issue with what we're -- with what we are requesting. It's a question of who's benefiting from that, and there's concern that if the property ever is disposed of by St. Matthew's House, another developer can come in and there would be unforeseen circumstances relating to what could happen today. So during lunch we discussed what are the odds that I'm going to win the lottery and come in and offer them too much money for the property, and I think we've all agreed that those odds are slim and the chances that St. Matthew's House is ever going to dispose of this property is slight. And we'll deal with that if that ever happens sometime in the future. So what we're prepared to do, based upon feedback we've gotten, is we'll agree that all the uses have to be for the benefit of St. Matthew's House. We understand that if we were to build an office building, that would be okay as long as we're the landlord and we collected revenue and if we built other things that were revenue generators as long as it was for the benefit of St. Matthew's U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 80 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 House. As long as we owned the property or another 501(c)3 owns the property, these uses would be permitted. So we're willing to do that. We're willing to put that on the record. Hopefully that will address concerns by the Planning Commission, and hopefully it will address concerns by the opposition. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, one of the great things, I think, about Lulu's Kitchen is that it's not only providing services for the public and the catering, but it also provides an opportunity for training career development for the residents of St. Matthew's House. So my question is -- you've talked about the most likely next use is going to be an office building. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was hypothetical. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hypothetical. But I guess, if it was an office building, would it be utilized similarly to provide benefit to the residents in order to give them job training skills of some kind, or would that be just purely profits from the rent goes -- U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 81 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. YOVANOVICH: The history of what St. Matthew's House has done is they've looked at opportunities to benefit those they're serving. So I'm sure they would look at an opportunity for employment there as well related to -- and I'm not saying there's going to be an office building. That's just a "what could happen some day." More likely than not you're going to see other operations like either Lulu's expand the catering services, expand the -- what you've heard is expand the warehousing so they can keep the food there and then bring it out and distribute it. I was just giving you what's the hypothetical of what could happen some day. I'd rather not focus so much on that could happen some day. But, you know, maybe if it did, but we understood that that meant that the rents had to go towards the benefit of St. Matthew's House, and that's the only reason I brought that up. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're saying the tendency and the pattern of St. Matthew's House has to be to look for opportunities to raise money but also benefit the members and help further their journey. MR. YOVANOVICH: They've been in the catering U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 82 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 business long before Lulu's, so they have looked at that -- they have looked at those types of opportunities. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, really, lunch gave me an opportunity to really think about where I was struggling, and it really was the -- it was the hope that anything you do on that property is an opportunity to help further your residents, that there is some kind of opportunity for them to work, learn a new skill, similar to what Lulu's Kitchen and the catering operation does. So that's really, in a nutshell, what I was meaning by what I was saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. They've always looked for that opportunity, as you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Would you also, Mr. Yovanovich, be willing to exclude probation and parole and refugee services? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission, thank you. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 83 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lombardo. And I will try to -- and Andrew's been very helpful in trying to navigate, there we go, the PowerPoint on this matter. I've got the first screen up, so -- right there. Thank you. Initially, we'd like to -- we're in opposition and represent -- our team is -- the client is West Shore Point Naples, LLC. They are the owner of the apartment complex, The Point Naples, that's the immediately adjacent neighbor. Legal counsel for the property owner is myself and Stephen Tilbrook with Akerman Law Group; we have our expert planner, Cecilia Ward, AICP; and expert traffic engineer, Pramod Choudhary. If I mispronounce his name, he's listening, so I'm sure I will hear about it at some future time. And with the Planning Commission's indulgence, with the holidays and trying to coordinate everybody's schedule, we request that the Planning Commission, after you hear from Ms. Ward and hear from Mr. Choudhary, accept them as experts in their field and also allow Mr. Choudhary to appear remotely today, if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is acceptable. MR. PIRES: Thank you. And one other -- it's just sort of a U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 84 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 November 22nd; one November 30th. Hopefully all the Planning Commissioners had a chance to review those. I have extra copies to give. Terri's always happy to walk out of here with a briefcase of documents that I provide, so I have additional documents for Terri for today. Mr. Yovanovich has indicated he's not happy with the fact that I filed a supplemental submittal on November 30th, 2021, as it was arguably, from his perspective, not within the seven days prior to the Planning Commission. With all due respect, this Planning Commission, one of the hallmarks of it is the willingness and the openness of accepting materials by any party, even when they show up the day of the hearing with photographs, documents, and materials. And the submittal was made after we had a meeting. It was a nice meeting. I was in person, Mr. Tilbrook was on the phone, with Wayne and Rich to talk about possible ways of resolving this matter. We didn't resolve all the issues, and so then we said, okay, let's take the PUD document and outline what we believe are the appropriate changes U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 85 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that would make it complementary to and compatible with our client's property, and that's what's in the November 30th letter as well as our expert testimony from Mr. Choudhary and an errata sheet from Ms. Ward. So we would ask this the Planning Commission not exclude it, because I think that's what Rich is going to ask. And also the public notice that goes out to people doesn't say you have to have your materials in. It says if you want them in the agenda packet, you have them in ahead of time. So we would request, in the spirit of how this Planning Commission has always operated, that the Planning Commission accept both submittals. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We -- I've considered that, and I've spoken with the County Attorney, and as a matter of policy and practice, we are getting much more restrictive and stricter on receiving materials at the last minute. So what I would suggest that you do -- and I'm going to be very lenient in allowing you to have time to make your presentation, but it's going to need to be oral rather than submitting -- submitting documents at the llth hour. MR. PIRES: Okay. But if I can, for the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 86 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record, at least proffer them for the record to preserve that right. And I guess the only submittal that Rich is objecting to is November 30th, Rich, for clarification, because the other one was November 22nd, well in advance. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, if I may. For the record, the rules are very clear that you have to provide it seven days in advance. The first submittal meets the seven-day requirement. The second submittal did not meet the seven-day requirement. So, obviously, I'm not going to object to something that met the seven-day requirement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you want to make your record, you may, but it will be on the basis of the Chair's having overruled your request to submit the second submittal. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may walk over to Terri for a second and hand this to her before I forget and she has to track me down later. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask for a clarification while he's doing that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 87 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER FRY: So someone from the public could send us an email this morning or last night, and that would be acceptable, correct? We don't have to disregard an email that comes in from the public at any point, or are we supposed to be disregarding anything that doesn't arrive a week before? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask the County Attorney to weigh in. COMMISSIONER FRY: Because couldn't they also walk in and have a PowerPoint, a speaker, and walk up? I showed slides at a County Commission meeting. I mean, so what would preclude Mr. Pires from showing his presentation or presenting that letter on the overhead just as a public speaker even if he was hot -- he's not a party to the thing. I just want to understand what the rules are here. MR. KLATZKOW: A couple of thoughts. One, this issue will ultimately be determined by the Board of County Commissioners, and I would urge Mr. Pires to get his materials in on time for that hearing if he wants them part of record. Two, fundamentally, this is a courtesy to the Planning Commission. We've had too many times with people U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 88 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dumping massive quantities of documents in your lap on the day of the hearing and then saying, I'm putting it in the record. What the heck does that mean? It's not like you guys had the chance to actually read it. So I've never understood anybody doing that. For a member of the public to send in an email, of course you should read that. You know, we're here for the people of Collier County. But there's a big difference between somebody sending you guys an email because they heard the hearing was taking place and then an attorney, you know, giving a plethora of documents at the last second that you guys possibly haven't had the opportunity to review. Is there a hard-and-fast rule, no, but the Chair made a ruling based on this particular set of facts and circumstances, and I agree with him. But at the end of the day, Mr. Pires knows it doesn't matter. Because this is a contested matter, it is going to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners unless between now and then the opposition can make some sort of compromise with the applicant. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Pires. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 89 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PIRES: And, again, we preserve our submittal -- we made the record submittal. And, again, for the record, all the planning commissioners did receive it and had an opportunity to review it, it sounds like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I didn't. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did. I read it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I probably received it, but I didn't have an opportunity to review it. And I don't like receiving large quantities of material at the llth hour. But we've enabled you to make your record. You proffered it. I've overruled its admission into evidence but, really, that isn't going to make much difference because the Board of County Commissioners will decide, and I'm sure you'll have it in for them in a timely way. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for today's hearing, again, the -- that's our team that's involved in this. And in this particular matter, we also have Kristi Sinnott. And Kristi, if I mispronounce your name -- she's the director of property management for our client. And in this matter, you will hear testimony, I believe, from our planner and from our U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 90 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 transportation engineer, traffic engineer, that the project is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan, not in compliance with the Land Development Code Section 10.02.13, not in compliance with the Land Development Code Section 10.02.8. Hello, Joe. Mr. Schmitt. (Joe Schmitt is now present in the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me, Mr. Pires. I want to recognize the arrival of Commissioner Joe Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, thanks. Of course, Tony well knows I was at Phil's -- MR. PIRES: Phil's, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- ceremony, and Tony knows Phil well. But sorry to interrupt. MR. PIRES: No. No interruption. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for the effort to be here, Commissioner. Go ahead. MR. PIRES: And the project is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. The objections and issues we have -- and you'll hear again, is the rezoning's not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. And that's always an important aspect, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 91 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that was in our first submittal, November 22nd, that part of Policy and Objective 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element is that a new development is not only compatible with but has to be complementary to the adjacent development, which mean it enhances, it improves. And that analysis generally is not well fleshed out, and we believe that will be fleshed out by our presentation. Also the impacts of a 50 percent increase believe, has been evaluated nor mitigated, and we'll get into that discussion. The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the existing Land Development Code, the impact of which has not been evaluated for vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. And the existing language in the Land Development Code with regards to the 150 square feet has been in the code since 1991, when the LDC was first adopted. I didn't go back to all my zoning pamphlets I have from the 160s and 170s and 180s, but I did find and have the fact that the 1991 Land Development Code they adopted, and they have -- they have in that code the requirements from the 150 square feet. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 92 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And, if I may borrow the visualizer for just a minute. And I always -- thank you, Mr. Bosi. I usually turn those things sideways or upside down. This is the excerpt from the 1991 Land Development Code, and you can see the 150 square foot per bed in a homeless shelter after six was in existence back in 1991. And the second page is from 1992 Land Development Code. And you'll hear there's been no testimony or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was quick. Put that back up again. MR. PIRES: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sorry, thanks. Got it, okay. I wanted to see if it said the same thing. Thanks. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. It said the same thing in 1992. And all -- my recollection of the testimony, and I stand to be corrected, is that it sounds like it's just for convenience. Now, the argument was that the applicant did not want to -- could have a greater impact on the neighborhood by building and providing the additional 46 beds at the 150 square feet, and he wants to do it for 100 and, therefore, stay in the same footprint. I'm not sure how that justifies a U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 93 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 significant reduction in the space from -- by a third, from 150 to 100 square feet, and we'll hear some testimony on that. And the significant expansion of commercial and homeless -related uses we believe is neither evaluated nor justified. You'll hear from the traffic engineer that the traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately that wasn't there previously that we believe will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential apartment community. And you'll also hear discussion about landscaping and buffering; that they're asking for deviations for certain landscaping, and the application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential properties, is our argument, and doesn't meet the criteria for rezoning. And part of what you'll hear, we believe, from the testimony is that this property, as it is in an activity center, requires a Type D 20-foot buffer along Airport Road, along external roadways. And we will have that -- we'll have that section, and U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 94 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we'll talk about that section in our presentation. So we'll have that, that reference, and that is part and parcel of our presentation. It's sort of an overview. We'll go into greater detail. And, Mr. Chairman, also at the end, what I will conclude is I'll read into the record what we believe would be the appropriate revisions to the submitted PUD document that we believe would mitigate and make it compatible and complementary to the surrounding and adjacent neighborhood. We appreciate the developer or the applicant in this case indicating that the -- I'll call it the refugee services and probation officers -- offices will be excluded. A couple others are, and you'll hear it, offender rehabilitation centers, public welfare centers wouldn't be allowed right now, and we would ask that those be excluded, plus we'll have some other discussion about other uses. In one aspect we may want to ask the Planning Commission to ask the applicant -- I know they talked about having a consultant from California that came in and addressed or discussed with them how to reconfigure their space. And they didn't give the name of that organization. I wonder, is it the Healthy Housing Foundation, or what the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 95 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 organization is because I think that's a significant item for the Planning Commission to consider. Next, we have -- I'd like to introduce Steve Tilbrook. Steve is with the law firm of Akerman and representing the developer and has known the developer for quite a while. And, Steve, if you want me to, I can do the mouse, or you can do it. MR. TILBROOK: I think we can do it. Thank you, Tony. Steve Tilbrook with Akerman Law Firm. I do not represent the developer. I represent west Shore Point Naples, which is the owner of west Shore. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you in the Miami office, sir? MR. TILBROOK: Fort Lauderdale office. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fort Lauderdale. MR. TILBROOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TILBROOK: Thank you. And what you see on the screen is the location of The Point at Naples, which is an apartment complex with approximately 260 units. It's structured. It was purchased by West Shore, LLC, which is a national owner and U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 96 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 operator of apartment communities. They are all over the country. We have with us today Kristi Sinnott, who is the property -- director of property management for West Shore throughout the country. She happens to live here in Venice, so she drove down for the hearing to be part of this; it's that important to them. West Shore also owns the Belvedere at Quail Run, so they own over 500 units in the Naples area. They've made a significant investment in building, operating, and preserving communities for people, apartment homes in Naples, and this is important to them. They acquired those properties in the 2016 [sic] to 2019 range, so it's been 15 years. They are a long-term hold. They own and operate these facilities for the long term. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did you say 2016 and 2019 and then say 15 years? MR. TILBROOK: I'm sorry. 2016 was they -- 2006. 2006, I believe, is when they acquired -- COMMISSIONER FRY: And 2009? MR. TILBROOK: And 2009, yes, is when they acquired the properties. So this is a -- just an example of the workforce housing. It's owner operated. I'm sorry. It was acquired in 2016. I U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 97 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 apologize for that. It is 2016. So Kristi Sinnott is going to give a statement as -- from her perspective as the director of property management. She has direct contact with the property managers on site. We're just here to ask for your consideration as the adjacent property owner that really is the closest property owner that does feel the brunt of the proposed changes that are likely to occur at this location, so we CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: So my name's actually Kristi Sinnott, but that's -- it's okay. Nobody ever says my last name right. And I am with West Shore, director of property management. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you spell that for the court reporter, your last name. MS. SINNOTT: Yes. It's S-i-n-n-o-t-t. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: You're welcome. What I want to talk about is that -- with the on -site property manager, on -site teams, and what the residents have had complaints over the past several years regarding the amount of homeless that U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 98 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 come to the property and then set up the tents and the camps, complaints, calls to law enforcement we've had. And I know he spoke about that a little bit earlier. But we have had situations with overdose of the homeless that are living in the woods. We also have them not just living in the woods but just migrating throughout the property. Noise issue. We've had some arguments that residents have come out of their home and experienced. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me, ma'am. Excuse me for interrupting. I want to be sure that I know where your data is coming from. MS. SINNOTT: Oh, from the on -site team and what they're dealing with daily, on a daily basis, and conversations they're having with the police department, the sheriff's department. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is any of this information coming from public records like of the police department, the Sheriff's Office? MS. SINNOTT: I mean, we have -- we have call -- I mean, it definitely is on record, but I don't know if you have that, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm just curious, are there written records that are in the possession of U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 99 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your client that document this type of thing? MS. SINNOTT: I'm not positive that we actually have record of that on our site. I know that we get -- I mean, this is kind of basic, but we get the cards with the case number every time that they call the police department, and the sheriff's department also has assigned a specific officer just to our community to handle this situation specifically. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chair, if -- I'm not going to cross-examine her yet, but there's nothing that has been filed in the record with any of that information that I can find. It's not attached to anything that Mr. Pires has provided to you, and I just want that to be clear on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And if we don't have written information, if we can get oral information, that may be sufficient, and whatever we get, we'll take it for what it's worth. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, I would request that Ms. Sinnott be allowed to testify without interruption from Mr. Yovanovich, and he can raise his issues after. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that's in order, if U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 100 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SINNOTT: Sure. The other situations, we've had on -site team reported to law enforcement the residents that we had in the tents. One resident, as our maintenance team was going out to clean up the tent area, he was attacked and assaulted by one of the homeless individuals. That's definitely a police report that's been filed. We have constantly, on a daily basis, they're working through someone from the team always having to go out and get them out of the pool area. The car wash station is where we have bathing happening and, of course, trash, and the shopping carts that get brought back there as well. So just a little bit extra cleanup and work for my team on site. And then as I was saying, over the last months, the sheriff's department, it's probably been even a good three to four weeks, the sheriff's department has assigned this specific agent to handle the complaints. And he worked on pushing -- the homeless that had camped out, he worked on pushing them out of that location, and then we were given a city [sic] violation that we had to clean U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 101 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. In questioning -- the questioning with the Collier County Sheriff's Office, you don't have data on that. Do you have any data with the county regarding any code enforcement complaints -- MS. SINNOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and all the various actions that have been identified to Code Enforcement; do you have that? MR. PIRES: Well, if I may, I have a series of photographs that she may be able to testify to that are a result of a code enforcement violation against the apartment complex owner by virtue of all the activities; is that correct? MS. SINNOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, then, are you going to -- you could do that after you're done with your presentation, unless you want to do that now, that's fine, because some of this should be on the record. And I am somewhat surprised that you're giving what I would call expert testimony, but you don't have any data that -- here with you today regarding the Collier County Sheriff's Office U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 102 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the number of complaints. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The sheriff was just here before we went to lunch. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, was he? I missed that. Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: Sure. MR. PIRES: Ms. Sinnott, the photographs -- can you describe the photographs that I'm placing -- if you look. MS. SINNOTT: Sure, yeah. This is the area in the wooded area of the property where they set up just tent homes and were living there. I'm not positive how many people at one time were always living there, but it was definitely -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is this on your property or their property? MS. SINNOTT: This is our property, yeah. And that's another picture of just trash and debris. MR. PIRES: And, again, West Shore has been cited for these code violations. MS. SINNOTT: Yes. Yeah, we took care of it. MR. PIRES: And it has been taken care of? MS. SINNOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: These are on common areas? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 103 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SINNOTT: It's in the wooded area, common -- yeah, for the property behind one of the buildings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm seeing, you know, you have issues with homeless people setting up camp on your property. This application is St. Matthew's House, which is a facility for homeless people, so they're not in camps, and they want to increase their capacity to take people out of the camps. So my question for you is, would they not in what they're requesting tend to help this problem and -- that's number one. Number two is, are you attributing the homeless people that are on your property to St. Matthew's House? I mean, are they tied to St. Matthew's House in some way? I guess my question is, how is this relevant? MS. SINNOTT: Yeah. Assuming, based on conversations that we have, that -- you know, sheriff's department has -- that's who we lean on for most of this when we have the discussion. We've just been told verbally that, you know, hey, you're in the center of this. You're in the middle of the shelter and the soup kitchen, and of course U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 104 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're going to have that type of traffic. So, I mean, we're assuming that -- your first question, which is asking, you know, the feeling of that growth, would that help? I'm definitely not an expert in that. My assumption, and, unfortunately, my common sense was stating -- making me believe that that could be more of a problem and more traffic and more individuals coming to that location. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your point really is that you -- because of the location of St. Matthew's House and the supporting services, you're really in the vortex of the homeless issue. MS. SINNOTT: In the center. And if there's more, you know, growth in that arena, how much more traffic and more individuals will then be coming to that location? MR. PIRES: Ms. Sinnott, have you been in communications with the on -site property managers as to this issue? MS. SINNOTT: Yes. MR. PIRES: And what are their names? MS. SINNOTT: We have a manager. I don't know o pronounce her last name. But we have a We have a U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 105 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regional that is there weekly. Her name is Mallory Eglin. Both of these team members are doing everything they can to partner, to work with that, and keep it cleaned. MR. PIRES: To your recollection, have you had conversations with them about whether they've been advised by the sheriff's department that the sheriff's department had told them that the individuals who have been using the car wash for showers, laying by the pool when prospective tenants are being toured the property come from the soup kitchen or homeless shelter; do you recall that? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, that's been the conversation verbally, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to remind the Planning Commission, I mean, we're not a court. We're quasi-judicial, and so we have rather relaxed rules of evidence, and what we're hearing is hearsay evidence. MS. SINNOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Which we will take for what it's worth. MS. SINNOTT: Right. Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 106 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER SHEA: I had a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So when you encounter these situations, do you call leadership at St. Matthew's House? If you do, what kind of response -- in other words, why wouldn't they come out and clean it up when it's believed that it's their -- MS. SINNOTT: Yeah, that's a good question. The on -site teams, I'm not positive who would have instructed them, whoever they spoke with, and I can't give a name. But whoever they spoke with always told them to, you know, work with police, and that's why the sheriff's department gave us this specific law enforcement agent to handle this situation. So, I'm sorry, I don't -- I don't know who they would be speaking with; I'm not positive. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It just seems like, you know, they have -- they could come out and clean it up just as easily, and at least there would be a little bit of acknowledgment -- MS. SINNOTT: Sure. -- that maybe we might MS. SINNOTT: Understood. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 107 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Do you have any more? MS. SINNOTT: No, I don't have anything else. MR. PIRES: Anything else from the Planning Commissioner or anything -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? Are you finished? MS. SINNOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Pires, are you finished? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do I get to ask her questions? I thought we would do it witness by witness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We can do it witness by witness. Is that agreeable, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So, ma'am, you're finished with your direct testimony? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you said it, Sinnott? MS. SINNOTT: Sinnott. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sinnott. Sorry. MS. SINNOTT: That's okay. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 108 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't have any personal knowledge to what you're testifying to, correct? MS. SINNOTT: Personal as -- just with the teams calling me and the incident reports that they have completed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there a reason why you don't have the manager here testifying? MS. SINNOTT: No, no reason. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any names of anybody you may have spoken to at St. Matthew's House regarding this issue? MS. SINNOTT: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any evidence that the homeless people that you're referring to are residents of St. Matthew's House? MS. SINNOTT: No evidence. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any evidence at all regarding -- let me strike that. You acknowledge that homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed? MS. SINNOTT: Well, absolutely, throughout the United States of America, sure, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm assuming you're aware that it's not unusual for homeless people to camp out in the woods, correct? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 109 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SINNOTT: Oh, not -- at my apartment communities, I don't have that anywhere else, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: And this is a wooded area, correct? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, on the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where people can go to not be seen, correct? MS. SINNOTT: I mean, I would -- I guess they can. We can see the tents. I don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You can see the tents. Do you -- MS. SINNOTT: From the pictures that we just were showing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking you, if you were driving down the street, can you see the tents? MS. SINNOTT: Not on the street from the property. There's -- you can see evidence. You could in the past. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are homeless people camping out there today? MS. SINNOTT: No, three weeks. We've had three weeks. This is the first time, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Three weeks what? MS. SINNOTT: Three or four weeks of not U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 110 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 having complaints and not having those issues right now with working closely with the police department, and the police department told us that it ebbs and flows, and so there's no guarantee. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, you don't -- you're not providing any personal testimony as to what is or is not occurring on your site, correct? MS. SINNOTT: No personal, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask her one more question? MS. SINNOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRY: What does your -- what do your property owners want here? You having -- St. Matthew's House exists. They've applied to expand their base, not to add on to their footprint, so not to incur additional construction. What is it that -- what is it that you want to happen as part of this application? What are you asking us to do? Reject it completely? Go ahead. MR. PIRES: Again, Mr. Fry, she's the, like I said, property manager. She's not the, you know -- COMMISSIONER FRY: But I'm asking you. I U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com ill Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guess I thought she could answer for the property owners, but -- MR. PIRES: And what we're asking for is -- and we'll go through it at the end, is that the -- if a rezoning is to take place, that there be appropriate reductions and adjustments in uses, additional landscaping and buffering, not have the additional beds at the reduced square footage, to make it compatible and complementary to our community. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Have you posed those to the applicant? MR. PIRES: Yes. Well, we had a meeting and had a conversation, and then we proposed those to Mr. Yovanovich, and Mr. Yovanovich said some of those are acceptable but most of those are not. And I can read all those, and that happened -- again, with the holidays, it was difficult. It was the 29th and the 30th, I think, Rich. I've got the emails. We were communicating back and forth on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. MR. PIRES: And I can at the end tell you what he agreed to; what he didn't agree to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tony, can you put up U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 112 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You had four bullets. You talked about And I want to look at that third nce. Do you have that? MR. PIRES: Which slide, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was back. MR. PIRES: That one or the one prior? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One prior. Again, I apologize for coming in late, but I may have missed it, but -- no, that's not it. MR. PIRES: The second bullet point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You were talking about mitigation, and that's what -- I was trying to figure out what your intent was because of the -- 50 percent increase in homeless shelters -- that's it. The 50 percent increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. Could you expand on what is it you were looking for as far as being evaluated by the applicant, and what kind of mitigation are you looking at? MR. PIRES: The question is, what's the real impact on the adjacent properties to ensure the compatibility and that it's complementary to, especially by the reduction in the square footage allocable -- allocable to each particular individual. The only analysis that has been U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 113 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 performed is a -- I guess a Traffic Impact Statement. There's no indication of what putting more people in a -- I'll call it a denser environment, what kind of environment that would create. And so that's really not been evaluated. It's something that I think the applicant said, well, you know, we looked at barracks, we looked at ALFs, we looked at others. But, again, this is a standard that's been there for 30 years, and there's been no analysis as to why it should be reduced at this time other than, I would argue, COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There is a request for the increase. It was clearly articulated in the application to increase from 104 to 150. Did staff not evaluate that as part of the zoning process? You're asserting that somehow that was not evaluated? MR. PIRES: It really wasn't totally evaluated, again, and the reduction in the square footage for all the beds in that area and person wasn't really evaluated, and our -- that's our argument, our position, our opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there -- MR. PIRES: And we'll have some testimony to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 114 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that effect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Other than the square footage, is there something missing in the code in regards to what you think the social impact -- the other impact associated with the increase in homeless in that facility? That's where I was confused on the statement. MR. PIRES: I think you'll hear some testimony from Cecelia Ward with regards to that when she comes up. And if you could wait until her presentation, Cecelia will address that. She's the planner that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. PIRES: -- will be testifying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the part -- somehow it seems to imply that -- and I'm not saying you did this purposely, but somehow it implies that staff failed to evaluate this when, in fact, it appears in the staff report there is an evaluation, and it was based on the allowed zoning, so -- MR. PIRES: No. The allowed zoning does not -- the zoning does not allow a homeless shelter. It's a conditional use, and so they're trying to change that. And I know back the last U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 115 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time they had it, it was a conditional use. They increased it from 20 to 84 but used the same 150 square foot per person over the sixth person. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. But the conditional use is allowed? MR. PIRES: At 104. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At 104. MR. PIRES: But now they want to go to 150. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. PIRES: And we contend and assert that there's been no real analysis as to what that impact is on the facility, on the adjacent properties. They did a trip analysis, and that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I mean, I'm probably going to defer to -- the same question to staff, because I need clarity as to what it is that would have had to have been evaluated. And you said you have an expert -- MR. PIRES: We have our planner who will testify as to those issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. PIRES: And, as a matter of fact, now is my opportunity to introduce her. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now is my opportunity to call U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 116 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on Commissioner Fry. MR. PIRES: I apologize. COMMISSIONER FRY: Before you go, Tony. MR. PIRES: Oh, I'm here. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I don't think you're objecting to the need for an additional 46 beds for homeless somewhere in Collier County, correct? It's not an objection to having more beds. It's an objection to the higher density in the facility. MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you prefer that they did an expansion and added square footage to maintain the 150 square foot per occupant? MR. PIRES: No, we believe that's an issue also. It's a twofold issue: The increased capacity of the shelter by almost 50 percent and the reduction of square footage by 33-and-a-third percent. We think that -- both of those are problematic. COMMISSIONER FRY: So really you're really just saying, doing nothing -- no expansion should be allowed in terms of number -- MR. PIRES: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- of residents in any way, shape, or form. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 117 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PIRES: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that's partly because of the homeless issues that you're -- the property is experiencing next door with homeless camps being set up being as -- this being the part of the vortex of the homeless issue? Because there are homeless camps elsewhere in the county. MR. PIRES: Right. The issue is about whether it's compatible to and, again, complementary to. Compatible and complementary to, how does that enhance the apartment complex? How does that enhance -- having that additional number of people residing in that homeless shelter enhance the adjacent properties? We don't believe that has been shown. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was it complementary to that development when they bought it five years ago? The St. Matthew's House was there. I mean, I guess -- MR. PIRES: Again, at that level, they -- again, when that was acquired, those -- the use at this level of 104 beds with 150 square feet per person was in existence. But now that's being changed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 118 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PIRES: And so that affects our client. COMMISSIONER FRY: Understood. Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Every year the county does an assessment of the number of people living in homeless camps. Do you have any of that data? MR. PIRES: I don't have that. We just had some testimony, I think, from the Sheriff's Department. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. PIRES: They indicated approximately, I think, 600 to 800, I think, was the estimate, I believe, with the January count, or maybe it was the executive director. Maybe Mr. Brooder said that. I think it was January of each year is the count, if I recall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They do the count every year, yes. And -- MR. PIRES: I think it was 6- to 800. I could be corrected by Mr. Brooder or Rich. Cecelia. Go ahead, Cecelia. Yeah, if you could -- what we'd indulge into the Planning Commission, if we can have Cecelia U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 119 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 briefly outline her credentials and have her qualified as a planner in providing expert testimony. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. WARD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Cecelia Ward. I'm a certified planner, president of JC Consulting located in Tequesta, Florida. I have 40 years experience in the planning field, both in the public and private sector. I have been the assistant director of governmental planning for a Westinghouse Communities in Coral Springs in Parkland. I've also been the director of planning, zoning, and building for the City of Fort Lauderdale. I've been the strategic planning assistant director for New York City. I have been practicing as president of JC Consulting as a consultant for now almost 15 -- 15, 16 years. So what I'd like to do is just go through -- I provided very detailed, comprehensive, and extensive analysis of the application. What I'd like to do in my presentation is just highlight what I believe are the most important and critical key points from a planning review that the Board should consider. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 120 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission about the expert's credentials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Please proceed. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the record, also Ms. Ward's had a presentation or materials in the November 22nd submittal that was timely submitted. That was in the packet that you all received. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. WARD: I'd like to just summarize briefly -- it's up there already. Based on my planning review, as Mr. Pires had said, the rezoning and PUD application is inconsistent with the county's Growth Management Plan, most specifically the Future Land Use Element, in that it is not compatible nor complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. And we've been hearing a lot about this, so I'm going to present more detail as I get through my presentation. But I think that's one of the most important is of the Growth Management Plan. It's not U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 121 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to a particular area, such as the activity center, but it's also how you achieve that in compliance with the specific provision of the plan. It's also not in compliance with the county's land development evaluation criteria for rezonings and for PUDs, and it's inconsistent with the county's Community Character Plan. I recognize that the Community Character Plan is just a guide that the county has adopted when considering redevelopment, but it is a criteria that is listed under the PUD regulations. Before I begin, I would just like to highlight some of the changes that occur and the impacts from going from conditional uses to permitted uses and also some of the other changes that are a result of this proposed rezoning. First of all, they're asking that you remove the conditional -use review process for several of the uses that are being proposed for Tract B. They're listed here. I don't need to read all of them. But, basically, by removing the conditional -use process, these uses do not have to come back to this board for review. And that's a significant issue when you're trying to determine how you are compatible and how you are U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 122 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 complementary to an adjacent neighborhood. When you change them to a permitted use, you no longer have that ability to review and impose certain conditions or additions that would help alleviate any concerns that an adjacent property may have and ensure that compatibility and complementary existence. They're also allowing uses that are only permitted in -- one use specifically that's only permitted in the industrial district. That's the refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold refrigerated only, 4222. So this use is not allowed in the C-4. It's also not allowed in the DeVoe PUD. It's an industrial use. So I would introduce that as a permitted use. And it's also allowing -- I know there's been some discussion about the homeless shelter use. Currently just to explain this, the DeVoe PUD does not permit homeless shelter. As indicated by the applicant, the homeless shelter use is a conditional use in C-4, so they're not really requesting this in Tract B, and I think that's a very considerable consideration that they've offered, and I appreciate the clarification. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 123 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The significant difference, as I've noted, between changing from a conditional use to a permitted use, again, it removes the provision especially from the Planning Commission. Today under your code, which is 10.08.00, you have the ability to review conditional uses and ensure safeguards and make recommendations. That would go away with this rezoning change. Just to highlight some of the key provisions. Now, in my report I listed several policies, several objections, several sections of the comprehensive -- of your Growth Management Plan, excuse me, where the application is inconsistent in my professional opinion. I'm going to just highlight what I believe is some of the more significant issues. Policy 5.6 requires that you are compatible and also complementary to the adjacent residential multifamily, and by introducing these social service uses and an industrial use without the protection of a conditional -use review, what happens now is not only do you have what is in existence today but now you're also adding more uses that just, if you would, further distance the ability to achieve that compatibility and that U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 124 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 complementary existence between the two uses, residential and now which is heavy commercial and industrial. It also creates the ability to -- the potential to have additional impacts. As you heard, there have been some vagrancy issues. I have not -- I'm not the expert on that. I'm not familiar with the specifics on that other than there have been some citings of that. You'll hear from the traffic consultant certain traffic issues. Noise. Litter. Our potential concerns, especially lighting and loading issues when you introduce this refrigerated warehouse component. Again, without the conditional -use review, you take away the ability to address all of those issues. The applicant is also -- the application is also inconsistent with the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and Mixed -Use District Overlay that applies to the property. This is really a social service campus. And while I agree with the staff that the intense -- that the direction of a regional activity center is to direct intensity and density of uses in a particular area, it has to be done with the intent of the district. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 125 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In this particular area, the intent is to have pedestrian connections and provide mixed -use development that helps to encourage nearby residents to utilize those services. So what we're really doing here is we're creating a mixed -use development that is a social service campus that does not necessarily create any interest for residents or benefits for -- benefits from the adjacent residential community to have pedestrian connections to and utilize those services as they would in a retail center or a shopping center. It's also my professional opinion that the application is not in compliance with the county's PUD and zoning evaluation criteria. You've heard this before. It does lack information and analysis to reach certain determinations. That burden is on the applicant, not on the staff. The applicant is required to provide that evidence. That has not been provided in the backup that has been reviewed and that has been submitted. That's necessary to determine whether or not there will be impacts on light and air to the adjacent residential neighborhood to assure that there be no negative impacts on adjacent property U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 126 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 values. That has not been addressed. Basically, the applicant just said we believe there will be no impacts on the adjacent property values. Thank you. And also to ensure that there be adequacy of public and private improvements based on timing of development. That's a PUD requirement. You usually have a phased development plan, and you show that you're going to have certain improvements occurring as you come in and do your redevelopment. That has not been provided. I think most significantly, in my opinion, are the two deviations that are being requested. I'll just deal with the buffer, for example. There's been no information provided in the application that addresses the buffer that is currently required under the C-4 zoning. In an activity center, you're required to have a 20-foot buffer. That has not been addressed at all by the applicant. Additionally, this request for this deviation in square foot for the homeless facility going from the 150 feet to the 100 feet, I think the most important analysis that has not been provided is, what is the impact on the homeless residents U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 127 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 themselves? What we've heard is that you now have 104 beds. You have somewhat of a concentration of homeless shelter uses and persons. Let's just talk about persons. Now you're adding 50 more on top of that in a much smaller confined space. We're not talking about assisted living facilities. We're not talking about barracks who have more of a controlled environment. You now have concentration adding more homeless persons who we don't know what the affect is on them, not only the people who are there currently but also the people who may be coming there as a result of this increase. Will they want to stay, or will it encourage more vagrancy as a result of that more confined smaller space? And that has not been provided by the applicant. There's no information doing a data and analysis countywide or statewide or nationwide as to whether or not there would be an impact on the homeless persons themselves. Additionally, as has been stated previously, this code has been in effect for 30 years. To come in and ask for a deviation from that without looking at that globally and the effect countywide, I think, would be a disservice to the community. It's also not in compliance with the county's U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 128 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUD evaluation for the following reasons: Both the county staff, in their report,are orthopedic as well as the applicant have indicated that the uses that they're proposing and what they want to do can already be done on the existing zoning. I have to just question the issue with respect to the warehouse that's permitted in industrial. But if that is the case, what is the purpose? If it's only to not have to go through the conditional -use process, I think, again, that does a disservice and is somewhat incompatible with being able to achieve the intent of your Future Land Use Element, which is to be complementary and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. And ownership in and of itself should not be the sole purpose for requesting a rezoning. That is one of the criteria, that you need to own the property, but that being the purpose for just being more comprehensive because we own the property, I think, while it's a good intention, does not really fulfill all of the -- answering the questions in the code that are required for evaluation of the rezoning as requested. So with that, I'll conclude my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 129 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: The fact that the expansion of the homeless shelter will serve the community better by allowing greater capacity, there will be more people who will have access to this, how do you speak to that in terms of the analysis, the need for the rezoning community -oriented -wise or even complementary, like maybe getting some of those people out of the woods and into the program? MS. WARD: I'm not an expert on homeless activities, but I will say that we don't know whether or not the requested deviation will have a positive or negative impact. That's what my presentation is. I think there is a need for more homeless shelter availability, and I think that's just something that's just evident, as has been stated, across the country. But I think that the fact that we're condensing that number of persons within a facility without understanding the impact of that is what's missing. Additionally, if you leave that as a conditional use, you would have that opportunity to have that information come back to you for that review. Just as it was done going from 84 to 104 U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 130 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beds, you would still have that opportunity going from 104 to 150 to consider all those potential impacts, especially on the adjacent neighborhood. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to make sure I understand your expertise as what you're testifying to. You're not an expert in the operation of homeless shelters, correct? MS. WARD: No, sir, I am not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. You're not a transportation engineer, correct? MS. WARD: No. I'm deferring to the transportation consultants. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- and you have no expertise whatsoever with regard to -- with regard to operating homeless shelters, correct? MS. WARD: No, that's not been my experience. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So all the questions you raise are just hypothetical questions. You can't provide any expert opinion as to whether the reduction from 150 square feet to 100 square feet is not an appropriate reduction. You're just U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 131 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unhappy with the information provided, correct? MS. WARD: No, that's not correct. I cannot provide an expert opinion with your first statement. With the second statement is, it's the burden on the applicant to provide that information. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which I agree, the burden's on us. Now, you would agree that Mr. Brooder got up and explained the operations of the St. Matthew's House, correct? MS. WARD: Yes, I did hear that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you have any knowledge about how St. Matthew's House actually operates when forming your opinions? MS. WARD: Yes, I did. I went on the website. I read through all of the materials. I even looked at their financials, anything that I could find. MR. YOVANOVICH: So did you contact anybody at St. Matthew's House and ask them how they do their intake process? MS. WARD: No. No, I did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you contact anybody at St. Matthew's House to ask them how they have security? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 132 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WARD: No, I did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you contact anybody at St. Matthew's House regarding how people get to and from the homeless shelter? MS. WARD: No, I did not, but I think I heard some testimony to that effect. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I just want to understand the basis of your opinions that you have just provided. Did you contact anybody at the Sheriff's Office regarding crime statistics? MS. WARD: No, that would not have been my -- my position to do that. That was through -- West Shore provided that information. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you provided a concern that there was -- there would be an increase in vagrancy? MS. WARD: Based on the information that we had from West Shore, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: From West Shore. And who at West Shore did you speak to regarding the information? MS. WARD: Mr. Tilbrook provided some information. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're relying upon U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 133 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information provided to you by the attorney informing your opinion regarding vagrancy? MS. WARD: It was a -- it was a code enforcement -- code violation that he cited to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: So he sent you one code MS. WARD: And also discussed that they've been having several other impacts, which you've heard from their property manager. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're relying upon hearsay informing your opinion regarding vagrancy? MS. WARD: Well, my opinion is a planning opinion. I think the information is sufficient to form a planning opinion that vagrancy has occurred. So, from a planning standpoint, I believe that is a good consideration. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you have no evidence that the, quote, vagrancy that you're seeing has anything to do with people who are actually staying at the St. Matthew's House facility, correct? MS. WARD: Are you talking about something in writing or any other avenues? MR. YOVANOVICH: The prior testimony was she has no idea or any evidence that the people who -- the homeless people are actually staying at U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 134 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 St. Matthew's House. MS. WARD: I don't know that I can answer that, because I thought I heard that the deputy that was working on the case mentioned that it was because of the proximity to St. Matthew's, but I don't know that I can answer that. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree that the existing St. Matthew's House is compatible and complementary to the apartment complex, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know that I can say that. Let me just explain why, if I can. I think that it's there. And the apartment house is there. So it exists together. I believe that there are measures that should be taken to help improve the operations and maintenance to ensure that compatibility based on the testimony. MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's test your expertise in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. When did the comparable -- I mean, the compatible and complementary criteria first appear in the Collier County Growth Management Plan? MS. WARD: You would have to show me that. I only go by what's adopted today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I want you to assume that when the apartment complex -- let me put it -- U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 135 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are you aware that the apartment complex came in after St. Matthew's House existed on the property? MS. WARD: That's -- to my knowledge, that's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So when the apartment complex came through, it went through a review of the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know that, but I would expect that that would be the case. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it was determined that the apartment complex was compatible with the homeless shelter, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know that, but I would expect that that would be the case. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we can agree that the apartment complex is compatible with the homeless shelter? MS. WARD: Could you just explain how you mean that, though? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you just said the apartment complex came in after the homeless shelter. The rezone criteria talk about compatible and complementary. Obviously, the apartment complex got approved, correct? MS. WARD: Well, to answer your question, I U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 136 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could agree that a residential multifamily could be compatible with a homeless shelter because I don't know what the impacts would be created by a residential multifamily on a homeless shelter. So from that perspective, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you would -- now, your client obviously bought the apartment complex with the existing St. Matthew's House there, correct? MS. WARD: I think you said that, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, wasn't the existing St. Matthew's there -- I mean, your lawyer put up the 2016 date. MS. WARD: I heard that, yes. I think I've already answered that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So your client must have determined that the existing homeless shelter is compatible with its apartment complex, correct? MR. PIRES: Hearsay. I understand it's speculation. I think it's totally inappropriate. That's what he's asking, speculation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Noted. And I'm going to take this opportunity to call on Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I wanted to talk to Rich, because I wanted -- I know you're on a cross specifically addressing the issues with the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 137 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 number of beds. My concerns are, what are your issues that were raised based on the zoning issues? I'm looking at the slide and the one previous. You're not -- you have no cross on any -- with any of the information as provided specifically to the zoning. Now, your cross is pretty much directed specifically on what I kind of am gathering is an opinion -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- based on the impact of the increase in the homeless shelter, but there are other issues as well that are being claimed now by a stated professional. But you've not addressed any of those questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, Mr. Schmitt, I was going to address those -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- in my closing. So let me ask this question: Are you saying that Collier County staff did not do their job in analyzing this petition? MS. WARD: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it's the applicant's burden to provide the data and information. MR. YOVANOVICH: And didn't -- we provided U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 138 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information to county staff, correct? MS. WARD: The information that I'm citing was not in the application. MR. YOVANOVICH: We provided information identifying how we satisfied each of those criteria, correct? MS. WARD: No, I'm sorry, I cannot agree with that. The information was not provided. There were statements such as, if I could give an example, we expect that the proposed development will not have an impact on property values. That is not information. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, staff is required to review the information we provide and go through and determine whether or not we satisfied each of the criteria, correct? MS. WARD: That is typically what happens, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And staff has opined in their staff report that we have satisfied each of the criteria, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know how staff was able to reach that conclusion without that information. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what you're saying is staff did not do their job, correct? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 139 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WARD: I can only say that I don't know how they reached that conclusion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I just -- if it was just staff's responsibility to approve, there would be no need for us. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. I COMMISSIONER FRY: So, yeah, they approved it, and it's up to us to decide if we agree with the criteria they use. And she's testifying that she doesn't agree with their criteria. It doesn't necessarily mean that they did something wrong. I guess I kind of object to the wording of that that they didn't do their job. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. What I was trying -- my point is, what you have is the typical case. You have a battle of the experts. They have their expert who's up there saying we didn't satisfy the criteria, we have our expert who says we do satisfy the criteria, and you have the independent reviewer, which is Collier County staff, that says we have met the criteria. That was going to be part of my close. You got it now in the questions from Mr. Schmitt. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 140 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I only have a couple of more questions, and then I'll sit down. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before doing that, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I would ask, in your professional opinion, what do you -- how would you modify the application so that your client might be more willing to accept, in your professional opinion? MS. WARD: And I believe we worked on that. There are some changes to the uses that are being proposed. Some buffering, additional buffering. Again, in the C-4 today you're supposed to have a 20-foot buffer. That has not even been addressed in the application, so I think there's additional buffering. Hours of operation. Lighting and glare from the additional warehousing that's being proposed. So all of those. And I'm sure Mr. Pires is going to go through those in detail, but we've actually sat down and worked through those. In my professional opinion, those get us closer to that complementary and compatible situation where everyone can walk away and, I think, be satisfied. MR. PIRES: Mr. Shea, if I may. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The challenge of that is U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 141 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that you're asking to go back and change what's already there. MS. WARD: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The hours of operation, the warehousing, and -- MR. PIRES: If I may just briefly interrupt. Part of what Rich objected to was our -- we took the Exhibits A through F of the PUD and redlined it and sent it to the staff and to the Planning Commission, that's what Rich objected to, and that's what we would suggest would make it complementary and compatible to it. So -- and Celia worked with us on that. In her professional opinion, it would make -- it would resolve these issues. But, again, Mr. Yovanovich objected to us. And so I will go and read it at the end of the presentation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. No, I'll back off. I apologize for jumping the gun on that one. MR. PIRES: Oh, no, sir. We appreciate you asking. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just as long as we address that. MR. PIRES: I wanted to make sure that you know that Cecelia also looked at that, and it was a U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 142 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 team effort; we reviewed it, and this is our request. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't see it. MR. PIRES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I haven't seen it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, you know, I'd love to just cut to the chase and let's go to the end of the book -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a good idea. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and just put them up and let me tell you why we couldn't agree to what they want to do, because their letter -- MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, I think he's on cross, not his argument now, so if we could -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think that's correct. Let's have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've only got a couple more questions, if you'll let me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Cross of this witness? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of this witness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're complaining about the fact that we're not going through a conditional -use application to expand the homeless shelter, correct? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 143 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WARD: No, I'm not complaining. What I'm stating is that the rezoning request changing the state -- state, if you will, of the uses from conditional to permitted, and that takes away a process of review that affords some protection to the neighborhood, adjacent neighborhood. MR. YOVANOVICH: What criteria in the conditional -use review criteria are not also included in the rezone criteria we're going through today to rezone the property to allow a use that would be allowed under a conditional -use process? MS. WARD: I believe if you go to Section 10.08.00 of the Land Development Code -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Bear with me. I've got to get back in. And I have it right here. Go ahead. MS. WARD: It allows conditions and safeguards that could be recommended by the Planning Commission and then, obviously, approved -- accepted/approved by the city -- by the County Commission. So they could make those additional conditions and safeguards in their review of a conditional use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Could they not also make recommendations and safeguards as part of rezone? MS. WARD: They can. That's what we're U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 144 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. But what I'm confused about, you're saying we're somehow sneaking a homeless shelter in on a different review process because we're going through a rezone and not through a conditional use. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? MS. WARD: Yes. I'm not saying you're sneaking anything in, so please don't characterize that. All I'm saying is that it needs to be brought out -- brought to an attention that we're going from conditional to permitted that changes the state that these uses are in, changes the level of review from a compatibility and a complementary review to be in compliance with the Growth Management Plan of the county. It gives that extra level of review to your commission, both your Planning Commission, your County Commission, and just pointing that out to say that this is why we believe it is critical that the proposed modifications to the ordinance are considered to help assure and allay the concerns that we have from that compatibility and complementary position. MR. YOVANOVICH: What body or person, if you know, actually reviews conditional uses in Collier U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 145 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County? MS. WARD: You'd have to show me that section of the code, but I know the Planning Commission has the authority to review that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that conditional uses have been delegated to the Hearing Examiner in Collier County? MS. WARD: This is right out of the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Have you read the administrative code or the Hearing Examiner's ordinance to know that conditional uses are actually reviewed by the Hearing Examiner? MS. WARD: I didn't review the administrative code, but if you could show me the section of the code, I'd be happy to review what you're stating. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that there are only four review criteria for a conditional use and there are probably over 20 review criteria for a rezone? MS. WARD: I'm aware that there's a difference. What I'm saying is that by taking it out of the hands of your Planning Commission, that removes that safeguard of review from this commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 146 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Cecelia. MS. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry has -- MR. PIRES: So you have questions of Ms. Ward? COMMISSIONER FRY: Cecelia, before you sit down, I took about what you said about the conditional -use process to mean that -- not so much for the -- I mean, we are reviewing the increase from 104 to 150 today and the density reduction of square footage, but we're also -- when you mentioned permitted uses, I thought maybe you were referring more to Tract B, that list of permitted uses -- MS. WARD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- whereas those would not have to come back before us regardless of what they put in, as long as they're one of those permitted uses in the future; whereas, if it was a conditional use, each individual use would have to come back, go through a conditional -use process. Is that what you're -- is that what you're saying? MS. WARD: That's correct. Those uses that are currently listed as conditional uses in the C-4 would have to come back to you if they wanted to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 147 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER FRY: Like what? Is the office building a conditional use or -- we know the homeless shelter was. MS. WARD: The general warehousing and storage, legal counsel and prosecution, used vehicle sales. I know some of these are there, but an expansion of any of those. I know they already talked about removing the homeless shelter from the Tract B. And I think the other most significant change in this rezoning is introducing the refrigerated warehousing and storage, cold or refrigerated only. That's in your industrial zoning. So just to go back maybe to the previous question is, by adding -- you're adding now twice as much commercial. I understand that you can go infinitum. I get all that. But by adding twice as much commercial, possibly the addition of additional warehousing bays and doors, you don't have that opportunity to review for impacts from light and glare and noise and operations loading. COMMISSIONER FRY: But we don't today. MS. WARD: You do today under the current code. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 148 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask the county attorney to clarify a point that was raised. I realize this is a work in process, and we are going to be considering at a very early time how conditional uses and other contested matters are to be apportioned between the Planning Commission and the Hearing Examiner. I just -- I'm asking the County Attorney to remind me, what's the state of play right now under the current rules? MR. KLATZKOW: I'll defer to Bosi on that one, because he does the day-to-day on this. MR. BOSI: The -- per the code, it does say the Hearing Examiner can hear conditional uses. There is an evaluation that goes on from the Hearing Examiner as to whether he feels it's of public interest and concern, and if it is, that is elevated by his office to the Planning Commission. There is nothing in terms of any written criteria that helps establish that other than the amount of public interest within a conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we are in the process of revisiting that, are we not? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And just for my edification U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 149 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and not to hold you to it at all, but in your judgment, just having heard this information, would you consider this issue, the conditional -use portion here on Tract B, is this something that should be elevated to the Planning Commission or decided by the HEX? MR. KLATZKOW: This -- when Mr. Strain was doing it, it would have been elevated to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I thought. MR. KLATZKOW: I can't speak of the current Hearing Examiner. MR. BOSI: I couldn't speak to it, but I would say, the only thing I would make a comment upon is there's an interested -- there's objection from the property owners. There's no other public here. This doesn't seem like a matter of public concern. It's a matter of one specific property owner, in my perspective. And from evidence of the individuals who are not here, I can -- I'm only left to conclude that the concern expressed by this petition is raised by one specific property owner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Hear from Mr. Eastman and then Commissioner Schmitt. MR. EASTMAN: The opposition's planning U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 150 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expert, please. You talked about compatibility and making compatibility, and you talked about certain changes, buffering, if you will. Could you prioritize those and sort of, you know, give us a condensed version of what you feel are the most important, from your perspective. MS. WARD: I believe first are uses, the type of uses. And I know there are some there, but we're talking about doubling of commercial, introducing an industrial. We're talking about a concentration of more homeless shelter beds in a much smaller space. So I think all of those are to be discussed. We, I believe, have already discussed the issue about not increasing homeless shelter facility uses, the beds themselves, on Tract B, so that's a very good direction. There are some other uses that we've proposed that should be expressly prohibited on Tract B. The buffering from the neighborhood, the residential neighborhood, is very significant. This allows to give some space between the additional commercial that's going to be added to the site. There's also some hours of operation for the bays and the operation of the warehousing. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 151 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Direction of lighting, direction of glare. And I think Mr. Pires is going to read this all into the record at some point. But these are the type -- I think from the beginning it's uses; then it's buffering; then it's hours of operation, lighting, and glare impacts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to go back to the conditional use. Mike, it was my understanding when the planning -- when the Hearing Examiner process was put together, any item that was deemed to be contentious or residents object to regarding conditional use, it was automatically raised to the Planning Commission. It was not -- it was a staff recommendation. Am I -- could you correct that? Because you kind of indicated that the choice was to the Hearing Examiner. My understanding is staff could clearly say this is an issue that we're going to bring to the Planning Commission and as above and beyond what normally would be dealt with by the Hearing Examiner. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Please understand, Nick and I created this process along with Mark Strain. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I was involved in it when it was started. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 152 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KLATZKOW: We started the process, and we started the process more to cut the red tape -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you know, so people can get -- people can get the mundane projects done quickly rather than just having to go through processes. Mark was also on this Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And it was Mark's belief that if a conditional use was basically uncontested -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: -- he would process it. If it was contested, he'd bring it here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what he did. I don't know what the current Hearing Examiner's doing. I just don't know. MR. PIRES: And perhaps I could -- I'm looking at the administrative code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that should be in the process, and we're not here to debate that, and there's probably no need to go on. But I think the point -- and the academic point here was that I U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 153 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand what's being raised in regards to a conditional use versus the PUD but, regardless, we still, as a Planning Commission, have a right to enforce or impose or whatever rules we believe necessary under the rezoning process that we would under a conditional use. MR. KLATZKOW: It's almost a red -herring argument, because the conditional use is a permitted use that we need certain conditions on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can do the same thing in a PUD ordinance -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- saying, okay, we're going to approve this, but we want enhanced buffering here, we want this, we want that, and you do that all the time -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: -- so that in some sense it's six of one, a half dozen of the other which process you use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, to me it was a nice academic argument, but it's sort of moot because we still have the opportunity to add any conditions we deem necessary that is justifiable U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 154 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and defensible in regards to where we think -- what we need to add to the PUD. MR. KLATZKOW: We do that all the time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. PIRES: And just a real quick point on that. The administrative code says, it could be a matter of great public interest or concern as determined by the discretion of the Hearing Examiner or as requested by a member of the Board of County Commissioners. So then it would come back to you -all in that case. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That very provision is one of the several that are under serious potential change. We're looking at that now. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Be careful what you ask for, by the way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. MR. KLATZKOW: There's a reason why we set up the Hearing Examiner. MR. PIRES: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Reasons why we brought a Hearing Examiner in. MR. PIRES: You don't have enough hours in the day, I understand; you want more work. I get it. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 155 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next, if we may, Pramod, are you on? Pramod Choudhary. MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. Can you hear me? MR. PIRES: Can you hear him, members of the Planning Commission? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yeah. I can hear you. MR. PIRES: I don't know if he's been sworn, Terri. THE COURT REPORTER: I can't swear people in over the phone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not swearing in people over the phone. MR. PIRES: But he will be telling the truth. Pramod is a traffic engineer. Pramod, if you could briefly give your background, your experience in testifying as an expert in proceedings, whether zoning, planning, or condemnation, eminent domain, other proceedings in the state of Florida. MR. CHOUDHARY: Sure. My name is Pramod Choudhary, and I'm a consultant with the Keith Engineering Services. I have 28-plus years of transportation planning and traffic operations experience. Just to let you know, I was the traffic consultant for Collier County from 2005 to 2014 U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 156 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 under Nick Casalanguida. So I was basically involved in developing the traffic impact guidelines. I authored that guidelines during that period; the development of the AUIR, establishment of all the roadway capacities. So everything that goes in there, I have been very closely involved with that, so I understand what Collier County is looking for. And all those nine years or close to almost 10 years that I was there as the consultant for the county, I was doing exactly these kinds of reports for the county, so that's my credentials. If you have any questions on that, I'm willing to answer that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any members of the Planning Commission need to know more about the gentleman's credentials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, sir, you may proceed. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHOUDHARY: Okay. Yeah. I went through the Traffic Impact Statement that was provided to US. I reviewed it independently. And the very first thing that struck me was that the data being used is during the COVID situation that we are in. So, overall, there has been a reduction in traffic U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 157 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the AUIR 2021, I believe, indicates that in their Attachment C that there is a reduction, and I think Jim Banks also pointed out that, that there is a 10 to 20 percent reduction on that segment of Airport -Pulling Road, so that was one concern that I had was that we want to be conservative when we are trying to do all this traffic impact assessment. So the ideal thing would have been that we should have used the 2019 data and applied a growth to it to come up to the 2021 service volumes and compare that rather than comparing it with the temporary lower volume due to COVID. So that's something that can be discussed. The other thing was that the trip generation that has been used for this development, it is an existing development. So whenever we have an existing development, we should be using that real data that we have access to. So if you had just collected the data from the site, we would have known exactly how many trips are being directed right now and how many we can expect with the increase in number of beds or the increase in the commercial development that they are proposing. So that is the standard practice that we do. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 158 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Trip Generation Manual is good. We can use that, but that we typically use when we don't have any available data to use. So that is what we end up using. So that was another concern. So if you can move to the next slide. The other thing I found was in terms of assessing the impact on the roadway segment, the Traffic Impact Statement was fine, but once you start looking at the operations of the access driveway and intersection and the median openings, then the pass -by trips cannot be simply deducted from the total traffic generated by the site, what they had calculated, because that pass -by traffic is there on the road network. It only changes its operations. The through traffic may become a right -turn traffic or a left -turn traffic, and that affects the operation of the driveway and median opening. So you cannot simply deduct the pass -by traffic, and those are the things that's there in the impact guidelines that you need to be aware of when we are assessing the impact on the roadway segments. That I felt was missing from the Traffic Impact Statement. The other thing was the distribution that they U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 159 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have 65 percent from the north, 25 or 30 percent from the south. I didn't see any basis for that. There was no justification why that assumption was made. Typically we look at the existing volume on the roadway segment and kind of take that as a starting point to do the trip distribution. I didn't see that. In my opinion, that particular roadway segment seems like they will have almost like an equal spread between the north and south. There wasn't any traffic reduction in that segment itself. So if you can move on to the next one. And as I was talking about the median openings and the driveway locations, the trip assignments typically become important on how the median openings are. So if your main access drive, which is that blue -- Great Blue Drive, you can only make a right turn from that driveway. You can't go left. There's a directional median opening. So if all your exiting traffic from the site is making a right, then back on that roadway segment is 100 percent. It's not 65. So those are the kind of things that have not been included in the Traffic Impact Statement to really assess the real impact of it. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 160 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And then the commercial use, it wasn't very clear from the report whether the existing development is 64,000 square feet of commercial use or 130,000. It said existing is 130- and the proposed is 130-, so there is a net zero change, and I didn't quite understand what it was. To me I'm not sure whether the existing use is only 64,000, and they're proposing a maximum of 130,000, and if that's the case, then there will be an increase in traffic because of doubling of that use, which was not accounted for in the trip generation. And then the last point was, basically, the Great Blue Drive, there's no assessment of it. There's no evaluation of what is the existing traffic, how that driveway will get affected and what the operations would look like with the directional median opening that we have there. So those were the main points that I noticed. And this is just a bullet point of all the things that I talked about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have one observation before U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 161 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Yovanovich, and that is I try to be meticulous in reviewing the AUIR before each and every one of these projects come forward. And, granted, the volume of traffic from 2020 to 2021 went down 5.77 percent, but we've heard testimony in other hearings from Mr. Sawyer and Ms. Scott that this is undoubtedly due to the COVID situation. I personally am not as concerned about the traffic impact in this particular case because there is so much capacity remaining in Segment 6 of Airport -Pulling. I think it may be understated in the applicant's material, but I personally am not that concerned about it because there is just so much excess capacity there now. Anybody else want to be heard on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: While that may be true -- and I think part of our value here is to identify, I'll just say, areas where additional definition should be provided for the BCC so they have full information. And so in -- when Mr. Banks was testifying, he provided, I believe, 12 p.m. peak -hour trips added by the additional beds in the facility, but I did not hear, nor can I put my U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 162 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 finger on in the application package right now, how many trips would result from the increase from the 56,000 actual square feet of commercial up to a potential of 130,000. And if that is specified, great; but if not, I do believe those numbers should be very clear when it goes before the BCC whether we approved it or deny it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think your point is well taken. And, Ms. Scott, did you -- would you be willing to relate the COVID experience to 2020 and 2021 and the reduction on Segment 6 of Airport -Pulling? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, deputy department head, Growth Management Code. I was not sworn in earlier. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not -- actually do need to be. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCOTT: I do. I do have some questions. I came in, actually, to cross the expert witness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MS. SCOTT: Would you like me to proceed? Because it may actually answer some of your U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 163 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if it's going to answer my questions, go ahead and proceed the way you want. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Pramod. How are you? MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm doing okay. How are you, Trinity? MS. SCOTT: Very good. Thank you. What AUIR was used for the TIS analysis; do you know what year? MR. CHOUDHARY: I think it was 2021. MS. SCOTT: Actually, the TIS that's in the packet used the 2020 AUIR. MR. CHOUDHARY: You may be right about that. MS. SCOTT: Just for the record, the 2021 AUIR was just adopted by the Board in November, so that would not have been used. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. MS. SCOTT: Are you aware of the dates of the traffic counts that are used in the 2020 in development of the 2020 AUIR? MR. CHOUDHARY: I know that all these counts are done during the peak season. I know that -- that has been the process, yeah. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 164 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SCOTT: Okay. So would you agree that the counts that are used for the 2020 AUIR would have been counts that would have been collected between April 1st of 2019 through March 31st of 2020? MR. CHOUDHARY: That I'm not absolutely certain about. I thought that the 2020 would have the data from the 2020 peak season. MS. SCOTT: It actually doesn't. Those are the dates that are used for the AUIR because it's a backward -looking document. Do you know when this application was submitted for review? MR. CHOUDHARY: I think it was somewhere around May of 2021. MS. SCOTT: Okay. MR. CHOUDHARY: Probably revised in June of 2021, yeah. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Can you clarify, your recommendation was that they should collect real-time travel data in May of 2021, wouldn't that have been impacted by COVID? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. And then that's where you would make the adjustment. That's what we do here. You know, DOT requires consistently for us to do the traffic data and then look at the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 165 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 historic data and apply the adjustment that would make it look more recent. So all the traffic studies that have been done have been done with that procedure. MS. SCOTT: So the applicant utilized, for the AUIR, pre-COVID numbers, but you wanted them to collect other data that was during COVID and be adjusted? MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm talking about the trip generation from their facility, because we are making an assumption from the trip -- IT trip generation rather than using the actual data that we have on the site. That was my recommendation on that. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. I believe Mr. Yovanovich may have some questions, but if you had additional questions with regard to the AUIR numbers related to peak, or I'm sorry, with related to COVID impacts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think the COVID issue is not significant on this stretch of Airport -Pulling because there is so much capacity there. So I'm not particularly concerned about the TIS argument. I think the TIS probably understates it but not in a significant enough way for me U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 166 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personally to object. MS. SCOTT: And so what I would offer to the Planning Commission is that the dates for the 2020 AUIR, the traffic counts that are utilized are collected between April 1st, 2019, and March 30th of 2020, and during that time frame, we were not having significant COVID impacts -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair point. MS. SCOTT: -- to our traffic counts. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair point. Thank you. Anybody else have a question for Ms. Scott before she leaves? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Terri, the court reporter, is asking the witness to speak up a little bit. So when you respond to me, Pramod, would you mind speaking up a little bit for Terri? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And before we proceed, if we may, it's six minutes after 2:00. Ordinarily, we would -- this is when we would have a mid -afternoon break. I'm going to look at the court reporter and see if now should be the time or 2:30. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 167 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have a couple questions. THE COURT REPORTER: Let him finish. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you familiar with the review process Collier County goes through for establishing the TIS criteria? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you would agree that there is a pre -application meeting with county staff and the applicant to determine the type of analysis that needs to be provided? MR. CHOUDHARY: Correct, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the TIS that was provided is consistent with the pre -application meeting with county staff, correct? MR. CHOUDHARY: That is correct, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Are you familiar with Tom Ross of the Jacobs Group? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes, I am. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you -- you would agree that Mr. Ross is a competent traffic engineer and traffic consultant? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that Mr. Ross U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 168 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also reviewed the TIS for this particular PUD? MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm not aware of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that Mr. Ross agreed with county staff's analysis on the transportation impacts? MR. CHOUDHARY: No, I'm not aware of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes. If we could -- it's the last witness we have, and just a few points, and then to get to the point that Mr. Shea had. I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought you wanted a break after this witness; did you not? CHAIRMAN FRYER: How much time do you have -- I thought we were going to 2:30. How much time do you have? COMMISSIONER SHEA: She said after Rich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We'll stand in recess for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: She didn't know Rich was going to be so quick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're in recess until 18 minutes after 2:00. (A brief recess was had from 2:08 p.m. to 2:18 p.m.) U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 169 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BOSI: My apologies, Chair. You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Yes. If I may, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, and the summary of objections and issues, we've gone through these. We had, at the beginning, outlined them. We heard the testimony of Cecelia Ward, the planner, and Pramod, our expert engineer and transportation engineer. And what we have -- and we had submitted and we had, like I said, a meeting, Steve Tilbrook on the phone, myself in person, with Wayne and Rich to try to resolve some of these issues, and it was a good meeting, but we did not resolve all the issues. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you resolve some? MR. PIRES: We resolved some. Subsequent to that, there's an email from Rich to me November 29th, and I'll read it into the record, if I could, and I have a couple items to read into the record. It said Tony -- Wayne, Tony and Steve. Wayne and I spoke to our client regarding the concerns you expressed to us at our meeting. Our client has agreed to the following conditions in order to get U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 170 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your client's support or at least to have your client not opposed to proposed PUD: Homeless shelters will be expressly prohibited on Tract B. Secondly, the warehouse facilities will be accessory uses only. They won't be -- we expressed a concern of we don't want an Amazon or a Wayfair, and right now, if it's warehousing, you can have Amazon, Wayfair, and any of the big box guys. Any new overhead doors will not face east, and that was a concern that we don't want those big bay doors on the east side of any building facing the apartment complex. Upon redevelopment, the landscape buffer that is currently 10 feet in Tract B will be expanded to be 15 feet. Delivery hours will be limited to be between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. And hopefully we have addressed your client's concerns. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. On November 30th -- excuse me. On November 29th at 5:15 -- that was from Rich on November 29th at 10:20 a.m. I replied back on November 29th, the same day, at 5:15. And it says, Richard and Wayne, thanks again for meeting and speaking with your client. We have reviewed and U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 171 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provided your email to our client. Our clients appreciate your client has agreed to the following conditions/limitations to be included in the PUD, which have addressed some of our concerns, and I just reiterated what I just mentioned. And I said, however, and in order to address our client's remaining concerns, the following conditions/limitations as noticed on the -- noted on the attached red -lined edited PUD document need to be included in the PUD: Homeless shelter, residential care and group facilities expressly prohibited on Tract B. Exclude alcoholism counseling non-residential, offender rehabilitation agencies, probation officers, refugee services, and public welfares centers on Tract A. Eliminate warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as a principal use on Tract B. Permit warehousing and storage refrigerated warehousing and storage only as an accessory use to not -for -profit food bank and only on Tract B. Eliminate Deviation 1 that would otherwise reduce the minimum floor area for homeless shelter from 150 square feet per person to 100 feet per person. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 172 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Traffic impact study, that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive. That's the access road. Provide for enhanced landscape buffers at the time of redevelopment to 15-feet-wide Type B landscape buffer and to 20-foot-wide Type D for sections located within the activity center. Limit loading, unloading, and delivery hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and only on weekdays, and Rich replied that same day -- next day, excuse me, at 1:12. Tony and Steve, although many of the changes you made to the PUD are acceptable, there are several that my client cannot agree to make. My client cannot agree to the limitations you proposed as to SIC Code 8322. SIC 8322 is a permitted use on Tract A today. That's the SIC code that allows offender self-help agencies, offender rehabilitation agencies, refugee centers, and public welfares and probation offices. The requested deviations regarding square footage must remain 100 square feet. According to Jim Banks, the building code only requires 50 square feet per person. The use of the access road is covered by the easement agreement. There's a recorded easement U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 173 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement. My client will not agree to the language you added. We cannot agree to limit deliveries to just weekdays. The landscaping changes are not acceptable. We agreed to change the buffers adjacent to the apartments if the site is redeveloped. The way you wrote it is, we do an internal change on the building, the buffers must be revised. And then I submitted and what I would like to go through is -- again, and we had this conversation is -- and I have extra copies for the Planning Commission, but I will read them out loud or put them on the Elmo, if I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. I've got a question or two for the applicant, and then I'm going to see if we can't move to a point of essential agreement. And, Mr. Yovanovich, this may be most appropriate for your client. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Steve come on up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it just has to do with a set of facts, really. The word "security" has been mentioned a couple of times. I'd like to know more about what kind of physical security is provided at the present time and what, if anything, more you'd U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 174 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROODER: Sure. We have added the controlled access fencing that I talked about and gates so that that protects mainly the residents from people coming in. We also have physical security staff that are on the property. We added some lighting which is in front of the shelter on the Airport Road side for added security. So those are those measures we've taken. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there something more that you could do to mitigate or even eliminate the tents that are being put up on the neighboring property? Is there anything that you could add by way of security personnel or anything at all could be done? MR. BROODER: Well, I think they've already stated that they've -- they engage law enforcement when those persons are encountered on their property, so I wouldn't propose that we would do anything else for their property. These are not residents if they're living in tents in the woods. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it -- I observed -- in my site visit, I observed people being buzzed in but being let out whenever they wanted to go out, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 175 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROODER: That's true. That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- frankly, I was somewhat concerned about that. Could you address that, please. MR. BROODER: People are free to go. We don't lock them in at the shelter, so they are free to go at any point in time. But as I mentioned before, they have an assigned bunk and locker. So if they're going out, they're going to work. They're going to different appointments. That's what we allow them to do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you be willing to put on any more personnel to secure the premises? MR. BROODER: We have been considering it for our own premises, yes, but not offsite. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I understand. MR. BROODER: So as the need would present itself, we would certainly consider that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But we've heard some evidence that there is tenting taking place. We don't know for sure that it's your people, but I think probably some of them are. And I'd like to know if there's something further you could do that could mitigate some of these issues. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 176 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROODER: I would argue that they are not our people. Why would they sleep in a tent or put up a tent on another property when they have a bunk? Because there are only 104 MR. BROODER: Well, then they aren't our people. Then they're homeless on the streets. We talked about the counts, which is 600 to 800, and that's about a third of the actual count. So there's a large number of homeless that are not sheltered. These are the chronic homeless. Many don't want to be sheltered. So we serve those that will come into the shelter, receive the transformative rehabilitation that we provide, and abide by our rules, but we can't enforce or police all the homeless that are in Collier County. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just so that -- it's my last question on this issue. Is there anything additionally that you'd be willing to do to provide security for the benefit of the neighbors? MR. BROODER: I would say that we have and we would continue to talk to the county about this. I just mentioned to Commissioner [sic] Eastman that there are HOT teams in other counties and cities. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 177 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 These are homeless outreach teams that go out and meet -- engage the homeless wherever they are. It could have several members, including a law enforcement person. We advocate that type of response and would participate in that if that's something Collier County would be interested in talking about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm on the same lines of questioning. Probably back to more basics. Were you aware that people were tenting on the neighbor's property? MR. BROODER: Not in particular, but as I think has been -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So nobody called you and told you about it and said -- MR. BROODER: I don't know of any calls that have come in about complaints at our shelter and, of course, I think we're all aware and it's already been mentioned that there are many tent encampments in Collier County and all over the country, so I don't know of those specifically. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So people that are in your shelters, for instance, they get fed and everything, and they have to be a member -- there's U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 178 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no way living in a tent would allow them to be fed and in with the rest of the residents? MR. BROODER: I just can't -- no, the residents are served in the shelter, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It just seems like an awful big coincidence that they're there. It would be nice if we could find a way to join -- I understand the legalities of the fact that it's not your property. MR. BROODER: Well, all you have to do is just drive around the county, and you'll find several tent encampments in several areas. So anyplace that there's woods or a lack of visibility, I think there's a chance for the homeless to be found there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that all, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just to clarify again, any personnel [sic] who are in these tents or elsewhere, they -- do you accept dailies to walk in just to be fed and then leave, or they actually have to be residents? MR. BROODER: Not at the shelter, no; you have to be a resident. They have to go through the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 179 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 intake process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I'm -- yeah, I'm trying to make sure that the services you're providing are not attracting outsiders. They have to come in and agree to all the rules and regulations -- MR. BROODER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and go through the -- I guess, the deprogramming or whatever you do. Then, actually, they become residents, and then they're provided all the services that you offer. But it's not something that you -- somebody can walk off the street today and go in and have a meal and leave? MR. BROODER: No, no. They go through the intake process, and I think I mentioned before you came that it's a quite intensive process. We do background checks, drug screen, daily breathalyzers, and we screen out certain offenders from the population. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Isn't Justin's Place part of -- part of your organization? MR. BROODER: Justin's Place Recovery Program, yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there's a soup U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 180 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And do the homeless people go in MR. BROODER: That's at the firehouse, right. That's not part of this property. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's right next to it, though. MR. BROODER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's right next to it. MR. BROODER: It's separated by another parcel, yes. It's the old East Naples firehouse. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So one of the -- one of the main talking points today has been the reduction of square footage per resident from 150 to 100. The code from 30 years ago says 150. So I guess I have kind of a question of there are a lot of arbitrary numbers in our codes, and our challenge up here is to what weight do we assign those numbers, right? And that's what I'm struggling with here. So I guess I would consider you an expert in homeless shelters, something that Rich brought up before. You're the ultimate expert. You're running one, you know, a very large one. Please, put me at ease and, perhaps others, why it isn't a natural assumption that putting more people in a U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 181 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 smaller place is not creating an adverse or less positive condition. I mean, it sounds like you're taking a common area now that's un-air conditioned, and you're converting it and taking part of that room for bunks, and you're reducing the amount of shared space for these 100, 104 now, now 150 with less shared space. So please explain to me why there isn't a legitimate concern about the reduction of square footage per resident. MR. BROODER: Sure, I can do that. Actually, there's no reduction in the individual space. We are -- we accommodate fire safety regulations with a separation between bunks, so that's what we maintain now, and that's what we will maintain in the future. But, again, through the renovation, we were able to carve out actually more usable floor space for the dorms. So we will maintain the separation that's required by fire and safety between the bunks. You have to be able to get a gurney in. You have to be able to access everyone. So we'll maintain that. We aren't crowding beyond that -- that requirement. And I will say that congregate housing was certainly a challenge during COVID, but we were able to maintain proper social distancing or really U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 182 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 limit the number of cases both of residents and staff that experienced COVID, so we're very cognizant of what's required and very concerned about the safety of our residents and the accommodations that we would provide. So I wouldn't characterize it as overcrowding or pushing them together or crowding them more. COMMISSIONER FRY: Perhaps not for their -- where they sleep. But, I guess, are we not reducing the areas where they can hang out when they're not in their bunk area? MR. BROODER: Not at all, no. We aren't impacting that at all. In fact, we've added space through the renovation. We created the courtyard, which is an ideal space for people to get outside, just have some time to meditate. And the dining space has not been impacted at all. That's still there. In fact, we weren't utilizing it as much now because we have Lulu's Kitchen servicing the meals. So we actually have more space in the dining facility. COMMISSIONER FRY: So is it your statement, then, that you're not actually reducing the space allocated to each resident. It's only -- it's really a math equation that you have more residents U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 183 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the area, but they still have just as much shared space, just as much area to enjoy and use when they are not in their bunk area, and their bunk areas have not changed? MR. BROODER: That's correct, and that would be my correct statement. It's better utilization of the re -renovated space that we have. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you've efficiently put more people in the same space by reallocating space -- MR. BROODER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- but they haven't lost a thing, in your opinion? MR. BROODER: That's right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. BROODER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I want to make sure I understand -- the answer to Karen's question is, if I was in a tent in the woods, I could walk in and get a free meal. MR. BROODER: At Justin's Place. COMMISSIONER SHEA: At Justice's Place -- MR. BROODER: Not at the shelter. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- which is in that -- U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 184 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's in the same general complex which may be -- MR. BROODER: It is not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No? How far away is that? MR. BROODER: It's a block -- a block away. It's the old East Naples firehouse next to -- MR. EASTMAN: It's not on the subject property. MR. BROODER: It's not on the subject property. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just on the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, but it's close. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just on the side of the thrift store. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How long -- I guess this is the wrong -- how long has this tent issue -- is this something new, or has this been -- I mean, we've been -- they've been there 20 years. MR. PIRES: It's been going on for a while, I understand from Kristi; is that correct? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, it was ongoing. MR. PIRES: It's been ongoing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I'm just getting to the point, it seems like it may be more related to Justin's Place than to the shelter for the homeless, the homeless shelter. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 185 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROODER: And the firehouse, or Justin's Place as we refer to it, has been there since 1988. That's when we took over the old East Naples firehouse. So it's been in existence all that time. And I'll add that there's other agencies that also serve meals in the vicinity; Catholic Charities, St. Vincent DePaul, Salvation Army. So we aren't the only ones that provide meals. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's a good place to hang out? MR. BROODER: Well, we don't allow that. We serve -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I mean in the woods near all these facilities where they need to be fed. MR. BROODER: Oh. We just know that people will do that when they don't want to come into a shelter; that's their alternative. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So just for clarity, who runs Justin's Place? MR. BROODER: St. Matthew's House. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And who works at Justin's Place? Are they residents of St. Matthew's that are employed at Justin's Place? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 186 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROODER: We have case managers, peer mentors, and interns, which are the staff members. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So they're part of the residents? MR. BROODER: Yes. Well, they aren't residents there, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, but they residence [sic] at St. Matthew's that -- maybe on the rehabilitation or whatever, but are employed at Justin's Place? MR. BROODER: They could be an intern, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But to the general public, in all the years I've been in Collier County, I never delineated between the soup kitchen and St. Matthew's. To me they're all the same facility. Even though they're not part of this PUD -- MR. BROODER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- they're all managed by St. Matthew's. MR. BROODER: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I think the -- I have to say that the answer would be, yes, there is an attractor in the area providing food for the homeless on a daily basis that are not residents, U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 187 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that would be Justin's Place but not St. Matthew's House. MR. BROODER: And Catholic Charities and Salvation Army and other agencies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. I've handed out food at the church over there as well. MR. BROODER: East Naples. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But to the public it's all one organization. They don't delineate between the two. So I guess -- so when they see homeless hanging around that may be part of -- that are there for the kitchen, they don't know if they're part of St. Matthew's or not, so I think that's part of the problem. Just perception. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I would agree with the perception problem, but the people actually taking you up and entering the program, they're not the Justin's Place eating meals. They're in your program being fed separately. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: I know that the school district has vacant properties which we hold for future sites, and we've had homeless problems. We've had to clean out those properties and remove the U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 188 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 homeless camps. Some of the people are willing to enter a program like yours and potentially turn their life around, which is what we as a society want to have happen. Others were adamant about not going because they didn't like the curfew. They didn't like rules. They wanted to continue with their lifestyle of addiction, basically. And so, you know, the people that enter your program are not sleeping in the woods. MR. BROODER: Right. I can't imagine that they would be when they have a bunk. And we've seen a lot of the areas where the homeless did have encampments move around with the development. Every time a new area is deforested, trees go down, they start grading, and then the homeless are moving around. These are the people that aren't sheltered, the chronic homeless on the streets. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just one quick question that just popped up. So of the 104 bunks that you have, can you break down for us -- you mentioned hunger, homelessness, and the third -- MR. BROODER: Addiction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Addiction, thank you. Can you break down, like, what percentage of the beds U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 189 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are filled by each of those groups? MR. BROODER: Well -- COMMISSIONER FRY: We're only talking about homeless; that's why I'm asking. MR. BROODER: Well, the subject property, they're all homeless. That's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it's all homeless. MR. BROODER: That's that facility; that's to serve the homeless. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. BROODER: Now, the hunger is a distribution that we do for food insecurity at these different sites, remote sites, and then the addiction program, recovery program, those are different campuses. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, thank you. MR. BROODER: Not at the shelter. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just for homeless, okay. MR. BROODER: And not part of subject property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else wish to be heard? MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just briefly, again, in summary, because I think the questions were raised, what would be acceptable to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 190 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our client. And as -- if I may, and bear with me while I do this, a little bit, because you -all don't have the copies in front of you, although I do have copies. One item that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't object, Tony, if you want to hand out -- if you're going to show them the strikethrough and underline -- is that what you want to do? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just hand it out. MR. PIRES: Well, thank you. It's up to the Planning Commission, I guess. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would like a copy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If the applicant doesn't object, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, I think this is where we're finally trying to get to. If you could put it on the visualizer. MR. PIRES: This is what I tried earlier, Rich, and you objected to that coming in. MR. YOVANOVICH: I objected -- MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Hold on one second. This is not a mediation, okay. In the past, we've continued items to give parties the ability to sit U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 191 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 down and see if they can't hammer out a result and then come back, but this is not an active mediation where we're going over line over line what he likes, what I like, what he said I could do, what he said -- no, no, no. That's not how this works. I mean, you've presented your evidence, all right. The Planning Commission's heard it. If you two believe that there is some grounds that you can get together and hammer this out and be done with this, they can continue this. And if you don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I want a vote. MR. KLATZKOW: -- that's fine. But we're not going to go through this is what we want, this is what we want, this is what we want. MR. PIRES: And again, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, the last slide is the requested proposed changes, and I read them out loud, and I thought this would be helpful in that discussion and consideration by the Planning Commission today as to whether or not to approve this, recommend it with approval, or recommend it with conditions, or recommend denial. As you're reading it, one part on here that's on the landscaping where we talk about a 20-foot U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 192 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 landscape buffer on Airport Road -- I appreciate it, Mike -- this is from the Land Development Code, and it talks about a Type D 20-foot buffer is required along Airport Road for properties within activity centers. And you heard a lot of testimony that this property is in Activity Center No. 6 [sic]. But the site plan that has been suggested by the applicant in this case calls for a 15-foot-wide buffer along Airport Road. And so that's one of the conditions we request. You'll see that in our strikethrough and underline. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's sixteen, isn't it? MR. PIRES: They have 15 on there. We suggest 20 by virtue of -- because it's in Activity Center 16. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I meant. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. And I don't know if staff disagrees with our position, but it says, any -- and developments within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way. And so we would contend that a 20-foot landscape buffer is required along Airport Road in addition to the other suggestions. And so I don't know if the Planning Commission wants me to U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 193 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go through these items line by line or just read. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's talk about where we go from here. And I take the point that the County Attorney made; we're not -- this is not a mediation. If there were a substantial likelihood that we could reach an agreement in 30 minutes, I'd be willing to hang out here for 30 minutes and get it over with, but I haven't heard anything that suggests to me that the parties are anywhere near sufficiently together to do that, which points me to suggesting a continuance, and I'd like to hear from the other planning commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, we'd rather just have you vote on our proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm sure you would, but I want to hear from the Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: Giving us a continuance, we're not going to resolve it. I just wanted to say that before you guys started discussing it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do the other planning commissioners have to say? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Unfortunately, I happen to -- I don't think they are going to resolve it and -- I mean, I'm ready to vote on it, so... U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 194 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I think everybody else is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, you indicated if there's a continuance, it's unresolvable. If we do the half-hour option, is it potentially resolvable? MR. YOVANOVICH: I doubt it. Based upon the list of things that are there, it may -- may I do my closing? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not quite yet. You'll have an opportunity. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Because I think it's important for me to explain why I don't think we're going to get there since Mr. Pires decided to make public negotiations back and forth in the spirit of trying to reach a compromise. He decided to make a public record of the email exchange. I should have wrote on the email, these are settlement negotiations not subject to public disclosures. Shame on me for not doing that. But -- so where we are -- let me just tell you where we are on this issue. Reducing the square footage is nonnegotiable. Changing the buffers prior to redeveloping an existing site is U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 195 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nonnegotiable. We agreed to eliminate some of the uses that we talked about. That's fine. We already agreed that the refrigerated warehousing is an accessory use. We never asked for homeless shelters on Tract B. We agreed to double commit we're not going to put it on Tract B. So the way -- where we are is his requirements to change the landscaping buffers at the first development order, which a building permit's a development order, we have to now take out parking to meet the new buffers for an already -approved site. That is not acceptable to us. If he comes off of all of that to when we talk about truly redeveloping the site, knocking buildings down, putting new buildings in, we have something to talk about. But if it's really any type of development order, I've got to -- I've got to get rid of parking spaces, and I've got to put in buffers; that's why I said no. And in his letter, he said, you've got to do 150 square feet, and that's not doable. We don't want to put a second story on this building to move forward. So if those are his bottom line, we can't get to it, then a half hour's not going to do us U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 196 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 any good. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me tell you where my vote is going to come from. I'm concerned about things that others have not mentioned here, at least sufficiently for my purposes. I remain concerned about security. And I heard a categorical, no, we're not willing to do anything more. I would rejoin by saying, would St. Matthew's be willing to contribute a percentage toward the cost of security to protect the neighborhoods? Not indicating what the percentage might be, but would you entertain that kind of a concept? MR. YOVANOVICH: They have a fence. Why don't they maintain their fence -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I take that as a no. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to keep people out? I mean, my question -- what am I going to do? Am I going to pay a police officer? Because only a police officer can literally ask someone to get off the property. We're not going to go chase somebody off of somebody else's property, and for whatever reason, they're uncomfortable doing it as well. A police officer has to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: I would suggest a 10-minute U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 197 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 break. Let these two get together. If they tell you, no, there's no way we can come to a compromise, take a vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's what we'll do. We'll be in recess for 10 minutes until 2:58. (A brief recess was had from 2:48 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. I'm given to understand that the applicant and the representative of the neighbors have had a fruitful conversation, and we await with baited breath your report. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I have a question. I can't remember, do you guys have one more meeting this month? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're down -- and I'm not going to tell you what issue it is because -- we're down to one issue. And, in fairness to Tony and Steve, they're unable to reach their client to whether or not they can agree to that one issue. What we would like to do is come back at your next meeting, hopefully up first, and say, here's everything, we've resolved it, or it fell apart. U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 198 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'd hate to put us both in a vote scenario. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I hate that you sat here this long, but it was fruitful. We're just struggling to find the decision maker for -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for the apartment complex. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, without objection from the Planning Commission -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. Hold on. Did you get him? CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the applicant is proposing that this be continued to a date certain, namely the 16th of December. MR. PIRES: Yes, to see if we can resolve the one remaining issue. And if not, then the Planning Commission will take a vote. If it is resolved, then have something for you. MR. KLATZKOW: No, what will happen is assuming it's resolved, okay, staff's going to have to put together the PUD that -- MR. PIRES: We'll work on it. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you've both agreed to, okay. That will be presented to the Planning Commission. There won't be a need for a public hearing. There U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 199 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will just be, at that point in time, a vote yes or no. MR. PIRES: Well, I guess it would be a public hearing if we can't resolve it. MR. KLATZKOW: And if you can't resolve it well, this public hearing is done -- MR. PIRES: I know. I understand that. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you know. MR. PIRES: But it's public from the standpoint they have to take action. No more evidence, I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So if you're able -- MR. KLATZKOW: So we're closing the public hearing, I take it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, public hearing is closed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't get a 30-minute close? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't get 30 minutes to close and rebut? MR. KLATZKOW: Man, life is short. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you wish. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't want to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me be sure I understand U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 200 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that this, then, will come back to us on consent. MR. YOVANOVICH: It can't. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have to vote on it. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, they vote on consent, but we'll figure that part out. It will come back to you at your next meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But the public -- the public portion of this is now closed, all right. So if they've agreed to it, it's just a vote. If they haven't agreed to it, they'll get to make their closing arguments, and then it will be a vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Is that agreeable with both sides -- MR. PIRES: Yes, and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- or counsel? MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than I don't think Tony gets a close; only I do. MR. PIRES: No. I was going to say I was hoping Rich wouldn't catch that, but I'm just kidding -- being facetious. Thank you for your patience. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to continue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 201 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this is a motion to continue to a date certain, December 16th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sixteenth, yeah. We can meet on the 15th. It will work for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I know it would. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of a continuance till that date, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. (The requested excerpt of proceedings concluded.) U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 202 Excerpt CCPC Meeting December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, Terri L. Lewis, RPR, FPR-C, and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer -assisted transcription, consisting of pages numbered 2 through 202, inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 20th day of December 2021. TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C Notary Public, State of Florida Commission No: HH 125014 Commission Expires: August 23, 2025 U.S. Legal Support I www.uslegalsupport.com 203 Exhibit 8 A 1 ",q RESOLUTION 98•l5Z_ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE TILE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Commissioners (Board), as the (filly elected governing body for Collier County, holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review and act upon items of concern to and affecting the residents of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), serving as the local planning agency and the land development regulation commission as required by F.S. §§ 163.3174 and 163.3194, holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review, act upon and make recommendations to the Board relative to items of concern to and affecting the residents of Collier County; and WHEREAS, included in these items may be advertised public hearings of a quasi- judicial or legislative nature; and WHEREAS, the public may wish to comment on these items scheduled for consideration before the Board or the CCPC; and WHEREAS, in order to maintain, equity, deconim and order at these regularly scheduled public hearings, it is necessary to establish standard procedures for presentations and public comment before the Board and the CCPC; and WHEREAS, the Board has prepared lies( rules in an attempt to encourage public participation during advertised public hearings, including quasi-judicial hearings, in a manner consistent with the requirements of law. NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners declares that the procedures set forth, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A, applicable to the 8A 1 no Board and the Collier County Planning Commission as stated in said Exhibit, are fair and reasonable, and arc hereby adopted. BE IT FURTI-IER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to procedures for Board and CCPC presentations and public comment be recorded in the minutes of this Board, This Resolution adopted aflcr motion, second and majority vote favoring same. Done this _4? day of„427�, 1998, ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dwight E. Brock. Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Barbara B. Berry, Chairman / Attest as to Chair n's signature only. "Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C,Wcigcl, Cou Attorney 2 8A104 Exhibit "A" Procedures for Presentations before the Collier ounty Board of Commissioners and as Applicable to the Collier County Planning Commission A. Public Comment on f'eneral Tonics• Members of the public may register to speak on general topics under the Public Comment portion of the Board of County Commissioner's (Board) agenda. The number of speakers pennitted to register under public comment on any given agenda shall be limited to a maximum of five, unless the Chairman recognizes additional speakers. 1. Sneaker Re istration: Individuals wishing to speak to the Board under public comment at any regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners shall register to speak in writing on the form provided by the County prior to the public comment portion of the agenda being called by the Chairman. II. Time Limits: a) Public Comment: Maximum 5 minutes per speaker B. Public Petitions: Public Petitions arc limited to a single speaker. In general, the Board will not take action on public petition items on the day the petition is presented, but may direct staff to take action, or bring back the item to the Board at a future date for consideration. The County Administrator may defer scheduling a public petition for a reasonable period of time in order to allow sufficient time for staff to review the content and thus prepare for questions from the Board. Registration: Individuals wishing to make a public petition to the Board of County Commissioners shall present such a request in writing to the County Administrator a minimum of 13 days prior to the Board meeting date on which the public petition is requested to be heard. The written request shall include the name(s) and address(es) of all petitioners, including a primary contact name. address and telephone number, and shall state the nature of the petition, including any exhibits and/or back up material which may be pertinent to the petition. II. Time Limits: Maximum 10 minutes per speaker. C. Advertised Public Hearings• For procedural purposes, advertised public hearings fall into two categories: those which are quasi-judicial in nature; and other types of advertised public hearings, including those which arc legislative in nature. 1.Quasi-Judicial Public Ilearinet: 8A 1 K4 a) Pumose and Intent: The Board has prepared these rules in an attempt to encourage public participation during quasi-judicial hearings in a manner consistent with the requirements of law. As part of that effort and %vIthin the confines of the law, the Board intends its hearings to be infoi-mal %vhilc recognizing the need for certain structure to maintain orderly hearings. Notwithstanding the procedures established by resolution, the Board may modify these procedures to effectuate the effective presentation of evidence. b) Applicability of there Procedures: {1) Quasi -Judicial Proceedings. 'These procedures apply to all quasi-judicial proceedings heard by the Board and the CCPC regardless of the capacity in which the Board is sitting. Quasi -Judicial actions concern the implementation of policy, which has already been set, and affording the Board, and in some instances the CCPC, limited discretion in deciding whether to approve or deny a land use permit. These include land use actions which have an impact on a limited number of persons or property owners on identifiable parties and interests, where the decision is contingent on a fact or facts arrived at from distinct alternatives presented at a hearing. Examples of quasi-judicial proceedings include but are not limited to: site specific rezonings (provided they involve Policy implementation); development of regional impact hearings; conditional use permits; variances; boat dock extension petitions; and administrative appeals. (2) Legislative Proceedings. Utilization of these procedures by the Board or the ('CPC' when sitting in a legislative capacity does not change the character of the legislative proceeding nor does it confer any additional rights or remedies upon any person or party. C) Prc-11caring Submittals: (I) Annlicalion. An applicant (as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code) shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2)taflYAecncy Recommendation. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff rcvic\v and written recommendation to be presented to the Board, such written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation. No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applicant, proponent, or opponent may submit any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation to staff for intended consideration by the Board in support of or in opposition to the application. In order to be included in a Board or CCT'(' Agenda packet, any w7-ittcn arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation must be submitted to the appropriate staff no later than three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing before the respective body. All written 8 A 1 aq submissions, not including pictorial displays (maps, graphs and the like) must be on 8-1/2 x l 1-inch paper. No %vTitten materials will be accepted by the Board at its hearing unless, at the Board's discretion, acceptance is necessary to decide the issue. Written comments submitted shall be considered and entered into the record of the meeting in accordance with subsection C. 1. d)(4) below. d) Public 1-Iearints before the Board or the CCPC• (1) General. It is the expectation that the hearing will be informal. All members of the public who address the Board or the CCPC shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded. Each speaker shall state his or her name and address for the record. Additionally, speakers shall indicate whether they are speaking on behalf of themselves or others. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines. It is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons of the following status will prepare their discussions and comments to be completed within the prescribed time limits: 1 • StalT shall be responsible 1'or presenting the case on behalf of Collier County and shall limit their presentations to twenty (20) minutes. 2. The applicant shall present his or her entire case in twenty (20) minutes. Expert witnesses shall be limited to ten (10) minutes each. 4. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five (5) or more members or a group of five (5) or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. 6. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of the Chairman, the time allowed for any speaker may be extended. (b) Registration of Socaker.s. Persons who desire to speak on an item shall, prior to the item being called to be heard by the Chairman, register with the (. ounty Administrator on the forms provided. Fivc (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as 8 A 1 proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. (2) Order and Subiect of Appearance: To the extent possible, the following shall he the order of the proceeding: (a) Preliminary Statement. The Chairman shall read a preliminary statement once at the beginning of the quasi-judicial hearing portion of the agenda outlining the procedure, which shall be followed. (b) Sworn Testimony. The applicant, staff, and all witnesses requesting to speak shall be collectively sworn. (c) Agreement with Staffs Recommendation. If the applicant or agent of the applicant agrees with staff's recommendation and wishes to waive his or her right to present additional evidence, and if no commissioner or anyone from the audience wishes to speak for or against the quasi-judicial agenda item, the Board may vote on the item based upon staffs presentation and the materials in the agenda back-up. (d) Initial Presentation by Staff. County staff shall make the initial presentation to the Board regarding any item under consideration. After completion of the staff presentation, the Board may make inquiries of staff at this time. An applicant or appellant may ask questions of, or seek clarification from, staff by request through the Chairman at the time that party makes its initial presentation to the Board. (c) Applicant's presentation. After staff presentation, the applicant(s) shall be allowed to make a presentation to the Board based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection (d) (1) (a), above. During and after the applicants' presentation, the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from the applicant. The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions or seek clarification from the applicant(s) at this time. (f) Sneakers. After Board and staff inquiry of the applicant, speakers shall be allowed to speak based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection (d) (1) (a), above. During and after a speaker's presentation, the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from such speaker. 'Ihc Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions of or seek clarification from speakers. (g) Staff Resnonse and Summary. The staff shall be allowed an opportunity for response to the presentations by the applicant, proponents and opponents and a summary with any changes in position alter consideration ol"relevant public comment. Proponents 8 A 1 and opponents who believe that the staff response includes errors of fact or law may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such errors of fact or law. (h) Applicant's Rebuttal Presentation. Applicant's rebuttal shall be allowed only on items where there is an applicant other than the Board or Board staff. After staff response, the applicant shall be allowed an opportunity for rebuttal. Rebuttal shall be limited to five (5) minutes unless otherwise set by the Board. Rebuttal shall only address previous comments. Staff, who believe that the rebuttal presentation includes an error of fact or law, may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such error of fact or law. (1) Board and Staff Inquiry. After all presentations have been made as outlined above, the Board shall have a final opportunity to comment or ask questions. The Board may allow staff to respond to comments previously made at this time. (j) Limit on Presentations. No person who has made a presentation for or against an item at a given meeting shall be allowed to make additional comments, unless requested to do so by the Board. (k) Closing, of Public Comment. In those matters on which public comment is heard by the Board, the Chairman shall close the public comment portion of the meeting (on that item) upon the conclusion of the last speaker's comments or, in the Board's discretion, if no new relevant information is being presented. No additional public comments shall be allowed, except in specific response to questions by members of the Board. (3) Miscellaneous Items: (a) Continuing Record /Sneakers Qualifications. The Clerk to the Board ("Clerk") shall maintain a file with the most recent copies of resumes previously filed with the Clerk by county staff presenters. All other persons testifying on issues requiring educational, occupational and other experience who wish to be qualified as experts shall submit their qualifications in NkTitten form for the Board's approval to speak as expert witnesses. (b) Organizational or Group Speakers. Prior to presenting his/her case. any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate, in writing, the organization or group he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak on behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. 8A1 (c) Restrictions on Testimony or Presentation of Evidence. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may interrupt any presentation that contains matters which need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment are frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of order. (d) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official, or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any time with regard to matters under consideration. (e) Continued Public l lcarint%S. In any matter where it is known that a scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they can not be available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting, provided, however, that upon making their comments, such persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the same subject. This waiver shall not preclude such persons from making different presentations based on new information or from offering response to other persons' presentation, if otherwise allowable, at any subsequent meeting. (4) The Record (a) Automatically Included in the Record: The following documents shall automatically he included in the record of the hearing before the Board: (1) The record from any preliminary hearing, the agenda packet, the staff report, and the transcript of the hearing hefore the Board: (2) Written comments and documents previously entered into the record at a prior Board meeting on the particular matter. (b) Items Which Shall Be Placed in the Record: Any additional documents, exhibits, diagrams, petitions, letters or other materials presented in support of, or in opposition to, an item to be considered by the Board shall be entered into the record, as long as it was received by the Board's Clerk or the applicable Collier County department seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing. 8A 1 (c) Additional Evidence. Except pursuant to subsection C) (3) above, Written Presentation, any additional written or documentary evidence filed within seven (7) days of the date of the hearing shall not become part of the record. {d) C'ustodian. 'Ihe Clerk shall he the officril custodian of the record. (c) Exhibits. Unless an oversized exhibit is absolutely essential, documentary paper or photographic exhibits should not exceed 24 inches by 30 inches and, if mounted on a backboard, shall be removable therefrom. All documentary evidence should be capable of being folded and filed. 1I. Other Public hearings; The following rules apply to advertised public hearings other than those which are quasi-judicial in nature, including those advertised public hearings which are legislative in nature. a) Pre-llearing Submittals: (1) Application. An applicant (as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code) shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2) Staff/Agency Recommendation. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff review and written recommendation to be presented to the Board, that written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation. No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applicant, proponent, or opponent may submit, in support of or in opposition to the issue which is the subject of the advertised public hearing, any written arguments, evidence. explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation to staff for intendod consideration by the Board. All written submissions, not including pictorial displays (maps, graphs and the like) must be on 8-1/2 x I l -inch paper. b) Public Ilcarintt: (1) General. All members of the public who address the Board shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded, and shall identify themselves by name and local addresses, if applicable. Further. any speaker speaking on behalf of an organization or group of individuals (exceeding five) shall indicate such and shall cite the source of such authority whether by request, petition, vote, or otherwise. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines. It is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons in the 8 A. 1 following status will prepare their discussions and comments to be completed within the prescribed time limits: Staff shall be responsible for summarizing the item for the Board and shall limit such presentation to a maximum of twenty (20) minutes. 2. For advertised public hearing items (other than those which arc quasi-judicial in nature). where there is an applicant other than the Board of County Commissioners or staff, following the staff summary of the item the applicant will have an opportunity to make a maximum (10) minute presentation. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five (5) or more members or a group of five (5) or more persons should limit their presentation to tcn (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. 4. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of the Chairman, the time allowed for any speaker may be extended (b) Speaker Registration. Persons, other than staff and the applicant (where applicable), wishing to speak on an advertised public hearing item shall, prior to the item being heard, register with the County Administrator on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. (2) Miscellaneous Items: (a) Dreanizational or (iroup Speakers. Prior to making his/her comments. any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate who he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak on behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. (b) Restrictions on Comments Deemed Not Germane to the Item. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may intcrrupt and/or stop any presentation that discusses matters that need not he considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At an), Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may .t 8 A 1 restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment arc frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of order. (c) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any time with regard to matters under consideration. (d) Continued Public I IearinLs. In any matter where it is known that a scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they cannot be available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting; provided, however, that upon making their comments, such persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the same subject. D. Other As4cnda Items Before the Board: In addition to public hearing, public comment and public petition items, with the approval of the Board, members of the public may speak on other Board agenda items. Registration: Persons wishing to speak on agenda items other than advertised public hearing items, public comment on general topics and public petition items, shall register to speak on the form provided by the County prior to the item being called by the Chairman to be heard. li Time Limits: Where the Board has requested or otherwise authorized public input on agenda items other than public hearing, public comment on general topic, or public petitions items, speakers will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. 9 ORDINANCE NO. 96- 9 9.A.m AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH .yg2F2'= ' INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS ell "' FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 0512N; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "RMF-6(ST)" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD, FOR A MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECT CONSISTING OF 290 DWELLING UNITS INCLUDING THOSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD, AND SOUTH OF THE REAR PROPERTY' LINE OF LAND FRONTING ON GLADES BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 30.45 ACRES MORE OR LESS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Bob Thinnes, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing John D. Jassey, Trustee, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "RMF-6(ST)" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with tae David A. Gallman Estate PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Map Number 0512N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. -1- Packet Pg. 435 St. Matthew's House CPUD (PL20210000176) Application and Supporting Documents December 2, 2021 CCPC Hearing ® GradyMinor Civf] Fngfneem • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyminor.com GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects May 24, 2021 Ms. Laura DeJohn Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: St. Matthew's House CPUD (PUDR) — PL20210000176, Submittal 1 Dear Ms. DeJohn: A Collier County application for Public Hearing for PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR) is being filed electronically for review. The subject property is 11.89+/- acres in size and is located on the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road South and Glades Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to amend the existing Devoe Pontiac CPUD to expand the PUD boundary to the north and south and change the name of the PUD to St. Matthew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The rezone proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150, and request 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Amendment 3. Evaluation Criteria 4. Pre-app Notes 5. Affidavit of Authorization 6. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 7. Covenant of Unified Control 8. Addressing Checklist 9. Warranty Deed(s) 10. Boundary Survey Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Ms. Laura DeJohn RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, St. Matthew's House CPUD — PL20210000176, Submittal 1 May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 2 11. Aerial Photograph 12. Traffic Impact Study 13. Completed Exhibit A - F 14. Deviation Justification 15. Original PUD Approvals Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, rTD- �p D. Wayne Arnold, AICP St. Matthew's House, Inc. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. GradyMinor File (SMHPUD-21) CO*Br County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD of PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff 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): St. Matthew's House, Inc. Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: 2001 Airport Road S. City: Naples Telephone: 239-774-0500 Cell: E-Mail Address: vann@stmatthewshouse.org State: FL ZIP: 34112 Name of Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP and Richard D Firm: Q, Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Coleman, Address: 3800 Via Del Rey Telephone: 239-947-1144 and 239-435-3535 Cell: Fax: Yovanovich, Esq. Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. City: Bonita Springs state: FL ZIP: 34134 Fax: E-Mail Address: warnold@gradyminor.com and rovanovich@cyklaw.com Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. March 4, 2020 Page 1 of 11 CO*Br County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: c-4 (GTMUD-MxD) and CPUo Zoning district(s) to the St. Matthew's House CPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Homeless shelter and commercial Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Homeless shelter and commercial Original PUD Name: Devoe Pontiac PUD Ordinance No.: 97-14 and HEX Decision 2020-05 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: 12 50 25 Lot: 1 Block: K Subdivision: Glades Unit 2 Metes & Bounds Description: See Boundary Survey and Exhibit'D' of the PUD document Plat Book: 10 Page #: 88 Property I.D. Number: 34840520004 and 00390000008 Size of Property: Irregular ft. x Irregular ft. = 517928+/Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _1 1 .89+/ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: Airport Road south of Glades Blvd 2001 and 2601 Airport Road S. PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 Q ❑■ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑ Mixed Use ❑ Other: ❑ Industrial March 4, 2020 Page 2 of 11 CO*Br County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N C-4-GTMUD-MXD Commercial S C-4-GTMUD-MXD Commercial E RMF-16, David A. Gallman Estate PUD Multi Family Residential W Airport Road ROW, C-3-GTMUD-MXD & C-4-GTMUD-MXD Commercial 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: N.A. / N.A. / N.A. Lot: N.A. Block: N.A. Subdivision: N.A. Plat Book: N.A. Page #: N.A. Property I.D. Number: N.A. Metes & Bounds Description: N.A. 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/]ndex.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: Glades Golf and Country Club Inc. Mailing Address: 174 Teryl Road City: Naples Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: FL Zip: 34112 State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: March 4, 2020 Page 3 of 11 Co*er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov EVALUATION CRITERIA 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 public 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 conditions 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 ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. March 4, 2020 Page 4 of 11 CO*Br County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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? Yes, August 27, 2020 (HEX No. 2020-05) PDI to add interconnection to adjacent norther property. 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 application "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. March 4, 2020 Page 5 of 11 CO*Br County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): St. Matthew's House, Inc. Address: 2001 Airport Road S. City: Naples Telephone: 239-774-0500 Cell: State: FL Fax: E-Mail Address: vann@stmatthewshouse.org Address of Subject Property (If available): 2001 and 2601 Airport Road S. City: State: ZIP: r20PERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: 15/ 25 / Lot: 1 Block: K Subdivision: Glades Unit 2 Metes & Bounds Description: See Boundary Survey Plat Book: 10 Page #: 88 ZIP: 34112 Property I.D. Number: 34840520004 and 00390000008 TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System ❑ b. City Utility System x❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ Provide Name: d. Package Treatment Plant ❑ (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System ❑ I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I Check applicable system: a. County Utility System ❑ b. City Utility System x❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ Provide Name: d. Private System (Well) ❑ 150 homeless shelter beds and 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses 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: Connections are existing March 4, 2020 Page 6 of 11 Co*er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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. N.A. 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. N.A. 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. March 4, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Co*er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Parcel ID Numbers 34840520004 and 00390000008 Airport Road (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for commercial planned unit development (C 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 and 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 equitable 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 into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development. Owner Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Owner Printed Name 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 Seal Notary Signature: March 4, 2020 Page 8 of 11 CO*er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 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 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 0 ❑ Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre -application meeting notes 1 x❑ ❑ 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 0 ❑ List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 ❑ ❑ Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 0 ❑ 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. ❑ ❑ 0 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)' ❑ 0 ❑ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) ❑ 0 ❑ Checklist continues on next page March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 11 CACT Count y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 %" x 11" copy ❑ ❑ ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24" x 36" — Only if Amending the PUD ❑ 0 ❑ Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 ❑ 0 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ 0 *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: El School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart El 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: ❑ I 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 March 4, 2020 Page 10 of 11 CPeer Count y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5t' and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. --D- L�-� May 21, 2021 Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Printed named of signing party March 4, 2020 Page 11 of 11 CO*Br County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): St. Matthew's House, Inc. Address: 2001 Airport Road S. City: Naples Telephone: 239-774-0500 Cell: State: FL Fax: E-Mail Address: vann@stmatthewshouse.org Address of Subject Property (If available): 2001 and 2601 Airport Road S. City: State: ZIP: r20PERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: 15/ 25 / Lot: 1 Block: K Subdivision: Glades Unit 2 Metes & Bounds Description: See Boundary Survey Plat Book: 10 Page #: 88 ZIP: 34112 Property I.D. Number: 34840520004 and 00390000008 TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System 0 b. City Utility System ❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ Provide Name: d. Package Treatment Plant ❑ (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System ❑ I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I Check applicable system: a. County Utility System ❑ b. City Utility System x❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ Provide Name: d. Private System (Well) ❑ Total Population to be Served: Additional Office Space 66,000 SF Additional Shelter Beds 46 Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: Average Daily: B. Sewer -Peak: 14,960 gpd Average Daily: 22,440 gpd If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: Connections are existing March 4, 2020 Page 6 of 11 Project Name: St. Matthew's House Commercial Date: 7/29/2021 Additional a er and Wastewater Demand Calculations Development Type: Commercial (Additional Office Use and Additional Shelter beds) Additional Office Space 66,000 SF Additional Shelter Beds 46 Beds Average Daily Flow (ADF) Design Criteria per Chapter 64E-6 of the State of Florida Department of Health Florida Administrative Code, Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems. Office: Additional Beds and Meals Using 15 gpd/100 SF for 66,000 SF Using 100 GPD/Bed for 46 beds Using 5 GPD/meal X 2 ml/bed 46 beds Average Daily Flow = 0.15 gpd/sf x 66,000 SF = 9,900.0 GPD 100 gpd/bed x 46 beds = 4,600.0 GPD 5 gpd/meal x 2 46 beds = 460.0 GPD Total Average Daily Flow in GPD = 14,960.0 GPD Total Average Daily Flow in GPM = 10.4 gpm Peak Hour (PH) Factor x Average Daily Flow Factor = 4 P = 0.187 in formula from Ten States Standards Peak Flow = 59,840.0 GPD = 41.56 gpm Max Day (MD) Max Day = Max Day Factor x Average Daily Flow Max Day Factor = 1.5 Max = 22,440 GPD = 15.58 gpm ��Ot oN HE GULF �0 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 295 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 TELEPHONE (239) 213-5051 • UTILITIESFORMS@NAPLESGOV.COM July 28, 2021 Javier Martinez GradyMinor 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 0artinez@gradyminor.com Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for St Matthew's House Addition, 2001 & 2601 Airport Pulling Rd. S. — Folio #34840520004 & #00390000008 Dear Mr. Martinez: In response to the request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service (domestic and /or irrigation use) for the proposed St. Matthew's House Addition, received via email on July 27, 2021, this office has reviewed the subject site for available potable water service. Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following: 1. The subject property is located within the City of Naples potable water service area. 2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project. 3. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval (water only). 4. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project's engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate reviews and analysis. This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site development shall remain the developer's responsibility to design, permit and construct. Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District. Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office, please do not hesitate to call this office at (239) 213-5051 or e-mail dmking@naplesgov.com. Page 1 of 2 Sincerely, Denise King Utilities Permit Coordinator Cc: Bob Middleton, Utilities Director Michelle Baines, P.E., Deputy Utilities Director David Banter, Utilities Inspector Page 2 of 2 0 St. Matthew's House CPUD — PL20210000176 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. Narrative Statement Describing Request. The proposed CPUD rezone seeks to unify all contiguous properties under the ownership of St. Matthew's House, Inc. into a singular zoning District. The properties are currently zoned C-4 (GTMUD-MXD) and PUD (Devoe Pontiac PUD). The properties, with the exception of the northernmost Tract A of the proposed PUD, are located within Mixed Use Activity Center #16 of the Future Land Use Element. The properties have been developed with a 104 bed men's and women's homeless shelter, restaurant, and thrift store with ancillary uses. The existing site is developed with approximately 64,000 square feet of commercial uses, in addition to the homeless center use. The PUD proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150, and request 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses on the 11.89+/- acre site. Under the current zoning, there is no limitation on the maximum permissible commercial square footage. The proposed PUD will limit the general commercial uses to a maximum of 130,000 square feet. The Conceptual PUD Master Plan identifies the conceptual development proposed for the site. No new access points are proposed to the properties. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B) 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 properties are currently zoned as either C-4, General Commercial or PUD, which permit a wide variety of commercial land uses. The homeless shelter was originally as an 84-bed facility and expanded to 104 beds through the Conditional Use process in 1999. St. Matthew's House, Inc. has since acquired the Devoe PUD property and the former Devoe Pontiac new and used car dealership. The majority of the 11.89± acre site is located within the Mixed Use Activity Center which authorizes a wide variety of commercial land uses consistent with those permitted within the Activity Center land use designation. The properties are well suited for St. Matthew's House Inc. to continue to develop their campus for social service, retail and office uses. Areas of the site which are presently underdeveloped can be repurposed to increase commercial square footage, as well increase the number of homeless shelter beds on Tract A only. The site has water and sewer July 12, 2021 W GradyiN inor Page 1 of 7 SMHPUD-21 Evaluation Criteria-rl.docx C M I Engineers • band Survcyors • PIanncrs • I,andscapc Archttccts Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyminor.com services and has existing access points that have been permitted by Collier County. All necessary infrastructure is in place to serve the proposed PUD. 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 public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicant controls land within the Devoe Pontiac CPUD. 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.) Future Land Use Element: Policies 5.3 and 5.4 require that rezoning applications must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.3 also provides that properties deemed consistent by policy may be combined with other properties as part of a rezoning application. The proposed CPUD is partially located within Mixed Use Activity Center #16 and is located within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Tract A of the PUD is currently zoned C-4 and was previously determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use by compatibility exception. The proposed non-residential uses are consistent with those permitted in the Mixed Use Activity Center Future Land Use Designation and the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Policy 5.5 discourages urban sprawl by supporting development of properties within the urban area where public facilities are in place to provide necessary services to these properties. The Subject property is within the Urban Boundary and has all necessary public services to support the proposed non-residential uses within the PUD. Policy 5.6 requires that rezoning applications must be determined to be compatible and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The subject property has been developed with a variety of non-residential uses and has existing buffers in place along the eastern property boundary, adjacent to The Point at Naples apartments. Properties to the North, South and West are all commercial properties having the same general intensity of uses proposed to be developed within the St. Matthew's House CPUD. The PUD also contains development standards which will provide for appropriate building heights and setbacks for future development on the property. Page 2 of 7 Policy 5.13 establishes that any property deemed consistent by compatibility exception is consistent with the Growth Management Plan; therefore, the proposed uses, consistent with the C-4 zoning district are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 encourage interconnections between properties where feasible. The St. Matthew's House CPUD provides internal interconnections within the PUD and does share an access to Airport -Pulling Road via Great Blue Drive with The Point at Naples apartment complex (David A. Gallman Estate PUD). The northern property boundary is Glades Boulevard, and a driveway connection exists to Glades Boulevard. To the south, a vehicular interconnection is not feasible with the Court Plaza office and retail center as it is fully developed, and an interconnection is not feasible without modifying their internal circulation and parking. Pedestrian interconnectivity is provided via the sidewalk located within the Airport -Pulling Road right-of-way. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: The properties have been previously cleared and developed, with the exception of a 0.29± acre area which also serves as a component of the stormwater management system for the property and native vegetation preservation area. The small upland within the existing Devoe PUD property will be retained and has been identified as a Preserve on the St. Matthew's House CPUD Conceptual PUD Master Plan. The preservation of this area is consistent with the intent of Policy 6.1.1. Public Facilities Elements: Water and Sewer service is provided by the City of Naples. A traffic impact analysis has been prepared for the CPUD and concludes that there are no level of service impacts associated with the proposed rezoning and is; therefore, consistent with Policy 1.3 of the Transportation Element. 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. The property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards. Buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Pointe apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD. The PUD document does contain development standards that are appropriate for development and redevelopment of the PUD and may be deemed compatible with the surrounding properties. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Page 3 of 7 The Devoe Pontiac CPUD Master Plan identifies open space, which meets or exceeds the Land Development Code (LDC) requirements for open space for commercial development. Additionally, the CPUD contains maximum building coverage requirements, which may provide additional open space on each developable tract. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The project is subject to concurrency and adequate infrastructure must be in place to support future development on the site. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Devoe Pontiac CPUD is an existing PUD, which is surrounded by zoned and developed land and there is no opportunity for expansion of the PUD. 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 CPUD does include a deviation related to the calculation of required building square footage per person per LDC Section 5.05.04, Group Housing. This deviation will allow for expansion of the shelter building on Tract A of the Conceptual PUD Master Plan. A deviation has also been requested from the parking standards from Group Housing, which will allow for fewer parking spaces serving the shelter component of the project, due to the few, if any, persons occupying the shelter, and that administrative parking is located proximate the administrative offices located in Tract B of the Conceptual PUD Master Plan. The deviations and justification are provided in the PUD rezone application materials. LDC Section 10.02.08 F - Reauirements for Amendments to the Official Zonine Atlas F. Nature of requirements of Planning Commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed change is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, please refer to the consistency description provided in item C above. Page 4 of 7 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern is supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C- 4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD. The property has been developed under the existing zoning designation and surrounding commercial properties to the North, South and West have also been developed. The property to the east of Tract B is an existing 290-unit multi -family apartment complex (David A. Gallman Estate PUD) and has a shared access via Great Blue Drive with the proposed CPUD. To the east of Tract A are multi -family dwellings that are part of the Glades community and are separated from the group home by an existing solid fence. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The CPUD is existing and the amendment will not create an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The properties as they exist today are illogically drawn. The southernmost building that formerly housed the automobile dealership was constructed across the C-4 and Devoe Pontiac PUD boundary. The rezoning to a singular zoning district will allow the entire property under singular ownership to be developed utilizing common development standards. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. St. Matthew's House Inc. owns all properties included in the proposed CPUD. The two zoning districts in existence today bifurcate the property and creating a single zoning district with standardized development standards will allow future development and redevelopment under a unified development plan. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed CPUD will not adversely influence living conditions in the area. The property is currently developed with group housing, restaurant and catering facility, a retail store and administrative offices. The site can accommodate expansion of the existing uses and will do so utilizing development standards as identified in the PUD document. 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 Page 5 of 7 peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. A traffic impact analysis has been prepared for the proposed PUD which concludes that the rezoning does not result in an excessive increase in traffic congestion, nor does it result in types of traffic inappropriate for the area. The PUD has frontage on Airport -Pulling Road which is classified as an arterial roadway and is a major north/south corridor in Collier County, which is designed to accommodate all types of vehicular traffic. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. All proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed by the SFWMD as part of an environmental resource permit, which includes a review of the surface water management system to ensure compliance with approved discharge rates for this drainage basin. The overall drainage system is in place. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The changes will have no impact to light or air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed change should have no impact on property values on adjacent property. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed rezoning of the existing commercially zoned property to a unified PUD will not be a detriment to improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The applicant owns property within the CPUD and has the authority to seek amendments to their entitlements. Any property owner within the CPUD has the authority to propose amendments; therefore, there is no grant of special privilege associated with the amendment. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Page 6 of 7 Yes, the two different zoning designations governing the property today have different development standards and permitted uses. Rezoning the property to a singular zoning district with consistent uses and standard and a unified master plan will result from the change. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The suggested changes are not out of scale with the neighborhood. Most of the property is within a designated mixed use activity center which provides for a wide variety of non-residential uses. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find other sites within Collier County that could accommodate the proposed uses; however, the applicant currently owns all of the property included in the proposed rezoning application. 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. The site has been improved with buildings, parking and water management system. Future development and redevelopment will require little site alteration of the site. 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 [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There are no existing or anticipated public facilities deficiencies that impact the site. 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. The CPUD contains appropriate development standards and commitments, which will insure the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Page 7 of 7 Co 6Y County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Pre-Applicati n Me ting Notes PU On I TT Petition Type: C Date and Time: Wednesdav 2/10/21 A Assigned Planner: _ John T i ,L/442y$- Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information [` 3® P.1 1 W_ Project Name: St. Matthew's House X Amendment (.E�7�PuDV1- TJ �QV� p Pig J PL#: 20210000176 PropertylD#: 34840520004 Current Zoning: South, Naples FL 34112 Project Address: 2001 Airport Rd City: State: Zip: Applicant: Grady Minor - Sharon Umpenhour Agent Name: D . Wayne Arnold, AICP Agent/Firm Address: 3800 via Del Rey Property Owner: St. Matthews House Inc. Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 5 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: _Phone: 239-947-1144 Bonita Springs, FL City: State: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: 34134 Zip: V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 1 of 5 �o er unty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountvfl.gov Meeting Notes NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093 �o�✓i♦y!� — N/i� /��</crfl�Gc Td K � �`.� - M fd-+, S�L3m �.— �i�f!r� � I l � � ai 6i M FEW MMA 6 to , r LL If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton(a).naplesgov.com Allyson Holland AMHolland(cDnaplesgov.com Robin Singer RSinger@naplesgov.com Erica Martin emartinCQnaplesgov.com Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 2 of 5 (:: 8Y COT ntY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes CO *A P PL y'✓\�V " SL[E fAL<L(4,Ve,4-- — �.i2_ AJOT-S OAY PIA--&F— h r+w s PV A:rYA--c j U&.j _ ,Ll,l� z Sd-wY e,- — S 1e M ► I L, o .,;; Pi -GE 3 - 1 'r"1 _ rN 3.C.L ►�w,U' Se-n-P.Z -- lY4ny- 7vFti+Pc -Tc - S� ezu -iL 6x., --- 3. S Z v", iT �'S - �u ►R-S' C` L!� Jl k — t i �, Stc`-a IL �C f� C�� f2 �2 G t ��as L e .� lay-_) G 1 RAC&, �>tio►+n �Qr 1�,)C7a✓ �t l (n say'+ L l t g t 7 *;�� _ /+ PjLe �) n i o 6,2 V L) F R 'KK,eif,eO L��fAQL-as /ti4�v (slur i�i~ iol Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Saw— 0- PA 3 Disclaimer. Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 3 of 5 CoTer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliereov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. Comp Planning: PL20210000176-St. Matthew's House CU Amendment (CU). The subject site (parcel number #34840520004) is Urban Designation; Urban Mixed Use District; Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Part of the subject site is also located within the Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). The FLUE states that the purpose of the Urban Designated areas with the greatest residential densities, and areas in close proximity, which have or are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land uses be located within them. Accordingly, the Urban area will accommodate residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The intent of the Bays hore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The Collier County FLUE states that group housing is a permitted use within the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Updated 7/24/2018 page I- �), 4, ThomasClarkeVEN From: SawyerMichael Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:51 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Cc: KellyJohn Subject: Saint Matthews House Pre app Please check the TIS required box on the pre app checklist as well as methodology on the next page with a note that methodology will be by email to staff. Please also add the following notes: Transportation Planning: Methodology meeting by email required and provide note on TIS cover sheet that fee will be collected at time of COndk_4eTTaT-ljse submittal. Address all transportation elements of the GMP. Provide both ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. Provide trip limit based on TIS using standard language: "The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed two-way PMpeak 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. " Thanks, Michael Sawyer Principal Planner Growth Management Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 michael.sawyer cr colliercount�fl.gov 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. 4-3,0, ThomasClarkeVEN From: CookJaime Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 4:02 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: RE: Notes for St Matthews House(CU) - PL20210000176 Hi Thomas, The only comment for Environmental would be: If the Master Plan is being updated, then please provide that there is no preservation requirement on the Master Plan. Thanks! Respectfully, Jaime Cook Principal Environmental Specialist CO 7eY COullty 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: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 11:25 AM PL - -) '_� c: ThomasClarkeVEN From: TempletonMark Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2021 6:42 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: PL20210000176 Landscape Pre App Note Hi Thomas, Please insert the following into the pre app notes for the amendment to the CU for St. Matts scheduled for 02/10 at 1:30 Landscape: If updated master plan is required, label the perimeter landscape buffers on the updated master plan. Respectfully, Mark Templeton, RLA Principal Planner/Landscape Review C;O 7eY County Development Review Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.2475 How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! Disclaimer- this email is not to be interpreted as an endorsement or approval of any pennit, plan, project, or deviation from the Land Development Code. 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. ThomasClarkeVEN From: BellowsRay Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:30 PM To: Wayne Arnold Cc: Sharon Umpenhour; KellyJohn; LauraDeJohnVEN; PaulRenald; ThomasConsuela; ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: RE: St. Matthews House Pre -application meeting Hi Wayne, A new pre -application meeting isn't required since the CU process is similar to the PUD rezone process. However, the assigned planner for the PUD Amendment/Rezone (Laura DeJohn) may want to schedule a follow-up meeting with you to review the proposed changes to Devoe PUD Amendment/Rezone that seeks to add the adjacent 5.24 acre C-4 zoned property. I have discussed this change with John Kelly and he will work with Thomas Clarke to revise the pre -application meeting notes to reflect that the request is for a PUD rezone. It is my understanding that the revised notes should be ready later today or tomorrow. In addition, I have copied Renald Paul to see if he can revise this PL Number in City View to reflect the change from a CU to a PUD Amendment/Rezone application. Please let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Co106r County Exceeding expectations, every day! TO us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvgT. From: Wayne Arnold <WArnold@gradyminor.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:29 PM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Sharon Umpenhour <SUmpenhour@gradyminor.com> Subject: St. Matthews House Pre -application meeting 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. Good afternoon Ray. As a follow-up to our telephone conversation yesterday, we have decided not to pursue the conditional use to increase the bed count at the shelter, but rather will pursue a PUD amendment to the Devoe PUD and include the shelter property, as well as, the St. Matthew's House thrift store property. This will allow all of the property under their contiguous ownership to be combined into a single zoning classification and also allow for the proposed expansion of the beds on the shelter parcel. We would like to have the PL number, PL20210000176, re -issued as a PUD amendment for the properties identified as Parcel ID: 34840520004 and P&.3L45-,L 00390000008. We respectfully request a waiver of a second pre -application meeting and would like the $500 fee paid for the CU pre -application meeting on February 10th to be applied to the PUD amendment application fee. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Thank you, Wayne D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Planning Director GradyMinor 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Phone - 239.947.1144 Fax - 239.947.0375 Web - http://www.jzradMinor.com DISCLAIMER: This communication from Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., along with any attachments or electronic data is intended only for the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure. The recipient agrees and accepts the following conditions: The electronic file/data is for informational purposes only and is the responsibility of the recipient to reconcile this electronic file/data with the approved and certified "plan of record" along with actual project site conditions. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. reserves the right to revise, update and improve its electronically stored data without notice and assumes no responsibility due to a virus or damages caused by receiving this email. 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. k,- 3 E. 2..- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountvfl.gov �O eY Ci61411ty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -in Sheet PL# 20210000176 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email ❑ Maggie Acevedo North Collier Fire 252-2309 macevedo@northcollierfire.com ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows @colIiercountyfLgov ❑ Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown @colIiercountyfLgov ❑ Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator 252-2658 Alexandra.casanova@col IiercountyfLgov ❑ Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Zoning Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov 10` Jamie Cook Prin. Environmental Specialist 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jackie De la Osa North Collier Fire 252-2312 jdelaosa@northcollierfire.com ❑ Maggie DeMeo North Collier Fire 252-2308 pdemeo@northcollierfire.com ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov 4?1�'Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jeremy Frantz LDC Manager 252-2305 Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov 1 1 Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov ^/ L�1 Cormac Giblin, AICP Development Review -Planning Manager 252-5095 Cormac.giblin@colliercountyfl.gov Nancy Gundlach, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Richard Henderlong Zoning Principal Planner 252-2464 richard.henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Anita Jenkins Planning & Zoning Director 252-5095 Anita.jenkins@colliercountyfl.gov hn Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov Parker Klopf Zoning Senior Planner 252-2471 Parker.klopf@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Troy Komarowski North Collier Fire 252-2521 tkomarowski@northcollierfire.com ❑ Sean Lintz North Collier Fire 597-9227 slintz@northcollierfire.com ❑ Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 4 of 5 Ar bounty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountvfl.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 rich ard. orth@colIiercountyfLgov ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov Derek Perry Assistant County Attorney 252-8066 Derek.perry@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com ❑ Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2708 james.sabo@colliergo.net Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@collie rcountyfLgov ❑ Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Connie Thomas Client Services Supervisor 252-6369 Consuela.thomas@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jessica Velasco Client Services 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Daniel Zunzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email —W6�tp.110 h�L �Y✓ i.c w4 t. �'i� 1 Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 5 of 5 Co ler County Growth Management Department Zoning Division n6(l l.. PL20210000176 -St. Matthew's Hol ��L161��i✓ ��ec�u�S G m Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. r -PRE-APP INH Assigned Ops Staff: Thomas Clarke Jeremy Frantz,(Ops Staff) STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION • Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request— Sharon Umpenhour 239.947.1144 • Agent to list for PL# - D. Wayne Arnold, AICP • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) — St. Matthew's House, Inc. • Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: Conditional Use • Please include any Surveys, Drawings or Plans for the petition: Details about Project: Amend the existing conditional use to increase the air conditioned square footage by enclosing an open terrace and reconfigure dormitory space to increase the number of beds from 104 to 130. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Sharon Umpenhour Title: Senior Planning Technician Email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com Phone: 239.947.1144 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny Condo mina -Client Services Supervisor danny.condomina@colliercountyfl Phone: 239-252-6866 Created April 5, 2017 Location: K:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104.239.252-2400 • www.colliergov.net Co der County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the K C. CIL.CIILdb'C UI JUUI IIILCICJL: Name and Address % of Ownership If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address I % of Ownership If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address I % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Co er C014nty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. If the DroDerty is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. list the name of the �Clleldl d[IU/Ur IIr111LeU pdrLners: Name and Address % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address I % of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or Of I II.CI J, II Q l..UI PUI CILIUI I, PCJI LI ICI JI IIPI UI LI UJ L. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Date of option: Date option terminates: Anticipated closing date: 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 or AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature Agent/Owner Name (please print) uate Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 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 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary ❑ ❑ Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre -application meeting notes 1Li 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 1Li 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 ❑ Q Traffic Impact Study_ �_ 6cLCzc`i-�-_fl i T�rw. _ c.F ; ;, , w. n kL- 1 Historical Survey 1 ❑ School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Li 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) ❑ El Checklist continues on next page February 1, 2019 Page 9 of 11 CAr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 %" x 11" copy El Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24" x 36" — Only if the PUD ❑ © E]Amending 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: 1 Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards L 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 Q Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams & David Berra ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer Dis rict: ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ® Other: O j'2i F CHc� ; recto ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION i/ 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 V 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 V Transportation Review Fees: Nc-v).� nJi_z e I m�ear,Nv f�Y V-,A A-(L_ © Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. ® Minor Study Review: $750.00 ® Major Study Review $1,500.00 February 1, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net D/ Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ❑ School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 51h and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Printed named of signing party Date February 1, 2019 Page 11 of 11 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL20210000176 1, Steve Brooder (print name), as Chief Operating Officer (title, if applicable) of St. Matthaves House, Inc. (company, If a livable), swear or affinn under oath, that I am the (choose one) ownerQapplicant Qcontract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Q. Grady minors associates. PA. and Colernan. Yovanovich a Koester, P.A. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 'Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the core. pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's `Managing Member" • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing the fact toe in it ar e. Si at STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Affidavit of Authorization and that S 4 2ort Date The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of physical presence or D online notarization this 4 day of Vv\-!�4 . 20 z, , by (printed name of owner or qualifier) Steve Srooderas coo � Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: U;d a personally known to me © Has produced a current drivers license $.r•' "1 Notary PubIKstlte of FIon da Jill M. Mesner © Has produced as identification. My arrascor=1 un HH oszroa p Aj Eapree 08n&2024 Notary Signature: M08-wA-00115\155 REV 3/4/2020 Color' r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the ercentage oT such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership St. Matthews House, Inc., Florida Not for Profit Corporation 100 2001 Airport Road S, Naples, FL 34112 Steve Brooder, COO Wimberly B Smith, CFO Joe Trachtenberg, Chairman Sam McCullough, Vice Chair Rich Grows, Treasurer Mimi Scofield, Secretary If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the ercentage oT interest: Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Color' r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, includingthe officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, orpartners: f 9. Name and Address % of Ownership N.A. Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, ortrust: Name and Address N.A. Date subject property acquired 2003 and 2013 ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Color' r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Agent/Owner Name (please print) May 3, 2021 Date Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Co*er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Paroel to Numbers 34840520004 and 003D000000B Airport Road (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 Commercial planned unit development ( C PUD) zoning. We hereby designate °aG=yM',�r=. ,°,„, o, . 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 and 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 equitable 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 into compliance with iZe s, cond o and safeg rds of the planned unit development. Owner Steve Brooder as COO of St. a House, Inc. Printed Name Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER r The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of physical presence or❑online notarization this U day of Y)AQ:AA_, 2021 by (printed name of owner or qualifier) Steve Brooderas coo or St. MaMews House, Inc. Su person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: Are personally known to me ❑Has produced a current drivers license .Je Notary Public Stele d Flanda ❑Has produced as identification. +° Jill M. Meaner a My Commis HH Esprtes 011iM2024 032704 �aFip Notary Signature: i March 4, 2020 Page 8 of 11 �xclnir_� LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00019'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please complete the following and email to GMD—Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section 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. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone)❑ OTHER PUD to PUD Rezone LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) S12, T50, R25 FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 34840520004 and 00390000008 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 2001 and 2601 Airport Road South • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy -needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Devoe Pontiac PUD PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) St. Matthew's House CPUD PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL # PL20190001689 Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) St. Matthew's House CPUD Please Return Approved Checklist By: E Email Applicant Name: Sharon Umpenhour ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Phone: 239-947-1144 Email/Fax: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 34840520004, 00390000008 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: ) � �/_ Date: 03/18/2021 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BF UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No 34840520004 Site Address*Disclaimer 2001 AIRPORT RD S Site City NAPLES Site Zone *Note 34112 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 5Al2 313000 K 15Al2 12 50 25 5.24 GLADES UNIT 2,THE BLK K LOT 1, AND THAT PARCEL IN SEC 12 TWP 50 RNG 25 DESC AS: COMM SW CNR SEC Legal 12 N 3529.68FT, N 89 DEG E 70FT TO POB; N 297.12FT, N 89DEG E 20OFT, S 297.12FT, S 89DEG W 20OFT TO POB, AND THAT PARCEL IN SEC 12-50-25 DESC AS: COMM SW CNR SEC 12, N 3195.32FT, N 89DEG E 70FT TO POB; N 334.46FT, N 89DEG E 200FT, S 334.36FT, S 89DEG W 20OFT TO POB Milla a Area O 78 Milla a Rates O *Calculations Sub./Condo 313000 - GLADES UNIT 2, THE School Other Total Use Code v 75 - ORPHANAGES, OTHER N PROFIT 5.016 6.4315 1 ON 11.4475 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 05/15/03 3291-2976 $ 0 03/05/03 3231-3352 $ 0 10/11/93 1873-514 $ 450,000 08/01/90 1553-26 $ 0 11/01/86 1231-2267 $ 3,188,100 09/01/81 938-1992 $ 1,481,000 2020 Certified Tax Roll (Subiect to Channel Land Value $ 3,144,400 (+) Improved Value $ 1,670,486 (_) Market Value $ 4,814,886 (-) 10% Cap $ 618,611 (_) Assessed Value $ 4,196,275 (_) School Taxable Value $ 0 (_) Taxable Value $ 0 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial Parcel No 34840520004 Site Address*Disclaimer 2001 AIRPORT RD S Site City NAPLES Site Zone *Note 34112 Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site 2601 Site Zone Parcel No 00390000008 Address AIRPORT Site City NAPLES *Note 34112 *Disclaimer RD S Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 5Al2 000100 013 5Al2 12 50 25 6.51 Legal 12 50 25 COM SW COR,N2506.24FT ,E 70FT TO POB, N688.52FT, E 200FT, S ,358.52FT, E 460FT, S 330FT, W 660FT TO POB Milla a Area O 135 Milla a Rates O *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code O 27 - EQUIPMENT SALES, REPAIR, BODY SHOPS 5.016 6.2924 11.3084 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 05/18/13 4925-857 $ 5,700,000 04/30/97 2309-667 $ 1,600,000 2020 Certified Tax Roll mihiart to rhanna) Land Value $ 4,252,300 +) Improved Value $ 4,090,954 (_) Market Value $ 8,343,254 (-) 10% Cap $ 72,889 (_) Assessed Value $ 8,270,365 (_) School Taxable Value $ 0 (_) Taxable Value $ 0 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial Site 2601 Site Zone Parcel No 00390000008 Address AIRPORT Site City NAPLES *Note 34112 *Disclaimer RD S Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. rA 3184183 OR: 3291 No 2976 Be= to 011Ical IK M)f of coma mm, n 15/15/2013 at /9:1701 OMTA! M. UM, CLM aC M 11.51 THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: OOC-.11 .71 James D. Vogel, Esq. hi•: Fla. Bar No. 0015373 rlMMls! ?NU Vogel Law Office, P.A. It Suite B, Midwest Title Bldg. 3936 Tamiami Trail North =Naples, Florida 34103 (239)262-2211 PREPARATION ONLY WITHOUT OPINION s SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED is made the 3� day of i�!�� , 2003, b JOHN R. WOOD individual) and as SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE of that certain T st Agreement Y , Y dated 12/12/88 and as amended, hereinafter called the Grantor, to ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, whose post office address is 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112, hereinafter called the grantee. (Wherever used herein the term " tor" artd "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal repre�e tip s ���� the individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations.). � WITNESSETH: valuable considerations, aliens, remises, releases, Collier County, Florida, Lot 1, Block K, The Plat Book 10, Page TOGETHER WITH all or in anywise appertaining. Unit Two, accon e Public Records the sum of $10.00 and other :reby grants, bargains, sells, I that certain land situate in thereof, as recorded in nty, Florida appurtenances thereto belonging GRANTOR further warrants that the within described property is not homestead property nor is it adjacent to Grantor's homestead, nor does any member of Grantor's family reside thereon, and that Grantor's address is 3255 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL 34103. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. The benefits and obligations hereunder shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Grantee, and the Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said property and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through and under Grantor, but against none other; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2002. L.\FILi8\008\01211\deed .rood oi.wpd *** OR: 3291 PG: 2917 *** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. STATE OF rhyvk COUNTY OF &&ij . The foregoing Speci 20,L_ certain T t Agreement dal Li\P1Ls8\00!\01211\deed rood 01.vpd N R. WOOD dividually and as Successor Trustee of that certain Trust Agreement dated 12/ 12/88 and as amended _t' { �rranty Deed was acknowl before me this J-J ' day of d as Successor Trustee of that i to me or who has produced 4 Y A y ryrOy nip WM sa C t h A [?A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89'41 '00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89°41 '00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89'41 '00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET- 2) THENCE SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET- 3) THENCE SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00,19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LOT 2 BLOCK K THE GLADES UNIT TWO j (PB 10, PG 88) I IMPROVED I FCM 3" ROUND I I NO ID I CONC IN PVC 0.23' N, 0.23' W o o S 0.19'00" E 255.00 FIR ----- LB 5151 FIR-------------- --------------------rl - S 0'18'50" E (P) LB 2052 I -- -- ��— o o w o I I cs I ZONE AE ti I 7.0' (NA VD 88) I o I � I 15.0' UE 10.0' UE (PB 10, PG 88) (OR 2150, PG 110J) I I O (OR 2150, PG 1100) Q0 (OR 2150, PG 1105) FIR o LB 5151 W LOT 1 p BLOCK K I I W THE GLADES UNIT TWO I I 3 0 (PB 10, PG 88) I IMPROVED I I `' a- co 2 I I I o o I N 20.0' UE (OR 1181, PG 924) Lu I o 20.0' D.E. I �I ^ a (PB 10, PG 88) I I 2 1. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY FOR FLORIDA EAST ZONE, 1983 DATUM WITH 2O11 ADJUSTMENT OBTAINED UTILIZING RTK GPS OBSERVATIONS ON THE FOOT NETWORK AND REFER TO THE EAST LINE OF AIRPORT PULING ROAD (CR 31) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING N 00'19'00" W. 2. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ABSTRACT OF TITLE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND/OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ALL MATTERS OF TITLE SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. J. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN FLOOD ZONE AE, HAVING A BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 7.0' AND 8.0' (NAVD 88), AND ZONE X HAVING NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, PER THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP # 12021C 0394 H, DATED MAY 16, 2012. FLOOD LINES SHOWN HEREON WERE OBTAINED FROM A COLLIER COUNTY GIS FILE AND ARE ASSUMED TO BE APPROXIMATE. 4. CERTAIN FEATURES REPRESENTED BY SYMBOLS MAY NOT BE SHOWN AT THEIR TRUE LOCATION AND/OR SCALE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEPICT THEM ON THIS MAP. 5. DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 6. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT ADDRESS ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, ENDANGERED WILDLIFE OR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, IF ANY, EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. 7. THIS CERTIFICATION IS ONLY FOR THE LANDS DESCRIBED HEREON. IT IS NOT A CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, SETBACKS, OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. 8. THIS SURVEY IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL OR THE DIGITAL SIGNATURE AND DIGITAL SEAL OF A LICENSED FLORIDA SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS SURVEY MAP ARE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SIGNING PARTY. 9. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, BELOW GROUND UTILITIES AND FOUNDATIONS WERE NOT LOCATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY. NO IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY. 10. BY SIGNING BELOW I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 5J-17.051, F.A.C, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. 11. DATE OF LAST FIELD WORK: 3/26 2021. 4 4" 4 4 I r.4 I 10.0' U.E. (OR 2267, PG 23-31) I � II I I FPK LB 5151 N 0'18'50" W 255.00' (P) POB FCM 3"X3" NO ID LEGEND POC POINT OF COMMENCEMENT PB PLAT BOOK POB POINT OF BEGINNING OR OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK FIP O FOUND IRON PIPE PG PAGE(S) FIR O FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD PSM PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER SIR • SET 5/8" IRON ROD w/CAP, L.B. #5151 LB LICENSED BUSINESS FCM ❑ FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT SPC STATE PLANE COORDINATES SCM ■ SET CONIC. MONUMENT w/ALUMINUM DISK, ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY LB. #5151 PUE PUBLIC UTILTTY EASEMENT FPK 0 FOUND PARKER KALON NAIL CUE COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT SPK SET PARKER KALON NAIL w/ALUMINUM UE UTILITY EASEMENT DISK, LB.# 5151 AE ACCESS EASEMENT FDH O FOUND DRILL HOLE DE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SDH 0 SET DRILL HOLE LME LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FMN FOUND LAG NAIL LBE LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT FND FOUND IRRE IRRIGATION EASEMENT FPL FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT (P) PLAT BSUE BONITA SPRINGS UTILITY EASEMENT (M) MEASURED NAVD NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (C) CALCULATED NGVD NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 (D) DEED ELEV ELEVATION INV INVERT ELEVATION RIM RIM ELEVATION A/C AIR CONDITIONING UNIT/PAD CONC CONCRETE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CPP CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE CHW CONCRETE HEADWALL TOB TOP OF BANK TOS TOE OF SLOPE EOW EDGE OF WATER q CENTER LINE EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT BOL • BOLLARD cr GREASE TRAP s SANITARY MANHOLE CO O CLEAN OUT SV ® SEWER VALVE I ZONE X (OR 5344, PG 2064) ( y \ IMPROVED �� Z 0 30, 60' 120' SCALE: 1" = 60' THIS PLAN MAY HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED FROM INTENDED DISPLAY SCALE FOR REPRODUCTION REASONS Lv Lv (OR 5344, PG 2064) / IMPROVED Lu Fti F FZ S 0 0 19'00" E 330.00' Fti FIR S 0'18'50" E (D) /Fti ILLEGIBLE ZONE AE l' 7.0' (NAVD 88) I O I O � O I LL of O W LL V C Z Z x � z / N41 Lv I a I FZ — zj � /�/FZ Z_ 2Y \ / Z/FZ 4 ZONE X N / F FZZJ Fti �Y nc \ L4 FZ / � FZ Zj � Fti FIR Zj Z j FZ z� � FZ Fti S 0 0 19'00" E 990.00' NO ID FIR S 0'18 50" f 631.48 (D) S 0'18'50" E 358.52' (D) LS 6405 I (OR 2384, PG 2235) IMPROVED AIRPORT PULLING RD (C.R. 31) (100' RIGHT-OF-WAY) 11=1 CATCH BASIN OD DRAINAGE MANHOLE MES [7�3 MITERED END l YARD DRAIN WV ® WATER VALVE W❑ WATER METER masm BACK FLOW PREVENTOR FIRE HYDRANT © POST INDICATOR VALVE O FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION ® BACTERIA SAMPLE POINT ARV + AIR RELEASE VALVE IRV ® IRRIGATION VALVE/ CONTROL VALVE GV ® GAS VALVE GSM © GAS METER/SERVICE GMM © GAS MARKER UTILITY POLE - WOOD gr UTILITY POLE - CONCRETE GA GUY ANCHOR OHS OVERHEAD WIRES 10.0' LANDSCAPE & BUFFER EASEMENT (OR 2267, PGS. 21-22) ZONE AE 7.0' (NAVD 88) N 0 0 19'00" W 1575.00' SIGN & LANDSCAPE EASEMENT (OR 2267, PGS. 17-18) -- --- --- --- --- --- WEST LINE OF SECTION 12 E LIGHT POLE Qr TELEPHONE MANHOLE TRS ❑T TELEPHONE RISER/BOX REVISION. REVISED UE PER COUNTY COMMENTS (6129121) NR © CABLE TELEVISION RISER/BOX QQ ELECTRIC MANHOLE ❑E ELECTRIC RISER/BOX/METER ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER Grad) TL � TRAFFIC LIGHT + UNDERGROUND UTILITY MARKER SIGN SIGN ON POLE { OAK TREE 4$ PALM TREE PINE TREE 0 2' POLY TUBE STUB OUT Civil Engineers • CPB CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK - FZ FZ FZ — APPROXIMATE FLOOD ZONE LINE I I —60.0' ACCESS EASEMENT / ! (OR 2267, PGS. 15-16) 'oo o I 0 0 0o I N N I 3 W I ^ /I 0 0 d- d- 2 I SIGN & LANDSCAPE EASEMENT (OR 2267, PGS. 19-20) ZONE X (OR 4925, PG 857) IMPROVED ZONE AE 7.0' (NAVD 88) / Fti o p F1 / o / / ZONE AE 1 /Fti 8.0' (NA VD 88) TTTTTTT.TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTO T W 717 8 52 (DTTT11 I FPK LB 5151 W I. FZ 0 oio a �I0 FZ FZ / -- - -- -- --- FZ N 0'1900" W 3195.32' N 0'18'50" W (D) FCM 4"x4" ILLEGIBLE FIR LS 6405 COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE IMPROVED COURT PLAZA 111 A CONDOMINIUM (OR 1859, PG 1710) IMPROVED COURT PLAZA ll A COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM (CPB 19, PG 98) IMPROVED COURT PLAZA A COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM (CPB 15, PG 18) IMPROVED N 0' 18 50" W (D) N 0'1900" W 2506.80' SW CORNER SEC 12-50-25 St. Matthew's House CPUD Amendment N Location Map W + E S DAVIS BLVD �� y 7 - il 4 Ir - �_ •''I _ v. 'Y j •� GLADES BLVD P Subject M Property's--�`� f� 4 ; 7- JOT J 19 ,� � � �� �•� � � 1, So rce: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community © GradyMinor 560 280 0 560 Feet Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 Scope of Project 3 Table A - Proposed Land Use Changes 3 Figure 1 — Project Location and Roadway Classification 3.] Master Concept Plan 3.2 Project Generated Traffic 4 Table B - Approved Trips vs. Proposed Land Uses Trips 4 Table lA —Existing Land Use Entitlements Trips Computations 4*1 Table 1B -Proposed CPUD Trips Computations 4*2 Existing + Committed Road Network 5 Project Traffic Distribution 5 Area of Significant Impact 5 Figure 2 — Project Traffic Distribution 5*1 Table 2A — "Net New Trips" Area of Impact/Road Classification 5*2 Table 2B — "Total Trips" Area of Impact/Road Classification 5.3 2020 thru 2025 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions 6 Table 3 - 2020 & 2025 Link Volumes 6*1 Table 4A - 2025 "Net New Trips" Link Volumes/Capacity 6*2 Table 4B - 2025 "Total Trips" Link Volumes/Capacity 693 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Conclusions It was determined that the proposed St. Matthew's House CPUD, which will increase the existing hand use entitlements from 104 shelter beds to 150 shelter beds and all other commercial hand use entitlements will remain the same, will not result in substantially more site -generated trips than the existing land use entitlements. More specifically, the net increase of 46 shelter beds will result in an additional twelve (12) two-way PM peak hour trips, which vvi11 not have a notable impact on the adjacent road network. If the St. Matthew's properties are developed to the maximum allowable existing entitlements and 150 shelter beds, then the CPUD will generate a dotal of 534 two-way PM peak hour trips versus the current trips cap of 522 two-wnv PM peak hour trips. Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that St. Matthew's House CPUD will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways, within the project's area of influence, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the CPUD. As determined, the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for the foreseeable future and the project will not create any off -site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Methodology On April 29, 2021, a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Methodology Report was submitted to the office of Collier County Transportation Planning Department. The $500. DO methodology meeting fee will he paid at the time of submitting the zoning application. A copy of the TES methodology has been provided in the appendix (refer to pages M1 thru M12). 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Scope of Project St. Matthew's House is an existing religious -based charitable and homeless shelter organization that consists of 104 shelter beds, restaurant, thrift store, administrative offices, and other ancillary uses. The various land uses/operations of St. Matthew's House are within several structures on two (2) contiguous properties under the ownership of St. Matthew's House, Inc. The subject properties are located on the east side of Airport -Pulling Road and south of Glades Boulevard, within Collier County, Florida. Currently, the properties have a combined land use entitlement that Will allow up to 130,000 square feet of mimed -use commercial and a 104-bed ALFAhomeless shelter. The intent of the proposed CPUD will be to unify the properties into a singular zoning district and increase the number of shelter beds from 104 to 150 beds. The allowable commercial entitlements (i.e., 130,000 square feet) will remain unchanged, -but will be clearly defined by the CPUD application. Ingress/egress for the various St. Matthew's properties will remain the same, and there are no additional access points being requested. Table A Proposed Land Use Changes Land Use Existing Proposed NetCh 9 e Entitlements Entitlements Commercial Retail 130 000 s.f. 130 000 s.£ None Shelter Beds or 104 Beds 150 Beds (+) 46 Beds ALF beds 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 0 o' I e 75 CL I a LOri bOOt OPiVB CIOper Wo Mercantile avenue I Outrigger Lane -o -Q g�vd I Progress Oue opc I iscnma�'n Horseshoe Dr N. Q � I � in v Domestic &YGnue Horseshoe Dr S. � v m Enterprise Ave Enterprise ivnue fl �I - L I NORTH 0 1W Napl Airport Exchange Av nue E N.T.S. c o o U Li Propspect Ave ' Radio Road LEGEND -LANE ARTERIAL 4-LANE ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR 2-LANE ARTERIAL 2-LANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL RAIL ROA[? 1 CL CL C v V) Naples Airport Estey Ave Terrce Av vis Boulevard ` Glades Blvd W1 I *** I k"" E %MTRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, IN . St. Matthew's House CPUD April 29,L 2021 too AW E OL L Project Location & Roadway Classification V7 FIGURE 1 301 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 1 ' I E TYPE ' ' L NDS PE BUFFER 15' WIDE TYPE 11E 'D' LANDSCAPE I� BUFFER 3� 1 " WIDE TYPE ►D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER it Gradvminor CerL of Guth. EB (it)05I 51 Geri. of Auth. LB 0003151 Bonita SpOngq: 39. ,17,1144 a- IV it. G ra dy4l a o ill re) rn -E9 1 5' U E (DR 2150, PG 11005 PG 1103 AND PG 1105) GLADES BOULEVARD E 1 ZONED: RMF-6 AkCT A USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. � �I� V V 9 V V rvanvvt��� Ulu 4747Vr QquVV '�v�vvcvv voav�a� cvv�4�vv v V 4 V 4 V'V 4 V 7�FlvVVVVV L { E 9 - co Plal m w PROJECT 30UNDARY N —15' WIDE TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER --1 ' ILL' I E TYPE ' B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: QAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL E7 GREAT BLUE DRIVE I EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE `A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 98-82) xST G I O' VVI DE TYPE +' LA I DS CA E BUFFER (SDP -2 NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 98-82) ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES 31100 k is DI".1 Rry Landscape Architects Dusfness 1W0 W002(36 LEGEND: 4 V V 4 4 4V4 C'�yV 4 V V V V V yj WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (DR 5699 PG 2572) (}.29 AC. I WATER MANAGEMENT PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) aDEVIATION LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE.- MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ST. CIA TTHEV S HOUSE CPZID EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAT AST .OT i a- 0 SCALE: 200' WHEN FL TTE1) X 11" SCALE: JOB CODE. JDATE- APRIL 2021 FILE NAME: E-181 C MUM Rvt4 3,0 2oom SHEET I OF Al DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Project Generated Traffic Trips that can be expected to be generated bv St. Matthew's House cuncent entitlements andthe proposed land use entitlements (i.e. W the guidelines established by the institute of T 5 more beds} were estimated based upon ransportation Engineers, Trig Generation Manual, 10" Edition. That is, historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project"s traffic. It was concluded that land use codes Assisted Living Facility ALF (LUC 254) and Shopping Center (LUC 820) were most appropriate in estimating the approved and anticipated land uses' trips. Trip generation computations for the "exiting land use entitlements" are shown in Table I A!, and for the " proposed amendment" land uses are depicted in Table ].B. The results are summarized below in Table B. Table B Approved Development Trips vs. Proposed Land Use Trips Da1*1y AM Peak Hour P'M Peak Hour Land Use (ADT) (vph) (vph) Existing Land Use Entitlements 69379 182 522 (130,000 s.f. Commercial Retail (,see Table IA) (see Table IA) (see Table ]A) and 104 shelter beds) Proposed Land Use Entitlements 6,498 191 534 (130,000 s.f. Commercial Retail (see Table 1B) (see Table 1B) (see Table JB) and 150 shelter beds) Net Change + 119 + 9 + 12 As determined, the propose. amendment Will not result in a substantial increase in "net new " peak hour trips above what is currently entitled. 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 TABLE 1A TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS St. Matthew's House CPUD EXISTING LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS land Use Cade Land Use Description 254 Assisted Living 820 Shopping Center Land Use Code Trip Period LUC 254 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ LUC 820 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ Build Schedule 104 Beds Trip Generation Equation T 2.60(X) T 0.19(X)= 63% Enter/ 37% ExitT = 0.26(X) = = 38% Enter/ 62% Exit Ln(T) = 0.68Ln(X)+5.57 = T = 0.5(X)+151.78= 62% Enter/ 38% Exit = Ln(T) = 0,.74Ln(X)+2.89 = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = 130,000 s.f. Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit 270 ADT 20 vph 27 vph 7,186 ADT 217 vph 660 vph Pass -by Trips per ITE= Ln(T) _-0.29Ln(X) + 5.00 = 36% Pass -by Rate Per Collier County ADT = Pass -by = 15% ADT and 25% AM & PM 12 / 7 vph io / 17 vph 135 / 82 vph 317 / 343 vph Pass -by Daily Traffic (ADT) = 1,r078 ADT Pass -by AM Peak Hour (vph) = 54 vph 27 /27 Pass -by PM Peak Hour (vph) = 165 vph 83/82 New Daily Traffic (ADT) = 6,108 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 163 vph New PM Peak Hour (vph) = 495 vph TOTALS Daily Traffic (ADT) 6,379 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = 182 Kph PM Peak Hour (vph) = 522 Kph vph vph 108 / 55 vph 234 / 261 vph 120/ 62 vph 244 / 278 vph DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 TABLE 16 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS St. Matthew's House CPUD EXISTING + PROPOSED LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS Land Use Code Land Use Descrip 254 Assisted Living 820 Shopping Center tion Land Use Code Trip Period LUC 254 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ LUC 820 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph)..- Build Schedule 150 Beds Trip Generation Equation T = 2,60(X) T = 0.19(X) 63% Enter/ 37% Exit = T = 0.26(X) = 38% Enter/ 62% Exit = Ln(T) = 0.68Ln(X)+5.57 = T = 0.5(X)+151.78= 62% Enter/ 38% Exit = Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X)+2.89 = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = 130,000 s.f. Total T�� � 390 ADT 29 vph 39 vph 7,186 ADT 217 vph 660 vph 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = Pass -by Trips per ITE= Ln(T) _-0.29Ln(X) + 5.00 = 36% Pass -by Rate Per Collier County ADT = Pass -by = 15% ADT and 25% AM & PM TOTALS Trips EnterlExit 18 / 11 vph 15 / 24 vph 135 / 82 vph 317 / 343 vph Pass -by Daily Traffic (ADT)...- 1,F078 ADT Pass -by AM Peak Hour (vph) = 54 Kph 27 /27 Pass -by PM Peak Hour (vph) = 165 vph 83 /82 New Daily Traffic (ADT) = 6,108 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 163 vph New PM Peak Hour (vph) = 495 vph Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ 6r498 ADT 191 Kph 534 vph vph vph 108 / 55 vph 234 / 261 vph 126 / 65 vph 249 / 285 vph ,+. Z DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Existing + Committed Road Network Figure 1 and Table 2A provide a detail of the surrounding E + C roadways. Table 2A also depicts the nearby roadways respective minimum level of service performance standards and capacity. Project Traffic Distribution The project's traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network based upon logical means of ingress/egress; current and future traffic patterns in the area and the location of surrounding land uses. Figure 2 and Table 2A provide a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage of trips generated. Table 2A and Table 2B depict the of '` net new" traffic assignments and the "total trips" to nearby links, respectively. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%, 2% and 3%criteria {i.e., if the project's traffie is 2% or more of a roadways adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a signif cant impact upon that link}. Table 2A describes the "net new" project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads that were identified as being within the projects area impact are shown in Table 2A. Also, Table 2B reflects the "total site -generated trips" assignment to the adjacent read network. 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 0 CD O c ir TI -W I to CUD) 7% > Golden Gate Pkwy 8�� Longboat Drive Clipper Way Mercantile Avenue Outrigger Lane eta I unn Progress ° Proue � �4 'SGhm Horseshoe Or N. o � I a co I > Domestic &Gnule A, Horseshoe Dr S. � m° � 15% Enterprise Ave Enterprise Avenue 0 �I U � NORTH o � Nap s Airport Exchange Av nue � �•F•�- v � v Propspect Ave °' 15% vi � Radio Road � 7� �_73 Aft LEGEND � 00%..- Naples Airport R ' Estey Ave LO On Terre Av M10% Davis Boulevord �% des Blvd 47 CD CL CLI 0 -0 0 0 OL PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT %MTRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. St. Matthew's House C D April 29, 2021 15% Project -Generated Traffic Distribution 0 0 FIGURE 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 0 0 0 0 0 ' wz z z z IMMEMEM 000 0 00 000 zzz z zz zzz AMP -W C� C CL 6 C C C 0 a0 C10 Lr) Nr CN (D m C C C C C C C C C C ci C C C C Cq C Cq C Ce) CN �� Il CL U) 0 al L ■ Us cl 2 AC ac CL I qqr- IN N m N CL CL a 400 6 L X i5z z z . Lm a. fn 00 C\1 Cy") LO N Low ya CL a. .� 1011� :OX0 18-�C, NOCQ O"-%Q LOCLOU') CL qc— CO Nt (0 M d C u O E conC C C C C � C C C C C — CD co[ cri cq cq csj 0 > mi CL 0 LLI LU J w w Lij 3: 3: 0 3: 3: Lij 3: 3: l.l.l W Z W w 3: !L{ LLI CVMMMM TMMMM C C C L6 C 00 C CD LO = CN -r-- lqr- TIWW IrMMM' C)C C C C C C C C C C C 00 000 C CD � 00 00 C C C IN CN CN C' �- � CN C CY) W Q 0 W ❑❑ W W W 0 000000 000 0 00 coo WORSE (D CCU (0 tip Nr '" "' '', (D .0 w rNms W) cis cc a . W CZ MID `�.' Lr) CL . ..� ,j CL 0 > 0 co > co j -- " C3 -�` cc tf a) C) ca E 5 m 0 > 0 ," .Mid cz cu M w 0 j CL m� C, CL Lm NX I M r. MV 0 0 CL .� 0 Fm Ir MID c ' F- I 0 0 E • f is CN 0 qt tr) m CD CN co rTT��RRff / 0. iL C) 0 CD m -0 C� C� C! C� C� t U50 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 m cm LU J m Q H AINNNI r i� U) U) U) (f) U 0 w (0 0 LLI LU W 00 0 0 0 0 ■ LU E Z rr�.rrr " 0 '14< 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z z z z z *04� %0'%K 0 0 0 u CY) LO 00 (D (.0 "Ict CY) qc;r CO T— 00 r%%- co " CV5 .4(6 CY5 r C C r- 4 al " N N IN CN CN� cn N N cn C cq m E m c 0) co z ud 3: Lu 001 CL Z Issm r ru.e L WRON CL CY) r�-- 'rNNNN`N (C) r44__ (N (Y) (N L c C! `~- L CL 0 L L. OL JCL ■ IM (D 00 Lr) � CD C� C� � CY C C� C" CL�� 00cq cq � CLO Nr Sam CL C CL LL AW 0 CD C:, ON Lo (D Lr) Lo C C) Lr) C � � � C C\j C C C C C C INNER �..� CL R�> cn � 0 LU W W LU UJ LLI 0 0 W W CL 4) ca 000000 000 C.) 00 coo CD(D C w 4z MT C C w w 41 0) 00 IV cm C ca ii �` �— r ..j C ANNNJ (3 t --R > 0 > m ,_ 0 0 _ 0 E �e CL @PW > CL 0 tu 0 > CL C CL a rs r� 1�- IN- a, 0 0 0 Vw m .� 0 • [ a� I■■Fllllllllllllllllllllll IL (L■■ ■ w LU CD C) CD CD CDI CD CDI CDC) c iCej = 6 6 cj 0 CI) Ni L6 r IM 0 C • DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 2020 thru 2025 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2020 thru 2025 project build -out traffic conditions, two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction,, and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction and annual growth rates were derived from the 2020 Collier County AUIR Report. Using the annual growth rake, the 2025 background traffic conditions were determined, which are depicted in Table 3. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips (trip bank) identified in the 2020 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season, peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The vested trips "+" 2035 background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 3. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2025 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 4A provides a summary of the 2020 thru 2025 traffic conditions "+" the project's "net new" trips and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. Table 4B depicts the 2025 traffic conditions the project's "total trips" and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build -out. R DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 uj J m Q H ■60 0 #0 OrT 0 C) 0 N 12 1. m T- CL CL CN LO hoc cn 19� N N L-M to N N N .CD 2, qe mRt c as W LO C > CL z OL 0 CL m C N N 04 N CAI C C] as m C LO 0 C CL C 04 Co 4P 0 -0 > j EL Q Lm Rpm Y lid 0 m Ce) C cei 4 L6 6 � DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 a w J m a . CN -JI+r CL E r �rrr ■� CL 0 OD 1 i C C m + C4 wry LN ■ a c N C� 2 y CN IOL N N N N C\j � m N IN cr) OD m CL ■� 0 0 w r a. 0 L. ■a 6 a. a CN cq + F CL > 0 z +10 ` CL iz z z z 0 w CL Lk IN CII) LO C4 T T LM CL a. Iwm C -0 2 � 00 U a 0 0 U L) L) CL �c cc a CL w w LU a w N N N CF) OD N N NSW IOL Y a. In L. N (W) U') (. > CN N (N \ CL n > 0 CL 0 .�} '0 r0 cu CL i CL slim CL �0 . y DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 ■ rr a. CL 0 jl� 0 m C> (D m C114 ,2 N im a. > C. 0 mid IM w C 00 a, CL N CINJ LO r (Y) CO C„ J[ CL w w z C. kLM LO up) N i PI.- cr) c1r) CL CL Eil z z z z (0 w w CL 00 Lo 0. 00 co LLI CL CL CL > �ji Iwo m CL C)z z z w 0 w w N C) Irlplq W (N I CN CL cL in DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1 EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 APPENDIX DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 %TMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFPIC/TRANSPORTATIoN ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES Traffic Impact Statement Methodology St. Matthew's House CPUD (Airport -Pulling Road, Collier County, Florida) April 29, 2021 County TIS review !Fees TIS Methodology Review Fee = $500. 00 TIS (Small -Scale Study) Review Fee =$0.00 Prepared by6 : JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INCe 4711 7TH AVENUE SW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 19 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION N E3,m 27830 JAMBANKS, P. E. FLORA fRE13. No. 43860 4.-z,q -Zo�.� DATE M1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appends as a warksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date: 4-29-2020 Time: Location: Collier County Government Offices (North Horseshoe Drive People Attending: Name,, Organization,, and Telephone Numbers 1) James M. Banks, JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., 239-919-2767 2) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Government 3) Studv Preparer. Preparer's Name and Title: James M, Banks, P.E., President Orp,anization: JMB TransDortation En2ineerina.. Inc. Address & Telephone Number: 4711 7th Avenue SW Naples, Florida 34119 (239)-919" 2767 Reviewer(s);* Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael SgMer Y� Collier County Transportation Division. Applicant: AM31icant's Name: Address: Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: St. Matthew's House CPUD Location: Southeast corner of Glades Blvd & Aimort Pulling Road Land Use Type: 130,000 s.f. of mixed -commercial and 150 ALF beds or shelter beds ITE Code #: LUC 2S4 and 820. Proposed number of development units: See above Other: Description: Existing land use entitlements allow for 130,000 s.f. of commercial and 104 ALF Beds or shelter beds. Proposed A 11'eation to increase number of beds from 104 to 150 beds. No other land use entitlements are bei'Lag re Zoning: Commercial uested. Existing: Developed with mixed commercial land uses and 104 shelter beds Comprehensive plan recommendation: Requested: Findings of the Preliminary Study: See the attached "i L DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Study Type: Small -Scale TIS {net new trigs will be 12 two-way PM peak hour trips me Study Area : Boundaries: Based upon the Cogply s 2%, 2°/a & 3 %impact rule. See attached Additional intersections to be analyzed: None Horizon Year(s): 2025 Analysis Time Period(s): PM Peak Future Off -Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Tri and Table_ IB� Reductions in Trip .Generation Rates: Pass -by trips: See Tab Internal trips (PUD): Transmit use: Other: le I A and Table I B Horizon Year Roadwa Generation Manual. 10th Edition (Table 1 A Network Imurovements Methodolozy &Assumptions0 : won -site traffic estimates: See Attached Site -trip generation:.See Table 1 Trip distribution method: Based Lipon man Traffic assignment method: Traffic arowth rate: Per Collier Coon Collier Countyl s 5-year CIE. ual assignment (See Table 2 & Figure 2 Historical & Current AUIR R v than 2% or background or vested trips meth whichever is greater. orts, but not less /43 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Special Features*, (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance-. Queuing: Access location & configuration: Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: Base maps Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process Requirements: Miscellaneous& Small Scale Study — No Fee X Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1.500.00 Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each None All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must b le paid to Transportation prior to lb our sign -off on the application. Reviewers Applicant N t DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 C CL CL Longbout DHve -14,000 Clipper Way '0� Outrigger Lane 131d Horseshoe Dr :N. qHorseshoe Dr S. Enter s Ave Nap s Airport V 0 LEGEND 6—LME ARTERIAL 4—LANE ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR 2—LANE ARTERIAL 2—LANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL RAIL ROAD 0, Naples Airport sey Aire 0 a. Te L-1 rrce Agri m 9 t Q QL 0 0 F V) 0 %MTRANSP13RTATION ENGINEERING, I St. Matthew's House CPUD April 219, 2021 I Mercantile Avenue Davis Boulevard Glades Blvd Hai r6so n Rd w 1 Project Location & Roadway Classification NORTH K.T.S. Radio Road 6 k ■ FIGURE 1 A4!!r DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 ' WIDE TYPE 'Dr LANDSCAPE BUFFE 1 ' !I DE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ' VIDE TYPE'D'� LANDSCAPE BUFFER GradyMinor ' E (OR 2i , PG 1100 1 1103 -PROJECT BOUNDARY AND PG '# 905) GLADES BLEAR ZONED: RIDE- DSE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. -15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER -15'W1 DE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DA ID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - GREAT BLUE DRIVE EXISTING 1 ' AIDE TYPE 'A'LANDSCAPE BUFFET (SDP -2 EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE `A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 98-82) NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 98-82) ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES uulaka Springs. Ftloubda 341 4 Civil Engineers Land SwNeyors P1 ainners Landscape Architects eM of,Auth, ED 000 151 CcrL of A lAh_ LB 0005 15 1 U119JUC55 LC 26(]i?l3266 Bon Ita Springs: 2 3 9.947.1144 ww*. G redy4finoP. rain Fort Nlye : .6 0. 0 LEGEND: 11LIWATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 5699 PG 2572) 0.29 AC. !WATER MANAGEMENT DPAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT {SEE NOTE SHEET} DEVIATION -15' WiDE TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. � GAL.LMAN ' ESTATE PUD USE' MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL S. M THE W' S HOUSE C U EXHIBIT C MASTER PAN Tfrbk AT A --o'T 13 imme-%,11IIIIIIIIII I 0 100" 200' SCALE: 1" = 200' WHEN PLOTTEfl Q 5.5" X 11" SCALE: J0B CODE: SWCUA-21 IIATE, ARIL 2021 ME NAME: D"er C Wt2ER Kart M b SHEET 1 OF 2 0 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 TABLE 1A TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS St. Matthew's House CPUD EXISTING LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS Land Use Code Land Use Description 254 Assisted Living 820 Shopping Center Land Use Code Trip Period LUC 254 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ LUC 820 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ Build Schedule 104 Beds Trip., Generation...Equation T = 0*26(X) = T = 2,60(X) = T = 0.19(X) = 63% Enter/ 37% Exit = 38% Enter/ 62% Exit Ln(T) = 0.68Ln(X)+5.,57 = T = 0.5(X)+151.78= 62% Enter/ 38% Exit = Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X)+2.89 = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = 130.?000 s.f. Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit 270 ADT 20 vph 27 vph 71186 ADT 217 vph 660 vph Pass -by Trips per ITE= Ln(T) =-0.29Ln(X) +5.00 = 36% Pass -by Rate Per Collier County ADT = Pass -by = 15% ADT and 25% AM & PM TOTALS 12/7 vph vph vph 317 / 343 vph Pass -by Daily Traffic (ADT) = 1,F078 ADT Pass -by AM Peak Hour (vph) = 54 Kph 27 /27 Pass -by PM Peak Hour (vph) = 165 vph 83 /82 New Daily Traffic (ADT) = 61108 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 163 vph 108/ New PM Peak Hour (vph) = 495 vph 234 J Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) - 6,379 ADT 182 vph 522 vph vph vph 55 vph 261 vph 120 / 62 vph 244 / 278 vph # 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 TABLE 113 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS St. Matthew's House CPUD EXISTING + PROPOSED LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS Land Use Code Land Use Descrip 2S4 Assisted Living 820 Shopping Center tion Land Use Code Trip Period LUC 254 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ LUC 820 Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ Build Schedule Trip Generation Eauation T 2.60(X) = T 0.19(X) = 63% Enter/ 37% ExitT = 0.26(X) -- = 38% Enter/ 62% Exit = Ln(T) = 0.68Ln(X)+5.57 = T = O.S(X)+lSl.78= 62% Enter/ 38% Exit = Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X)+2..89 = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = 150 Beds 1301000 s.f. Tota I Tri qs 390 ADT 29 vph 39 vph 7JP186 ADT 217 vph 660 vph Pass -by Trips per ITE= Ln(T) = -0.29Ln(X) + 5.00 = 36% Pass -by Rate Per Collier County ADT = Pass -by = 15% ADT and 25% AM & PM TOTALS Pass -by Daily Traffic (ADT) _ 1,078 ADT Pass -by AM Peak Hour (vph) = 54 vph 27 /27 Pass -by PM Peak Hour (vph) = 165 vph 83 /82 Trips Ente.rZExit 15 /24 135 /82 317 /343 New Daily Traffic (ADT) _ 61108 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = 163 vph New PM Peak Hour (vph) - 495 Kph Daily Traffic (ADT) _ AM Peak Hour (vph) _ PM Peak Hour (vph) _ 6,498 ADT 191 vph 534 vph 108/ vph vph vph vph vph vph 55 vph 234 / 261 vph 126 / 65 vph 249 / 285 vph MS DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 0 Ir •� T�.jCL I t CD 4 Golden Gate Pkwy AA 0/0 Longboat Drive Clieeer,Way Mercantile Avenue Outrigger Lane monn Blvd Progress A0A u o Horseshoe Dr NIP o Domestic Av rue Horseshoe Dr S� � 15% Enterprise Ave er ru ------- NORTH 0 Na Airport Exchange Av N.T.S. 00 i4004 U. -- aPropspect Aire 15% Radio Road ift 0 -W 03 41 En q) CL CL m LEGEND N E a IL les Kirport ' R I Estev Ave m a-Terrce A N% V 10% Davis Boulevard LO 5% des Blvd i 60 • .jkA 0 m 00% PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT %WTRANsFoR-rAT1c3r4 E:NGmE:E:Pit4m,9 It4o. St. Matthew's House C UD h • 0 E 0 CL 15% Project -Generated Traffic Distribution rn 0 0 FIGURE 2 April 29, 2021 nn 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Fm N LU J m a k C W W W) (7) 00 It N C4 i Lm %"row r �t It NOW 016. + F� a. a. 4UP MOWWWO 0 0 000 w 4.� w r= Z >- >- >- >- z >- z z >�z zzz 01 0 0 0 X X 411� N014< X 0 0 m L0 00 (D , 00 I C E cei �9 V-- C� 0 0 0 3 C\j C\j CIq cliC C\jcq m CI4 C\ICo N N m mum" CL CL CL c I qr� 0 2 1 > cy) 6 z z z NOV Z u3 ao X Cal � (D 00 LC) (C) .�d Nr 00 IN 00 00 C rim *14 w Lo C Lo Lo CD C C C C 0 �e .J CL w W LOU LOU LOU y .1 W 2 000000 cfl CD co (fl a i ■ CU ,�rri 1 1 i /) ■ as F rrr w cu c LLJ 3: i>> co �: 3: LLJ 3: �: L0 LO CD LO C m CN cq C' CN4 ince) 3: w w z LOU w �: w w C Ci Nr C C1 Lr) IT 0 C) C) C) C) %ON 6 L6C3 CD UM) 6 00 C C C C' I C 00 00 0) 0) CAI N CAI V) C (N ICY) woo W 00 LU W L coo 0 00 000 ww-� Ca icy 0 0 w� cu • w WO m a. 0 0 LA CU i ■— LM ■ �. • - a. 0 0 rm. 0 . • C� C� C� c) CD - 0qqr L0 0) 0- CN 01� cti It' Lo" (6 (6 qIr- T� ILO (D r%- 0) (3) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 M LU J m a u U) xLa0 CN C` CO CL LO uj 3 0 r .. cm i 0 04 N N r r TM W 0 CL �e > a, z CL %0. No , O*R %0- -0, *09 , 0%- ON %0-� „ 9 CD C �r C I CAI C� C C� lc%� c\I CL i3 z z z (1) Lu w LO C4 ce) CD r---- Lr) V) CD (0 04 ca cm CL C 0 0 VShL* (D > 0 0 > 0 C 0 Loa M �0 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7384E8F4-1EC4-404A-9612-86DE4FB8A731 Lf) N O N um c VW 0 mom min 0 0 0 rl-_ C4 Q 2 x 60C4 , 0 m t 4, 6 6 C5 ci y w CL �e > a R > n C) C) C) m m IZ, IZ, a LO wE c%j N N�� CL t; CL w u) z i CN C4 Lo #0 �V 0 CL 0 n 0 ti 0 ti M W V 3 rt 00 Lo CI* 00 V cc Go a a. ■i co 0 0 a 0 0 C m CL z z z 0 0 wIxJ _ I �! mqqr ffCI4 CNCL V) LM a L0 m LM CM CM N N a. a. CL(D Fn �t- >% 70 d) uj I? m }Co 10 0 0 >=J 4-J 0- CIL CL i� m cyi qqi 6 6 6 qf� to fiA 17. St. Matthew's House CPUD (PL20210000176) Deviation Justification 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities", which requires a minimum habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 sq. ft. per bed. Justification: This proposed standard simplifies the minimum floor area per person calculation for the shelter. Almost all administration functions for the shelter are located on Tract'B' of the PUD. the shelter floor area can be expressed only on a per person/bed. There are no state standards that regulate the amount of square footage that is required for a homeless shelter. The proposed standard will assure a local minimum habitable floor area per shelter resident. 2. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. Justification: At the time of original development of the property, the conventional zoning district required no building setback and therefore no buffer was required. The property owner will provide the now required 10' wide Type A buffer at the time of redevelopment of the southernmost development area of the property if the existing parking and paved areas are impacted from the redevelopment. July 12, 2021 W GradyiN inor Page 1 of 1 SMHPUD-21 Deviation Justification-rl.docx GlvII Ffiginccrs • Land Svrvcyors • I'lanncrs • kandscapc Arch IOWs Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyminor.com ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routing order) Minutes and Records minut�.sancirecorcls.r� collierclerk.com Clerk of Court's Office HD 12/15/20 PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the Document. Primary contact information is needed in the event there is a need for additional or missing information. Name of Primary Andrew Dickman, Esq. Phone Number Alternate Phone Number Contact Heather DeSanto, Paralegal 239-434-0840 239-302-2701 Hearing Examiner 8/27/20 Hearing Petition ID(s) PDI-PL20200000201 Meeting Date Type of Document Agenda &/ Decision Number of Original 1 Attached Back-up Documents Transcript Documents Attached PO number or account number if 131-138350-649030 document is to be recorded INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Use the Check Box in the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is appropriate. yes NIA 1. Does the decision amend an Ordinance? If yes, Ordinance Number Amended is 97-14 ✓ 2 Other than the Hearing Examiner, documents are to be emailed to: Diane. Lynch (z.coIIiercount fl. gov; Patricia.Mill:ir coil iercount •fl. gov Has the date for the Hearing Examiner's signature line been entered as the 3• Final Decision date? Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency? ✓ 4• The final decision is dated 12/15/20 L.GMD'loning HEX.HEX Meeting Packets HEX NO. 2020-29 CORRECTIVE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION (To Correct Scrivener's Error in Hex No. 2020-05) DATE OF HEARING. This CORRECTIVE DECISION is approved on December 15, 2020, in order to correct a scrivener's error in HEX Decision No. 2020-05, wherein an exhibit to the decision was inadvertently not included. PF.TTTInN_ Petition PDIPL20200000201: DEVOE PONTIAC PDI — A request for an Insubstantial Change to Ordinance Number 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development, to revise the Master Plan to add a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection with the adjacent property to the north. The subject property, consisting of 4.55+/- acres, is located on the east side of Airport Road, approximately 250 feet south of Glades Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 2. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 3. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person. 4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there Page 1 of 3 is sufficient competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL2.020000020, filed by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. representing St. Matthews House, Inc., with respect to the property as described in the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD, Ordinance No. 97-14, for the following insubstantial change: • To add a vehicular and pedestrian interconnection within property under common ownership. Said changes are fully described in the Site Development Plan Amendment with Interconnection Note (PL20180002477) attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A — Site Development Plan Amendment Sheet with Interconnection Note (PL2018002477) Exhibit B — DeVoe Pontiac PUD Master Plan LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD. CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., 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. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners Page 2 of 3 or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" I I ------ - --------------- ----------- ' F 'tI ---- ------�J— -, PL,20180e002477 oao,amazotx SCALE: 1"=30- CONSERVATION AREA - 0 NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION CALCULATIONS NO CLEARING (room sOP Baez) V OR DUMPING ALLOWED ulacunax = SS -12,s,1 w R - n s, em . sm[ a Px[sixi ux[. aemrusxr HERON PARK NS PRESERVE BIGNAGE exa onsnrva usE. xEeioExT,u / C_7L rvTs (ox unE i i wortx,r eax,pun EXISTING _______________________________ ST.MATTHEWS '� — — — — � - _ - - / 1---�urriwrxr HOUSE _ Ps 1 EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT AREAT. p Q lrx ofee d) �i eaPsmv 1 caxaxls auus OtTJ sMsx nill 1 - - - 111 -- - mP xnmxxr veu / IINce 1 $ _ _. - 1'k0 n - - > ill 1S. xort ( x IN s / PRESERVE/WATER MANAGEMENT ; - 6 z P xa 1 1 1 I oa, nc 0z,etsaal 1 �LU'S KITCHEN gT��III48 � + � b y b P/ Shx ro tzxhoo © z xp r 1 I - i.. I.II II II I IIII K❑Crofg //�IIII III —STIN G®® - ST. MATrHEWS THRIFT STORE 41,11111 r 2) G.G14 �scx (R, e, p III 1111 ii III a '9 %E II — �/ m O O L 171i��s1Pa,a",m II H,a I II _�� IIIIIII 5 Sn' GI ___— �.� � ====o—=== f o= fo "Ig IInII ae x �p m� o' o mp Ems TP III IIrzN xmnxc srmP _ !all III II II ��doP n " a wnFFm rx II z,. _SN Ilan TMi a eeua.c f L.-AI, Exrc&l uxPaxr PuwNG & xaEar . �� ep No,—R s� r'sraP fla.wa � ar 0Y°'II naasror _ I 13rr II II--ll-lrl'�.• `-'a I me � - mP ) `a an ~ ax aw ,x.e. I; .lG 1-u-----}IL--Ii.�_'�, �Qa �a.z1ar y Rs OO . Oaxxx)AI,( — OI'�II--�--_=—!�l �— po�- `xei `R E j\I\ \i_—u i �__�_ p--- — --- �L-IJ-1 --j --- �J r3 p —' _= _= = — = 'ac aura eaaNp 4 biz; s;E-- _ _— ___ Psp e �axx rvae — — — — — S0 —"T� _ AIRPORT P W.L.IdG ROAD — (C.R.31)(COU—PUBLIC) -----_—_— __—_-------_—__- --a ----------------- ->c ____-- —_— ---- _- ��_ -___� _ ___—_—_--- - ---_—_—_ _ a —- _ - - _______________7 ______________ ., ,I U m J � j J a rc W j E Y Q Q 3 0 3 OJ U u 3 LEGEND ST. MATTHEW'S LULU'S KITCHEN ©GradyMinor onrBO,MlxoranaAxeoHaN RI, � xxa a,F1 11d url134 m1a sptaxga. Florlaa 34134 pox. Civil Engineers t cLand Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architects arm SITE, SIGNING AND MARKING PLAN Revision Date r..ri lion B am,naaSprlo,e: 239.947.1144 N4�In Ww'Cra�yA/lnor. com Fort Tl,- 239.090A380 sa (xaro 'ss) SHEEP 5 OF 12 G Y s ron (x�w 3s)�5 (+)ts�p � o EXHIBIT "B" GLADES BL VJ. ZONING : C- 4 USE: ST MATTHEWS HOUSE PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INTERCONNECTION 10 mut I rrt tt tturrtrc WALKERS LANE N 894I 10E APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF O PROPOSED RIGHT A IN/ RIGHT OUT DRIVEWAY ,I GOLDEN GATE \PARKWAY o o ,I n m n - a g RADIO ROAD m e DAMS L1Lw. r „SITE � z N PLES j'e 9 e v s C3 u � eM RA TLESNAKE AMMOCK RD. ti g 8 —I 10' WLDE TYPE 'A BUFFER* CAL 0ONIA AVE. a o $ III 15' WIDE TYPE B" BUFFER PROVIDED 2 BY DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD a ZONING. DAVID A. GALLMAN 11 ESTATE PUD o W USE. THE POINT AT NAPLES PROPOSED CAL USA AVE. ACCESS APARTMENTS Q EASEMENT 8 4 A li a A 70000 5 89Ii'Id /, PROPOSED EXISTING PAVEMENT BUILDING I\I41��J. XISTINc DEVOE BUILDING at �p PONTIAC EXIS DEALERSHIP G l : -4 A EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PAVEMENT 2 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PAVEMENT S 8941'10' W 66000' ZONING : C-3 USE : COURT PLAZA N o- CONDOMINIUM w GradyMinor Grady Minor and ,11 :nre. P.A. ;illll0 \In nrl Roy RonR. 8prinps. Florida 31131 Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects Cert. oFAdh. EB 0005151 Cert. oFAdh. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 a— L'radyNinnr. com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 660 00" OPEN SPACE AND WATER LOCATION MAP MINIMUM ELEV. = 7 R 10' OR 15' BUFFER 1' FLAT F\ MAXIMUM 3:1 SLOPE TO RETURN J TO EXISTING GRADE. NOTE: IN AREAS WHERE PAVEMENT IS NOT ADJACENT TO BUFFER, A MINIMUM 7.5' PERIMETER BERM ELEVATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. SECTION OA N.T.S. ZONING. DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE THE POINT AT NAPLES APARTMENTS DEVOE PONTIAC PUD EXHIBIT A VASTER PLAN REVISED 01/30/2020 3 N 0 100' 200' 0 SCALE: 1" = 200' WHEN PLOTTED @ 8.5" X I I SCALE: d SOH CODE Oe 01 ATE PN PO J P n Il r SHEET 1 OF 2 0 ` SITE PANNING DATA GROSS AREA EXISTING ZONING EXISTING USE PROPOSED ZONING 4.55 ± ACRES C-3 VEHICLE DISPLAY - VACANT PUD PROPOSED USE ALL USES PERMITTED IN THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT AND AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS AS PERMITTED IN THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT NOTE: * TEN FOOT WIDE "A" TYPE BUFFER PROVIDED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.4.7.2. OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N 00°18'50" W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2836.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89°41'10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N 00°18'50" W, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (100' R.O.W.) OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31), FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89°41'10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 00°18'50" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89°41'10" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. DEVOE PONTIAC PUD © ei.:,dyMlnnr;niJ TIiaiDOr . n Mnnn GradyMinor .Dunn , n u�.i my amain Sinings. Fim•hin 34131 EXHIBIT A MASTER PLAN NOTES BATE, �nnAar s9 Civil Engineers . Land Su veyers . Planners . Landscape Architects n,,,n xnun: C'n o' Au10. K11000,1d1 C'n M Anth. LB 000"1"1 Business LC 26000266 s e Puo wsrER Pun roi Bonita Springs: 232947.1144 uBn./; i,v Ay9/hlnP rom Fart Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 01/30/2020 SHEET 2 OF 2 HEX NO. 2020-05 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. August 27, 2020 PETITION. Petition PDIPL20200000201: DEVOE PONTIAC PDI — A request for an Insubstantial Change to Ordinance Number 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development, to revise the Master Plan to add a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection with the adjacent property to the north. The subject property, consisting of 4.55+/- acres, is located on the east side of Airport Road, approximately 250 feet south of Glades Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINI]1Nf_C 1. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 2. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 3. The Petitioner and: or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person. 4. The Petitioner and'or Petitioner's representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and 'or the Petitioner's representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. Page 1 of 3 n F.CTSION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL2020000020, filed by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady %linor and Associates, P.A. representing St. Matthews House, Inc., with respect to the property as described in the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD, Ordinance No. 97-14, for the following insubstantial change: To add a vehicular and pedestrian interconnection within property under common ownership. Said changes are fully described in the Site Development Plan Amendment with Interconnection Note (PL20180002477) attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A Site Development Plan Amendment Sheet with Interconnection Note (PL2018002477) LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 97-14, the DeVoe Pontiac Planned Unit Development PUD. CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., 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. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. Page 2 of 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 3 of 3 jII II 11 III 1 I J I I� 'a I ,I II n I I , � I I� �l�x�a��� Dd��I���I�'=��•- ����g�� ,I N I , ■ � i �- II ' it 1 jll II�.. EC• Sj�+��j�,p �-.� I_I_ 1•�_== :: I II 11 III B� q, Y ' WALKER LANE IPUBLIU) 1 1 I 11 Iv,7 II II Ijl 1 . ♦ f I� � I I - `= I I II I Ip Ilj, 8�1 m•i_ r• ' n �i ii I3=hi L_ Iii � iit BB----••''✓✓}} p! Ra 1 s,EEE n y'oro�. it �• Ali'_ —$"� - 1'1' i_i D A I I h I II I 1 1 Ij aY '' v8 4 _ � ®� L L�• - 1 1I DALDONIAAVENUE(PUBLIC) \\ III ZE Y ; 7z o i '_'•3 i .� ! 4 I ` ez I a. T I �} 1111II �L. ' 4,I I I glI —rye II OI I I i' it ems: `15� I �� •`C`-it cx y ii I,1 D i Ioonl sz.�, g165 1/1 0 -� , AL DUSA AVENUE (PUBLIC) II j--� x --- i�•{q.� _ i �ia'REAT BLUE DRIVE VATE) (PR j 4E f n j 1 I I . .' - co, Yi � -F{ 2 � I� i i I E'In I •' t-a _ ", ;!-}— '.wa; �— �� H" <Q ftl E S rr 4o a 3 S s 0 ry CD n on < EXIST rrt Lij CL C) z D 0 m 7- I- ry 0 z LEGEND DENOTES HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE DIRECTION OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FLOW PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS DENOTES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THE TASK SK FORCE FOR THE HOMELESS 2691 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL,ORIDA 33962 (941 774-0500 ZONING : C - 4 USE : VACANT DRAWN BY: GS APPROVED. MJD JOB CODE: SMH.1 SCALE: 1" = 2 0' I I I I 'I EXISTING (3)-310"' RCP_ __ I NEE POLE z LLJ 0 Lf) Li LL_ I LLJ U) :D Q6 LL Of z 0 N USE AREA (ACRES) % OF TOTAL TOTAL SITE 2.34 100 BUILDING 0.33 "14,250 SQ. FT,f 14 IMPERVIOUS (PAVEMENT & SIDEWALKS) 0,45 19 OPEN SPACE 1.56 67 'BUILDING TYPE !—STORY, 14,250 SQ. FT, HOMELESS SHELTER PARKING SUMMARY USE RATIO PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED HOMELESS 2/5 BEDS x 104 BEDS 41 SPACES 41 SPACES SHELTER (2 HANDICAP) (2 HANDICAP) LOADING ZONES USE RATIO REQUIRED PROVIDED HOMELESS SHELTER SITE SPECIF"C 1 1 NOTE - 84 BEDS EXISTING AND 20 PROPOSED. 35 EXISTING PARKING SPACES AND 6 PROPOSED, Mom arlemma WEST -'5' 15' EAST 15' SOUTH lo: NORTH 15 BUILDING SETBACKS: MINIMUM PROVIDED ,FRONT (W) 25' 156' FRONT (N"i 25' 50' REAR (E) 25' 74' SIDE (W) 15' 36.7' NOTE : SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AND POTABLE WATER, ARE PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES, HANDICAPPED SIGN ($ 250 FINE) 9'-0" i2'— WHEEL, STOP c) -01 ISLE �c) '_C) 001 4" WHITE STRIPE! 4" WHITE STRIPE �4" BLUE STRIPE (OUTSIDE) (INSIDE) STANDARD HANDICAPPED TYPICAL PARKING SPACES DETAIL Q. GRAD MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. CIVIL ENGINEERS a LAND SURVEYORS m PLANNERS 3800 'VIA DEL REY BON"ITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34134 F'HONE a (941) 947_1144 FAX o (941) 947 - 0375 N, T. S, SITE PLAN FOR COND7`ONAL ljSE DATE: FILE NAME: DRAWING NUMBER 1 oF, CICT'OBER, 1998 1 SMHSITE I Revision I Do,.e criptior By /3,q / RESOLUTION 99-$j_ A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY (20) BEDS TO AN EXISTING HOMELESS SHELTER CONDITIONAL USE "9" IN THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.15.3. OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the,State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use "9" of Section 2.2.15.3. in a C-4 Zone for an additional twenty (20) beds to an existing homeless shelter on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board y.. having considered all matters presented.' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,. BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS a Collier County, Florida that: The petition fi�ed by D,, of Q. Grady Minor a � Associates, P.A., representing Robert Duncan for the Task Force for � the Homeless with respect to the property hereinafter described as: , Lot I, Block K, The Glades, Unit Two, as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 88, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. - - be and the same is hereby,;,: -Conditional Use "9~ of Section 2.2'15'3, of the C-4 Zoning Diatzict4lor an additional twenty (20) beds to an existing homeless shelter in accordance with the Conceptual Master plan (Exhibit "B") and subject to the following conditions: Exhibit "C" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. � p��`'` BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board' This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of , 1999. � ,..`BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY:/ Ve*msL* S. Mxc'mzEHAlRWOMRw 8TT8ST.0WIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk � � ' � Narj*ie M. Student Assistant County Attorney oCv-98'24 RESOLUTION , av; • .. - tr✓VY � � riFif FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-98-24 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.15.3.9 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes Y- No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingr ss & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, g are, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use wi2�LdNo istrict Yes Based on the above f}ndings, this conditional use should, with stipulations ( o� ttached) (should not) be recommended for approval ( L �'. DATE: CHAIRMAN: ---f f/FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN/CU-98-24 Exhibit A .!Iptoof ftv, -OAD (12W Itow) fe 3z mu :9*1 I cz I t It —I OAT 1 P7. 7; 7 vi T U 1. USE wAn.f.ft, pcscf%'.. ! j MT 2 1998 J R` ��' i Ali{ cz N Exh ibi t B ca c u 98-124 Exhibit C s' . Subject to the following conditions: ?t , 1. An appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan for the site shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval N_ Li cn Q w T F- 0 m V) n W CK O w F- > LLJ O w D O w Q LLJW U F- F - �' QFf) r— W U U W J2Z :2 n QW zW F-> W(n 0QwQ F- a m O W V) m I--,W LLJ (Y z cn iECO U U U W o o � o W Li U U LY Q CD C)Z 0 n Z z cn � � ZO CD QQ _ _z OLO � Q LLJ II 41 a \ U � U F- h- z Ul Q Q � - �' z LL_ U L- Q m J z n fY wLLJ xQ O U — > U o cr)0 {f} z W z a-Q Q z a Z O = ao � w Wa a W �> w U a w Qz o Q � O n Q __D 0 CC m C? V)Z LLI -jO _j _jW Qa Q Q W F- o Ln U � o QLLJ Q w cn W w a Un a a O w z W D O 0 LLJ r= Z w m J Q (n --—————— -__--— —� --- I Aro0 Of/ 0 I � Q3 I i I - I I I _ I I (Y-z w �0 I € I f l w� �Q I i In I1 I i c Fn) I LU ! LQ ri l-1 f o U I ' ! I I rn J� cn OD OL�jz I o 0 N cn OU I -� F r, UJ Xz U} w X I! . W = W LaJ = w m I �ddd ~ 18 `- ct -� m LAJ I- �� r�. w o r� ¢ _ LY cn o I _ • m f itl D D I r L LLL-r rL a_ 1 _ � 1� — os< B�.00 s - , u �wS3F553,10v.`, --- W 1 71if aos i I ` In o a' O W n Z Li m w o _j Ltj W p Oa J O W LY } = o U �- rW—� a Q� "' cz �� 0 O�Z0 w Zw (00 D U! W WU >z �F- LL WF- WaQ 1¢-F_ w F_ Q W U O LYO QLZ ¢O WUE _Z Cn Qw U' w � {/}o Q U fur�?� (n C! } Zn �w n7 a W UY vi 0~ W cn LLJ QW W m F- Q- ~ Z �< Cy V) W > Cn W Wz a cn 00wLn :2 nr- ow w�Jw >j ZQ� _j¢ —Ia_ I-__ aQ = �_ ¢o �� �00 czn0 g cn w c U Z7 Q Q �- F- F- W og �� F-n v]Q nfY Z W LwW w0 WWI a Q w -F- n mv1 Q 0wz P Z� O � a z � a_OU � LLIO >Q cn _j Q WQ LLz waZ W WW Q 0 cn w W ¢ O � m =-J F- o-O_ �WQ !- a Q Qa� Dk=z �zo cn D Z �af� Z cn 0 2: Ln N 0 D c� II F-zw a U'1=z X cn w X LLI J W W O LLJ -- ————————— — ----� u05,9400 s I t r- 7_ Z � U < W {Y ~ V G w f-- r Q `H F= Q W Cl- < W L) G= �r O a 1-- �# .r 3011S / C) i f oLU ; l tr+ .• r- C) O h-- k2 Lo Elf La..1 �f ► i 11 I — III ' —' x, _ I- I 1 I i r .30Iirt 3011c 301-3� S"liVS V ]ONl� AN11 NlVH0 I � I 1OIA83S f ? 4L cn o I i W En I Uo C)L- r,4 C) > m W of 3 ldf1L� 1 83MISf1) �L4JF(T [h F-- LIJ � U T U LJ I- `r CL h r z a o w J .. a c7LLr..l0 Z _ O - -! O NO U Z w Z � Z UZ) of uj X U > Wz0 r cn X w U) D z 0 a �o IU U - c� Q ZN z_j 0 a N 0Of z� �o U X W fn D z d Llj V) Q a_ W w a ■ It e� O � En w A � 5z Q Oa Oar �--a CO d W �-_: Z O t� Z Q; w Cam' O N W z z Q 9 W � H La m Q > W F-- W c) O r w I o II I� o O � cn UJI a {t U C) oZ can ca mown U_.1 JLu 3 . n 1 In Q z a w o U O O w Q_' 5 o � U w a- a o C) In Z UJ J O W , a a a u � off-' LLI a III a Z Qi Q F- 0 - QZM a w LLJ � Q Q F_ 5j - 0 �Qti a � �Q r... Z w� O W —t- -MOON ISU d ,v�ra�rr �ha 1 srx3 rvVicl3Nn�a� l� 00+09 W (16 YO) GVOS ON177nd 1870-1dYff LJ W F- o >_ Q p F- ,- LL ry V) - W J w Q to z d w v F- I- ¢ z a SOT w o wZn r y h 1 .. � .. - - .. -s. .. ..-), k-. i. .:' � .. .. •. 1-' :-'•, .. !'.-, ,�2 .'.i .W I- .1. .3.: .. �t.''Y.: :1 d :! rr« :, .«.. - ti .,.- - .- .-: c�c._ ;.. ..- r 'r. .��.. :.'w.r-....-:-. r.. -i: 'r-:.. �t x� .-� F I;�'11•. J- p" •i� ..� p.- � r1! :. -.- ,. ,. - c .i. :'....�1. _ .. .. - _ . .,. z. ...� .- .,r 7 ..+1 :•I .`�:4', f.a .r _s. -w- .t- . iA/.' i A,_ , ,iP y:. - - rrJj : '. •ei- v . �:. S d. -..Lv r i�(7.. "ti[r '�:i, E.. ,. - .g -�,' 'W -:Vfi• a::r .t i, ': r- :'[. ^�- .,•r3 :'S e.: ii -• � 1- �.! - ,�}� r%■ �•�': ' �. �'Ii �r �"• J ,fir � Y. � it '.v": �✓ �. ~'�'d"• .,?' =�'7' � '�' r:A''''•°,• • Y� . J "'•: 4'. �.- S_ �',� ,1..�. Y• -YiF M1 i'� J� ��%` i. u��,•�. S; 'k .��. .i t Ye.-_ .3i �,4.r - .3 • :� .� Yy '+..� v+ -.1.-. L -Y .3 a. 3 . L � t - by Y.' �. d •(1,!�:'. ...� '#:..' Y, _ ,t Fr �i�•-• �. _ _ sY r�G - �}r'�w .i i. .� � - � Y. -� *•' .i� �: h"' .lei' ".�'��.1.� 9'r « . .. ., ✓�.Ss1tc�'._.e may.: ,.h-,Y.%9....Lt�- _._:... - - s -.,�r _ --',��.._.::rs,"t?t1 - - _ p j p _. ._ .- .:-._��..e.�a�.►Kacv�- sue. .�n�.r�_.�t4�.�.a �_.�_. ..__,"-.�.-_.:^_. --��.h�� .�'`'���'S��3:�::��L_�u"�c_.,_i'�tr ��`m.-`,���.��:���k�@L������aelrt�S.L�,.'3,_ ,ri:�";_._ -'---- )--'-'...---'N\\ l''' --m- . .. vi...—>. --Sam= — . •..r•a ff a __ I, a a AlRPL14r/PDllINC ROAD (CR.31 R.a• ' 111111111IIIIITI1l� r / et ,,, 1 ll 1___ k li IIIIIIIII IIII" IPi FUTURE DEVELOPMENT i ? _ 1 ill 1 i i FAI l . IMO I 'I t — ® biz i 1 I li t 1 • till I 11 g MINN MI II IIIIIII ;wI , I Q ("11 a § G I . i D Ma _ QQ D � ¢' ea�+ Y fix' m r4; :-.2;!, , "- io"o�F4 Rqg v p 7, P40,:ti, ug h;, mg4r4 •� v n r 1-7 '� 11 j I . 6 f.eg1fi8 9 T1% v Z k '{ g ` 11 .., -IF Z 1 `� i �i ly ~ r4u mFr:, Iw Z lilt/ 1 ea • 4 t. • t • GULF OF Ni,'XlCO 1 . Y tag g € E M N o 1jiBB I R- E> P i 1. B L t'"' �/ D 3 S i•1� 7` Pi !: a, r Fo gib a y � T •4 ill 5 3 1 i �. rr A COLLIER C®I iN I T GOV1bnNiV1hA I c.01MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING March 28, SERVICES 1997 Mr. Q. Grady Minor & Mr. Bob Thrones Q. Grady Minor & ' 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Associates, Florida 34134 P.A. REFERENCE: Petition No. PUD-97-2 Dear Mr. Minor & Mr. Thinness ONO TH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 33942 (941) 645-8400 :� CERTIFIED BLUE CHIP COA4AIU�IIT1' - Devoe Pontiac On Tuesday, March 11, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners heard and approved Petition No. PUD-97-2. A copy of Ordinance No. 97-14 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very ly yours, Ronald` F�1 Nino, AICP Chief Planner cc: Devoe Family Limited Partnership Sandra Martin, Land Appraiser (Site Plans) M. Ocheltree, Graphics K. Hendricks, Real Property (R or PUD) File Enclosure Minor ORDINANCE NO. 97- 14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 0512S; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM C-3 TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT =' DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS DEVOE PONTIAC PUD, r LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD (C.R'; 31), APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTH OF GLADES =, BOULEVARD IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 9.55 ACRES MORE OR LESS; AND BYE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Bob Thrones and Q. Grady Minor of Q. Grady & Associates, P.A., representing DeVoe Family Limited Partnership and DeVoe's Inc., petitioned the Board of County ommissioners to change the zoning classifi Ccation of the herein described real property; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described"real property located in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from C-3 to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Devoe Pontiac PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Map Number 0512S, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, SECTION TWO: is hereby amended accordingly. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. -r� t .,- t - _ _ _ r V r4 VIP q roll or. ow mo or . 4 -1 ., Y.' - r. 1 L • r - X t .r. i � 1 ik �- 1... �• _ 'r-r 7- �} a .r- :T- 4 a. < - .. t.a.. J L- r '.� r i , T .3..:.�. .. t Y , ..y •� =Ewa/'• +.. !• -V or �'.c y La:� ° "», f c a i ....�.iw.._ ..f., " -� . .: ,1a I X e.s.i% r:.F' �4: r'r , �a"+�' 'C!'`'-r #7 -""�• ,.-.{� Y a .of 3 rol'_ i T vt / _,: 7 :? ' r: I _ f iV roor r V"V t Ikr 'to 1. 7I^�4: e•f 4 : .y;....j•: .rt Asa: _ r.".'.xl 'v i-•I• ♦ `,s .�+1::: 3•'MP-n.l•3-w,.`.��.i�'.. •=1i��.^'An •�� _ oor —rV_ 1 >. - �•.: l.i ,.r!v+••: °SkL?a�p! Y'=..f'r1 %! •.t i":jt .7-.. y.- �t o :�. ^� ..;..ff} ":r ^w v+• N ~>. " 'tea r" ,r^.. 1�i _..•'2_'.:J•%.. .t,°% s cy.',1.. k- arA':f •�.:. i r� �`- -t S t,,,:� x _..•�,.+,... :, `:'r t. 'k''_ t. r•. '�.ts�'k�....�4 . ems... a--c 'is r w yr +rk .'�. ni ! N:r t — ., , 1� �r ss. `3 - .�, .��--.ter •••£'_! _ -E. S VrV'r _ ':^r •-! .:_'+:�<7.tF `yc�"z W"'y �;.td:irj._�t>ii�..„�r,L :. _..:�.. C_ 7 �'-,�? +' F 1 'K of y,+G ti- ♦ r. " c;-<:, M*1� ' v-• :y .s..c �.H ,, _> SSE=y..yw. �..>:rr rr r^.z•".^» ,``o _ ', .: .ii ... Erl-,.;Fl.'IF41.•,j^r ,w••�A..te. •f- '1"' 7 _ ; sY7 ''-'�i..� `T 4•�: <ti1.:.'.�•r�.: r�.:....... i...r •,w... <Tbr?`!�'r` - �: -, F: � .,e.f• �..[. t.. .j�.? .1i.•. ..., r'•`"•'+ .z+:.:.t+hr�:,. •lIr^. ++��••yy��1.r a.Y•I:i,.E^: T•' s ..,. r�4. w i:•t r -. w .r,✓ , r� -.. .:tf�t a i 'C+ JI -. r,++.. ,.-a. ...? _ i . t :..' q `Z. z y^i'- -. M� . t:'Yr' • h i 2'•9^' r 1c2_ •�L . <..� L. r tin .,r•� c li'- Y7 f..t r _ �. Y�: q..,:' a 3,. N. .�..4 :- %t.y�.;,-^.': ''-r,.r>'-�_. K^i- ?•4 .1 • t _ r :•ir .+ h r� _ ..;-r : +•.i-� v, t�,,�+� k v tS T.'rt�'..:.Y.r1+'�.iff:ar2_ ..i"'.?ii�:t'R^•+�7_ i5'hj"Ca3t�"i `f•_. .�. ra -t :rrt+'ismY W:ni`.f.••t,+�. .,,d.4 y. `.,r `i'�'.'� •� �'t >-od.r. ea`is.•.Yt �+"+c "M `-`. :J�e :�y97.-?4• -e ;Hw"`"_f rt, }} - ... ♦.. .. �. , f..v t cT• LL ,�""s •.I - - tI.. -, i^ �'i: .•.��,r :.`{ `7C3'�K "�,� -j•-v i ti i N PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ItIbbbIb 1997• ATTEST �: fop • 'Job •. DWIGHT E. BRQeK; C L El ,M110 a , — &W It "Ibb both It APPR VED AS 'TQb' FORM • AND LEGAL•- S�JFFICIENCY to MARJOR M. STUDtNT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY PUD-97-2 ORDINANCE/19173 EOARD OF COLLIER BY: day of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY, FLORIDA OTHY �. �iANCOCK, T CHAIRMAN This ordinone� fct,.�{ with the Secretary of Stat:�IFs Office the day of 4A! I / 909j • and acknow'edgement of that ng received this UAIa. day By,� c ! - at - tk be R .. f y~ It ;. . • f y ,b r rk -try = t za ,�aLS r •e LF . t • • 44 �.�f a tc r� .•. 1 Irz ,.. .., .: ...r _..:..,. .C.i. �.. r .L a. IT.a•t! '"`t•v `.0 �. .,'hP'R r,`}j P ... 1 - 4 ±+fit ?£�"�.. 1 �„if .,A.' r "7:j: .r .1�* t _ -4 SV It tqAbIt III fil zIi WM AIVL 4 .a: .+i- r: .t 1. ?�'.: 5;r 'Ly.�,..oi+:i•' ..jt�'.7•' ,. ,a`'4'.fir..• .�'.... r�'}��.:t 'fi�•dt :."4:c.a�aae.�• .y bAtl :: "-1r .rye _ Y, r. i t �.� + s.. i-_ _Pr i•'rnY'-%te r}, .'`1..rt .�."t'h vt 4 tL f. .j "»4,.�`:. a<^- ��.a y...�i. vrL�,��, . �� _ .:1W Yyr �w#. ;?b`r y Asl<Yy, T!r X s - i n.I' ."�..Y '1j' 7 '.��•,Y..'t+t.' ti t "wi ` ib;f! r• - ...i ,; . r,a, �. •'`t i r x' K�'.« '' �'"t•i. _ - - •..,,+ 1 . r i..L -r' 'd �-+sr '� .f:s':. +fsi- d.,r.+,.... $ Yt v _ a: .- a y t 'G1 r".'' a+c_,P_..>,"�2.Tj,u^-N,X t ^tCiic�re 1y Aic- .. .. .. _. j. .. �' .,.. - .. .�_: } 1,�'tto hlL ,5...'C7 asC"-�-» . t �; • n FL-ASaNED UI`tIT DEVELOPMENT' Regulations and Supporting Master Plan Governing the Devoe Pontiac PUD A Planned Unit Development Pursuant to Provisions of The Collier County Unified Land D�veiopment Code Prepared For: DEVOE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP .. 4100 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34103 Prepared By: Bob Thrones, AICP Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. -ENII. ENGINEERS t LAND SURVEYORS � PLANNERS 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC Febru 20, 1997 :DATE APPROVED BY BCC 3 f�__.____ :ORDINANCE ,NUMBER 7-/ '� -AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL . ,� ; . - .i _ � _. . . _ : _ ,.. F:DEVOEIDEVOB.PUD ��- E ;:., ,, a ` 4 ��+yF.'[��' r ��`� r � � ? i + f� . x .� .�r4au%�Y� 1k�4 �, Ir �P "'"` f ..f h w ...! } • � � .. � .. � ,. .. •�� � .i:�..!"'3"`^,';�,i,j{l�iy��rl`'�y.Jx.i�12">> G� r � St cA.~r-7 �' _.t __ .._. J1 ►ram. ^� a` f z V r 1 r "V.+�.',s � .T.: 1- � $�' ,7r .?z-�«ii� — r'2'�rtl't� Kn} � "C-""� "'��tu4. � r _ _ •.�.� k 7 M.� y yam; _ ,b. 1 • Y: )d'�Y. , .i« a r_` N"'� {*�;-zRe,,, i d � r e �.. ,t _ � .,,, a � ��.ia�- �'' :� '3 .� ,.�� -�u.,�.w.�:t_v�y''u'`x �"'1 !use r ... .. ` i :,,,,. ^5 .x..'"y.y,j htri<.w..- "��"rL�1 -a :•m�.ar ��"'° ��µ it �t�aF� Uc �"�' �,'� � { .�.: s m 7 -� ?� _ � "` ti.. � ✓ � � ... „ n - a-'^'•�' y+ fprJ7CS'1"�. A."��4��v�t'7.iif ' _ _. .. _ .. •:.,' " .,,�,, r � T-; _•-e-����rRs'+��'rct. �� 'r.--i.'� EXHIBIT �" ti �YL- 'a+:"'y�'rF*'. x��`t =a+K`+�+ � +�.tY.S.,�� '.y Y.-.'{ +, e . _ .. - 2.f`Tt��=i-:'�-. .�:-�?%ti; �..*�tiTt :�r''.�':�.;.a LJ✓'%'.a:}r7� r�.v".,:JXs{yR!ic*f'.,�R�+141'_',a!�: �%T ,/�?wn.._ :."±.�.Y.,srrtiwr+�+r: _ ..y ..�.:jyA-�_ ..+.�.-.-r.; _. .- �. .. . t t AND TABLE OF CONTENT'S Statement of Compliance . i SECTION 1 Property Ownership & Description 14 SECTION 2 Project Development Requirements 2_1 SECTION Commercial Plan 34 SECTION 4 Development Commitments 44 EXHIBIT A Master Plan TO I OF OFF IF Y,. - r, .4 . _ i.i - , I OF % TO f Foo OFF I - ..., . OF IF t TOO I OF a, I WOO TO • • ry s Y + Gam. i'' n4.r^'w:I OF4 .L --. 4hT-;.tb •n.I's,�.'. Y k�f'C O .s;,x♦ i. i - i r; ... a f�IT OFT: Ali 4. +;cl IF OF 11 .rit Fit .r.�ti ,v y. J to �r 1 t+Zti 3'"+ a••a :`ft t!• Ii� .F �` e - .i , 1 I I I V ,'r, •i+ - .}.jam =v. 4' ,.I4t. d : r•:4^« +..', 3 iz,:•'r :. j•: r ,:r 1 %` �J� '.!: '1 f1,...5, r.. w . ti:,:_ .z 'f�G r,...»r; :;i•r.::. }1ww i?"».. ,r.l Ni ;kr.f 4I A.t Ali boos IF Is u _ r4_. ... _ 1. .a,. �$.s...�5..«a.x•r.< '.F"To -00 { • e t a T c .r t?3'turl•iU11t+', i. ti(✓ u.ifi:i $ .Sx>i #Yy a wt,^,+! '3-ti sl'i �' w s• +' h, L : �' , r .i f i i w 9'04�X.� 1. I �.it 4 . t Ir at rt Lle.S. n w/r. tr+ r p �t 4: -Far 14: .. _ ... Y k Ns t 4 c ' w w..� ~• •K.111 5wr k•`�f w 144 ✓. ta. nri" .`.,.t .s-.1. :L1�'C��7f�LL'F•, ..T - - r - " .. IT VOWIFF:4 IF .z +f. It 5 ii+ ^...iyO ,ri-::,f r.+.t• N`,5 ,: �..- Y!.\ 7 i `'7 .c ht ,t ..+ S ` .. .. + or To r ltV A>'. v1 F 1, cF, ;.,, t '�. a _ .. A L K.�ia 4. - Or S v r- ATo ' a : : ti:. *�''�i - t _ t'vc 7. nos . a v :_say -•'!r%-' :.;✓•..7+'•�..a''+'T'w.'.i1.yloll.�2": i• .f.'�'"., '.' '.�'n .� _a":X.?..-, 'If*i:lr"v .Y,".c...".' r .. t ... , '�'4 #F- 0 Ill;F., r.i• .. :t•_ _ .or TO..,. . I TO :.^.fS.+r -.h. - .. _7 '•: T-..,..1t .,.,*� .., t :�.} •i .. ,+r •!+ '-."T-r�.Y r 4 0 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 4.55 acres of property in Collier County, as a Commercial Planned Unit Development to be known as DeVoe Pontiac PUD, will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The project will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: At 1. The'subject property is located in the Urban -Mixed �Jse District in the Growth Management Plan for Collier County and is deemed consistent with the Futur e Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan as a consequence of evaluation through the Zoning Re-evaluation Process. (CEX-02Q - El) 7 7 2. The Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate Plaruied Unit Developments where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. 3. The subject trace is located near the southeast corner of the C.R. 31 and Glades Boulevard intersection. This strategic location allows the site desirable access for commercial development as the site is currently zoned C-3 , 4. The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations including the Growth Management Plan. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by the County. b. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open space to enhance the project amenities.OF ;,t At F r e } x + 0.4 IF , t Aft I • i If I iLy - t,r.,'1';r y.. �,. ., ._...-. .. c`;-� �t r.7ay,; 7- U.'a'ri]A''�'' 'eir z,w 4 M.r. Y ti ,u ^'� y'�.+_ k<:rr.. ,,ti �f.. �.. �i • _ i •. s.t.:.,,. ,.,Y-...�..i -r.•* Y4T.•K^ef'..�..sr.�.�,'^,•C k _ r, ?:' 't :c ,:y ��.i '" Y Pt �.: - ..-.. '.. af,'.c�.•a� _hr: _,..h..,.':`sa - *.�3`F '� ♦. •a 1 i . .F ..�•• .fix.. i F-s n tea•'}N_v 1� r rem Aar L. :S � �'- �1 •s�M :. u� . ..f, C .Ar �.. Y t, i; j t y �.". °� ..x 7 ra i c Y L 'Z 'f t o ;� a- _ '.� ..yip r i » ti a �,* .r 9d' • ^F- .i s T t auak R "•i-�.r 1- a t' t_ r C `1�'xl'�•-.i �'•. Y� c'rn'S`t. _ r..rf �i.,.F.FIF.tf!;d:•+.'.s.. ."'th.Tb'"" r!� -.3. -Y! i e6 IF e - �.. "t';'1ri`..!-s7.. ^�+ut _ Sri M7.•�'��'1�'.� Y'. ^"�.:.1: t,.�.w,,��wTf _ . :f71tt": , ,rot... 1.�- ♦ xF .<iiP ,st,r.r�At Ah �'-''. qC- x '✓S'••i:� -r. %4r.L; .li .y,� ..�...,y. Y��Mi ''. _k .~+�.i.►'-^bY - �'' It .{� .i.r..,. .. ' - G ` � a ` c a . -S,^ r _ ' .J' . A. �'"",Ra 'S r -• ,.; ` IMF,£.'.i '�,.' irk _..�L .�'N s- ::� ... '"� ': `r•' � :�..�.�... "` . SECTION 1 PROPERTY OtiYNERSHIP A.ND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and Qwnership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project'hame of DeVoe Pontiac PUD, 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMII�NCE AT THE SOUT'IIWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE�25��EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N 00 18 50 W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2836.80 FEET, THENCE RUN N 89�41' 10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N 00 18 50 W, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (100' R.O.W.)OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31), FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89 41'10" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S OC 18'S0" E FOR A DISTANCE QF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89 41' 10" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ro or. .. } �. to ixtt,,.tt Y�i��ftlYVI to z. _ ,.,wit ws +-..I +. ,t� 1 r 9 1 - S OV Vow Y _ 5 .r• .;i >- .'�.. v��.rsY'a ty...i. ra..{.� .1 • _ y �t �� t..,}_.*Ja.S,eJ?:tt,"rY!S..t?nt'.`Iif.�'.'; MoVtv".i:-s5.`•'h.'11 'fr-f.avn.t_.•i-'- - .e ; e r ,,.. !yi .ty -.4-� °' -r x..,tat�- r ' . ,_ . e �. ..�,.. �'SC? �•1�.-� sr-w �`.7.`%F-... s'W lSr�.s'['� `$. I, or<rj SiFti. <.a xly� p'3s4'»t� : v�'• r.. �.}. - ♦ 4: yF. ,, Y'• I w n .' �� i.�V C....%LI(J 'E .1.-flK •M. ! - frt;a Lys I` ti< D +li bm '*� /."1 `'} _." .. . . �, ft �} 4 ra,3-VI•C...J y _ }i ...� �'�'"�+ 1 ,I�, ,d'.. y.x" ,�j'9i "�A oI %wtl+'arY rt5l�fi,a.•LS +.:� — T ,L i + ' .11 i -� awo N. �{ jr 1 »! F `' "�.5... u�.a ' att .�.+:v . �.VdVV �': S t.. ,, 5,.1. i.t -t;.r +,. .t -. �-t + ris'�„u .,��-%.?r7'�-�%'� ?i't 1`G<.L.: !�'i.i yi4X''�c f�'�'i�^.:.�y.. w�a.-... i. �Y �,1 6 !� R• r e{ ~' "f_j w4:.� _'f ::1.:. LiM�r �+1♦, 1�.,..3<d 4R �JtSYI%,{.VI,:�C�..YY��«/�YdJWx-.41.....� l u 1 S `Y ' d' Sy"C A '^--'"T1 IV ''!�M�^s-.r- `Z - c.."j7yJ� S.l t'y 44 to"if'Y It.`.i! 'r`w2ro'i.+..G'9.:�-".-�64�.1T '1`--. •at . * _ :Vol a. r T'.�'i.'''r''x `4'' r„1.�.'.p,,%j7�„'il?�13d.7�t�s'�«".21f'r.�. ,.'fYcZ.�I.•}.4.r�-..r t t wiot V,VV Iwo, ... i..x Y t'r eta /. +-... t ^l. .�j' L.Y. _ v.3.�3L. K n ,9-_isly.�a - P •verr.Lw.i .' .. .. y ^�f':o �• Y-w..:{3!�, f+"a c+., _ 9"`,s '...7`^R'*�''c�'� `tiC'''�" 7� ..i:a.'.:} i .. r ' '. ,� j' . 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP r The subject property is currently under the ownership of the David A. Gallman Estate with SunBank Southwest Florida as personal representative of the Estate, c/o Ja A. Brett, Sheppard, Brett &Stewart, P.A. DeVoe Family Limited Partnershi has Contract for Sale and Purchase on a portion of the roe p a obtaining commercial zoning for an automobile dea e p � which is contingent upon rshlp. 1.4 GENE,RA_L DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A,� A. The project site is located in the west 1/2 of Section 12, Townshi 50 R.an�e 25 East, approximately 250 feet south of Glades Boulevard on South, side of C.R. 31. the east B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of approved PUD Document was C-3 , this 1.5 P,14'YSICAL DESCRIPTION Elevations within the project site range from 6.4 to 8.0 feet NGVD. All of the site ' in Flood Zone AE (elev. 7.0') according to Firm Map 120067 0394 D, effective dais of June 3, 1986. to The soil type on the site is Immokaiee fine sand. Soil characteristics were derived the Collier County Interim Soil Survey &Narrative Report (Revised 1� from Yamatakl� . 90 H 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will be a commercial development. 1.7 S.HORT TIT.�,E This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the DeVoe Pontiac PUD P Development Ordinance," Tanned Unit �+ .i - � ` _ } r ''s-+.+y y t ti- r n*.�+ a rr, ^Y � �(+.t' ' � r" ��•' _ .: ,.. r _,�:.;� t A+ iJ, d- t t t„ � �.^+.w..tn �,tfr .! ''w �', ,� i! re�.�Yy`i�2Z'�rJWt�u �.:=r—� ,�2..�s Y JT'�(a. - r �, f L..a 3� ti, .r ' � . r, �$ , �`i t+f^�+�� F � � tY; r�`y.<.� r�' ar .,i3`x^it .��M�2i,* n c-0c�,�.".y�„�s�j.s '��ia +tr'.�F.�.{..o�� �.1.. �t�y�jz�tCr'`�`°are �k �t.s. iM '. � � } d{ ~l +r �.fqL f.. �N�� � �`���' � k1'rn.+ !.. `' .tW SY im{%a.-�n^ebrl t�} .•cr�'yj.4Yy"ft� ;17syT sZ?�•M�i S- :.1;r'�t�,. ��-{:�'+�"' � � � ' ^4: y► +f^- f Y '� ,• + 'i +s� � f �.�4 � � v � � � l tt ,.. rs y +,•. � Y a�......f He: ,' AC K..3.' w:.G �r 'is ti, r f 'ts. r � Y a ..r t?I. v'l ..'��°a�� -�'i �.Lffr .KvrL� °"'t`tfa.'.L .�` t�i'= �r �� � .� � .h �C .!t t►�.th + � k. r � t `•1 t., . •'+ a+ . i',n+t, �w }7+. C; C ,�C i �, F _+' . ' _ ,�Y ,«.:,, �� � � �j=''? ",•yr,� nr' � ,.. s,� :ia�,�`��L,.� .+�'%�..1,� .+`x*'...�. `�C:i � ��''�� �iiaaiv:�e�F��t,,. _ ...• r. �: . .... :. .. ..�. ..:.. .�' i t .'.'�"�" +'1 -k X .�"" tt'2c e. � � � :. � '¢^.�,. ': �'�.'7'.ay'+ t k ., t,+ .� .. a� _, ;:?'. ... ,.:. . •.r �_ ....=.-«:tti�a�•.+. a�. �i 4 :�T."''��.,b �..a�':',,�i+=�:.� '�'s1�a'� 'ziR.�` "*i�.�r -�-+•-c:^Faar,•x�o.�' ... .. . t �_. " ,. 2.1 SECTION 2 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL Ae Regulations for development of Devoe Pontiac PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most simIt ilar district in the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. B, Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed for the development of Devoe Pontiac PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code where applicable remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrOncy review under the provisions of Division 3.15 of the Adequate ad Public Facilities Section of the Collier County Land Development Code at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval or building permit issuance applicable to this development, T .3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FLAN AND PROPOSED _LAND USES A. The project Conceptual Master Plan is illustrated graphicalFf ly by ExhIf ibit "AII PUD �... , aII aK tr Vd addFdavj Fat Master Plan. ^v ,Ft y , S r A ;..f .e.l. �. .d It { . - 1 1. �" 'T:"� T a�. 1 + 1� l +i1 N x, 4 1 v4 .. _ Ay .r 'r r f.� r ",' w2 . i ` g-u' r _ .i+f 13 L ... , a. < ;:.-r �tJ C. i ,�°,,s3ti ��a.:� `1y. ,,, S4..'•SYf ts„n'-'t 3- S .. .ti a .r, } ar .x fi ti .J„v3 i." 3... "w''�`. +: S `>::.a~,yL.. 'r d+i a :.>" 4 k....f i „�<t a ta.; ` wiy ,e 5 ; 4�f _ F. " � e .� s , r "S .or _ .,(.. d .- yr t;x r.'K?'"'h+'i. 21 „ '+'.' .:i.._ }- , r _i. 7t" z.• i.: ^+w • t . V�,- ��" r�^-fi r'p'�.` ' '.t.:.: T_i.. r •yray+� 1 4,y„ i. a i . . r -k ... ,w ti Y �'. t�rd4.i:41 j 4}ilr.v 3' .r. T' '� +Zu'.`rcS.''v: La tr ,. . Yr ISti � :'.�f'+ Ps Jr !.a. .'�'?iY fit. .�{tr7Y4:,� •.'miliy..� aNiv...,....-.—:,.7y-+�e.,.vK.i� :. } .. "-� + 1 .,i+'L ._ iTy `,LY-T•rs.'" M1 :xi4y-�4 i.Y•.tY �i,i.w n +. 5 i.,w ..�. ttf Li'=Ro n` �r��lS*n-� i i-,�.t`.-a�'iL"i`l'.G'N '`% a . t + r rt' s tr:,G y Ii •y„ r�L ':'� jf�f� : y,r �. s f93 tciv r . ~ ..�2...^ C xS- } _= —' x ti7�.'L�'K-^:`-.�4' �.3+hTew'�,u',.. _� = a.`X..�'�"^Yj.�J....i. Y} �.i 7Sr .ate ^cr.c.:+:P:*�a .-«4;�.r ^'-C'+J�"�"'L.. f ,.'kl�Ok�F� ^'' _ � ,.. ., r .._' _,... s-.',�,1.-'3 T•'✓c•+•^sc^' 2.4 RELA?'ED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL ,REQUIREMENTS A. Final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure com iiance with PUD Master Plan, the Collier County Land Development Code and the the laws of the State of Florida. platatting B. Exhibit "A", DEVOE PO�C PUD MASTER PLAN, constitutes the PUD Development Plan. required C. If necessary, appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrgstructure improvements regarding any dedications and method providing perpetual maintenance of common gfacilities, for 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO 'PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier Coun Land Development Code Section FF S .. IF k_ k OFN� 741 t t - _ ,. -. .:. R a '}�.Y i tC�, y 3-�'`.' '[ tr� i i Rt'ri; a. '?i ._ _ - • . _ ti .. xf ti ..'r U 3 T i3�, e!..c i-w} .ti -k 4,." f -f.' �4 IF t'gF :t- i'[. ?= ,ij �-a. i� �'+'j,y�3,�.L kxi r? 'ss 1 1?-t'.T. I-e y.-`�j +� ..�o w"`'.-r k�:> '.::r y .J1 ,1 i. .. _. ♦ .. S " , t.1 .. j.. y_.,,rsa h.7: T.r n.rl.•.,�L �L .l Yrq. ,b _ i"'r.'-�-�;L�', _T..i4,'Yv �i,.t ;a. �3 K.:. r._ r i .Y _ - s+,• iF.fa`...''fi.,.;Zr -.x7�'-. ht+�� 'fi�t4,'xr.;t, 'Z;y;•v .. a 1 �:•l�^' .e- v f.T ' ti-c Maw- r �'s•'1.� _ .:._.n -.•,M-,yr�'..., :�.. .t +v�,.� �' .ry.} :ti r .-ih* �.1` ..,�}r:`ti t . i •r :r� . . r::.: ...: _ .. =r"'t j`'.�.r ! th.+i• . �e`'��'..F��. - 7 -t }'r. �t ., - . - -... '• a', niAi- t'Y 1J sArc' , �} 1..�+•l 'N.j: Nf+.�j�,�.'".+it!C �_ "'^4 _ ( �'G f T l-" c P .. � w .w. av s i. ..;�5 t !i fa�b+i� M, W=vs^..:. fi&.•s„XkY..,:,,y;A i L µY a!�rt.,�X.r�" w..ttl.S ..+ •.f}a+eW.C' }.v . _�- -r' .1., J ! t .'�i•.'C tir' ts•-.-a ik *47 t 7'. rtvA?„'r r3 { ,Y�5 �♦, -D] N'7r''!�„'TI '^a^'J" ! �'C` �Y?-t«r*p• in .�'+c�sr +t_ii aA ; �:�..^... 3.1 SECTION 3 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Commercial Uses and development standards that will be applied to the 4.55 acre DeVoe Pontiac PUD. The entire site will be developed as a commercial project. 3.2 USES PERMITTED No buildings or structure or part thereof, shall be erected alte in whole or part, for other than the followin : red or used or land uses, g ' A. Permitted Principal Uses ancl' Structures: 1. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all permitted uses of the C- 2 dso %orL. 2• Apparel and accessory stores (groups 5611-5699). 3. Auto and home supply stores (group 5531). 4. Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used, group ) 5511 . 5• . Business services- ce•. (groups 7311, 7313, 73224338, 7361-7379, 7384, 7389 except auctioning services, field warehousing, bottle labeling, packaging and labeling, salvaging of damaged merchandise, scrap steel cutting and slitting). 6. Eating places (5812 only), All establishments engaged in retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premise consumption are subject to locational *fequirements of section 2.6.10, 7. Food stores (groups 5411-5499). 8. General merchandise stores (groups 5311.5399). 9. Groupcare facilities iliUes (Category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; and nursing homes, subject to -; section 2If .6,26, AI If t I It r• •r �1.7 It vr Y T7 IIt n f r .i r xOr ..jIr OVI ^tr' `-+ t s X ....�" : .3+'p.- .14L.L '.:.'��•.•- r �.'° 'y. :'44.'y e .Y.`I".r... alrIft i ,4.r...x ; 7 .s'^ t '•c ?n .�R.`Cr - I x ', 1 } �(.Y } Y•. .� -.l A• \ N tL ^4"fir"Oil I. t n�« - yi {' YOr. w F + ., 22 ,� x r L .:-(.. (".•tC Y .`*S �A i�-♦Y,`.♦ R `L'r 4�1� iY--a Fa. �.q, i"i:.5v' j, i`tf} ..;Y V }?. =� •:1y� ti'�`�r'- 3� 1 ..f{{ -sa. t +eI IM Or Of .. i, I! h'yT s. y-• .ir "r!t- .. •''it t l . +�:. _ _ OV I :.`.l .p'`..' )(.t_l•' a' SY'-1" 8 "fw:d '!'2 .f: r t, i .n, r "�'�•' ...�/ ..Y,, t ..4.. Ji..�.:Z - i..l.;-.t.�i ter•: 1�iS S ;-1 -`,�, ..� Or - I . r r . ' [o.(j• . tt .:�.• - f."..o +�,; . f"• ' `_ "� f''.• 1 : G, .�'+'"'°• --i' 'hi *T- c3 i. 'ii T •t . ' �s'-•.�' .� 4 d w!i �'st`t++'at :a s.r. i. . IL 1Y-iv~ it •-">a'rF «af "L ^�. `� L .� A'+3. p y''Y tt't7..-aVr.ai ilT,,.i'�`'..a`y's°°t� .!.cr M1 `l�tnw '.�. 'YOr I J tL_, - .y r�K! il'{� d {� �ri�;: t¢i? ..�.aKa'., raw.w .i.T,. •:i N� TR -.�_r_ _._t M:.-.k.� -, w.; rt. xt�... .h. f• "].._.., . "`.i _i-t.'i v }r;h. .+. %p �;.': •.� `:%s�>!.un -":�: r, •.rI-Offlf,'. •:f.♦ u:'.... •-ti h- - :+ 'r.: :1Ef �; �,: tj,l ..y.. `{F•'t:Aty- r.q a,i.'u:t Y.. ..•• »-.f. ..1, - 'S^. ?%Y • Y. ji.-.�:.4J..A -;J u .r, +.i t ,!; «�a .!.♦ ,LyS.'+.+.�r. .r•y .♦t t }. i" y4.55 �:t,,. Y� S� .> i;. •a ♦r: `j. 41 i.i Y, ` r 3.- ,+ 1T' v �}yZ'r .yt+; ...,�.�-Y,�rt�4`;:.tkt tie"3w.f-+�. J!.. lv +.[Y •r , v .+..:•�yt.�• 7 _ t _ . . +`i e.k:� +*' •Fi ! '�r''i ..'C':' �..;5,�+-•t v r, w.i ✓ .¢ r - ...�:.. ! v{ .-„.. - ., l—. ..1 •+ 'x 4y z£ c'„t �_ i'f i•Y' "♦''t.. a�C ,'Y j„t!f _4L'A �,t�" t. '••.a^:.:ir� it'+wi �:i S"a- .nr F-"i� ti f- Y•..', 't,. Of I -n .v-. c .Yr .• c•,r• n . , aM• - ^ %•..: _ ..rc':'. � , t r r FYf ' "Orr' Or p x ;�i e� 1.I� fd ... bht#.�:q R J } u$.e . a. _ Yt'. c 1 {4 ail ti%:r s�`f i. } t rG : ;v fii,, tJdi �2If Of_�r �.s f 2 4ue -� 3 ��' :z'If . ?... : t •• x _ nk��- _?� _k t;r. r "i3,,. ':-' Or Or ^� ram._ .. _ 10. Home furniture, furnishing and equipment stores (groups 5712-5736). 11. Libraries (8321). 12. Marinas (4493), subject to section 2.6.22. 13. Membership organizations (8611-8699) 14. Miscellaneous repair services (groups 7629-7631). 15. Miscellaneous retail (groups 5912-5963 except pawnshops and all uses 0' dealing with secondhand merchandise, 5992-5999). 16. Museums and art galleries (8412) 17. Nondepository credit institutions (groups 6111-6163). 18. Paint, glass and wallpaper stores (5231). 19. Personal services (groups 7211, 7212, 7215, 7216 nonindustrial dry cleaning only, 7221-7251, 7291). 20. Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511- 9532, 9611-9661). 21. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261). 22. - Veterinary services (groups 0742, 0752 excluding outside kenneling), 23. Videotape rental (7841). 24. United States Postal Service (4311 except major distribution centers). 25. � *Any other general commercial use which is comparable in nature with • the foregoing uses including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district, B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this district. k _ -.. _w J-11 t << . _All! s : L AL PW as f .firs LAILLIP" ,_S ( w r rf �4.. : ,.E.. �J G: it..}a`s ■ P.-PI-rw7 t 4 .� j. ti.•:`� n S : - ..•rH.� :yr5,�.) r is .s . tv:'ft ,c - 57�. ip,.--+: �..It �,- ,f. ■ -.: 3 +. 1 p Sl ..�� „_.._. .x i '� r..,r._ ? .. �i..'P.. K 7-` J ..9 3: t x F� C r �1 4.� ,1 '�' ;h- . c. i:."5.--A4� f. . t.�+r< fi x. V - r,-i.'.f 4 .:vr:frr' _ �^:.L '� zr �. 7 .l , .sl - { � a :LIP A I .* rs a Lc .r he ti r , a i. Kr : r z 'r s. t 1 , M 1WILL Y,S f .a A.- 1 �.� J ill Jy v~ _ -.t ^r. 7'at+AWAL J% WWI III ; J VYt 1 . I.1af „ y 'i _ 3.PLI'i .t: .,PILL. t.t,_ '-r r�PIL -y .•i-.c ,�.- f�t,i d�t•i':� ,J+�t P 1 k■ 4W4 V. PCPAPWI . -J• .:a_ fti♦ `- fr. IAL -`.a. y._rt , ot,+F4 Vic^ tirr� rr'.iy. J•` .w'.j t7i' f "*r..�y } gar .;J.; �.� E..x LA +PPP yd°'tL :.Sty L, �.•, rJ 3;_�Aw S. WALLI,:W'.r�y�iw-:C_:.0 4r: '.?r �.•.RAW tit :..w■+�, .;tw AP 4 yt% .'l ♦ _ r ►. =+`= ),+-�;-''P. .�L'�'y .■ !r.. '. •. 1.Y� `Yx.'•f!•*t 3(s �' t `�I to ,- •i 0 3.3 IF IF IF IF OF DI1I�ENSI4NAL STANDARDS The following dimensional standards shall apply to all permitted and accessory uses: A. Minimum Lot Area: B. Minimum Lot Width: Ten Thousand (10,000) Square Feet. One Hundred Fifty (150') Feet C. Minimum yard Requirements: I� 1. Front Yard: 2. Side Yard: 3. Rear Yard: 40 Waterfront: 5. Building Separation for Principal Structures Twenty-five feet (25') Fifteen feet (15') Fifteen feet (15') Twenty-five feet (25') Fifteen feet (IS') or distance equal to one half (1/2) the sum of their heights, whichever is the greater. D. Maximum Height: Fifty feet (50') E. Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: Seven Hundr ed (700) Square Feet F. Minimum Of&Street Parking and Of&Street Loading, g As reqiured in Division 2.3, Collier County Land Development Code G. Landscaping: As required in Division 2.4, Collier County Land Development Code H. Signs. . As required in Division 2.5, Collier County Land Development Code 1 IFI IiF IF Ft FF It IFIFi ot IF Ir ;S 4 t • _ 4!_ .:. `•: _ -r .:h i .��' 3 �J+�a: i' 1 iir. \.�, ,• 1 .�! rl,�s;� h i` ne.3"'aryw '`:yr]"7 ?P. x' ruts; v.4 �. _. <' ;� :r. �' xt_ .+, d�7'.;,! d .I,y,. rt. �r`tt!.j,wk�.°1y'.;:�Y.'$9. ,t. .� t-"-.f'".w..•t.'•'a _`..��t ti.. { �� ,L T y ,. •r ..; S"Y` - ..f p."'. .' 1T.��y - ;'S&b' yT'-s3" '� _ q ._i FI .y. t .r . . i. �. �r v „4 `.. ; '�' . Vim:'.=9. 4 '•1-a,.^.;t +jZw •i••Ir s.."t.'�'. i ;; X -.:f ' i y :'.. . , ti r ;: - y�•:`TM'. r :iw' lY q� t [ f: s R r %IF a Ii.lra p aY tF `.•.iFi2tasFt:wr. �''yx$ - a,v �M.,.w^. r+.. .S� 5" - r X e r -x xt."C to �t 1.�.,+ ate o.; H •-i� «t . LY??.,. IFF :: -�-' ' ... ... +' 4Yat.. SHn '.a t.w4 ..,r y. 4.a...'tt k- .. OF I IF I IF IF IF IF ,,., •t .r ` },�n + -•-. 1.;.Fl..'.etyt_ 1t' �!`_i1:2'�' �r` `i•a:: *°;�'."..:'.i`.l."q< SZ.�;:�,r..a;x ;.v c..�r:�czL4Yion. a.5. e:-07 I. tIot r.. _FPO _ S+g._ar.r.,. ;F-�:.t w,�_",'e.y� .;2'r a �f s1. :.al,..Mw..�S,.. :3.w ,i i - PROOF i SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 4.2 GENE.RAL All facilitie$ shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Final Site Development Plan and all applicable State, and local laws, codes and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even though the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall agree to follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the PUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in ible for any commitments within this agreement, title to the developer shall be respons 4.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 4.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION This PUD shall be subject to Land Development Code the Sunset Provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the IF F IF -(4'1� .. . .. .. ... .. 1. J1 �� 2 }�.L .- } }JY �, f f- • ., l .. ..., . x _ f IFF IF Fa ' l + i x - J S + r �, L i s$ '+,1 •r"Y h _'� •e "t - t •' �_ yC,.s' i^'•''• x J - �^ i Ys Y f f -J fi y >,� ++ l ` -.1,j r t y`> •'r k A: Ya �... J a x. +rf r . f ;oyt -'t 1h: +ar r ;-�r+•i,�. r'cv'ti•. > _ter-^ /4. .r-.. •r i•yey; r+.-y'3+%�1...1.V7 f`.'f" iL- s'?', <.:y 4 k•;f a s: . >� '•�'� �. ..•Y ayrq ^� Y. �rh l% -5.. .f'+/--r: Via' :r^,ti � t IF r - 'y{'-' ;v-r fe� �trt _f t-+�: R•.5«:v- •j..is'. '.,."a4 :iL _{x r .-•f'..t dni, f }� { - .'�::Y '.'r. '^�}. «t .� Jy t 1f r' t. fl T' / r, S...,�� +. �� 'ct t [s,F i -.ilrj f Y i a :.fir 'ti y �} s sE :> r 1} t 5 F w M t .. . r. ... ,. '..:,1.. �Ay, .t T 'i` )ram it`.. W F ,.. t : r ti v , t ,1?i k 3 r z� n' a1L !ram . r r. Cars z � r✓ t r l y. �k.» Ty+.. tM. F!° +{� ter.. ��'It r•N rY"1•_Iv., 'v..: 7 •i. ..r''. "'<'r' t. '3z: 1 i, y r. a kti r. ' i a z to i c . . - Y., t h M .1 ,.� :rr+. JifT l 5 ` ry `YI 1 7 • A ..e - .i wA, f.. r .J t. - •_ .1 _ I'..W L . Y rn.. .i`.i•"'. .l .t.t .i,.-5 N3 •' f.r ,�-:ly- M' -.f ,•V.? :f:;- aC.il:. -.s� ,tit^ .•r.�a.a.-•'+v?i.>wra►^_-4.}•.� t sue., tiv.YY; �y,,-._ ..L x ..4i - )i r�''� •a: �'.a. ,t7 >i� ... - r ;t 3:.try=.= ,,.-�'. _ ''''.: ,r,t �lt`F:1:';.:.=}^`Y>'^'.T�`�-41;4-.ri•.fi•`-F'r�:i }., n„/..r- .ti . __r l.e.: +s_ _..t. ._ .. n..._. .».- - i 4.5 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Northbound right turn lanes shall be required as shown on the site plan when permits are approved authorizing a proAt ject entrance. Portions of the turn lanes are to be striped to inhibit continuous traffic movements along the property frontage. Compensating right-of-way for turn lanes and median areas shall be dedicated by the applicant to reimburse the County for use of existing right-of- way. B a The :;applicant shall be responsible for the installation of arterial level street lighting at all project entrances at the time a project entrance is constructed. C. The County reserves the right to restrict andlor modify the location and use of median openings in accordance with Resolution 92-422, Collier County Access Management Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, and in consideration of safety or operational concerns. D. There shall be no additional driveways or access points permitted onto Airport Road along the entire frontage of this site except as shown on the master site plan submited with this applicaiton. 4.6 WATER MANAGEMENT - The development of this PT D Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following condition: Water Management design and construction shall conform to Division 3.3.5.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. It I IV 4IF IF .OF �. 1 :. ..� ., , J.. '+ ti i _ IF af OFF* OF V�(A-2 ... if r Ott R.ttr [ t rY 1✓ A IF I rJ t �s ... - r T &!j Ore.a `T_",FrIf,'Y..S; ,r�� .:'fY'.54:';s.�+ y.F t-irlxrt 1'�«.-x } .-�.Sd v9uh �•yY tO FT'L t' _. OF 4 M Vt IF VIVO �eia� ".i�7 wiiit1 1'Fi x ' r ti. •. ter: Or n Woolsn: t..: i�xFtr �i� + r s:t�jtV. s:�*4 1x };: 9s 'r Y ar,'� .� i.OF F .k OFr , + {Frei III* F&I:i a^?k. �%\... r , rtiV y, Lr ...'at, ,�fn';t �.•.:v. OF T"J ... ^� "'pt 1r :Y 66 . _ r..-•,s.:..: ti_t._:a,b+�.�'`• " '� '!t%'.ci.:7 •.t• ..s..rIF :rc�'�I wk +5•iF�u11 ^Ms- :.s3trs...._ r,. -�ret `: Tr YY^M - �, r• Y:.. Yr :....�.... —i �i tl +s ti/5a.:i'� t ":u�' ,y .r-"..w-'1Fr^^.r-.. 1.Or K VOL i'tir h t- 11[7.i+ .NI•� "ems .,�`' ^lll.ri..r.-�.i M sp qw, IL r r -qF.:r,:� �:.. a* -het: '?r•„�i :I,vt t:tr''r7 r: '•'r yJf �.ti1. •- '�' �' i�.. --^I FIFO +1w�'+nc?`: ii�.•l'w'a-�• �. ;tg.�S.��..a.,. .. 'FVFF i!:) t.S Fee 1 �'�'�Ir:.r. Y r'l 0-4:i rar.is: �+iv _�r%"l.lw-....riYwr�t .Li 3.v�'nr<i �`� r : i k _ .2 }'�'` v.;f ��+ of i r ,. , G._.... .ep ~l :/ :.;Yi. OF < r ;-t' i.Ti •..,tt1'-�i•i...F:' A�+^jt-•..C#�v a`::a.•:bno• •r ..,..`.4 .,,i •r r a M-M1� Y'„'�a� kd�if'F."z4• J-!,',fi ar sTy .. ..>..y" r .✓.. .. - .Ar 7�i} -. aa.. t :.F''• .:w - r .:wY't.+•1 a .L.�� ..z ,n ._ r a.�.....3�y.1 T^ t Y` : ss ,�Ott� "-E �j,�,'° {+�{ V.Ij. '"t . _ i- i 7 S n 1 x i u q r : 31 J `2iv E S .}73}y�r� s r �. ,.�... ta..'.,r,,.,y,T• ., t1 'I+_. .. ter ee .r'+Nr. ' x : w.. • } isk 1 ,y �"' � r ,:.,. 4 .Y-'rL^t. i'9�1�i _ a y:- .s' .a,- `VOr I;:^,r, .i:�f�:: +' +F'N >•.»3:�x;r=7*'+-a.Tdn.x"'e+-1p+ y, �.3- r.�i--w.. 'S - -,� �+ 'u."f,.-} -•� �r> +:>-T -:.a- %'�'. ,`F.�ti a. r�.•,S-`•s..y:+!.q..++F.y +err 'R. wn'+,k n` i„ ..1� pJ�sHvi'-.`� ..it 7:is: :• t . Otter IV t.,. .iti r'i,: {. i� _ice '�y ...�,.;4.`.;r7`-�." •,�,* m wre•"�'` �:.4 jw�t's"..t ' .tom :.', F ` v' ' r Y.n "ittaS�-.. - -Or- Vt w. :mar a^. r '�' i'4e.'rt '+ttf •er t'F..fYd4+L�•�3.;.:L•I+i.'1. ...xt3-ie s.. sx •w '*..•.�.......Nf....�27C''� Ttz =^ t"Fee Y.... $ _t •'•. t i t .:-•.y� .'�wFear p. a^ ,. c -{ is:;r�% ,r f: :s'�'�n.. i.i;+�:`3'e±•!t�.._., a�[Y. x'.�``yh'•T'Az �'�"`-`:( .._._.� IF ti n ' _ 4.7 4.8 UTILITIES The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. The sewage collection and transmission system to serve this project is to be designed, constructed, conveyed and/or owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 88-76, as amended, and all other applicable State, Federal and County rules, regulations and policies. Sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted public rights -of --way shall be conveyed to the Collier County Water/Sewer DistriQt for ownership, operation and :maintenance. Sanitary sewer facilities • constructed in private easements and/or private platted rights -of -way shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer, his assigns or successors. B. Upon completion of construction of the sanitary sewer facilities within the project, the facilities shall be tested to insure they meet Collier County minimum requirements at which time they will be conveyed to Collier County and/or remain under private ownership, prior to being placed into service. C. The developer, his assigns or successors agree to pay all system development charges at the time building permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time of permit request. This requirement shall be made known to all prospective buyers of properties for which building permits will be required prior to the start of building construction. D. Water service will be provided to the site by a 16" water main on Airport Road that is operated by the Ciry of Naples. ENGINEERING The developm"ent of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: - . A. Work within the Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of the Collier County Right -of --Way .Ordinance No. 93-64. B. Design and construciion 'of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with E the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, { Division 3 *2 IF I r k ..IF I _ t s ,n:-4 a - .� L I IF Y 443WP Af i • .. - r �' It P' to d .fit * 't'S'9A'i.R tom+' x � r'11' A c a tIf.� r;.: t j - t 's i .` ;..! ,� { :k�.�. e� a1 l ♦ �+ ! •C . YOKi' a� "L' , ... r r r- - �j r S a#�.r dx; t r t'.c �t�, r - ," r+ �kh .ram 7 IF '+- B t G z �r; 5 Y h.yK /J. $'«t+r* l.r�.- -,. �4 '" ,-itx` I If If I '^'Via,' 3 .' .% ri+t F} :, �K, •1. '' M1';..; �' F ` `:. - .-- ► r Y. fi"'t. �•%1.+�"r ��" 4 a ti�,'hF ¢ri ?,i:.� 7.s :�. -.T s ., is{ ( f. * r s - IF ' i" - 1_ '�C+ YI x.: ALI :t.--: ;:g #rxw� :.Ni. 1 -.' .X , _� N" .r is _ •%' lS•t eM,i�s.'L�-'"t'! IN'"' '^; t;,�..��Yi i+='•i'C5 r.:'�t.si ...G is.7sY'+ry r y '^„rt•. :1:.� c F ~ r ! IF ,.i +? .�. tie % 1 C"i: .#, k- X ti .a•+;.. y 1 ri J:j' y F_-. i - ♦. ., -.cj r�4�+5'i'. 'r{�14L.~ ;,.,, 54 44�•'...:wct�: i:5.}k� :e., xh i�]� i.�4e�. �> .�i r + r J it v FIFif V_ 9 i. w.4 we-i » .f, t i{ ..r ss .°y #iL. i d[Z '+S' M, 1tpf++' $ .a �y� .•"r i. t _•�� "f' t {' TM, '¢%�tj'��'3�t* 'y,r ;f ri .,»s �` d t..,� �G'�".`^tit ,�+.,a.H� ,�".�.'• r.If, 7: K .._.a... _ _ -.. I 7 iJ 5 ci 4.9 ENVIRQNMENTAL The development. of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions, A. This Planned Unit Development ki- shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element in effect at the time of final development order approvals. B. This PUD shall be required to retain 10% of the existing native vegetation on site, by area, in all three strata, as required by the CCLDC Section 3.9.5.5.4. 4.1' 0 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with Division 2.5 of the Collier County band Development Code. a . . _ - • :'•Vp If IV I IV IV I 10 It I ♦' () T .. _ .�- f. .. •a ✓. or. i. 1 a. - - t> d ' - . _ • : - - a ' -n,^� r .fi=v:r a,yIf,,.jYft jAf'.�a ',� ..Y}.3.a1i 'T- ,t?`a °1... '�„`;• �1... k �Y'y r�% > q - iZ sy Y�. Y.41 VfIV4x i 1._ �a,I If 0-1:i.sr t,• >.i=f 1 3- ''y•T�'.�''q`'t}-i-°`ltra-r_,.•:;h 3 ':R. tIf, I I IV s` r Y x :,e .:i: r.. .Z,:•f .s.:� ik .Latr .>u• yr,' P t.J� }-.{. -?�"._:141 i.'nj'.'. .. 3 -L s- r,: .: rw _ .7•.,,, 4. .. a. .�eL ,:.?4 ;n' •'lr: `.�". �Y3,.+;ti7fr� Y.f.+ .i'w c'L`y...+f �.. �.x'es J t :r.s f w-. �i'., �,r�If Ps 5... ..�• If ;.�X.,,.> ;":�„:i.,: i"i:,,..Y * ,... i•�-f.ti•w,••4:1- s',,,...��r .r.,..z•.x:�r-tt-..--- .r �_ 't• a .L: f. „- .f. t-- T i,`' :n2r i� ,p•.. ?- . .t. .Za. y,..t -•4W. ,•` •._.;. rY-... .��`- ..iV..� '�1.. ...1.+•p. �•• J `} .�c.�i'„f .. v:� fsr: 4r�. A •�iaiVic. 'S! �:�. '!'+r`r�';a'. .'�'" •` 2. ,si. `'Y' .w`. E S -� .� 1 � � t-r . ,. i s: , \ ,, '^ � :±~ t ..•,�� .;,:t`.--;:%":'�°� �iwhsr .`r ,yr, A�°�"? i J:�'4.'r uf:.3fY"r r � 2 � t �_.'..� � .'- � _ ?i••s.._ _ �J r'.�' ;:C..,fr ram,,, 7'�1... �_ .�•>3�.erY• w^?'fi. y�� >%i�<,=^.f' :'.i ,ef- ��� r ..s,:'1... .i.cr,. .e t IR u - ��' .i' i cs _ �..-5. ;,.rti �,��s.Y4 S..j .., ..,R .L. .• .'""f4,Itr ,,T t :1 rY: s �-.�- w � r t i r i� n. n: ..� • .. T :.d ,• :..v. •.i • t :1'� -,t- >.. l .e{- { yr•-.t:r t f i" 1 .,'irr �. T.._' t -3. '3.."." -.s.v �"�� tr �t�'S`��::•CY.+�^w.�-\+.+1'.r•e•� S.:.w F t�F��tr.+ Kl `�'e 'b!r%r iA�4::�••Ji.'it.`.a �tl-.g.. s .�w -1 ♦-. a\ r wa : ••7Gi"�.Fl 'I •s ;- {+.s°s �: a�r�l/mall 1 :� y • f �rrro�rtt/ 1 1 ;�,:, � arm[ 1 1 11 • +rr �' � , ti ,i�x ,=, � .: � r .� }� clroaw ,tic A , Y��, i �.��� � . ; '��: � � 1 ��Y� :1 :n L}Y� A,,. 1 t rt���� ;� ��� t �' h• ' 1 s.w � i _ 1 '`}r� is ,�;, i �` !11 t trill� f t �. ' `� 1 .y� r< � ��. 1 ���� �; - � � � _I• t �_ s � _ � C.tl �t�� �� � t � �.1M.�FyC2}y�s 1:4 �� �.17?.. ri 4 '�s�'i F51',� t , i 1'� J 1 �� Ypt�,t� Y�y o- A c �. t� � 1 2' � � t :.1:j�'�j�'T i�:'i � ¢ Ali�pp 4'i � � ,'�'-i � � n � , RtRtt I�ttg�t ,•� K r �.. ; PCtatC ;. NM1� �'rli _ i tttwwtstr ►�4 t i," r '}}'}'},'}'}t}�I 1. � ��� I� r f •+ck.;21 w . .+, . .. E i �� 7 J•�� ' ' r;��., t ��.,• � i :� �. `:. . �s aloe uttrwtTurt'ito fL� WC.W! • Ih IlYll► - ��. _� oaf f dJ ���/��� mown N1ASiER PLAN N e� W � � E � .. .. �, �. nru r. rr . � .. ..., PROPERTY OEIICRitTiOM w rwtttti tY tww taewtm � ttt itaT rr1 d ircrar tL twwi► a tnura r�tw[ » wL oaiat wwrL nttttow, aolw raK i�rtloawr�r aiar[a ws Tauortl Cr11rtDICt wT H tarM[F t70r1(l1 S 3ZCrt7r /L 1gMMr Y tnutw, a,ua[ a w[ oaura mwtr, rtornk nt,rt trr r OQtf10' Y ,IOC K 1tST IK d fMr 1zC1OM tl IO • asuttct ttr xaro rttTi root tra/ r wvt'to' t for � aiTwrot or raoo rut m rc can v icsrr,w v K arch v twto /[Kl/ 0[Starmt )tOKI ■a1 M OO1tf10^ t[ wtwo stt twittatT rl0ftf-fI�nMT tltt (/OQ rIIr.l 0 ,IirO11T rtiUM wM0 (Ct Tli. Tq • prTAltOt d N000 RRI DOICj IYI r rtrrTiC t rtlt ♦ aRYt[Y O/ aaatrl rtZt IItOKL Itw/ 1 rsttfrl' [ rvl w Ytt.tta[ Of fYp rirn race trot i M•.ns � rar • ostr,cY u tgaoe rur 10 K /Cr1 d roaw'4 OOr Ywtri �M ,Oil roK M tLiL ttw�ttr a t Bart M tt7uu 70 Oir1M otri0f. tots a wrw trot ►wtootr r noT wa.,utart b n.a,t • ,...ar Tx rialt[tal ior, uiutrtat alma r[ r.uwia • �� o '��o= LOCATION MAP .. aRE PLAWlINO OATA t�OY Arp t i.1t Jt /oaf t>sw aa.a t o-s tssw ta[ t taaat trtwr � trs+iin rttarot:a oast¢ 1 TYr rlaow�to tut t wta tmn raaTo r Mt tiil a01MO ail7at:f wrs W/Oa1K OlMO1i ♦i rl1Ur110 M K G-• 2otrto ralrtCT 1� ��. 1 1 ',11 11 711 IA'ell' i t � � vu + t II1.' d wt� �w� �� Y\ M�r�, 1tll EX111QR 'A' �"'... . � ' � . 1 •.f , . �.• � ♦ r ' .. t w q r STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, gollier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of* ORDINANCE 1%70. 97-14 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 11th day of March, 1997, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 12th day of March, 1997. or :' ', �- • �� ' ♦ �I++. sir'• DWIGHT E. BROCK J Clerk of Courts arjd��•lerk': t , : ,'_ ,_ . �,. .,; Vo Ex- o f f ico to Boarcl- d f •• .. `'�' i yt� ./ • Y •j' County Commissioner :;='4 ``=''�•: • .-.r`tow 0 Pot ots toots ow. to P000t 00 t.4.0 o •. +� •;•ems yF B ; Maureen Kenyon,.* r % �a.;; .ti' �'r :��. .� }. . Deputy Clerk ''''��,�.:;.!„�'�+,, -{ ' too to to �:+j !_•. • It r Lw "it IL 8 or cot: iir,x s .� ,a S 1 x I ILL ilit It 1 0 , i r..n Y T 4f m,JJ'• a.J - 1�.• i NK�.r•• .�. T' 4 i ' `b t t .4 T{ -� i' a I. 1.-/". rl, ,. Yt �. �t, w2d V+Y�..4.•.`4it'�1. •. ...�,..T. w++_...! VP ! .A. •t, cL t .. -a•'.' f.», .,,r rt` .?�'4 �A4•�, •tt.•'-S:.4f r �. `: F. �•.',sy._�r' -ts c: c . i .. • a. .. / "', r.... ; n ".c^t 'F,� jet'«;a <• a . j `-S.. ° jzi;` s •.. m -I. Z` �' t tot.00 i 7 4 _�� " r :.:.; rt +„+ .r- } h 1�•v�.er`., a -r ir1 '' a. or . _ r _ ..,� _ i... ••c• tyE �sJ- x='. i Lot.o o« x t-�a! t[,.,. f-'? 4 + t Y 6,: ✓ q:i• » = t ` tz�7�:'r a ,K io 9" y'LJ,. a•,. ti h C c ti x It Ixy xLot { - } 7 ..- tI- I It :'c ij I,..�'tr_ r .t ^1r �y rrJ,r}+f.tt y„i .a -.,ar ,:. .ettt ,. ,LL.;•};OLLIPYt { _ ;•1.d. ,`',Y t '4`•rC`•di"i`.A�`tr`s4ncP'•` .$ f�i^°Lh''�I' t7r-�j"'F g..`i;• ;itf ...."k' '!` 11 tV -�� :C'ti Y-"tL.. s�. ".'y Ti K t - AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Petition PL20210000176 — St. Matthew's House CPUD Rezone I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached Ietters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance.- , i L Sharon mpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this July 26, 2021 by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician, who is personally known to me. CARWJ.CWYER (Signature of Not (y Public) My �M1Y�IBCV OyI�IMIRMI NISO SQN#GGgg2367 :May14,20EXPIRES`oicUnry.y ers Carin J. Dwyer Printed Name of Notary GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT NAME: St. Matthew's House CPUD Rezone (PL20210000176) A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing St. Matthews House, Inc. (Applicant) will be held August 11, 2021, 5:30 pm at the Salvation Army Church, 3170 Estey Ave, Naples, FL 34104. Questions or comments please contact Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone: 239-947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely go to, gradyminor.com, click on the Planning tab and scroll down to the project name. St. Matthews House, Inc. has submitted a formal application to Collier County, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone. The rezone proposes to amend the existing Devoe Pontiac CPUD to expand the PUD boundary to the north and south; to incorporate C-4 zoned properties under their common ownership and change the name of the PUD to St. Matthew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The rezone proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150, and request 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses. The subject property (St. Matthew's House CPUD) is comprised of approximately 11.89± acres, located on the east side of Airport -Pulling Road approximately 1,500 feet south of Davis Boulevard in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Please be advised that any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes, it is not a public hearing. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Notice: 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: PL20210000176 I Buffer: 500' 1 Date: 6/28/2021 1 Site Location: 34840520004 & 00390000008 _ NAME1 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2671 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH LLC 2671 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH LLC 2671 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH LLC 3163 FRANCIS LLC 3738 WINTERPARK LLC 67 GLADES BLVD APT 1 LID TRUST A F & A M CALABRO REV TRUST ACKERMAN,LEONA ADAMS, AMY E M AGRI JR, PETER P & CHRISTINE M AHEARN FAMILY TRUST AIRPORT & GLADES LLC AIRPORT & GLADES LLC AIRPORT ROAD NAPLES LLC ALEMAN, CODRUTA ADINA ALPERT,DEBRA AMBROSELLI,ANGELO AMON, SUZANNE WHITE BADASH,SANDIB BAGNELL, WALTER S BAKER, CHRISTOPHER & CHRISTINE BAKER, MAUREEN E & GEOFFREY H BARBARA A DONAVAN REV TRUST BARRETT TR, LAWRENCE J BARRETTTRUST BARROS, CECILIA LEON BAYS, DENISE BELL TR, FLORA B BELL TR, FLORA B BERG, JOHN P & MARIE BERK SR, WILLIAM E BEVILACQUA, DAVID & JUDY BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BILLINGTON, CHERYL MARIE BOLDUC JR, LAWRENCE BRAIDER FAMILY TRUST UTD4-13-07 BRAY, KRISTIN BRILL, KIMBERLEE ANN & MICHAEL BRODER ET AL, PAULA K BRODSKY, MARC & ILENE BROWN TR, JAMES E BROWN, NANCY MARIE BROWN, RAE ANN BUERGER, RICHARD & SUSAN BURKE,ROBERTJ CANDELAJR,GENNARO CANNETO, DOMENICO & NATALINA CASTANO FAMILY IRREV TRUST CATHERINE MICHELLE BURKE TRUST CHAFFEE, CONSTANCE T CHAMBERLAIN, SHELBIE CHERY, DINEL & VENANTE CHERYL A RENELLA DEC OF TRUST CHIPONIS, JAMES & DIANE CINTRA, MARCOS CLAYTON PLAZA LLC COCHAND, ANTHONY COFFEY TR, MICHAEL COLLIER CNN COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES INC COOK, JON P COOTWARE, SPENCER COOTWARE, SPENCER CORRENTE, ALEXIS PAULINE CORTAZAL,JOSEPH M COURTVIEW #11 LLC COZZI, VINCENT PAUL CREELY, PATTI J CREWS, ANN E CRISLAKE STANFORD 301 LLC CRISLAKE STANFORD 401 LLC CRISLAKE STANFORD 501 LLC CURRO, CARMELINA J CYLARD TRUST D G & D M SINTIRIS REV TRUST DAMELIO, VINCENT & LIZA DANTONIO, DEBRA DAVISON, ROBYN SHERRY DE MARCO, DOMENICO & LINDA LOU DEANGELIS, ANNE M DH SQUARED PROPERTIES LLC DIVERSIFIKT LLC = NAME2 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 8026 SAN SIMEON WAY 8026 SAN SIMEON WAY 8026 SAN SIMEON WAY ISABELLE HORVATH 17 WOODWORTH ST 67 GLADES BLVD #1 3520 ANTARCTIC CIRCLE 81 COLUMBIA ST APT 17D 3231 FRANCIS AVE 20 SKYLARK DR 3548 ANTARCTIC CIR #2208 BRADLEY ASSOCIATES BRADLEY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 110876 VICAS, RAZVAN COSTIN ESPIE LOPEZ JOSEPHINE E AMBROSELLI 3636 ARCTIC CIRCLE #216 75 GLADES BLVD APT 1 MARJORIE A BAGNELL 7 KELSHILL ROAD REBECCA E BAKER 5319 TALLOWOOD WAY CORINE BARRETT TR 367 EDGEWATER DRIVE EAST 3666 ARCTIC CIR #115 3654 ARCTIC CIR FLORA B BELL REV TRUST FLORA B BELL REV TRUST 3572 ANTARCTIC CIR #2110 43 GLADES BLVD APT 1 201 NORTH ST 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 3563 ANTARCTIC CIRCLE JENNIFER JANELLE BOLDUC 3530 PINE RIDGE DR PO BOX 11017 4520 WEST ARM RD 208 WESTWOOD DRIVE 95 GLADES BLVD #1642 MARGARET M BROWN TR DALE MCDONALD BROWN BROWN, JAMES PRESCOTT 720 CREEKSIDE DR #209 5732 NORTH AVONDALE AVENUE 9225 MUSED CIRCLE #203 29 IRVING PL 606 FULTON ST 6004 N LANDERS AVE JAY MATTHEW BENOIT 3552 ANTARCTIC CIR #2206 3224 CALEDONIA AVE 1427 FOREST AVE 1095 BROOKWOOD DR MONICA WILLIAMS 107 S MERAMEC ST 3718 NORTHWINDS DR MC WINTER TR UST C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1454 MADISON AVENUE W MARGARET W WOODS 2237 KINGS LAKE BLVD 2237 KINGS LAKE BLVD 3603 ARCTIC CIR #402 3164 FRANCIS AVE 2012 VILLA LN 3734 NORTHWINDS DRIVE #902 3653 ARCTIC CIR 99 GLADES BLVD #3 2325 STANFORD CT 2325 STANFORD CT 2325 STANFORD CT 39 GLADES BLVD #1 70 GLADES BLVD #1 PO BOX 1003 163-51 90 ST 3616 ARCTIC CIR #510 860 WHISPERING PINES CIR 301 BROWNTOWN RD JULIE A FORSTER 1441 RIDGE ST 15275 COLLIER BLVD 201269 NAME3 NAME4 NAMES NAME6 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 3163 FRANCINE AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 DORCHESTER, MA 02122--- 3105 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5034 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5032 NEW YORK, NY 10002--- 2641 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3845 DERRY, NH 03038 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5037 111 E WACKER DR STE 900 CHICAGO, IL 60601--- 4304 111 E WACKER DR STE 900 CHICAGO, IL 60601--- 4304 NAPLES, FL 34108 --- 0 3560 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 1206 SOUTH LA JOLLA AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90035-0 143 QUAIL DR PITTSBURGH, PA 15235--- 4459 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1031 91 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NORTH CHELMSFORD, MA 01863 --- 0 JAMES H BAKER 70 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1022 NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 BARRETT TRUST 11/28/83 367 EDGEWATER DR E E FALMOUTH, MA 02536--- 7160 EAST FALMOUTH, MA 02536-0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5050 DATED 01/09/01 3561 ANTARCTIC CIR # 2101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5040 ROBERT A BELL TR ROBERT A BELL REV TRUST 3561 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5040 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1025 NORTH READING, MA 01864-0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 65 GREER RD WEARE, NH 03045 --- 0 LEWIS CENTER, OH 43035--- 9362 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 1017 SPRING PARK, MN 55380-0 LOUISVILLE, KY 40243-0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 PO BOX 935 TINLEY PARK, IL 60477 --- 935 3569 ANTARCTIC CIR #2105 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5032 3637 ARCTIC CIR # 303 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5047 MOUNT PROSPECT, IL 60056 --- 0 CHICAGO, IL 60631 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 HARRISON, NY 10528--- 4206 MEDFORD, MA 02155-0 CHICAGO, IL 60646--- 5614 KEVIN MARC BENOIT 47 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5039 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 RIVER FOREST, IL 60305-0 PHOENIXVILLE, PA 19460-2265 3630 ARCTIC CIR #501 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5045 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 TD 6-22-89 76 PARKHURST ST QUINCY, MA 02169-0 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 --- 0 AARON E WOODS PO BOX 290 KENNEBUNKPORT, ME 04046 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3830 MOUND, MN 55364 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5049 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1024 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 CENTER OSSIPEE, NH 03184-0 HOWARD BEACH, NY 11414 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 LAKE MILLS, WI 53551 --- 0 NEW KENSINGTON, PA 15068-9251 22 RENEE DR WAKEFIELD, MA 01880 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOT 2 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 3, NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOT 5 & NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 31, COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI 12 50 25 COM AT NW CNR SEC 12, GLADES UNIT 2,THE BLK J LOT 1 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES GARDENS BLK C LOTS 1-6 NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI 12 50 25 PAR 3 COURTHOUSE STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NG+TCLFNO2S300FTOF NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOT 7 + 4 E 1/2 OF LOT 6 32, 33 + 34 UNIT 301 UNIT 303 UNIT 305 BLK 5 LOT 10 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1016 APT 1571 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2504 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1003 BLK 5 LOT 7 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2212 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2208 S 415FT, N89DEG E 70FT, S 286 LESS E 65FT BLK 3 LOT 49, 50 + E 4FT OF A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 304 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2401 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2413 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 216 APT 1601 APT 1652 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2404 APT 1372 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 13 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 103 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 101 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 115 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 205 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2101 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2215 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2110 APT 1511 APT 1483 UNIT 102 UNIT 104 UNIT 106 UNIT 201 UNIT 202 UNIT 203 UNIT 204 UNIT 205 UNIT 206 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2102 APT 1492 APT 1412 APT 1622 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2103 APT 1672 APT 1642 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 914 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2105 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 303 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2501 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1004 APT 1402 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 203 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 909 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1001 APT 1523 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2206 8-9-10 + 11 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2406 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2416 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 501 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 910 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2214 COMPLEX DESC AS; COMM SW CNR UNIT 701 APT 1603 A-102 A-101 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 402 BLK 6 LOTS 8+9 OR 1393 PG 2297 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 11 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 902 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 311 APT 1673 UNIT 301 UNIT 401 UNIT 501 APT 1491 APT 1371 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2402 APT 1643 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 510 APT 1533 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2308 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 512 N 800FT OF LOT 124, LESS R/W W1/2 OF LOT 6 FT TO POB, S 219FT, N89DEG E LOT 48 OR 860 PG 1493 SEC 12, RUN N ALG W SEC LINE 335FT, N 149.63FT, N 49.30FT 1858.24 FT. E 70 FT TO E LINE 61780360009 U 61780400008 U 61780420004 U 61780800006 U 28681500244 U 28681500286 U 28681500325 U 61481 960009U 63554400009 U 35242560001 U 63557040000 U 63553880002 U 61481840006 U 6355544000O U 63555280008 U 00391562105 U 34840480005 U 61480760006 U 63551440004 U 63556280007 U 63556760006 U 63551280002 U 35242800004 U 35243440007 U 63556400007 U 35240200004 U 28830520004 U 63550120008 U 63550040007 U 63550600007 U 63550840003 U 63554440001 U 63555560003 U 63554800007 U 35241840007 U 35241560002 U 28681500040 U 28681500082 U 28681500118 U 28681500121 U 28681500147 U 28681500163 U 28681500189 U 28681500202 U 28681500228 U 63554480003 U 35241640003 U 35240680006 U 35243080001 U 63554520002 U 35243680003 U 35243320004 U 63553600004 U 63554600003 U 63551400002 U 63556920008 U 63553920001 U 35240560003 U 63550760002 U 6355340000O U 63553800008 U 35242040000 U 63555200004 U 61780480002 U 63556480001 U 63556880009 U 63552440003 U 61780840008 U 63553440002 U 63555520001 U 00389600008 U 74869000141 U 35242880008 U 28630080003 U 28630040001 U 63551840002 U 61482720002 U 28830440003 U 63553120005 U 63551720009 U 35243720002 U 74869000060 U 74869000086 U 74869000109 U 35241600001 U 35240160005 U 63556320006 U 35243360006 U 63552800009 U 35242160003 U 63556000009 U 63552880003 U 61842200007 U 61780440000 U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis DMC PROPERTIES LLP DOBKIN, PATRICIA REIDY DOONE, GARRY P & SUSAN L DORIA VENTURES LLC DUAX, BRIAN CARL & KRISTIN J DYEHOUSE, JUDITH A EARNER, JOHN T & SUSAN M EAST NAPLES UNITED METHODIST EGRET HOLDINGS LLC EGRET HOLDINGS LLC EICKHOFF TR, RONALD W ELKINS, HOWARD & MARGARET ERDLY FAMILY REV TRUST FEITH, ARTHUR J FINN, SUSAN C FITZJARRALD SWANN R/MGMT TRUST FIVE PALMS NAPLES LLC FOLEY FAMILY TRUST FORD, FREDERICK R FORRESTER, JAMES M & MARCIA R FREEMAN JR, JAMES J FRIAS, LUIS F MERCADO FRYE, KATHLEEN A & STANTON R G C DELLA PIETRO PROP TRUST GABINOS INVESTMENT LLC GAFFNEY SR, CHARLES E GALLO5621 LLC GEISSLER, WILLIAM A & ANNE GERMAINE JR, RUSSELL & LAURA L GIANGIULIO, RICHARD & JOAN F GIORDANI TR, ARTHUR J & JOAN M GONZALEZ EST, LEANDRO N GORISEK, SUZANNE B GREEN, RONALD C & JANET B GRISTINA, PETER S & ZOILA HARGROVE,SCOTT W HARMYK, BERNICE C HARMYK, DENICE HARTLEY, JAMES L HATFIELD, LAURA A HEDBERG, CLAES JOHAN HENDERSON, MARKA HETTRICK, FREDERICK E HOFACRE, DANIEL HOFF, E TODD & LYNDA L HOME DEPOT USA INC HOOKER, JANE CONLON HOWARD EST, RAYMOND L HRAB, RONALD JOHN INTERFACE COLLAB GROUP LLC IVERSON, ALICE J & K MCPHILLIPS FAM REV TRUST JACOBS, MARGO M & NORMAN J JAD100 REALTY TRUST JAMES DEREK VERDERAMO P A JOHN A STANTON LIVING TRUST JOHN A STANTON LIVING TRUST JOHNSON, WILLIAM & JOANNE JOSEPH V ANASTOS TRUST JULIAN TR, ROBERT J KACERGIS, MICHAEL A & KATHRYN KACZYNSKI, MARK KADERA, GREGG H KAMILATOS, ANNE KAROW, ALICE LOUISE KASSATLY TRUST KASSATLY, ANDREW & CARMEN KELLY,BERNADETTE M KENNETH S LEE AND VICKIE L LEE KIEBACK, HORST & KARIN KING, THEODORE A & BEVERLY A KLINDT, SAMANTHA E KLOUDA FAMILY TRUST KNIGHT, ELLIOTT KUO, YUNG TZU LA BROAD, EDWARD L LEAVESLEY, JOSEPH C & KATHLEEN LEEMAN, JOSEPH R & LINDA S LERARIO, LISA M LONG, BARBARA H LONG, BARBARA H LORI LAND 3545WP LLC LOUGHMILLER, MICHAEL & ROSANNE LOWMAN, HAROLD R & PATRICIA J LOY, JOHN A LUCAS, RONALD J & DEBRA LUNDBERG, JOEL ALAN LUPPINO FAMILY TRUST LUPPINO FAMILY TRUST MAILO, JOSEPH W & MARILYN MALIO, JOSEPH & MARILYN MARCHANT,BRENDA MARIO 0 & ISABEL V CATOGGIO MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY JOAN OEXMANN LIV TRUST MATTHISEN, DOROTHY K MCALLEN, CHRISTINE A 2122 JOHNSON ST FORT MYERS, FL 33901-3408 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 101 74869000028 U JEFFREY DOBKIN 323 CYNWYD RD BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004--- 2636 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2411 63556680005 U 7603 PARK BEND COURT WESTERVILLE, OH 43082 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1572 3524260000O U 2560 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 601 74869000125 U 708 NW REINHART ANKENY, IA 50023-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 503 63552520004 U 3223 CALEDONIA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4833 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 8 + 9 61780160005 U 60 PIERCE ST MILTON, MA 02186--- 5614 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2111 63554840009 U CHURCH INC 2701 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4817 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12 N 1858.24FT, E 70FT TO E R/W SR 858 A/K/A POB, E 359.56FT, N 305.34FT, E 224.56FT, N 00389640000 U 3504 NEFF LAKE RD BROOKSVILLE, FL 34602 --- 0 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 101 28681500024 U 3504 NEFF LAKE RD BROOKSVILLE, FL 34602 --- 0 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 103 28681500066 U RONALD W EICKHOFF REV TRUST SHARON K EICKHOFF TR SHARON K EICKHOFF REV TRUST 3526 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5032 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2217 63555640004 U 3638 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5046 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 213 63551160009 U 1250 S WASHINGTON ST #501 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1481 35241480001 U CATHERINE M MCALLISTER 42 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1441 35241000009 U 17 HERBERT ROAD BRAINTREE, MA 02184-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 511 63552840001 U FITZJARRALD-SPICER IRREV TRUST 27576 SW WALL ST MADISON, AL 35756-5102 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 111 63550440005 U 16 HENLEY STREET CHARLESTOWN, RI 02813 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 406 63552000003 U 43 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1512 35241880009 U 3624 ARCTIC CIR #506 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 506 63552640007 U 71 CURLEW RD QUINCY, MA 02169-2623 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1007 63554040003 U DEBORAH A FREEMAN 3 NEPTUNE ST TEWKSBURY, MA 01876--- 1731 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2204 63555120003 U YELENIS CANEPA 3060 47TH TERRACE SW NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 10 + 11 61780200004 U 3576 ANTARCTIC CIR #2108 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2108 63554720006 U 20 E GRIMALDI DR FARMINGDALE, NJ 07727 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 310 63551680000 U C/O LAS AMERICAS PO BOX 990205 NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 514 63552960004 U JACQUELINE G GAFFNEY 3400 FROSTY WAY #11 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2313 63556200003 U 5059 ECLIPSE CT NAPLES, FL 34104 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1411 35240640004 U 100 ELIOT STREET NATICK, MA 01760 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1382 35240320007 U 1580 SAINT CHARLES AVE LAKEWOOD, OH 44107 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 404 63551920003 U 3726 NORTHWINDS DR #906 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 906 63553280000 U 3714 NORTHWINDS DR RLTY TRUST UTD 12/28/05 3714 NORTHWINDS DR #912 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5003 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 912 63553520003 U ARACELIS G ASENDORF PR 3497 TORTUGA WAY NAPLES, FL 34105--- 2771 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOT 7, W 25FT OF LOT 6 OR 391 PG 160 + OR 636 PG 1901 61482680003 U 3541 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5035 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2305 63555880000 U 3649 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5049 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 309 63551640008 U 124 BALTUSROL DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34113 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 507 63552680009 U 3602 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5006 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 515 63553000002 U 71 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1030 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1582 35242720003 U 87 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1632 35243200001 U 3216 FRANCIS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3844 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOT 5 + E 25FT OF LOT 6 61482640001 U 103 GLADES BOULEVARD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1662 35243560000 U ANNA PERNILLA HEDBERG 3722 NORTHWINDS DR #908 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 908 63553360001 U 3629 ARCTIC CIR #415 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5042 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 415 63552360002 U ARLEEN B HETTRICK 79 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1621 35243040009 U KATHLEEN ROSE CRAM 3187 CALUSA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 28, 29 + 30 OR 1910 PG 1679 61780760007 U 3570 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5041 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2109 63554760008 U 2455 PACES FERRY ROAD C-20 ATLANTA, GA 30339 --- 0 12 50 25 COMM NW1/4 CNR SEC 12 S 275FT, E 70FT TO POB, S ALG ELY RW LI SR 858 FOR 426FT, E 181.92FT,S 20FT,ELY 153FT,S 00390680004 U 5 STRATFORD PARK BLOOMFIELD, CT 06002--- 2143 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 201 63550680001 U NINA MAE SYMINGTON-HOWARD 59 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1028 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1562 35242480000 U BEVERLY ANNE HRAB 41 OLDE PRESTWICK WAY PENFIELD, NY 14526 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1391 35240400008 U 6201 LEE ANN LN NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 201 74869000044 U 35 GLADES BLVD APT 1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1501 35241720004 U 37 READVILLE STREET HYDE PARK, MA 02136--- 2037 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 110 63550400003 U 746 COUNTY RD 46 GRAND LAKE, CO 80447 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1432 35240920009 U 1252 ANDOVER ST TEWKSBURY, MA 01876 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2412 63556720004 U 2662 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 12 28830480005 U 3758 NORTHWINDS DR #1006 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1006 63554000001 U PO BOX 2248 NAPLES, FL 34106 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1011 63554200005 U 3641 ARTIC CIRCLE #305 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 305 63551480006 U 3516 ANTARCTIC CIR #2506 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2506 63557120001 U JOHN JULIAN GST EXEMPT TRUST DATED 10/04/95 1001 WARWICK LN WILMINGTON, DE 19807-2545 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1531 35242080002 U 63 CAPTAIN BERTIES WAY PROVINCETOWN, MA 02657--- 3100 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 105 63550200009 U DIANA HOLZWASSER 1080 WICKERTON LANE WEBSTER, NY 14580 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1453 35241200003 U JEANNETTE L BERES 3656 ARCTIC CIRCLE #206 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 206 63550880005 U ROXANNE KAMILATOS 3668 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 116 63550640009 U 42 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1443 35241 080003U 3550 ANTARCTIC CIR #2205 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2205 63555160005 U 14423 ELIZABETH COURT BRIGHTON, CO 80602 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2106 63554640005 U 44 LITTLEFIELD ST QUINCY, MA 02169-3627 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 904 63553200006 U REVOCABLE TRUST 894 PARKS ADDITION RD MITCHELL, IN 47446 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2218 63555680006 U 55 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1027 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1543 35242280006 U 34 GEORGE DAVISON RD CRANBURY, NJ 08512--- 2002 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2306 63555920009 U 3660 ARCTIC CIRCLE #204 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 204 63550800001 U 5 WONDERBROOK DR KENNEBUNK, ME 04043-6737 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 410 63552160008 U 71 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1581 35242680004 U LI-HUA CHOU 2953 MEDINAH WESTON, FL 33332-0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1363 35240120003 U 3535 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5035 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2302 63555760007 U 99 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1019 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1671 35243640001 U 761 E 5TH ST BOSTON, MA 02127-3262 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1013 63554280009 U 127 HOFFMAN STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19148 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 301 63551320001 U PO BOX 8944 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 8944 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 BEG AT NE CDR LOT 129, S ALG E SIDE SAID LOT 333FT, W ALG S SIDE LOT 129 340FT TO POB, 61842600005 U PO BOX 8944 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 8944 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 BEG AT NE CDR LOT 129 S ALG E SIDE LOT FOR 333FT W ALG S SIDE OF LOT FOR 240FT TO POB, 61842920002 U 75 APPLE LN MIDDLETOWN, CT 06457 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2307 63555960001 U 2256 BORDEAUX WALK UNIT D1 HIGHLAND, IN 46322 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2502 6355696000O U 10999 SANDALWOOD CT PLYMOUTH, MI 48170--- 3466 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 516 63553040004 U 14505 ETCHINGHAM DR LOCKPORT, IL 60441--- 5063 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2503 63557000008 U 79 GLADES BLVD UNIT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1623 35243120000 U CAROL LEE LUNDBERG 19363 EUREKA COURT FARMINGTON, MN 55024 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1502 35241760006 U 6804 CANYON HILL DR RIVERSIDE, CA 92506--- 5671 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1009 63554120004 U 6804 CANYON HILL DR RIVERSIDE, CA 92506--- 5671 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1014 63554320008 U 3746 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5055 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2415 63556840007 U 3746 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5055 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1012 63554240007 U 68 FOWLER AVE REVERE, MA 02151 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2409 63556600001 U REVOCABLE TRUST 3567 ANTARTIC CIRCLE #2104 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2104 63554560004 U 2641 AIRPORT RD S STE A106 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4870 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-105 28630200003 U 2641 AIRPORT RD S STE A106 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4870 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-107 28630280007 U 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-106 28630240005 U 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-108 28630320006 U 1169 SEA EAGLE WATCH CHARLESTON, SC 29412-8253 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2309 63556040001 U DIANE D MATTHISEN 2032 DECOOK AVE PARK RIDGE, NE 60068-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 513 63552920002 U 3614 ARCTIC CIRCLE UNIT 509 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 509 6355276000O U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis MCCAULEY, ROBERT H MCCOACH, EVA KELLY MCGILLICUDDY, ANNMARIE MCGOWAN FAMILY LIV TRUST MCKINLEY, CATHERINE M MEDINA,ENEXIS B &BELKIS CASTRO MEHELICH, THOMAS A & FRANCES L MEISENHELTER, DAVID K MERCHANT, JANICE M MICHAEL P VALENTINE PROP LLC MICHAEL P VALENTINE PROP LLC MIGLIOZZI, JUDITH A MILLER, BRYCE J & ESTHER P MILLIGAN, MICHAEL H & NANCY L MOALLI, ROBERT & MARIE MOILANEN TR, DOUGLAS & SUSAN MOLINA, EVER ROBERTO MONIGAN, SONIA T MONIZ, RICHARD D MONTELLO, MARTIN F & JANET D MONTEMURRO, FRANK MORLEY, MARIA V MUNIZ, KATHLEEN A MURPHY, CHARLES H & EMILY M NANCY A SAMBOGNA REV TRUST NASON FAMILY REV LIV TRUST NIKITAS, ELIZABETH O'BRIEN, ELLEN O'CONNELL, ANN OCONNELL, DENNIS & WENDY OEXMANN, MARJORIE HORNADAY OLIVER, GUILLERMO & MANOLA ONDRUSH, PAUL & PATRICIA OSTROWSKI, RALPH & BRENDA S OSWALT FAMILY LIVING TRUST OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT CORP OZANICH, TODD R & KIMBERLY A PAGONI, WILLIAM PALM LAKE MHP LLC PAMPENA, SERGIO & JOANNE PAMPENA, SERGIO & JOANNE PAMPENA, SERGIO & JOANNE PANAGIOTIS, CYNTHIA F PAOLETTA, JAMES C PARDO, RICHARD PASKAR,NATHAN PATILLE JR, THOMAS J & DONNA M PCPE TRUST PELLATI, GIORGIO & SALLY PEREIRO, EDUARDO & LUISA PEREIRO, EDUARDO & LUISA A PESCOSOLIDO, GENOVEFFA PIAO, YONG KUI PICKERING, ELIZABETH C PISANO, PETER & PAMELA POLSON, ALAN M & ANNE POP, RUBEN PUETZ, TOBIAS & DORIS PUNWASI, RAJ & DOLLY R HORST INC RAAB, KATJA RAPPOCCIO, JOSEPH & CONCETTA RATOWSKI, ROD & KATHY REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REGOLINO, MARILYN A REID, GRANT ELLEN M MCCAULEY 64 LINTRIC DR SOUTH WEYMOUTH, MA 02190-3137 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2312 63556160004 U 34 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1461 35241240005 U 3750 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1010 63554160006 U 20 JACKSON ST TAUNTON, MA 02780--- 1536 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2304 63555840008 U 47 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5039 GLADES C C APTS #7 THE (CONDO) APT 1522 35242000008 U 3164 CALUSA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4828 NAPLES GARDENS BLK C LOTS 11 TO 13 61780960001 U 3505 ANTARCTIC CIRCLE #2403 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2403 63556360008 U VIRGINIA L MEISENHELTER 7893 MUDBROOK STREET NW MASSILLON, OH 44646-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2405 63556440009 U 78 ABINGTON RD DANVERS, MA 01923 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2314 63556240005 U BIRL A & EDITH E TATMAN 12870 TRADE WAY FOUR#107 PMB #416 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 W 100FT OF E 440FT LESS S 135FT LOT 129 61842680009 U BIRL A & EDITH E TATMAN 12870 TRADE WAY FOUR#107 PMB 416 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 BEG AT NE CDR OF LOT 129 RUN WLY ALG N SIDE LOT 129 340FT TO POB THENCE E 100FT, S 61842640007 U 3647 ARCTIC CIR #308 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 308 63551600006 U 38 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1452 35241160004 U 48 UPPER SHEEP PASTURE RD EAST SETAUKET, NY 11733-1749 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 2019 35241680005 U 3736 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5054 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1015 63554360000 U D E & S M MOILANEN FAM TRUST UTD 09/03/08 1295 OSAUKA RD NE SAUK RAPIDS, MN 56379 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 306 63551520005 U LESLIE GENE ESCOBAR DE MOLINA 3663 ARCTIC CIR # 104 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5053 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 104 63550160000 U 201 EVERGREEN ST #1-2E VESTAL, NY 13850-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 413 63552280001 U CAROL A DERITA MONIZ 3676 ARCTIC CIR #112 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 112 63550480007 U 9 PORTER ST BILLERICA, MA 01821 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2213 63555480002 U SANDRA BADASH 595 PORTSIDE DR NAPLES, FL 34103--- 4169 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1612 35242960009 U 3644 ARTIC CIRCLE #212 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 212 63551120007 U 34 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1463 35241320006 U 5335 E BLUE TEAL DR PORT CLINTON, OH 43452 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1423 35240840008 U 235 10TH ST PALISADES PARK, NJ 07650 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2510 63557280006 U 20 WHIPPLETREE ROAD CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1451 35241120002 U STEPHANIE RENZI 93 STARR ST LEOMINSTER, MA 01453--- 1607 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1005 63553960003 U BARBARA DAWSON 341 11TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11215--- 4010 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 505 63552600005 U 3631 ARCTIC CIR # 416 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5042 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 416 63552400001 U 259 COLUMBUS PL CLIFFSIDE PARK, NJ 07010 --- 0 NAPLES WINTEPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2112 63554880001 U 5 STONE CREEK PARK OWENSBORO, KY 42303-1846 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2311 63556120002 U 103 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1663 35243600009 U 3538 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5036 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2211 63555400008 U 124 ROYAL VISTA DRIVE EAST PEORIA, IL 61611--- 1541 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1422 35240800006 U 30 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1471 35241360008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-103 OR 1336 PG 71 28630120002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-101 28630360008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-102 28630400007 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-103 28630440009 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-104 28630480001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-105 28630520000 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-106 28630560002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-107 28630600001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-108 28630640003 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-101 28680040006 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-102 28680080008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-107 28680280002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-108 28680320001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-109 28680360003 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-110 28680400002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-101 28680440004 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-102 28680480006 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-103 28680520005 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-104 28680560007 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-105 28680600006 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-106 28680640008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-107 28680680000 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-108 28680720009 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-109 28680760001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-110 28680800000 U 2661 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4879 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-104 28680160009 U 7309 VILLA RIDGE CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44023 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2508 63557200002 U SUSAN KESLOV 966 BONITA CT BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1683 35243840005 U PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LLC 295 MADISON AVE NEW YORK, NY 10017 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 FROM NE COR LOT 125 RUN S ON E LI 671.3FT FOR POB, RUN W 277.5FT TO W LI LOT 125, S ON 61842240009 U 145 RED MAPLE LN GLENSHAW, PA 15116-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2203 63555080004 U 145 RED MAPLE LN GLENSHAW, PA 15116-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2303 63555800006 U 145 RED MAPLE LN GLENSHAW, PA 15116-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2301 63555720005 U PETER T LYDON 3659 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5049 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 102 63550080009 U 3527 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5033 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2414 63556800005 U 3708 NORTHWINDS DR #913 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 913 63553560005 U 3504 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5008 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2512 63557360007 U 3635 ARCTIC CIR # 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5047 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 302 63551360003 U 2124 AIRPORT RD S STE 102 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4877 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 1 + 2 61780040002 U 18000 PERTH AVE HOMEWOOD, IL 60430-1627 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1513 35241920008 U PO BOX 7343 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7343 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 21 OR 883 PG 1865 61482400005 U PO BOX 7343 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7343 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 20 OR 883 PG 1865 61482360006 U 30 HILLTOP ST NEWTON, MA 02458--- 1819 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2310 63556080003 U GUI HUA CUI 91 GLADES BLVD UNIT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1653 35243480009 U 103 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 102 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1661 35243520008 U 3967 RECREATION LN NAPLES, FL 34116--- 7314 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2507 63557160003 U 206 OLYMPIC CLUB CT BLUEBELL, PA 19422--- 1283 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1641 35243280005 U 29910 GREEN ACRES FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48334-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 312 63551760001 U 34 GLADES BLVD #1462 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1462 35241280007 U 55 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1541 35242200002 U 1547 GORDON RIVER LN NAPLES, FL 34104--- 5296 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 E 140FT OF S 135FT LOT 129 LESS E 30FT R/W 61842520004 U 4521 1ST AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1482 35241520000 U 94 STEEPLEVIEW DR BERLIN, CT 06037 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2505 63557080002 U 3333 BYWATER DR STERLING HEIGHTS, MI 48314--- 2837 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 107 63550280003 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1 28830040005 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2 28830080007 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 3 28830120006 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 4 28830160008 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 5 28830200007 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 6 28830240009 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 7 28830280001 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 8 28830320000 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 9 28830360002 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 10 28830400001 U 62 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1403 35240600002 U PHILIP ELWIN REID 63 GLADES BLVD UNIT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1552 35242360007 U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis RICHMOND, JESTER NOLAN VICKY LYNN RICHMOND 3179 CALUSA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 25, 26 + 27 61780720005 U RIDILLA, ROBERT J & IRENE C 1003 SOUTH WAY GREENSBURG, PA 15601 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1362 35240080004 U ROGER CARVALLO REV TRUST 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-105 28680200008 U ROGER CARVALLO REV TRUST 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-106 28680240000 U ROMAN, TANYA & NICOLAS 13759 NW 18TH CT PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33028--- 2602 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 409 63552120006 U ROUTHIER, RICHARD & MONA 3646 ARCTIC CIR #209 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 209 63551000004 U ROZZERO, ANTHONY J & DONNA M 263 PULASKI ST WEST WARWICK, RI 02893--- 5228 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 915 63553640006 U RUSSO, DOMINICK C 6791 WEATHERBY CT NAPLES, FL 34104 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1563 35242520009 U SABETTA, RALPH JOSEPH ELAINE MARIE SABETTA 3664 ARCTIC CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 202 6355072000O U SAFE HARBOR INVESTMENTS LLC 9126 CHULA VISTA ST #12301 NAPLES, FL 34113 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1613 35243000007 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43B) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 2 61481640002 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43C) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 1 61481600000 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43G) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 22 OR 920 PG 47 61482440007 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43G) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 23 OR 920 PG 46 61482480009 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43H) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 6 OR 1602 PG 964 61481800004 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD PMB 450 (CO43A) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 3 OR 1602 PG 964 61481680004 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD PMB 450 (CO43D) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 5 OR 1602 PG 964 61481 760005U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD PMB 450 (CO43E) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 4 OR 1602 PG 964 61481 720003U SALVAGGIO, PAUL J & MONICA C 174 PARKSIDE AVE BRAINTREE, MA 02184-3142 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 210 63551040006 U SAMPLE, ALAN ROY WOLFGANG BOROWSKI 3515 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5013 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2408 63556560002 U SAMUEL, TAMARA R STROHL- DARREN A SAMUEL 2315 STANFORD CT STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4842 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 302 74869000073 U SASTRE, REUBEN MARGARITA ELENA SASTRE 6735 LINKWOOD ST BEAUMONT, TX 77706--- 4218 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 401 63551800000 U SBLENDORIO, DANIEL & KIMBERLY 3564 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5041 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2114 63554960002 U SCENSNY, FREDERICK J & JANINE 3724 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5054 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 905 63553240008 U SCHILLING, EVA H 50 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1421 35240760007 U SCIPIONE, ANTHONY & EDNA M 3642 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5046 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 211 63551080008 U SCOTT, DOUGLAS M & JOANNE H 644 RAMAPO VALLEY RD OAKLAND, NJ 07436 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1361 35240040002 U SELK, AMARYLLIS G AOME A SELK 3560 ANTARCTIC CIR #2202 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2202 63555040002 U SEVERINI, ANTHONY 609 NW 102ND AVE CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 508 63552720008 U SHAFF, MARGARET A 390 PALM DR #2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4937 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1682 35243800003 U SHEPHERD, ROBERT D 3095 CONNETICUT AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOTS 3 + 4 61482600009 U SHERRY LIVING TRUST 55 GLADES BLVD #1542 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1542 35242240004 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SW FLA INC 2601 AIRPORT ROAD S NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 2 24729000082 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA TRACT A 24729000024 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA TRACT B 24729000040 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 1 24729000066 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 3 24729000105 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 4 24729000121 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 5 24729000147 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 6 24729000163 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 7 24729000189 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 8 24729000202 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 9 24729000228 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 10 24729000244 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 11 24729000260 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 12 24729000286 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 13 24729000309 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 14 24729000325 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 15 24729000341 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 16 24729000367 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 17 24729000383 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 18 24729000406 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 19 24729000422 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 20 24729000448 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 21 24729000464 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 22 24729000480 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 23 24729000503 U SMITH TR ET AL, DOROTHY C UTD 8/10/06 22 HARVEST HILL ROAD WEST SINSBURY, CT 06092 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2207 63555240006 U SMITH, MICHAEL C & CAROL A 63 GLADES BLVD APT 1 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1029 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1551 35242320005 U SONDEREGGER, DORIS 42 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1442 35241040001 U SORRENTINO FAM IRREV TRUST 132 AUTUMN PL ELWOOD, NY 11731 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2210 63555360009 U SPOSITO, ROBERT P 3667 ARCTIC CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 106 63550240001 U SPOSITO, ROBERT P THOMAS JOHN SPOSITO MARK ROBERT SPOSITO 3671 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5053 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 108 63550320002 U SPRINGHAM, JEAN E 3430 FROSTY WAY #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1002 63553840000 U SPRY, SUSAN D 443 FOREST HILLS BLVD NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7555 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 12 + 13 61780520001 U ST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 12 50 25 COM SW COR,N2506.24FT ,E 70FT TO POB, N688.52FT, E 200FT, S 358.52FT, E 460FT, S 330FT, W 660FT TO POB 00390000008 U ST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4800 12 50 25 COM AT SW COR SEC 12, N ALG W SEC LI 2246.24FT OF E 70FT TO E R/W OF SR S 858 TO POB, CONT E 100FT OF N 00389680002 U ST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4800 GLADES UNIT 2,THE BLK K LOT 1, AND THAT PARCEL IN SEC 12 TWP 50 RNG 25 DESC AS: COMM SW CNR SEC 12, N 3529.68FT, N 89 34840520004 U STAIANO, MICHAEL CATHLEEN STAIANO 3634 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 215 63551240000 U STALLINGS JR, RUSSELL E 3562 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5041 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2113 63554920000 U STAMATIA TINA CARVALLO TRUST 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-104 28630160004 U STAMITIA TOULA CARVALLO TRUST 121 BALTUSROL DR NAPLES, FL 34113--- 8322 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-103 28680120007 U STAMM, TIM 30 GLADES BLVD #1473 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1473 35241440009 U STANLEY, BEVERLY ANN 314 NEWPORT DR #1608 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 411 63552200007 U STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 105 28681500105 U STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 302 28681 50026OU STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 304 28681500309 U STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 306 28681500341 U SU, ZU XIONG JUAN RONG YANG 3519 ANTARCTIC CIR #2410 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2410 63556640003 U SUCIU, DIANA VIORICA 51 GLADES BLVD UNIT #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1532 35242120001 U SULLIVAN, BRIAN 3179 FRANCIS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 9 61481 920007U SULZER, WILLIAM R & BARBARA M 118 WEISSER AVENUE LOUISVILLE, KY 40206-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2216 63555600002 U TARCZY FAMILY LIV TRUST 19145 SANDPIPER DRIVE MACOMB, MI 48044 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 307 63551560007 U TATEL, BARRY M & JILL R 54 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1038 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1413 35240720005 U THOMALEY LLC 1996 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3820 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOT 1 & 2 61482520008 U THOMALEY LLC 1996 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3820 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 E 240FT OF LOT 129 LESS SLY 165FT AND ELY 30FT 61842480005 U TIBBS, JEAN C 3255 CALEDONIA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4833 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 3 + 4 61780080004 U TILLIE ANN LAPIERRE LIV TRUST 58 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1392 3524044000O U TORITTO JR, NICHOLAS F & RUTH 3506 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2509 63557240004 U TRELEASE, MATTHEW M KRISTINE L TRELEASE 1735 DEERPATH ROAD EASTON, PA 18040 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2209 63555320007 U TULLY, LAUREN PEAVEY 32 HAMMOND RD E NORTHPORT, NY 11731 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 412 63552240009 U VACCA, DEBORAH M 3628 ARCTIC CIR # 504 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5045 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 504 63552560006 U VELARDO, ANTONIO 3668 ARCTIC CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 114 63550560008 U VERREKIA, NICHOLAS & JULIEANN 206 OAKWYNNE RD BROOMALL, PA 19008-1621 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2407 6355652000O U VREELAND, CLARENCE P 3627 ARCTIC CIRCLE UNIT 414 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 414 63552320000 U WALKER LANE LLC 12870 TRADE WAY FOUR #107 PMB #416 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 S 135FT OF W 100FT OF E 440FT LOT 129 61842720008 U WALLACE, ROBERT K THERESA M WALLACE 6461 COOLICAN ROAD RED CREEK, NY 13143-0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1373 35240240006 U WALSH, JAMES J & MARLENE L 3706 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5003 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 916 63553680008 U WARBURTON, WILLIS C SHIRLEY A WARBURTON 2002 FORREST POINTE DR EAST GREENBUSH, NY 12061 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1561 35242440008 U WARD, JAMES J MICHAEL A DONOVAN 75 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1031 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1602 35242840006 U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis WARSHAW,STANLEY WARWICK, ANGELE F WEBER, JULIE WESOLOSKI,JERRY WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES LLC WIECKERT, WILLIAM WILKINSON, MAUREEN A WILLIAM & LORI YOUNG TRUST WILLIAMS, HAROLD P & SHARAN G WILLIAMS, JOSHUA LAURENCE WILSON, ELESHA M WINSTON, SHALONI WINTERMEYER, JON & BARBARA WOODS, JOSEPH P & MARGARET E WRIGHT, MINDY L ZAPATKA, LISE T ZEISIG, RODNEY A & MARCIA J REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY ANDERSSON,LENNART CASSANO, GASPARO & GABRIELLA CATZMAN,LYNN CHISNALL, DAVID ANDREW CHRISTMANN, NORBERT J DANIELSSON, TED ANDERS DE LA ROCHE, JOHN P & HEATHER EDNEY,GEORGE EDNEY, ROBERT C & LINDA A HAMOUI, BAHJAT HEDLUND, HANS F & ANNA E HEGER, SIEGFRIED & SUSANNE IPPOLITO, PETER & LINA KEHREIN, JOHANNA SANDBERG LAJOIE, PAUL LEKOUTOVICH, OLEG MARTIN, STEWART & VANNE MUTZBERG,SUSANNA NIEBEL, BERND & MARIN PERELMAN,VSEVOLOD SAMIULLAH, YUSAF & DIANA JOY SZPIRO, MARTIN WILSON, MARLENE ZEBIC ET AL, DOBRIVOJE BARBARA DAWSON 2 AMBER LANE WEST HAMPTON, NY 11977-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2107 63554680007 U 8716 CATALINA DR PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66207--- 2355 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 S 200FT OF N 100OFT LOT 124 LESS R/W 61842000003 U 8601 THOMPSON DR WIND LAKE, WI 53185-1405 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 903 63553160007 U 916 BLUEBIRD ST NAPLES, FL 34104--- 4481 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2201 63555000000 U %DAVID J SACCO ONE INTERNATIONAL PL #3900 BOSTON, MA 02110-0 12 50 25 FROM SW CDR SEC RUN N 2836.80FT, E270 FT TO POB, N 990FT, E 1120FT, S 1320FT, W 660FT, N 330FT, W 460FT TO POB 00389880006 U 3239 CALEDONIA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOT 5,6 + 7 61780120003 U RICHARD TAPPER 37 SCHOOL HOUSE RD #8 WEYMOUTH, MA 02188 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 408 63552080007 U 9647 BILTMORE WAY HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80126 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 113 63550520006 U 67 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5034 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1573 35242640002 U TORI LEEANN WILLIAMS 3613 ARCTIC CIR #407 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 407 63552040005 U 3195 FRANCIS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 8 OR 1193 PG 2094 61481 880008U 143 OAKLAND AVE GLOVERSVILLE, NY 12078--- 3519 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 109 63550360004 U 3650 ARTIC CIR #207 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 207 63550920004 U 504 PLYMOUTH STREET HOLBROOK, MA 02343 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2511 63557320005 U 424 S. RASPBERRY LN #1 EAGLE RIVER, WI 54521-0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1381 35240280008 U MARISSA E ZAPATKA 46 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1431 35240880000 U 206 MEADOW LARK LN LAPORTE, IN 46350--- 1950 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1472 35241400007 U COURT PLAZA CONDOMINIUM 12 50 25 PARCEL 8.1 NOW COURT PLAZA CONDO OR 853 PG 1753 00389800002 N COURT PLAZA II CONDOMINIUM 12-50-25 PARC 8.2 NOW COURT PLAZA 11 OR 948 PG 1517 00389840004 N COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12, N 2306.24FT, E 235FT TO POB, N 200FT, E 419.18FT, S 200FT, W 419.12FT TO POB, LESS WLY 00389760003 N COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES GROVE & TRUCK CO LITTLE FARMS # 2 S 200FT OF N 1200FT OF LOT 124 LESS R/W OR 1250 PG 1423 NKA COURTVIEW BLDG 61842080007 N GLADES COUNTRY CLUB APTS 7,THE A CONDOMINIUM GLADES UNIT 2,THE BLK K NOW GLADES COUNTRY CLUB APTS CONDO UNIT 7 DESC IN OR 602 PG 1306 34840560006 N NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM 12 50 25 PAR 35 NOW NAPLES WINTERPARK I CONDO OR 1126 PG 158 AMENDED BOUNDARY OR 1133 PG 1720 00391040009 N STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 N 500FT OF LOT 124, LESS R/W NKA STANFORD SQUARE CONDO AS DESC IN OR 2866 PG 680 61841960005 N EVA JANSSON ULVSBOVAGEN 89 FAGERSTA 73792 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 405 63551960005 F 4048 ASHBY DR BEAMSVILLE LOR 1B9 CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1008 63554080005 F 23 PINNACLE RD TORONTO M21- 2V6 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1651 35243400005 F CAROLYN DIANA ADAMSON 7 BURSAR CLOSE NEWTON- LE -WILLOWS WA12 9JS UNITED KINGDOM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1631 35243160002 F RR 1 PAISLEY NOG2NO CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 214 63551200008 F ROTTVIKSVAGEN 70 LEKSAND 79331 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 901 63553080006 F 3256 COUNTY RD 8 PICTON KOK 2TO CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1433 35240960001 F KARIN MAIWALD 1113 SELBY STREET NELSON V1L 2W4 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1393 35240480002 F 1155 SIFTON BLVD SW CALGARY T2T 21-2 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1401 35240520001 F RENEE HAMOUI RHONDA HAMOUI 29 HIGHMONT CRT KANATA K2T 1B3 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1503 35241800005 F HAKAN I=& LINDA T BJURLING BARKEVAGEN 77 SODERBARKE 77760 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 911 63553480004 F WITTEKINDSTRASSE 113 WILDESHAUSEN 27793 GERMANY GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1383 35240360009 F JOHN & LOUISE BRAVETTI 60 HILDEGARD DR HAMILTON L8K 5R9 CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 208 63550960006 F JENNY FORSMAN NORSVAGEN 3 SODERBARKE 77760 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 907 63553320009 F 36 CARMEL HUDSON JOP 1HO CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 917 63553720007 F EVA POPOVA LEKOUTOVICH 311 CHELLWOOD DR THORNHILL L4J 7Y8 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1611 35242920007 F ALLANDALE DANBY WISKE NORTH ALLERTON NORTH YORKSHIRE DI-7 OLY UNITED KINGDOM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1521 35241960000 F KORZERTER STIR 15 WUPPERTAL 42349 GERMANY NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 918 63553760009 F MAUSER STIR 82 BERLIN 12277 GERMANY NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 403 63551880004 F ANNA SKOMOROVSKAIA 40 FLAMINGO ROAD VAUGHAN L4J 6Z5 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1681 35243760004 F 6 GORRINGE ROAD EASTBOURNE BN22 8XL UNITED KINGDOM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1553 35242400006 F VERONIQUE POURCELET 66 ROSEMONT CR WESTMOUNT H3Y 2C9 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1633 35243240003 F 1015 CTY RD 3, RR#1 BELLEVILLE K8N 4Z1 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1583 35242760005 F 50 GREENFIELD DR TORONTO M913 1H3 CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 502 63552480005 F POList 500 PL20210000176.xis NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT NAME: St. Matthew's House CPUD Rezone I (PL20210000176) A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing St. Matthews House, Inc. (Applicant) will be held August 11, 2021, 5:30 pm at the Salvation Army Church, 3170 Estey Ave, Naples, FL 34104. Questions or comments please contact Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician with Q. Grady Mi- nor & Associates, P.A. by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone: 239- 947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely go to, gradyminor.com, click on the Planning tab and scroll down to the project name. St. Matthews House, Inc. has submitted a formal application to Collier Coun- ty, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone. The re- zone proposes to amend the existing Devoe Pontiac CPUD to expand the PUD boundary to the north and south; to incorporate C-4 zoned properties under their common ownership and change the name of the PUD to St. Mat- thew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The rezone proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150, and request 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses. The subject property (St. Matthew's House CPUD) is comprised of approxi- mately 11.89± acres, located on the east side of Airport -Pulling Road ap- proximately 1,500 feet south of Davis Boulevard in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. SUBJECT PROPERTY Please be advised that any information provided is subject to change un- til final approval by the governing authority. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes, it is not a public hearing. ND-GCI0692865-01 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Petition PL.20210000176 — St. Matthew's House CPUD Rezone I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this July 23, 2021 by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician, who is personally known to me. Y Pam', CARIN J. DWYER ANY COMMISSION # GG 882367 (Signature of N (tary Public)E�XPIR'E'JS: May 14_. 2024 y ,~.POF F4Qp, RlNW IIIN INII�rWN4 UN�V11�1118�. Carin J. Dwyer Printed Name of Notary GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT NAME: St. Matthew's House CPUD Rezone (PL20210000176) A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing St. Matthews House, Inc. (Applicant) will be held August 11, 2021, 5:30 pm at the Salvation Army Church, 3170 Estey Ave, Naples, FL 34104. Questions or comments please contact Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone: 239-947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely go to, gradyminor.com, click on the Planning tab and scroll down to the project name. St. Matthews House, Inc. has submitted a formal application to Collier County, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone. The rezone proposes to amend the existing Devoe Pontiac CPUD to expand the PUD boundary to the north and south; to incorporate C-4 zoned properties under their common ownership and change the name of the PUD to St. Matthew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The rezone proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150, and request 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses. The subject property (St. Matthew's House CPUD) is comprised of approximately 11.89± acres, located on the east side of Airport -Pulling Road approximately 1,500 feet south of Davis Boulevard in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Please be advised that any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes, it is not a public hearing. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Notice: 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: PL20210000176 I Buffer: 500' 1 Date: 6/28/2021 1 Site Location: 34840520004 & 00390000008 _ NAME1 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2248 AIR LLC 2671 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH LLC 2671 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH LLC 2671 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH LLC 3163 FRANCIS LLC 3738 WINTERPARK LLC 67 GLADES BLVD APT 1 LID TRUST A F & A M CALABRO REV TRUST ACKERMAN,LEONA ADAMS, AMY E M AGRI JR, PETER P & CHRISTINE M AHEARN FAMILY TRUST AIRPORT & GLADES LLC AIRPORT & GLADES LLC AIRPORT ROAD NAPLES LLC ALEMAN, CODRUTA ADINA ALPERT,DEBRA AMBROSELLI,ANGELO AMON, SUZANNE WHITE BADASH,SANDIB BAGNELL, WALTER S BAKER, CHRISTOPHER & CHRISTINE BAKER, MAUREEN E & GEOFFREY H BARBARA A DONAVAN REV TRUST BARRETT TR, LAWRENCE J BARRETTTRUST BARROS, CECILIA LEON BAYS, DENISE BELL TR, FLORA B BELL TR, FLORA B BERG, JOHN P & MARIE BERK SR, WILLIAM E BEVILACQUA, DAVID & JUDY BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BIGI & BIGI LLC BILLINGTON, CHERYL MARIE BOLDUC JR, LAWRENCE BRAIDER FAMILY TRUST UTD4-13-07 BRAY, KRISTIN BRILL, KIMBERLEE ANN & MICHAEL BRODER ET AL, PAULA K BRODSKY, MARC & ILENE BROWN TR, JAMES E BROWN, NANCY MARIE BROWN, RAE ANN BUERGER, RICHARD & SUSAN BURKE,ROBERTJ CANDELAJR,GENNARO CANNETO, DOMENICO & NATALINA CASTANO FAMILY IRREV TRUST CATHERINE MICHELLE BURKE TRUST CHAFFEE, CONSTANCE T CHAMBERLAIN, SHELBIE CHERY, DINEL & VENANTE CHERYL A RENELLA DEC OF TRUST CHIPONIS, JAMES & DIANE CINTRA, MARCOS CLAYTON PLAZA LLC COCHAND, ANTHONY COFFEY TR, MICHAEL COLLIER CNN COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES INC COOK, JON P COOTWARE, SPENCER COOTWARE, SPENCER CORRENTE, ALEXIS PAULINE CORTAZAL,JOSEPH M COURTVIEW #11 LLC COZZI, VINCENT PAUL CREELY, PATTI J CREWS, ANN E CRISLAKE STANFORD 301 LLC CRISLAKE STANFORD 401 LLC CRISLAKE STANFORD 501 LLC CURRO, CARMELINA J CYLARD TRUST D G & D M SINTIRIS REV TRUST DAMELIO, VINCENT & LIZA DANTONIO, DEBRA DAVISON, ROBYN SHERRY DE MARCO, DOMENICO & LINDA LOU DEANGELIS, ANNE M DH SQUARED PROPERTIES LLC DIVERSIFIKT LLC = NAME2 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 750 11TH ST S #202 8026 SAN SIMEON WAY 8026 SAN SIMEON WAY 8026 SAN SIMEON WAY ISABELLE HORVATH 17 WOODWORTH ST 67 GLADES BLVD #1 3520 ANTARCTIC CIRCLE 81 COLUMBIA ST APT 17D 3231 FRANCIS AVE 20 SKYLARK DR 3548 ANTARCTIC CIR #2208 BRADLEY ASSOCIATES BRADLEY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 110876 VICAS, RAZVAN COSTIN ESPIE LOPEZ JOSEPHINE E AMBROSELLI 3636 ARCTIC CIRCLE #216 75 GLADES BLVD APT 1 MARJORIE A BAGNELL 7 KELSHILL ROAD REBECCA E BAKER 5319 TALLOWOOD WAY CORINE BARRETT TR 367 EDGEWATER DRIVE EAST 3666 ARCTIC CIR #115 3654 ARCTIC CIR FLORA B BELL REV TRUST FLORA B BELL REV TRUST 3572 ANTARCTIC CIR #2110 43 GLADES BLVD APT 1 201 NORTH ST 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 144 GOVERNORS HILL ROAD 3563 ANTARCTIC CIRCLE JENNIFER JANELLE BOLDUC 3530 PINE RIDGE DR PO BOX 11017 4520 WEST ARM RD 208 WESTWOOD DRIVE 95 GLADES BLVD #1642 MARGARET M BROWN TR DALE MCDONALD BROWN BROWN, JAMES PRESCOTT 720 CREEKSIDE DR #209 5732 NORTH AVONDALE AVENUE 9225 MUSED CIRCLE #203 29 IRVING PL 606 FULTON ST 6004 N LANDERS AVE JAY MATTHEW BENOIT 3552 ANTARCTIC CIR #2206 3224 CALEDONIA AVE 1427 FOREST AVE 1095 BROOKWOOD DR MONICA WILLIAMS 107 S MERAMEC ST 3718 NORTHWINDS DR MC WINTER TR UST C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1454 MADISON AVENUE W MARGARET W WOODS 2237 KINGS LAKE BLVD 2237 KINGS LAKE BLVD 3603 ARCTIC CIR #402 3164 FRANCIS AVE 2012 VILLA LN 3734 NORTHWINDS DRIVE #902 3653 ARCTIC CIR 99 GLADES BLVD #3 2325 STANFORD CT 2325 STANFORD CT 2325 STANFORD CT 39 GLADES BLVD #1 70 GLADES BLVD #1 PO BOX 1003 163-51 90 ST 3616 ARCTIC CIR #510 860 WHISPERING PINES CIR 301 BROWNTOWN RD JULIE A FORSTER 1441 RIDGE ST 15275 COLLIER BLVD 201269 NAME3 NAME4 NAMES NAME6 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34102 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 3163 FRANCINE AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 DORCHESTER, MA 02122--- 3105 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5034 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5032 NEW YORK, NY 10002--- 2641 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3845 DERRY, NH 03038 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5037 111 E WACKER DR STE 900 CHICAGO, IL 60601--- 4304 111 E WACKER DR STE 900 CHICAGO, IL 60601--- 4304 NAPLES, FL 34108 --- 0 3560 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 1206 SOUTH LA JOLLA AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90035-0 143 QUAIL DR PITTSBURGH, PA 15235--- 4459 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1031 91 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NORTH CHELMSFORD, MA 01863 --- 0 JAMES H BAKER 70 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1022 NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 BARRETT TRUST 11/28/83 367 EDGEWATER DR E E FALMOUTH, MA 02536--- 7160 EAST FALMOUTH, MA 02536-0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5050 DATED 01/09/01 3561 ANTARCTIC CIR # 2101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5040 ROBERT A BELL TR ROBERT A BELL REV TRUST 3561 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5040 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1025 NORTH READING, MA 01864-0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 OXFORD, CT 06478 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 65 GREER RD WEARE, NH 03045 --- 0 LEWIS CENTER, OH 43035--- 9362 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 1017 SPRING PARK, MN 55380-0 LOUISVILLE, KY 40243-0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 PO BOX 935 TINLEY PARK, IL 60477 --- 935 3569 ANTARCTIC CIR #2105 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5032 3637 ARCTIC CIR # 303 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5047 MOUNT PROSPECT, IL 60056 --- 0 CHICAGO, IL 60631 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 HARRISON, NY 10528--- 4206 MEDFORD, MA 02155-0 CHICAGO, IL 60646--- 5614 KEVIN MARC BENOIT 47 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5039 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 RIVER FOREST, IL 60305-0 PHOENIXVILLE, PA 19460-2265 3630 ARCTIC CIR #501 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5045 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 TD 6-22-89 76 PARKHURST ST QUINCY, MA 02169-0 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 --- 0 AARON E WOODS PO BOX 290 KENNEBUNKPORT, ME 04046 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3830 MOUND, MN 55364 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5049 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1024 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 CENTER OSSIPEE, NH 03184-0 HOWARD BEACH, NY 11414 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 LAKE MILLS, WI 53551 --- 0 NEW KENSINGTON, PA 15068-9251 22 RENEE DR WAKEFIELD, MA 01880 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOT 2 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 3, NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOT 5 & NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 31, COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI 12 50 25 COM AT NW CNR SEC 12, GLADES UNIT 2,THE BLK J LOT 1 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES GARDENS BLK C LOTS 1-6 NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI 12 50 25 PAR 3 COURTHOUSE STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) NAPLES WINTERPARKI NAPLES WINTERPARKI NG+TCLFNO2S300FTOF NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOT 7 + 4 E 1/2 OF LOT 6 32, 33 + 34 UNIT 301 UNIT 303 UNIT 305 BLK 5 LOT 10 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1016 APT 1571 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2504 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1003 BLK 5 LOT 7 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2212 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2208 S 415FT, N89DEG E 70FT, S 286 LESS E 65FT BLK 3 LOT 49, 50 + E 4FT OF A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 304 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2401 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2413 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 216 APT 1601 APT 1652 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2404 APT 1372 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 13 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 103 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 101 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 115 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 205 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2101 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2215 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2110 APT 1511 APT 1483 UNIT 102 UNIT 104 UNIT 106 UNIT 201 UNIT 202 UNIT 203 UNIT 204 UNIT 205 UNIT 206 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2102 APT 1492 APT 1412 APT 1622 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2103 APT 1672 APT 1642 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 914 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2105 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 303 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2501 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1004 APT 1402 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 203 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 909 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1001 APT 1523 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2206 8-9-10 + 11 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2406 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2416 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 501 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 910 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2214 COMPLEX DESC AS; COMM SW CNR UNIT 701 APT 1603 A-102 A-101 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 402 BLK 6 LOTS 8+9 OR 1393 PG 2297 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 11 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 902 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 311 APT 1673 UNIT 301 UNIT 401 UNIT 501 APT 1491 APT 1371 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2402 APT 1643 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 510 APT 1533 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2308 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 512 N 800FT OF LOT 124, LESS R/W W1/2 OF LOT 6 FT TO POB, S 219FT, N89DEG E LOT 48 OR 860 PG 1493 SEC 12, RUN N ALG W SEC LINE 335FT, N 149.63FT, N 49.30FT 1858.24 FT. E 70 FT TO E LINE 61780360009 U 61780400008 U 61780420004 U 61780800006 U 28681500244 U 28681500286 U 28681500325 U 61481 960009U 63554400009 U 35242560001 U 63557040000 U 63553880002 U 61481840006 U 6355544000O U 63555280008 U 00391562105 U 34840480005 U 61480760006 U 63551440004 U 63556280007 U 63556760006 U 63551280002 U 35242800004 U 35243440007 U 63556400007 U 35240200004 U 28830520004 U 63550120008 U 63550040007 U 63550600007 U 63550840003 U 63554440001 U 63555560003 U 63554800007 U 35241840007 U 35241560002 U 28681500040 U 28681500082 U 28681500118 U 28681500121 U 28681500147 U 28681500163 U 28681500189 U 28681500202 U 28681500228 U 63554480003 U 35241640003 U 35240680006 U 35243080001 U 63554520002 U 35243680003 U 35243320004 U 63553600004 U 63554600003 U 63551400002 U 63556920008 U 63553920001 U 35240560003 U 63550760002 U 6355340000O U 63553800008 U 35242040000 U 63555200004 U 61780480002 U 63556480001 U 63556880009 U 63552440003 U 61780840008 U 63553440002 U 63555520001 U 00389600008 U 74869000141 U 35242880008 U 28630080003 U 28630040001 U 63551840002 U 61482720002 U 28830440003 U 63553120005 U 63551720009 U 35243720002 U 74869000060 U 74869000086 U 74869000109 U 35241600001 U 35240160005 U 63556320006 U 35243360006 U 63552800009 U 35242160003 U 63556000009 U 63552880003 U 61842200007 U 61780440000 U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis DMC PROPERTIES LLP DOBKIN, PATRICIA REIDY DOONE, GARRY P & SUSAN L DORIA VENTURES LLC DUAX, BRIAN CARL & KRISTIN J DYEHOUSE, JUDITH A EARNER, JOHN T & SUSAN M EAST NAPLES UNITED METHODIST EGRET HOLDINGS LLC EGRET HOLDINGS LLC EICKHOFF TR, RONALD W ELKINS, HOWARD & MARGARET ERDLY FAMILY REV TRUST FEITH, ARTHUR J FINN, SUSAN C FITZJARRALD SWANN R/MGMT TRUST FIVE PALMS NAPLES LLC FOLEY FAMILY TRUST FORD, FREDERICK R FORRESTER, JAMES M & MARCIA R FREEMAN JR, JAMES J FRIAS, LUIS F MERCADO FRYE, KATHLEEN A & STANTON R G C DELLA PIETRO PROP TRUST GABINOS INVESTMENT LLC GAFFNEY SR, CHARLES E GALLO5621 LLC GEISSLER, WILLIAM A & ANNE GERMAINE JR, RUSSELL & LAURA L GIANGIULIO, RICHARD & JOAN F GIORDANI TR, ARTHUR J & JOAN M GONZALEZ EST, LEANDRO N GORISEK, SUZANNE B GREEN, RONALD C & JANET B GRISTINA, PETER S & ZOILA HARGROVE,SCOTT W HARMYK, BERNICE C HARMYK, DENICE HARTLEY, JAMES L HATFIELD, LAURA A HEDBERG, CLAES JOHAN HENDERSON, MARKA HETTRICK, FREDERICK E HOFACRE, DANIEL HOFF, E TODD & LYNDA L HOME DEPOT USA INC HOOKER, JANE CONLON HOWARD EST, RAYMOND L HRAB, RONALD JOHN INTERFACE COLLAB GROUP LLC IVERSON, ALICE J & K MCPHILLIPS FAM REV TRUST JACOBS, MARGO M & NORMAN J JAD100 REALTY TRUST JAMES DEREK VERDERAMO P A JOHN A STANTON LIVING TRUST JOHN A STANTON LIVING TRUST JOHNSON, WILLIAM & JOANNE JOSEPH V ANASTOS TRUST JULIAN TR, ROBERT J KACERGIS, MICHAEL A & KATHRYN KACZYNSKI, MARK KADERA, GREGG H KAMILATOS, ANNE KAROW, ALICE LOUISE KASSATLY TRUST KASSATLY, ANDREW & CARMEN KELLY,BERNADETTE M KENNETH S LEE AND VICKIE L LEE KIEBACK, HORST & KARIN KING, THEODORE A & BEVERLY A KLINDT, SAMANTHA E KLOUDA FAMILY TRUST KNIGHT, ELLIOTT KUO, YUNG TZU LA BROAD, EDWARD L LEAVESLEY, JOSEPH C & KATHLEEN LEEMAN, JOSEPH R & LINDA S LERARIO, LISA M LONG, BARBARA H LONG, BARBARA H LORI LAND 3545WP LLC LOUGHMILLER, MICHAEL & ROSANNE LOWMAN, HAROLD R & PATRICIA J LOY, JOHN A LUCAS, RONALD J & DEBRA LUNDBERG, JOEL ALAN LUPPINO FAMILY TRUST LUPPINO FAMILY TRUST MAILO, JOSEPH W & MARILYN MALIO, JOSEPH & MARILYN MARCHANT,BRENDA MARIO 0 & ISABEL V CATOGGIO MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY & JIMMYS DEVELOPMENT INC MARY JOAN OEXMANN LIV TRUST MATTHISEN, DOROTHY K MCALLEN, CHRISTINE A 2122 JOHNSON ST FORT MYERS, FL 33901-3408 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 101 74869000028 U JEFFREY DOBKIN 323 CYNWYD RD BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004--- 2636 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2411 63556680005 U 7603 PARK BEND COURT WESTERVILLE, OH 43082 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1572 3524260000O U 2560 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 601 74869000125 U 708 NW REINHART ANKENY, IA 50023-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 503 63552520004 U 3223 CALEDONIA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4833 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 8 + 9 61780160005 U 60 PIERCE ST MILTON, MA 02186--- 5614 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2111 63554840009 U CHURCH INC 2701 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4817 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12 N 1858.24FT, E 70FT TO E R/W SR 858 A/K/A POB, E 359.56FT, N 305.34FT, E 224.56FT, N 00389640000 U 3504 NEFF LAKE RD BROOKSVILLE, FL 34602 --- 0 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 101 28681500024 U 3504 NEFF LAKE RD BROOKSVILLE, FL 34602 --- 0 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 103 28681500066 U RONALD W EICKHOFF REV TRUST SHARON K EICKHOFF TR SHARON K EICKHOFF REV TRUST 3526 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5032 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2217 63555640004 U 3638 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5046 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 213 63551160009 U 1250 S WASHINGTON ST #501 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1481 35241480001 U CATHERINE M MCALLISTER 42 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1441 35241000009 U 17 HERBERT ROAD BRAINTREE, MA 02184-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 511 63552840001 U FITZJARRALD-SPICER IRREV TRUST 27576 SW WALL ST MADISON, AL 35756-5102 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 111 63550440005 U 16 HENLEY STREET CHARLESTOWN, RI 02813 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 406 63552000003 U 43 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1512 35241880009 U 3624 ARCTIC CIR #506 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 506 63552640007 U 71 CURLEW RD QUINCY, MA 02169-2623 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1007 63554040003 U DEBORAH A FREEMAN 3 NEPTUNE ST TEWKSBURY, MA 01876--- 1731 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2204 63555120003 U YELENIS CANEPA 3060 47TH TERRACE SW NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 10 + 11 61780200004 U 3576 ANTARCTIC CIR #2108 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2108 63554720006 U 20 E GRIMALDI DR FARMINGDALE, NJ 07727 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 310 63551680000 U C/O LAS AMERICAS PO BOX 990205 NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 514 63552960004 U JACQUELINE G GAFFNEY 3400 FROSTY WAY #11 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2313 63556200003 U 5059 ECLIPSE CT NAPLES, FL 34104 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1411 35240640004 U 100 ELIOT STREET NATICK, MA 01760 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1382 35240320007 U 1580 SAINT CHARLES AVE LAKEWOOD, OH 44107 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 404 63551920003 U 3726 NORTHWINDS DR #906 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 906 63553280000 U 3714 NORTHWINDS DR RLTY TRUST UTD 12/28/05 3714 NORTHWINDS DR #912 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5003 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 912 63553520003 U ARACELIS G ASENDORF PR 3497 TORTUGA WAY NAPLES, FL 34105--- 2771 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOT 7, W 25FT OF LOT 6 OR 391 PG 160 + OR 636 PG 1901 61482680003 U 3541 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5035 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2305 63555880000 U 3649 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5049 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 309 63551640008 U 124 BALTUSROL DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34113 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 507 63552680009 U 3602 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5006 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 515 63553000002 U 71 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1030 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1582 35242720003 U 87 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1632 35243200001 U 3216 FRANCIS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3844 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOT 5 + E 25FT OF LOT 6 61482640001 U 103 GLADES BOULEVARD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1662 35243560000 U ANNA PERNILLA HEDBERG 3722 NORTHWINDS DR #908 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 908 63553360001 U 3629 ARCTIC CIR #415 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5042 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 415 63552360002 U ARLEEN B HETTRICK 79 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1621 35243040009 U KATHLEEN ROSE CRAM 3187 CALUSA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 28, 29 + 30 OR 1910 PG 1679 61780760007 U 3570 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5041 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2109 63554760008 U 2455 PACES FERRY ROAD C-20 ATLANTA, GA 30339 --- 0 12 50 25 COMM NW1/4 CNR SEC 12 S 275FT, E 70FT TO POB, S ALG ELY RW LI SR 858 FOR 426FT, E 181.92FT,S 20FT,ELY 153FT,S 00390680004 U 5 STRATFORD PARK BLOOMFIELD, CT 06002--- 2143 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 201 63550680001 U NINA MAE SYMINGTON-HOWARD 59 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1028 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1562 35242480000 U BEVERLY ANNE HRAB 41 OLDE PRESTWICK WAY PENFIELD, NY 14526 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1391 35240400008 U 6201 LEE ANN LN NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 201 74869000044 U 35 GLADES BLVD APT 1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1501 35241720004 U 37 READVILLE STREET HYDE PARK, MA 02136--- 2037 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 110 63550400003 U 746 COUNTY RD 46 GRAND LAKE, CO 80447 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1432 35240920009 U 1252 ANDOVER ST TEWKSBURY, MA 01876 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2412 63556720004 U 2662 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 12 28830480005 U 3758 NORTHWINDS DR #1006 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1006 63554000001 U PO BOX 2248 NAPLES, FL 34106 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1011 63554200005 U 3641 ARTIC CIRCLE #305 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 305 63551480006 U 3516 ANTARCTIC CIR #2506 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2506 63557120001 U JOHN JULIAN GST EXEMPT TRUST DATED 10/04/95 1001 WARWICK LN WILMINGTON, DE 19807-2545 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1531 35242080002 U 63 CAPTAIN BERTIES WAY PROVINCETOWN, MA 02657--- 3100 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 105 63550200009 U DIANA HOLZWASSER 1080 WICKERTON LANE WEBSTER, NY 14580 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1453 35241200003 U JEANNETTE L BERES 3656 ARCTIC CIRCLE #206 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 206 63550880005 U ROXANNE KAMILATOS 3668 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 116 63550640009 U 42 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1443 35241 080003U 3550 ANTARCTIC CIR #2205 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2205 63555160005 U 14423 ELIZABETH COURT BRIGHTON, CO 80602 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2106 63554640005 U 44 LITTLEFIELD ST QUINCY, MA 02169-3627 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 904 63553200006 U REVOCABLE TRUST 894 PARKS ADDITION RD MITCHELL, IN 47446 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2218 63555680006 U 55 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1027 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1543 35242280006 U 34 GEORGE DAVISON RD CRANBURY, NJ 08512--- 2002 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2306 63555920009 U 3660 ARCTIC CIRCLE #204 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 204 63550800001 U 5 WONDERBROOK DR KENNEBUNK, ME 04043-6737 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 410 63552160008 U 71 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1581 35242680004 U LI-HUA CHOU 2953 MEDINAH WESTON, FL 33332-0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1363 35240120003 U 3535 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5035 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2302 63555760007 U 99 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1019 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1671 35243640001 U 761 E 5TH ST BOSTON, MA 02127-3262 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1013 63554280009 U 127 HOFFMAN STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19148 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 301 63551320001 U PO BOX 8944 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 8944 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 BEG AT NE CDR LOT 129, S ALG E SIDE SAID LOT 333FT, W ALG S SIDE LOT 129 340FT TO POB, 61842600005 U PO BOX 8944 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 8944 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 BEG AT NE CDR LOT 129 S ALG E SIDE LOT FOR 333FT W ALG S SIDE OF LOT FOR 240FT TO POB, 61842920002 U 75 APPLE LN MIDDLETOWN, CT 06457 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2307 63555960001 U 2256 BORDEAUX WALK UNIT D1 HIGHLAND, IN 46322 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2502 6355696000O U 10999 SANDALWOOD CT PLYMOUTH, MI 48170--- 3466 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 516 63553040004 U 14505 ETCHINGHAM DR LOCKPORT, IL 60441--- 5063 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2503 63557000008 U 79 GLADES BLVD UNIT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1623 35243120000 U CAROL LEE LUNDBERG 19363 EUREKA COURT FARMINGTON, MN 55024 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1502 35241760006 U 6804 CANYON HILL DR RIVERSIDE, CA 92506--- 5671 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1009 63554120004 U 6804 CANYON HILL DR RIVERSIDE, CA 92506--- 5671 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1014 63554320008 U 3746 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5055 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2415 63556840007 U 3746 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5055 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1012 63554240007 U 68 FOWLER AVE REVERE, MA 02151 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2409 63556600001 U REVOCABLE TRUST 3567 ANTARTIC CIRCLE #2104 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2104 63554560004 U 2641 AIRPORT RD S STE A106 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4870 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-105 28630200003 U 2641 AIRPORT RD S STE A106 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4870 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-107 28630280007 U 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-106 28630240005 U 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-108 28630320006 U 1169 SEA EAGLE WATCH CHARLESTON, SC 29412-8253 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2309 63556040001 U DIANE D MATTHISEN 2032 DECOOK AVE PARK RIDGE, NE 60068-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 513 63552920002 U 3614 ARCTIC CIRCLE UNIT 509 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 509 6355276000O U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis MCCAULEY, ROBERT H MCCOACH, EVA KELLY MCGILLICUDDY, ANNMARIE MCGOWAN FAMILY LIV TRUST MCKINLEY, CATHERINE M MEDINA,ENEXIS B &BELKIS CASTRO MEHELICH, THOMAS A & FRANCES L MEISENHELTER, DAVID K MERCHANT, JANICE M MICHAEL P VALENTINE PROP LLC MICHAEL P VALENTINE PROP LLC MIGLIOZZI, JUDITH A MILLER, BRYCE J & ESTHER P MILLIGAN, MICHAEL H & NANCY L MOALLI, ROBERT & MARIE MOILANEN TR, DOUGLAS & SUSAN MOLINA, EVER ROBERTO MONIGAN, SONIA T MONIZ, RICHARD D MONTELLO, MARTIN F & JANET D MONTEMURRO, FRANK MORLEY, MARIA V MUNIZ, KATHLEEN A MURPHY, CHARLES H & EMILY M NANCY A SAMBOGNA REV TRUST NASON FAMILY REV LIV TRUST NIKITAS, ELIZABETH O'BRIEN, ELLEN O'CONNELL, ANN OCONNELL, DENNIS & WENDY OEXMANN, MARJORIE HORNADAY OLIVER, GUILLERMO & MANOLA ONDRUSH, PAUL & PATRICIA OSTROWSKI, RALPH & BRENDA S OSWALT FAMILY LIVING TRUST OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEV CORP OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT CORP OZANICH, TODD R & KIMBERLY A PAGONI, WILLIAM PALM LAKE MHP LLC PAMPENA, SERGIO & JOANNE PAMPENA, SERGIO & JOANNE PAMPENA, SERGIO & JOANNE PANAGIOTIS, CYNTHIA F PAOLETTA, JAMES C PARDO, RICHARD PASKAR,NATHAN PATILLE JR, THOMAS J & DONNA M PCPE TRUST PELLATI, GIORGIO & SALLY PEREIRO, EDUARDO & LUISA PEREIRO, EDUARDO & LUISA A PESCOSOLIDO, GENOVEFFA PIAO, YONG KUI PICKERING, ELIZABETH C PISANO, PETER & PAMELA POLSON, ALAN M & ANNE POP, RUBEN PUETZ, TOBIAS & DORIS PUNWASI, RAJ & DOLLY R HORST INC RAAB, KATJA RAPPOCCIO, JOSEPH & CONCETTA RATOWSKI, ROD & KATHY REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REAL ESTATE REDEFINED LLC REGOLINO, MARILYN A REID, GRANT ELLEN M MCCAULEY 64 LINTRIC DR SOUTH WEYMOUTH, MA 02190-3137 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2312 63556160004 U 34 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1461 35241240005 U 3750 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1010 63554160006 U 20 JACKSON ST TAUNTON, MA 02780--- 1536 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2304 63555840008 U 47 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5039 GLADES C C APTS #7 THE (CONDO) APT 1522 35242000008 U 3164 CALUSA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4828 NAPLES GARDENS BLK C LOTS 11 TO 13 61780960001 U 3505 ANTARCTIC CIRCLE #2403 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2403 63556360008 U VIRGINIA L MEISENHELTER 7893 MUDBROOK STREET NW MASSILLON, OH 44646-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2405 63556440009 U 78 ABINGTON RD DANVERS, MA 01923 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2314 63556240005 U BIRL A & EDITH E TATMAN 12870 TRADE WAY FOUR#107 PMB #416 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 W 100FT OF E 440FT LESS S 135FT LOT 129 61842680009 U BIRL A & EDITH E TATMAN 12870 TRADE WAY FOUR#107 PMB 416 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 BEG AT NE CDR OF LOT 129 RUN WLY ALG N SIDE LOT 129 340FT TO POB THENCE E 100FT, S 61842640007 U 3647 ARCTIC CIR #308 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 308 63551600006 U 38 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1452 35241160004 U 48 UPPER SHEEP PASTURE RD EAST SETAUKET, NY 11733-1749 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 2019 35241680005 U 3736 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5054 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1015 63554360000 U D E & S M MOILANEN FAM TRUST UTD 09/03/08 1295 OSAUKA RD NE SAUK RAPIDS, MN 56379 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 306 63551520005 U LESLIE GENE ESCOBAR DE MOLINA 3663 ARCTIC CIR # 104 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5053 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 104 63550160000 U 201 EVERGREEN ST #1-2E VESTAL, NY 13850-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 413 63552280001 U CAROL A DERITA MONIZ 3676 ARCTIC CIR #112 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 112 63550480007 U 9 PORTER ST BILLERICA, MA 01821 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2213 63555480002 U SANDRA BADASH 595 PORTSIDE DR NAPLES, FL 34103--- 4169 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1612 35242960009 U 3644 ARTIC CIRCLE #212 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 212 63551120007 U 34 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1463 35241320006 U 5335 E BLUE TEAL DR PORT CLINTON, OH 43452 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1423 35240840008 U 235 10TH ST PALISADES PARK, NJ 07650 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2510 63557280006 U 20 WHIPPLETREE ROAD CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1451 35241120002 U STEPHANIE RENZI 93 STARR ST LEOMINSTER, MA 01453--- 1607 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1005 63553960003 U BARBARA DAWSON 341 11TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11215--- 4010 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 505 63552600005 U 3631 ARCTIC CIR # 416 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5042 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 416 63552400001 U 259 COLUMBUS PL CLIFFSIDE PARK, NJ 07010 --- 0 NAPLES WINTEPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2112 63554880001 U 5 STONE CREEK PARK OWENSBORO, KY 42303-1846 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2311 63556120002 U 103 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1663 35243600009 U 3538 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5036 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2211 63555400008 U 124 ROYAL VISTA DRIVE EAST PEORIA, IL 61611--- 1541 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1422 35240800006 U 30 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1471 35241360008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-103 OR 1336 PG 71 28630120002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-101 28630360008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-102 28630400007 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-103 28630440009 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-104 28630480001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-105 28630520000 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-106 28630560002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-107 28630600001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT B-108 28630640003 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-101 28680040006 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-102 28680080008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-107 28680280002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-108 28680320001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-109 28680360003 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-110 28680400002 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-101 28680440004 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-102 28680480006 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-103 28680520005 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-104 28680560007 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-105 28680600006 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-106 28680640008 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-107 28680680000 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-108 28680720009 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-109 28680760001 U PO BOX 7714 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7714 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT D-110 28680800000 U 2661 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4879 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-104 28680160009 U 7309 VILLA RIDGE CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44023 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2508 63557200002 U SUSAN KESLOV 966 BONITA CT BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1683 35243840005 U PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LLC 295 MADISON AVE NEW YORK, NY 10017 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 FROM NE COR LOT 125 RUN S ON E LI 671.3FT FOR POB, RUN W 277.5FT TO W LI LOT 125, S ON 61842240009 U 145 RED MAPLE LN GLENSHAW, PA 15116-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2203 63555080004 U 145 RED MAPLE LN GLENSHAW, PA 15116-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2303 63555800006 U 145 RED MAPLE LN GLENSHAW, PA 15116-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2301 63555720005 U PETER T LYDON 3659 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5049 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 102 63550080009 U 3527 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5033 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2414 63556800005 U 3708 NORTHWINDS DR #913 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 913 63553560005 U 3504 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5008 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2512 63557360007 U 3635 ARCTIC CIR # 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5047 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 302 63551360003 U 2124 AIRPORT RD S STE 102 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4877 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 1 + 2 61780040002 U 18000 PERTH AVE HOMEWOOD, IL 60430-1627 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1513 35241920008 U PO BOX 7343 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7343 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 21 OR 883 PG 1865 61482400005 U PO BOX 7343 NAPLES, FL 34101--- 7343 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 20 OR 883 PG 1865 61482360006 U 30 HILLTOP ST NEWTON, MA 02458--- 1819 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2310 63556080003 U GUI HUA CUI 91 GLADES BLVD UNIT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1653 35243480009 U 103 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 102 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1661 35243520008 U 3967 RECREATION LN NAPLES, FL 34116--- 7314 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2507 63557160003 U 206 OLYMPIC CLUB CT BLUEBELL, PA 19422--- 1283 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1641 35243280005 U 29910 GREEN ACRES FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48334-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 312 63551760001 U 34 GLADES BLVD #1462 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1462 35241280007 U 55 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1541 35242200002 U 1547 GORDON RIVER LN NAPLES, FL 34104--- 5296 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 E 140FT OF S 135FT LOT 129 LESS E 30FT R/W 61842520004 U 4521 1ST AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1482 35241520000 U 94 STEEPLEVIEW DR BERLIN, CT 06037 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2505 63557080002 U 3333 BYWATER DR STERLING HEIGHTS, MI 48314--- 2837 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 107 63550280003 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1 28830040005 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2 28830080007 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 3 28830120006 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 4 28830160008 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 5 28830200007 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 6 28830240009 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 7 28830280001 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 8 28830320000 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 9 28830360002 U 4437 TAMARIND WAY NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 10 28830400001 U 62 GLADES BLVD #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1403 35240600002 U PHILIP ELWIN REID 63 GLADES BLVD UNIT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1552 35242360007 U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis RICHMOND, JESTER NOLAN VICKY LYNN RICHMOND 3179 CALUSA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 25, 26 + 27 61780720005 U RIDILLA, ROBERT J & IRENE C 1003 SOUTH WAY GREENSBURG, PA 15601 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1362 35240080004 U ROGER CARVALLO REV TRUST 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-105 28680200008 U ROGER CARVALLO REV TRUST 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-106 28680240000 U ROMAN, TANYA & NICOLAS 13759 NW 18TH CT PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33028--- 2602 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 409 63552120006 U ROUTHIER, RICHARD & MONA 3646 ARCTIC CIR #209 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 209 63551000004 U ROZZERO, ANTHONY J & DONNA M 263 PULASKI ST WEST WARWICK, RI 02893--- 5228 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 915 63553640006 U RUSSO, DOMINICK C 6791 WEATHERBY CT NAPLES, FL 34104 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1563 35242520009 U SABETTA, RALPH JOSEPH ELAINE MARIE SABETTA 3664 ARCTIC CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 202 6355072000O U SAFE HARBOR INVESTMENTS LLC 9126 CHULA VISTA ST #12301 NAPLES, FL 34113 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1613 35243000007 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43B) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 2 61481640002 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43C) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 1 61481600000 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43G) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 22 OR 920 PG 47 61482440007 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43G) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 23 OR 920 PG 46 61482480009 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE RD PMB 450 (CO43H) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 6 OR 1602 PG 964 61481800004 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD PMB 450 (CO43A) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 3 OR 1602 PG 964 61481680004 U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD PMB 450 (CO43D) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 5 OR 1602 PG 964 61481 760005U SAGAMORE NAPLES LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD PMB 450 (CO43E) NAPLES, FL 34119 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 4 OR 1602 PG 964 61481 720003U SALVAGGIO, PAUL J & MONICA C 174 PARKSIDE AVE BRAINTREE, MA 02184-3142 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 210 63551040006 U SAMPLE, ALAN ROY WOLFGANG BOROWSKI 3515 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5013 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2408 63556560002 U SAMUEL, TAMARA R STROHL- DARREN A SAMUEL 2315 STANFORD CT STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4842 STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 302 74869000073 U SASTRE, REUBEN MARGARITA ELENA SASTRE 6735 LINKWOOD ST BEAUMONT, TX 77706--- 4218 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 401 63551800000 U SBLENDORIO, DANIEL & KIMBERLY 3564 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5041 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2114 63554960002 U SCENSNY, FREDERICK J & JANINE 3724 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5054 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 905 63553240008 U SCHILLING, EVA H 50 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1421 35240760007 U SCIPIONE, ANTHONY & EDNA M 3642 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5046 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 211 63551080008 U SCOTT, DOUGLAS M & JOANNE H 644 RAMAPO VALLEY RD OAKLAND, NJ 07436 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1361 35240040002 U SELK, AMARYLLIS G AOME A SELK 3560 ANTARCTIC CIR #2202 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2202 63555040002 U SEVERINI, ANTHONY 609 NW 102ND AVE CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 508 63552720008 U SHAFF, MARGARET A 390 PALM DR #2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4937 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1682 35243800003 U SHEPHERD, ROBERT D 3095 CONNETICUT AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOTS 3 + 4 61482600009 U SHERRY LIVING TRUST 55 GLADES BLVD #1542 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1542 35242240004 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SW FLA INC 2601 AIRPORT ROAD S NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 2 24729000082 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA TRACT A 24729000024 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA TRACT B 24729000040 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 1 24729000066 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 3 24729000105 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 4 24729000121 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 5 24729000147 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 6 24729000163 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 7 24729000189 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 8 24729000202 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 9 24729000228 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 10 24729000244 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 11 24729000260 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 12 24729000286 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 13 24729000309 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 14 24729000325 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 15 24729000341 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 16 24729000367 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 17 24729000383 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 18 24729000406 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 19 24729000422 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 20 24729000448 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 21 24729000464 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 22 24729000480 U SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 BREEZE OF CALUSA LOT 23 24729000503 U SMITH TR ET AL, DOROTHY C UTD 8/10/06 22 HARVEST HILL ROAD WEST SINSBURY, CT 06092 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2207 63555240006 U SMITH, MICHAEL C & CAROL A 63 GLADES BLVD APT 1 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1029 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1551 35242320005 U SONDEREGGER, DORIS 42 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1442 35241040001 U SORRENTINO FAM IRREV TRUST 132 AUTUMN PL ELWOOD, NY 11731 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2210 63555360009 U SPOSITO, ROBERT P 3667 ARCTIC CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 106 63550240001 U SPOSITO, ROBERT P THOMAS JOHN SPOSITO MARK ROBERT SPOSITO 3671 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5053 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 108 63550320002 U SPRINGHAM, JEAN E 3430 FROSTY WAY #3 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1002 63553840000 U SPRY, SUSAN D 443 FOREST HILLS BLVD NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7555 NAPLES GARDENS BLK B LOTS 12 + 13 61780520001 U ST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 12 50 25 COM SW COR,N2506.24FT ,E 70FT TO POB, N688.52FT, E 200FT, S 358.52FT, E 460FT, S 330FT, W 660FT TO POB 00390000008 U ST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4800 12 50 25 COM AT SW COR SEC 12, N ALG W SEC LI 2246.24FT OF E 70FT TO E R/W OF SR S 858 TO POB, CONT E 100FT OF N 00389680002 U ST MATTHEWS HOUSE INC 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4800 GLADES UNIT 2,THE BLK K LOT 1, AND THAT PARCEL IN SEC 12 TWP 50 RNG 25 DESC AS: COMM SW CNR SEC 12, N 3529.68FT, N 89 34840520004 U STAIANO, MICHAEL CATHLEEN STAIANO 3634 ARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 215 63551240000 U STALLINGS JR, RUSSELL E 3562 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5041 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2113 63554920000 U STAMATIA TINA CARVALLO TRUST 2661 AIRPORT RD S STE B101 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4871 COURT PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM UNIT A-104 28630160004 U STAMITIA TOULA CARVALLO TRUST 121 BALTUSROL DR NAPLES, FL 34113--- 8322 COURT PLAZA II A CONDOMINIUM UNIT C-103 28680120007 U STAMM, TIM 30 GLADES BLVD #1473 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1473 35241440009 U STANLEY, BEVERLY ANN 314 NEWPORT DR #1608 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 411 63552200007 U STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 105 28681500105 U STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 302 28681 50026OU STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 304 28681500309 U STEWART PA, JOSEPH D 2671 AIRPORT RD S STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4810 COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 306 28681500341 U SU, ZU XIONG JUAN RONG YANG 3519 ANTARCTIC CIR #2410 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2410 63556640003 U SUCIU, DIANA VIORICA 51 GLADES BLVD UNIT #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1532 35242120001 U SULLIVAN, BRIAN 3179 FRANCIS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 9 61481 920007U SULZER, WILLIAM R & BARBARA M 118 WEISSER AVENUE LOUISVILLE, KY 40206-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2216 63555600002 U TARCZY FAMILY LIV TRUST 19145 SANDPIPER DRIVE MACOMB, MI 48044 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 307 63551560007 U TATEL, BARRY M & JILL R 54 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1038 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1413 35240720005 U THOMALEY LLC 1996 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3820 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 6 LOT 1 & 2 61482520008 U THOMALEY LLC 1996 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112--- 3820 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 E 240FT OF LOT 129 LESS SLY 165FT AND ELY 30FT 61842480005 U TIBBS, JEAN C 3255 CALEDONIA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112--- 4833 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOTS 3 + 4 61780080004 U TILLIE ANN LAPIERRE LIV TRUST 58 GLADES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1392 3524044000O U TORITTO JR, NICHOLAS F & RUTH 3506 ANTARCTIC CIR NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2509 63557240004 U TRELEASE, MATTHEW M KRISTINE L TRELEASE 1735 DEERPATH ROAD EASTON, PA 18040 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2209 63555320007 U TULLY, LAUREN PEAVEY 32 HAMMOND RD E NORTHPORT, NY 11731 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 412 63552240009 U VACCA, DEBORAH M 3628 ARCTIC CIR # 504 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5045 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 504 63552560006 U VELARDO, ANTONIO 3668 ARCTIC CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 114 63550560008 U VERREKIA, NICHOLAS & JULIEANN 206 OAKWYNNE RD BROOMALL, PA 19008-1621 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2407 6355652000O U VREELAND, CLARENCE P 3627 ARCTIC CIRCLE UNIT 414 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 414 63552320000 U WALKER LANE LLC 12870 TRADE WAY FOUR #107 PMB #416 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 --- 0 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 S 135FT OF W 100FT OF E 440FT LOT 129 61842720008 U WALLACE, ROBERT K THERESA M WALLACE 6461 COOLICAN ROAD RED CREEK, NY 13143-0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1373 35240240006 U WALSH, JAMES J & MARLENE L 3706 NORTHWINDS DR NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5003 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 916 63553680008 U WARBURTON, WILLIS C SHIRLEY A WARBURTON 2002 FORREST POINTE DR EAST GREENBUSH, NY 12061 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1561 35242440008 U WARD, JAMES J MICHAEL A DONOVAN 75 GLADES BLVD APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 1031 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1602 35242840006 U POList 500 PL20210000176.xis WARSHAW,STANLEY WARWICK, ANGELE F WEBER, JULIE WESOLOSKI,JERRY WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES LLC WIECKERT, WILLIAM WILKINSON, MAUREEN A WILLIAM & LORI YOUNG TRUST WILLIAMS, HAROLD P & SHARAN G WILLIAMS, JOSHUA LAURENCE WILSON, ELESHA M WINSTON, SHALONI WINTERMEYER, JON & BARBARA WOODS, JOSEPH P & MARGARET E WRIGHT, MINDY L ZAPATKA, LISE T ZEISIG, RODNEY A & MARCIA J REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY ANDERSSON,LENNART CASSANO, GASPARO & GABRIELLA CATZMAN,LYNN CHISNALL, DAVID ANDREW CHRISTMANN, NORBERT J DANIELSSON, TED ANDERS DE LA ROCHE, JOHN P & HEATHER EDNEY,GEORGE EDNEY, ROBERT C & LINDA A HAMOUI, BAHJAT HEDLUND, HANS F & ANNA E HEGER, SIEGFRIED & SUSANNE IPPOLITO, PETER & LINA KEHREIN, JOHANNA SANDBERG LAJOIE, PAUL LEKOUTOVICH, OLEG MARTIN, STEWART & VANNE MUTZBERG,SUSANNA NIEBEL, BERND & MARIN PERELMAN,VSEVOLOD SAMIULLAH, YUSAF & DIANA JOY SZPIRO, MARTIN WILSON, MARLENE ZEBIC ET AL, DOBRIVOJE BARBARA DAWSON 2 AMBER LANE WEST HAMPTON, NY 11977-0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2107 63554680007 U 8716 CATALINA DR PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66207--- 2355 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 S 200FT OF N 100OFT LOT 124 LESS R/W 61842000003 U 8601 THOMPSON DR WIND LAKE, WI 53185-1405 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 903 63553160007 U 916 BLUEBIRD ST NAPLES, FL 34104--- 4481 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2201 63555000000 U %DAVID J SACCO ONE INTERNATIONAL PL #3900 BOSTON, MA 02110-0 12 50 25 FROM SW CDR SEC RUN N 2836.80FT, E270 FT TO POB, N 990FT, E 1120FT, S 1320FT, W 660FT, N 330FT, W 460FT TO POB 00389880006 U 3239 CALEDONIA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES GARDENS BLK A LOT 5,6 + 7 61780120003 U RICHARD TAPPER 37 SCHOOL HOUSE RD #8 WEYMOUTH, MA 02188 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 408 63552080007 U 9647 BILTMORE WAY HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80126 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 113 63550520006 U 67 GLADES BLVD APT 3 NAPLES, FL 34112--- 5034 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1573 35242640002 U TORI LEEANN WILLIAMS 3613 ARCTIC CIR #407 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 407 63552040005 U 3195 FRANCIS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES BETTER HOMES 1ST ADD BLK 5 LOT 8 OR 1193 PG 2094 61481 880008U 143 OAKLAND AVE GLOVERSVILLE, NY 12078--- 3519 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 109 63550360004 U 3650 ARTIC CIR #207 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 207 63550920004 U 504 PLYMOUTH STREET HOLBROOK, MA 02343 --- 0 NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2511 63557320005 U 424 S. RASPBERRY LN #1 EAGLE RIVER, WI 54521-0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1381 35240280008 U MARISSA E ZAPATKA 46 GLADES BLVD #1 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1431 35240880000 U 206 MEADOW LARK LN LAPORTE, IN 46350--- 1950 GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1472 35241400007 U COURT PLAZA CONDOMINIUM 12 50 25 PARCEL 8.1 NOW COURT PLAZA CONDO OR 853 PG 1753 00389800002 N COURT PLAZA II CONDOMINIUM 12-50-25 PARC 8.2 NOW COURT PLAZA 11 OR 948 PG 1517 00389840004 N COURT PLAZA III A CONDOMINIUM 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12, N 2306.24FT, E 235FT TO POB, N 200FT, E 419.18FT, S 200FT, W 419.12FT TO POB, LESS WLY 00389760003 N COURTVIEW BUILDING, THE A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES GROVE & TRUCK CO LITTLE FARMS # 2 S 200FT OF N 1200FT OF LOT 124 LESS R/W OR 1250 PG 1423 NKA COURTVIEW BLDG 61842080007 N GLADES COUNTRY CLUB APTS 7,THE A CONDOMINIUM GLADES UNIT 2,THE BLK K NOW GLADES COUNTRY CLUB APTS CONDO UNIT 7 DESC IN OR 602 PG 1306 34840560006 N NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM 12 50 25 PAR 35 NOW NAPLES WINTERPARK I CONDO OR 1126 PG 158 AMENDED BOUNDARY OR 1133 PG 1720 00391040009 N STANFORD SQUARE A CONDOMINIUM N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 N 500FT OF LOT 124, LESS R/W NKA STANFORD SQUARE CONDO AS DESC IN OR 2866 PG 680 61841960005 N EVA JANSSON ULVSBOVAGEN 89 FAGERSTA 73792 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 405 63551960005 F 4048 ASHBY DR BEAMSVILLE LOR 1B9 CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1008 63554080005 F 23 PINNACLE RD TORONTO M21- 2V6 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1651 35243400005 F CAROLYN DIANA ADAMSON 7 BURSAR CLOSE NEWTON- LE -WILLOWS WA12 9JS UNITED KINGDOM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1631 35243160002 F RR 1 PAISLEY NOG2NO CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 214 63551200008 F ROTTVIKSVAGEN 70 LEKSAND 79331 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 901 63553080006 F 3256 COUNTY RD 8 PICTON KOK 2TO CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1433 35240960001 F KARIN MAIWALD 1113 SELBY STREET NELSON V1L 2W4 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1393 35240480002 F 1155 SIFTON BLVD SW CALGARY T2T 21-2 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1401 35240520001 F RENEE HAMOUI RHONDA HAMOUI 29 HIGHMONT CRT KANATA K2T 1B3 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1503 35241800005 F HAKAN I=& LINDA T BJURLING BARKEVAGEN 77 SODERBARKE 77760 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 911 63553480004 F WITTEKINDSTRASSE 113 WILDESHAUSEN 27793 GERMANY GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1383 35240360009 F JOHN & LOUISE BRAVETTI 60 HILDEGARD DR HAMILTON L8K 5R9 CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 208 63550960006 F JENNY FORSMAN NORSVAGEN 3 SODERBARKE 77760 SWEDEN NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 907 63553320009 F 36 CARMEL HUDSON JOP 1HO CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 917 63553720007 F EVA POPOVA LEKOUTOVICH 311 CHELLWOOD DR THORNHILL L4J 7Y8 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1611 35242920007 F ALLANDALE DANBY WISKE NORTH ALLERTON NORTH YORKSHIRE DI-7 OLY UNITED KINGDOM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1521 35241960000 F KORZERTER STIR 15 WUPPERTAL 42349 GERMANY NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 918 63553760009 F MAUSER STIR 82 BERLIN 12277 GERMANY NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 403 63551880004 F ANNA SKOMOROVSKAIA 40 FLAMINGO ROAD VAUGHAN L4J 6Z5 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1681 35243760004 F 6 GORRINGE ROAD EASTBOURNE BN22 8XL UNITED KINGDOM GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1553 35242400006 F VERONIQUE POURCELET 66 ROSEMONT CR WESTMOUNT H3Y 2C9 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1633 35243240003 F 1015 CTY RD 3, RR#1 BELLEVILLE K8N 4Z1 CANADA GLADES C C APTS #7,THE (CONDO) APT 1583 35242760005 F 50 GREENFIELD DR TORONTO M913 1H3 CANADA NAPLES WINTERPARK I A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 502 63552480005 F POList 500 PL20210000176.xis Naptes 434 I""tlj Naus FART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily� Naples, FL 34110 � Q GRADY MINOR ASSOCIATES PA 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 ATTN SHARON UMPENHOUR Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared who on oath says that they serve as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 7126/2021 Subscribed and sworn to before on JUly 26th, 2021 It,lotary, late of County of wn My commiss- n pires: J��� PUBLICATION COST:S932.4f) FN7ANCYRIMANAD NO: GC10692865 IbIiCCUSTOMER NrO: 531419 PO#: PUBLICNOTICE con51f1 AUG 0 ? 2021 (). Grady Minni° NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT NAME: St. Matthew's House CPUD Rezone (PL20210000176) A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing St. Matthews House, Inc. (Applicant) will be held August 11, 2021, 5:30 pm at the Salvation Army Church, 3170 Estey Ave, Naples, FL 34104. Questions or comments please contact Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician with Q. Grady Mi- nor & Associates, P.A. by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone: 239- 947-1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely go to, gradyminor.com, click on the Planning tab and scroll down to the project name. St. Matthews House, Inc. has submitted a formal application to Collier Coun- ty, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone. The re- zone proposes to amend the existing Devoe Pontiac CPUD to expand the PUD boundary to the north and south; to incorporate C-4 zoned properties under their common ownership and change the name of the PUD to St. Mat- thew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The rezone proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150, and request 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses. The subject property (St. Matthew's House CPUD) is comprised of approxi- mately 11.89± acres, located on the east side of Airport -Pulling Road ap- proximately 1,500 feet south of Davis Boulevard in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. :o 7' c suB.�Ecr r PROPERTY .Z 0 D v Please be advised that any information provided is subject to change un- til final approval by the governing authority. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes, it is not a public hearing. NUGCiGo4?55p St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Wayne Arnold: All right. Good evening. I'm Wayne Arnold of Grady Minor and here representing Saint Matthew's House Organization tonight. This is Steve Brooder, the COO of the organization. Jill Mesner is also with Saint Matthew's House. Debrah Forester is here with Collier County Gateway Triangle CRA. Nancy Gundlach is a principal planner with the zoning department for Collier County. Frank Feeney is one of our engineers with Grady Minor and this is Sharon Umpenhour, who's recording the meeting tonight and she's with Grady Minor and Associates. So, we're here representing the Saint Matthew's House. And the property is property that they own entirely, it's outlined in the aerial photograph. And it makes up what was the old Devoe Pontiac site as well as the existing Saint Matthew's House shelter facility at Glades Boulevard. And we are rezoning the properties into a consolidated, planned unit development for the organization. Part of the properties are zoned C4 Commercial. As part of the overlay. [00:01:001 And then, part of it's the old Devoe Pontiac PUD. A piece in the middle of the zone, PUD. It allows for certain uses. So, we're taking all of the C4 and PUD property and recombining them into one singular PUD to allow Saint Matthew's House to utilize that in the future for their campus and future development on the site. The shelter was approved back in, I think year 1999. [00:01:301 And it allows 104 beds. We're asking for that number to be increased up to 150 in the future. Steve Rigsbee: I'm hard of hearing, couldn't hear it. Wayne: Okay. What part didn't you hear? Steve R: I heard [inaudible] that's the last I heard. Wayne: No, I didn't. I said that's zoned for 104 beds, for their shelter. Steve R: Yeah. Wayne: That we're proposing to increase that number to 150 beds over time. Steve R: Absolutely unacceptable. Wayne: Okay, thanks. I'm gonna go ahead and finish the presentation, okay? [00:02:001 So, we're proposing a master plan that establishes Tract A, which would be where the existing shelter is located. And all the future shelter improvements would also be Page 1 of 5 St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript located on that Tract. It's at the Glades Boulevard, Airport Road Facility. And then we've outlined Tract B, which allows conventional C4 Commercial type uses, and some other incidental uses that would be related to the administration of Saint Matthew's House and some other of their thrift store and things of that nature. [00:02:30] We have a list of permanent uses in the PUD document [inaudible] [00:02:361. And breaks it out by Tract A, the shelter facility. And Tract B, which would all be commercial uses. We've created development standards that are required. The standards are very comparable to what's allowed there today. And as for the present two deviations. [00:03:001 One related to the shelter, which allows a different per square foot conversion than the LDC requires. And we've also asked for a buffer deviation and staff has asked us to provide for because the original Devoe Pontiac building was constructed before buffer requirements were there. So, if we make substantial revisions, they've asked us to add in buffers for code. So, those are the two deviations from code that we've currently asked for. And just from a process standpoint, this is the required neighborhood information meeting. [00:03:311 So, we filed the zoning application. We've had a round of review comments from staff. We're required to hold this meeting before we can proceed to public hearing. So, at some point in the next few months, we will be holding a public hearing for the Collier County Planning Commission. And then they'll make a recommendation on our proposal to the Board of County Commissioners. And so, in a nutshell, it's a pretty simplistic application. They're presently allowed all the commercial uses today that we're asking for under the comprehensive plan and the overlay. [00:04:01] And then, we have the shelter, which really, the significance of the increase over time would be from the 104 beds to 150 beds as they grow that facility over time. So, in a nutshell, that's kinda where we are. We don't have hearing dates established yet. If you received a notice for this meeting, you'll get a notice for the upcoming planning commission hearing from staff. And then there will be signs posted on the property. The big 4 by 8 sheets of plywood that have the advertising information on them. [00:04:321 As we get closer to the hearing. So, with that in a nutshell, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Page 2 of 5 St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Steve R: Why do you want to keep importing people from all over the country to a place only, that I know of after 38 years of being sober, two people have made it out of your Matt's House? Speaker: What is your name, sir? Steve R: Or the three people that were convicted of rape coming out of the Saint Matt's House. [00:05:001 Wayne: I don't think the comment deserves a response. Steve R: I'm sorry? Wayne: I don't think your question deserves a comment from me. Steve R: You don't think you should answer the public? Wayne: You provided an opinion and I'm happy to take it. We're recording the minutes and we'll let the others decide. But I don't think that's a fair question. Steve Brooder: It's irrelevant. Wayne: Any other comments? Steve R: Your people come into my neighborhood in Wilmer Heights, they rob, and they steal. [00:05:301 And that's acceptable? No, it's not. I live on Andrew Drive. Wayne: Okay. Steve R: Alusa is right across the street from where you put the other place. You'd be in 1,000 feet of your present situation if you incorporated all that, plus the other place down there where the old fire station used to be. [00:06:001 So, you're in violation of your own ordinance. Wayne: I'm not aware that we're in violation of any ordinance. Steve R: Well, I'm telling you, you have to be 1,000 feet away from a halfway house. That's the law. That's what's written. Wayne: The shelter is not within 1,000 feet of any other shelter. Steve R: I'm sorry? Page 3 of 5 St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Wayne: The existing shelter is not within 1,000 feet of any other shelter. Steve R: Okay. Well, it wouldn't be within this expansion? [00:06:301 Wayne: The shelter is only allowed on the existing location where it's located today. Steve R: I'm sorry, sir. You're gonna get a fight from my area. Wayne: That's why we hold the meetings, you're allowed to express your opinion and participate in the public process. Do you have any other questions or comments for us? Steve R: Just that, I don't understand why you advertise all over the country to come here and get well. [00:07:001 And nobody makes it out of there. And then if they break the rules, you put them on the street. I've been at meetings where people say, we have nothing to do. Because we have to come back at 3:00. They don't do anything. They don't go out and look for jobs, they don't do anything. I've seen it more than half a dozen times. Wayne: I really can't comment on those incidents. [00:07:301 I stand behind Saint Matthew's House, they do great work in the community and they're more than just the shelter, as you can imagine. Steve R: And a multi -million -dollar enterprise. All you do is advertise and bring people into this community that can't get well, that don't know how to get well. Wayne: I'm not gonna debate you, sir. But I don't think the shelter advertises for people to come here from all over the country. Steve B: We don't advertise. No. Wayne: That's not true. Steve R: Maybe you don't. Wayne: No, sir. Steve B: No, sir. I can say, we don't advertise for people to come to our shelter. Steve R: I'm sorry, I'm hard of hearing. [00:07:591 Page 4 of 5 St. Matthew's House PUD Rezone (PL20210000176) 8-11-2021 NIM Transcript Steve B: I can say, we do not advertise for people to come to our recovery programs or our shelter. Steve R: Okay. Steve B: Absolutely, do not. Steve R: Then I was mistaken, and I apologize for that. Steve B: Yeah. Okay. Wayne: Anything else? Appreciate you coming out. Steve R: Thank you. Wayne: Thank you. Anything else from Nancy or Deb? Then we're adjourned? Thank you. [End of Audio] Duration: 9 minutes Page 5 of 5 Petition: PL20210000176 St,, Matthew's House CPUD Rezone August 11, 2021 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found on our website: gradyminor.com/planning/ GradyMinor Project Team • St. Matthew's House, Inc. -Applicant • D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner - Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. • Frank Feeney, P.E., Professional Engineer - Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. • James M. Banks, PE, Traffic Engineer - JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. 2 Location Map 11 f Project Information Current Zoning: C-4 (GTMUD-MXD) and Devoe Pontiac CPUD Proposed Zoning: St. Matthew's House CPUD Project Acreage: 1 1.89+/- acres Proposed Request: The proposed CPUD rezone seeks to unify all contiguous properties under the ownership of St. Matthew's House, Inc. into a singular Zoning District. The PUD proposes to increase the number of homeless shelter beds from 104 to 150, and request 130,000 square feet of general commercial, office, social service, and warehouse uses on the 1 1.89+/- acre site. Under the current zoning, there is no limitation on the maximum permissible commercial square footage. The proposed PUD will limit the general commercial uses to a maximum of 130,000 square feet. Current Zoning Map C-4-GTM UD-MXD (General Commercial District, Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District) Devoe Pontiac CPUD Approvals • Ordinance 97-14 - Original PUD Approval (4.55+/- Acres) • Resolution 1999-087 - Conditional Use for Homeless Shelter (2.34 +/- Acres) • HEX Decision 2020-29 - PUD Insubstantial Change to add interconnection to St. Matthew's House Conditional Use Site Plan SC l I EXISTING (3)^30' RCP En5nuC vA yi 1AEE 1 MEDIAN 01EN1NG LEVARC (80' R 0. 253'3 — 1^ WATER METER EXISTING DRE YVDRANT f — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ — —y N HB' 41' leE 399.93F.M. Mo. Do' PLAT-13 � g pLIMPSTER 70I � t t t DRY 'B I$ DETENTION AREA � I EnSn � o s � •I x � I F OUTFALL snxuLTURE I o Z � F I � J—nom—n— EEIIT r Cns,,w 0.9rc5 EpTatS 'I � wiETGC OUWALL 4t CONGRETE W 4 � CB 30' DRAINA ~-V 4Ei�n1ENr "\ 'C' LOApN: J "TYK cATCHiIII $IN CIE POMP STATION (2)1,250 GALLON C0- L.D. GREASE INTERCEPTORS �s 2 BUILDING W F_F.E - H.50' N.ay.D. �I I C06ERED TERRACE J MMERED 'NALK a F COURTYARD COVERED WALK J 7 T IA! N I 8 2 � I _ I N AV N f0' UTkITY � I i� EASEMEN m. I DRAINAGE S'WALE N 89' 41 10 401'u u+ PLAT �......., n. � SITE SUMMARY USE AREA (ACRES) 9 OF TOTAL TOTAL SITE 2,34 100 BUILDING 0.33 (14,250 SO. FT.) 14 IMPERVIOUS (PAVEMENT & SIDEWALKS) 0.45 19 OPEN SPACE 1.55 fi] &11I.DING TYPE 1—STORY, 14,250 SO. IT HOMELESS SHELTER PARKING SUMMARY USE RATIO PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED HOMELESS 2/5 BEDS x W4 BEDS 41 $PACES 41 SPACES 5HrLTER (2 HwDICAP) (2 HANDICAP) LOADING ZONES wa RATIO REQUIRED PROVIDED HOMELESS SHELTER SITE SPECIFIC I I NOTE : 84 REDS EXISTING AND 20 PROPOSED. 55 EXISTING PARKING SPAGE5 AND s PROPOSED. LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIRED PROVIDED WEST '5' 15' EAST +5' 15' SOUTH 'O IO' NORT" 'S' 15' BUILDING SETBACKS: MINIMUM PROVIDED FRONT (W) 25' 156' FRONT (N} 25' SC' REAR (E) 25 74' SIDE (IV) 15' 36 7 G Existing PUD Master Plan WER5 LAME SITE I'LA.I I', -)ATA CALOCW AVE GROSS AREA EXISTING ZONING 4.55 t ACRES C-3 EXISTING U5E . VEHICLE DISPLAY — VACANT PROPOSED ZONING PUI) CAWSA PROPOSED USE ALL USES PERMITTED IN THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT AND AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS AS PERMITTED IN THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT ZONNG C-4 I USE : 5T VA WK5 HX5E PF➢ESIIdAH �Wo uEUlcuust 1W RCOHHECTIOH f ?5' WDE TYPE "8' OUFFFR II I CTMH OF P1 I i vcrosEn Rlf}{T fi ICHR IWf ICHi 0.1i Y I,/ RT 'ILA71 a -wom 11101 TR' EHBf rrPE :+" BuffER' I _ I � I �5' WX TYFF e- &jFaR rRano€v z BY DAM A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD I` I ZG'ANG.' DAMA. GALLMAN FSTATE PW r�CrPSEP �I t19E' I IT A T NAFLFS Ac=ess EAgNEwi APAR7WNTS � �t �I r I I I I r �Y sr e PRCPd8E0 IIII1I Exenrc an�T &lLOIhG r pEVpE RINInAC I DEALERSHIP ims ITO— _ ' ETELn i E•ISTN'—EkUrr 1!I1 11 1111 1 I1 I ICI II!!I 11 11'{I -y >} Iu {I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIII I�iililii EgSn4L a.IIL�C EgSIINa--�E T I w+�+�'iroar LOCATION I+'IAP I p' pii 15' u YNNIIY ELEV. - 7.5' TT 11AXIL-U-A }' SLO E M F$TIJ9H TU E7UnK GRADE HGTE: IH A+EAS wHExE=4bEUE7R Is HCT bu.ACEHi TD SUFFER, A N�.IY_N ].5 �ERIYETER :.fAYI E1.EYATIDN SHALL E£ ' AcE.. SECTION M.T.S. ZONAVC, DAWD A. GALLPAN E5 FATE PW USE THE POW F AT NAPLES APAR"140VTS N 117 SCALE- 1" = 209 7 10' WIDETYPE'D' 15 UE Proposed PUD PE BUFFER (OR 2150, PG 7190, PG 1703 AND PG 11U5) p C C GLADES BOULEVARD E1 Master Plan � usE-Jm RMF� 1 � � ACT !4 USE:MULTIfAMILY RESIDENTIAL " "' 15' WIDE TYPE U' J LANDSCAPE BUFFER 4 15'WIDE TYPE E ^' LEGEND: 1Y LANDSCAPE I W BUFFER �'-'•� � .r WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT 9OUNDARY CONSERVATION EASEMENT {OR 569C PG SITE SUMMARY Z572) 0.29 AC. I WATER 15' WIDE TYPE'B' MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPEBUFFER TOTAL SITE AREA: 11 _$9f ACRES TRACT'A': 2.34t ACRES 1:1PAVED AREAS TRACT'B': 9.55t ACRES m I E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ca ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ® 6EVL4TION COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. o I USE: MULESTTTE PUD I -FAMILY RESIDENTALL HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS �e o z � o TRACT A � E9 _— E7 OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% GREAT BLUE DR V E PROVIDED: 30% x PRESERVE: 'o�l E9 I TRACTB REQUIRED: 0.29t ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2.90t ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) � L19 WIDE TYPE 'AA''LAANDSNDG CAPE BUFFER PROVIDED: 0.29f ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) � u � (SDP 9852) III EKISTINGIG'WIDE TYPE — 'A' LANDSCAPEBUFFER (SDP 96­32) 15'YVIDETYPE'D' 75'WIDETYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER r�r LANDSCAPEBUFFER r _ r , 1 rrr ZONED: [AVID A. GALLMTRACT B ESTATE , r I r ESTATEPUD r r USE: MULTIFAMILY I rr f RESIDENTIAL tr NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 9E42) ZONED: C-4-GTMUD461XD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CE14TER PUD o ma 2W USE COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES SCAd-E: 1 " _ 200' Proposed Permitted Uses A- PrindRa I Us -es: Tract A: 1- All C-4, general commercial permitted uses, and 2- Individual and family social services (9322); and 1 Job training �K31)- and 4- Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds, and Tract B= 1- All C-4r general commercial permitted uses, and 2- Genera I wa rehousing a nd storage (422 5), and 3- Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing {old or refrigerated on1V (4222) (not -far profit food ban k); a nd 4- Lega I counsel and prosecution �9222); and 5- Used vehicle sales (552-1), and 6- Boat dealers �5551)_ R. Accessory Uses - Accessory uses a nd stru ctu res customarily associated with the perm itteti grin cipal uses a nd structures induding, but not limited to: 1- CaretakerSr residence; and L Gardens; and 3- 1 ndoo r stora ge an d wa rehousing; a nd 4- Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5- Self-help groups 0 Proposed Development Standards TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Eastern Project Boundary 50 FEET 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET j 60 FEET 30 FEET 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET j 60 FEET 30 FEET 35 FEET Shelter/ Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET/ 50 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater 10 "Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. Proposed Deviations Deviation 41: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities", which requires a minimurn habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minirnurn habitable floor area of 100 sq. ft. per bed. Deviation # : Relief from LDC. 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary wh ich impacts the existing paged parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type landscape buffer shall be provided, 11 Conclusion Documents and information can be found online: • Gradyminor.com/Planning • Collier County GMD Public Portal: cvportal.colliergov.net/c/tyv/ewweb Next Steps • Hearing sign(s) posted on property advertising Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioner (BCC) hearing dates. • CCPC - TBD • BCC - TBD Contact: • Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician; sumpenhour@clradyminor.com or 239.947.1 144 extension 1249 • Collier County: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner; nancyqundlach@colliercountyfl.gov or 239.252.2484 12 (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s) NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED SHARON UMPENHOUR WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER(S) PL20210000176. St. Matthew's House CPUD. �—jAj4f I MY1110964--11 3800 Via Del Rey SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Lee Bonita Springs, Florida 34110 CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 9 day of November , 2021, by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for 0. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., personally known to me er—whe- as identifleati en and who did/did not take an oath. t t t. CARINJ.DWYER Signature of Notary ublic FAY COMMISSION # GG 9UNY EXPIRES: .May 14.2024 Carin J. Dwyer !`•.FOF FvQ: Bo,,W Th, Notry aPubk UMrwNm Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3/4/2015 FL MYERS • NAPLES a,.939 4858 • %� PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONE (PUDZ) PETITION NO. PL20210000176 L v '14 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONE (PUDZ) PETITION NO. PL20210000176 CCPC: DECEMBER 2, 2021 9:00 a.m. BCC: JANUARY 25, 2022 9:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3RD FLOOR 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 NANCY GUNDLACH, AICP:239-252-2484 f ja::�w cop"Mi EST. 1971 MARKJ. WOODWARD Baud cer & , Rcai Emma Lawand inCondandnaun & PLlnned DLV--bpmcnt Law ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR P<wd CerOML. Cig;Camry, and Local Gaecinmenc Law J- CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO ANTRONY J. DIMORA LwrnLai in FL;urti OH LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD CRAIG R. WOODWARD Sa-dar Cauisel Ba,Vd catiw: Rc�d Estate Law KENNETH V. MUNDY Z4CHARY W. LOMBARDO CAMER.ON G. WOODWARD Ross E. SCHULMA14 Licensed in FL and NY F. SCOTT MzAR. m CHPJSTOPHER R. HEFLIN REPLY TO: 3200 TAmumi TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAP LES, FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649-7342 FAX 606 BALD EAGLE DR1vE SUITE S00 P-O. Box ONE MAR.CO ISLAND. EL 3414-6 239-394.5161 239-642-6402 FAX W W W. WPL—LEGAL.COM WOODWARD, P I RES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW January4, 2022 Via Email Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida Penny Taylor, Chair and Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Supplemental Filing; Objections to St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. PL20210000176; (the "Application") Dear Chair Taylor and Commissioners: This letter and submittal are for the purposes of supplementing the prior filings of West Shore Point Naples, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("West Shore"), objecting to the Project and Application. West Shore's prior submittal of December 28, 2021 (and all of its attachments) is incorporated fully herein.'. 2 West Shore reiterates and incorporates herein its arguments, evidence, testimony and assertions. West Snore again respectively requests that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) deny the Project Application as proposed and as recommended for approval by the CCPC. As previously noted, the Application was heard by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), which received testimony and evidence on December 2, 2021 and the continued hearing of December 16, 2021.3 As noted, we, along with an eminently qualified planner and transportation engineer, appeared at the CCPC hearings on December 2 and 16, 2021. our expert planner and transportation engineer provided competent and substantial testimony and 1 A copy of the copy of the December 28, 2021 transmittal letter is attached as Exhibit "A". 2 No rights, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of West Shore concerning the Application and Project are waived by anything stated herein or omitted here from —and the right to present, make and submit additional motions, objections, arguments and materials before the and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is specifically reserved. West Shore reserves the right to make additional objections, filings and submittals to protect its interests and to ensure the due process rights of West Shore. evidence that the Project and Application as proposed is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP); does not meet the criteria for a PUD rezoning; and should not be approved. To address a number of West Shore's concerns, we drafted and submitted a proposed PUD ordinance document to the CCPC and the Applicant. However, that document was not acceptable to the Applicant and not recommended for approval by the CCPC. At the conclusion of its December 16, 2021 hearing the CCPC , by a vote of 3-2, voted to recommend a revised, modified PUD document to the Board of County Commissioners. A transcript of the December 16, 2021 CCPC continued hearing is attached as Exhibit "B". After the CCPC hearing, between December 161' and noon on ❑ecember 20t'', the County staff and Applicant's agents worked together and prepared a revised proposed PUD document. The revised proposed PUD document, attached as Exhibit "C", was not "finalized" and provided to us until December 20. 2021. That document was not reviewed by the CCPC. At the outset, as the revised proposed PUD document was never reviewed nor approved in its final form by the CCPC, the BCC should remand the Application and the revised proposed PUD document back to the CCPC for its review, The revised proposed amended PUD document does not allay the concerns of our client. The Application, as revised, and the proposed amended PUD document, are: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. West Shore respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners reject and deny the proposed Project and Application as originally proposed and as recommended for approval by the CCPC. If the County Commission is inclined to approve a zoning change for the property, West Shore requests that the County Commission consider adopting a PUD with a form and content as that attached as Exhibit "❑". In doing so we reiterate and incorporate all of the objections raised and evidence presented at the CCPC as well as all subsequent submittals. Enclosure(s) `1 Cc: with enclosure(s) Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Stephen Tiibrook 2 J�Awo 100� EST. 1971 MARK]. WOODWARD BwnJ Cam: }Lal Fsmr Law x)d inCondornir&n & Planned Dembpmene Law ANTHONYP. P1RE5. JR Board Crrefied: Ciry..Cmmy, anti Local Gornarrnen Law J. CHRISTOPHER LomaARDO ANTHONY J. DIMa1:A IrLr in FLaMDF1 1ENORE T. BRAKE FIELD CRAIG R WOODWARD sen OrckxmI Swrd C :Rc;d Esam Law KENNETH V. MUNDY zAcHARYW.LOMBARDO CAMERON G. WOODWARD A055 E. SCHULMAN LSm and in FL and NY F. SCOTT PAUZAR. III CHRISPOPHER R. HEFLCN REPLY 1'O: 0 3200 TAMIAMi TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES. FL 34103 239-649-6555 239-649.7342 FAX ❑ 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 500 P.O. BOXONE MARCO ISLAND. FL 34146 239-394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM WOODWARD, PIKES & LoMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW December 28, 2021 Via Finarl Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida Penny Taylor, Chair and Nancy Gundiach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Objections to St. Matthew's House ("PUDR") Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone; Petition No. PL2021 Q06a176; (the "Application") Dear Chair Taylor and Commissioners, This law firm is co -counsel with the law firm of Akerman LLP, representing West Shore Point Naples, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida ("West Shore"). West Shore is the owner and manager of the well -established 248-unit residential apartment community known as The Point at Naples. The Point at Naples located immediately adjacent and contiguous to the East property line of the properties that are the subject of the Application. See attached Exhibit A. West Shore has significant concerns relating to the Project and the Application. This letter is for the purposes of outlining some of the objections, comments and concerns of West Shore. West Shore respectively requests that the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC") deny the Application as proposed and as recommended for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission ("CCPC"). WEST SHORE IS ENTITLED TO AND REQUESTS PARTY STATUS West Shore is a substantially impacted party and as such we are of the opinion that it is entitled to assert and attain party status and standing at all hearings relating to the Project and the Application. West Shore, by separate communication dated November 22, 2021 provided to County Staff a Memorandum regarding standing and being accorded party status at the CCPC I No rights, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of West Shore concerning the Application and Project are waived by anything stated herein or omitted herefrom and the right to present, make and submit additional motions, objections, arguments and materials before the and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is specifically reserved. West Shore reserves the right to make additional objections, filings and submittals to protect its interests and to ensure the due process rights of West Shore. 1 and County Commission hearings. West Shore respectfully requests that it be accorded party status at the hearing before the County Commission. In support of this request, West Shore reiterates and incorporates its arguments and assertions outlined in the certain Memorandum dated and submitted November 22, 2021 titled "Standing and Due Process Rights in Quasi - Judicial Zoning Proceedings in Florida' . See attached Exhibit B. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED The Application was heard by the CCPC, which received testimony and evidence on December 2, 2021 and the continued hearing of December 16, 2021.3 The concerns of West Shore were provided to the County staff and to the CCPC by way of various submittals, including those dated November 22, 2021 and November 30, 2021 (see attached Exhibits C and D); as well as a PowerPoint presentation (see attached Exhibit E). In addition, we, along with an eminently qualified planner and transportation engineer, appeared at the CCPC hearings on December 2 and 16, 2021. Our expert planner and transportation engineer provided competent and substantial testimony and evidence that the Project as proposed is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP); does not meet the criteria for a PUD rezoning; and should not be approved. At the conclusion of its December 16, 2021 hearing the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-2, voted to recommend a revised, modified PUD document to the Board of County Commissioners. After the CCPC hearing, the County staff and Applicant's agents worked together and prepared a revised proposed PUD document. The revised proposed PUD document, attached as Exhibit F, was not "finalized" and provided until December 20, 2021 and that document has not been reviewed by the CCPC. As the revised proposed PUD document was never reviewed nor approved in its final form by the CCPC, the BCC should remand the Application back to the CCPC for its review. The revised proposed amended PUD document does not allay the concerns of our client. West Shore's retained planning expert planner, Cecelia Ward, has reviewed the revised proposed PUD document. Her Expert Opinion Report, "Revised/Updated December 20,2021" is attached as Exhibit G. In summary, the Application, as revised, and the proposed amended PUD, are: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Regulations z West Shore's request for party status was denied. West Shore was advised that Collier County has no process which would authorize a party -intervenor in a quasi-judicial proceeding. It is our opinion that not having such a process or procedure results in the zoning hearing process not meeting basic due process requirements. 3 The December 2, 2021 CCPC hearing was continued to allow an opportunity for West Shore and the Applicant to continue discussions concerning the proposed PUDR that might resolve West Shore's well-founded concerns and objections. The concerns were not resolved. 2 Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. West Shore respectively requests that the BCC deny the Application as proposed and as recommended for approval by the CCPC. In doing so we reiterate and incorporate all of the objections raised, and evidence presented at the CCPC. A transcript of the December 2 hearing is attached as Exhibit H. We have ordered a transcript of the December 16, 2021 continued hearing and once received, we will timely file and submit it for the Board's review prior to the January 25, 2022 County Commission hearing.4 West Shore respectfully requests that the BCC reject and deny the proposed Project and Application as originally proposed and as recommended for approval by the S,CPC. yf�`Pires, Jr. E Enclosures Cc: with enclosures: Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Stephen Tilbrook 4 Section C.1. C) of the Exhibit "A" to BCC Resolution 98-167 allows materials submitted by January 4, 2022 to be included in the January 25, 2022 BCC hearing Agenda Packet and materials submitted by January 17, 2022 to be considered by the BCC at the January 25, 2022 hearing. See BCC Resolution 98-67, attached as Exhibit I to this letter. 3 Exhibit A A11- - , N tc� r f I FQW .~ �•r � f�'�i� � a � �. - � _— � I �'+'_ 7 LI���`.+�-,--FBI � f MAP LEGEND Street Najrws i L parceis El x. �. +` 1 Nu its } I C-0111ler County I r {� �� � fr . I�r h• F C21'�'� J Ir, •r ', 5 ',� I � i.. '� �� �� #r . � i •fad+' Folio Number: 00389880006 Name: WEST SHORE POINT NAPL LLC TF 3�-- 'I pa Str_ GREAT '. dw . - yr -' .. ,.f11 , h .. F i • i l FI- S 1320FT,661 1 Exhibit B akerman Memorandum From: Alicia Bhambhani, Esq. To: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esq., County Attorney, Collier County Cc: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing County Attorney Stephen K. Tilbrook, Esq. Anthony Pires, Esq. Date: November 22, 2021 Alicia Bhambhani Akerman LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 T: 305 374 5600 F: 305 374 5095 DirF: 305 349 4858 alicia.bhambhani@akerman.com Subject: Standing and Due Process Rights in Quasi -Judicial Zoning Proceedings in Florida Question Presented Whether West Shore Point Naples, LLC ("West Shore"), as the owner of real property directly adjacent to, and an access roadway traversing, the Subject Property', is entitled to assert party status and standing at the upcoming quasi-judicial hearings in Collier County related to PUD Rezone Petition No. PL20210000176 ("Application") as submitted by St. Matthews House ("Applicant"). And whether West Shore is entitled to quasi-judicial due process rights as a party to the proceeding. I1. Short Answer Yes. As West Shore owns property directly abutting the property to be rezoned, has received mailed notice pursuant to Section 10.03.05 Collier County Code of Ordinances, and is vested in the existing character of the neighborhood, West Shore has standing and is entitled to assert party status in the hearings for the Application. As a parry to the quasi-judicial proceedings, West Shore is entitled to the following due process rights: ' A parcel in Collier County that is approximately 11.89 acres in size located at the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road and Glades Boulevard; see Collier County Development Petition No. PL20210000176 for additional descriptions. akerman.com 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 2 notice, a neutral decision maker, presentation of evidence, sworn testimony, and the questioning of witnesses. III. Background The Applicant submitted an application to Collier County to rezone the Subject Property to the St. Matthews House PUD and a quasi-judicial hearing on the Application is scheduled for December 2, 2021. West Shore is the owner of the property located at 2155 Great Blue Drive, Naples Florida, which is also known as The Point at Naples, an upscale rental residential community. The sole access roadway traverses the Subject Property, and the access road is an element of the site plan approval for The Point at Naples. Pursuant to Section 10.03.05, Collier County Code, West Shore received a Public Hearing Notice of the quasi- judicial hearing and the Public Notice is attached as Exhibit A. Generally, third parties must establish standing under the "special injury test2" that requires the party challenging a development order to show special damages peculiar to the party, which differ in kind (not degree), to the damages suffered by the community as a whole. It is well established that neighboring property owners affected by zoning changes have standing to challenge the changes3. It is clear that West Shore meets the requirements of the "special injury test" due to special interests and special damages that may accrue to West Shore as the directly abutting property owner. In addition, West Shore shares an access roadway with the Applicant, and may suffer unique damages due to the change in use of the access roadway. IV. Case Law — Third Party Standing Historically, courts in Florida have determined whether there is standing to enforce a valid zoning ordinance using the rule created in Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1958). In Boucher the court looked at whether an injury was caused to a particular citizen that was different in kind from the injury suffered by the people of the community as a whole. This test was, due to changing conditions, further expounded upon in Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1972), and given a more lenient interpretation. In Renard, the Florida Supreme Court listed several factors to be considered as to whether a party's interest is sufficient to determine standing, these factors include: (1) Proximity of the property to the property to be zoned or rezoned; 2 Rendard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d. 832 (Fla. 1972). s City of St. Petersburg, Bd. of Adjustment v. Marelli, 728 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. Dis. Ct. App. 1999). 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 3 (2) Character of the neighborhood, including the existence of common restrictive covenants or setback requirements; (3) Type of proposed change; or (4) Whether a person is among those entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance4. Generally, adjoining or nearby landowners are more likely to suffer special damages as a result of a zoning ordinance violation than other members of the community at large 5. The "special injury test" allows for property owners who will suffer particular injuries to obtain standing and participate as a party in local quasi-judicial proceedings to protect their interests. West Shore is a clear example of a property owner who will be greatly affected by the Application, easily fulfills the requirements of the "special interests test," and is therefore entitled to standing and party status in any hearings regarding the Application. The receipt of Public Notice is particularly significant in this calculation; a property owner who is required by ordinance to receive public notice has already been identified by the local authorities as one whose property interest is likely to be significantly affected by proposed zoning modifications. In regards to the current circumstances, The Point at Naples is located directly adjacent to the Subject Property; the Application would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood by changing the permitted uses and applicable development standards; and West Shore is among those required to receive notice pursuant to Section 10.03.05, Collier County Code of Ordinances. V. The Due Process Rights of Parties in a Quasi -Judicial Proceeding Quasi-judicial proceedings are required to provide for procedural due process which generally include notice, a hearing before a neutral decision maker, the presentation of evidence, sworn testimony, and the questioning of witnesses6 7. The right of an affected third party landowner to participate fully in a zoning hearing that can adversely affect their property have been regularly affirmed by courts. In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County. 528 So. 2d. 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987), the Court determined that the failure to allow Rinker, an adversely affected third party, to provide expert testimony was a decision that affected Rinker's legally cognizable property interests and the failure to allow such testimony effectively deprived Rinker of required due process rights. 4 Renard at 837. 5 Id. at 4. 6 See Florida Planning Official's Handbook at II-31-21. 7 h!Ws://www.floridabar.or,g/the-florida-bar journal/abcs-of-local-land-use-and-zoning-decisions/ - Florida Bar Journal ABCs of Local Land Use and Zoning Decisions, Gary K. Hunter and Douglas M Smith, Vol. 84 No. 1 January 2010 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 4 In Lee Cty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. P'ship, 619 So. 2d 996, 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993), the Court noted that any party adversely affected by a zoning decision is entitled to some form of direct appellate review and that circuit level review must ask whether due process was afforded, whether the administrative body applied the correct law, and whether the administrative bodies findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. The Court further noted that "It must be remembered that zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and similar enactments are (or should be) debated in a public forum with all affected parties having the right to be heard." Id. at 1006. As to the specifics of what due process rights are due to affected parties in the context of quasi-judicial proceedings, in Jennings v. Dade Cty., 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), the Court established the principal that the same due -process rights that are afforded in other types of quasi-judicial administrative proceedings also apply to the land use context. Specifically the court stated: At the outset of our review of the trial court's dismissal, we note that the quality of due process required in a quasi-judicial hearing is not the same as that to which a party to full judicial hearing is entitled. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Hadley v. Department ofAdmin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982). Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. See Astore v. Florida Real Estate Comm'n, 374 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Woodham v. Williams, 207 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1968). Nonetheless, certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to afford due process. See Hadley, 411 So.2d at 184; City of Miami v. Jervis, 139 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Consequently, a quasi-judicial decision based upon the record is not conclusive if minimal standards of due process are denied. See Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 480-81, 56 S.Ct. 906, 911-12, 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1936); Western Gillette, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 121 Ariz. 541, 592 P.2d 375 (Ct.App.1979). A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648, 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).1 Jennings v. Dade Ctv., 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) [Emphasis Added] 61010873;1 November 22, 2021 Page 5 The existence of these due process rights are what has separated quasi-judicial hearings from quasi -legislative hearings in nature. In Harris v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642, 644 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963), the Court noted that "Such requirements must afford the affected party the opportunity of being present in person and by counsel, to present evidence in support of his position and to cross-examine adverse witnesses whose testimony is offered at the hearing. If the board, agency or commission intends to insist that its ruling or order to be entered upon the showing made at the hearing be reviewed only by certiorari, the obligation rests upon the board or agency to see that a proper record of the entire proceeding is made, which record shall include its ultimate findings and conclusions." As to the pending Application, West Shore is a substantially affected party, and as such, is entitled to the due process rights of a party at all quasi-judicial hearings related to the Application, including the opportunity of being present in person and represented by counsel, to present evidence in support of his position, to present expert witness evidence and testimony, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses whose testimony is offered at the hearing. VI. Conclusion Based upon the analysis set forth herein, it is clear that West Shore meets the criteria for standing and party status for the Application and subsequent proceedings. West Shore owns a residential community directly adjacent to the Subject Property; West Shore received notice per the relevant zoning ordinance; and West Shore is likely to be substantially impacted by the Application. Accordingly, West Shore is entitled to standing and party status in any proceedings associated with the Application. As a party to the quasi-judicial proceeding, West Shore is entitled to due process rights including notice, a neutral decision maker, presentation of evidence, sworn testimony, and the questioning of witnesses. 61010873;1 Exhibit A Co -ter County Growth Management Department PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Petition Type: Planned Unit Development to PUD Rezone Petition No.: PL20210000176 Planner Name: Nancy Gundlach Phone: (239) 252-2484 This is to advise you of an upcoming public hearing because you may have interest in the proceedings, or you own property located near the vicinity of the following property. Da1 vis BLVD a a F- d'�.q, a Project Location 0 N m For more information, or to register to participate remotely: https://bit.IV/GMDEvents *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. 0 JD 72 For difficulties registering please call Thomas Clarke at (239) 252-2526 or email to Thomas. Clarke(a-CollierCountyFL.Gov. Collier County Planning Commission: Date: 12/02/2021 Time: 09:00 AM Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, Naples, FL 34112 Meeting information: Individual speakers may be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the agenda packets must submit materials a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing, to the county staff member noted above. All material used in presentations before the Collier County Planning Commission will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition and other pertinent information related to this petition is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. See reverse for more information Collier County Planning Commission to consider the following: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATING TO ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE, 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 THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT, (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY (CPUD-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD, TO ALLOW A 150 BED HOMELESS SHELTER AND UP TO 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND GLADES BOULEVARD IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 11.89+/- ACRES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 97-14, AS AMENDED, THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 RELATING TO A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20210000176] Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Florida Supreme Court. Boucher v. Novotny 102 SO. 2d 132 (1958) Daniel BOUCHER and Catherine Boucher, his wife, individually and as representatives of a class of persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. James A. NOVOTNY et al., O.H. Anderson, as Building Inspector of the City of Clearwater, the City of Clearwater, et al., Appellees. Supreme Court of Florida. April 16, 1958. *133 Thompson & Cooper, Clearwater, for appellants. Bussey & Simmons, St. Petersburg, for James A. Novotny and others. Ben Krentzman, Clearwater, for O.H. Anderson, as Building Inspector of the City of Clearwater and the City of Clearwater and others, appellees. THORNAL, Justice. Appellants Boucher, who were plaintiffs below, seek reversal of a decree of the Chancellor dismissing with prejudice their amended complaint in an action to enjoin alleged violations of setback requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance. The determining point is whether the appellants sufficiently alleged special damages peculiar to themselves to enable them to sustain a cause of action. The property of appellants Boucher is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Coronado Drive in the City of Clearwater. The property of appellees Novotny is located on the northeast corner of the intersection. The two parcels are separated by Coronado Drive, a street 6o feet wide, running north and south. Third Street runs east and west. Both parcels are situated in an area zoned R-4 by the municipal zoning ordinance. By the provisions of the ordinance there is a requirement that buildings located on plots in the stated zone be set back 10 feet from the side lot line and 20 feet from the front lot line. If applied to the property of appellees Novotny this would mean that any building constructed on their land should be set back 20 feet from Coronado Drive and to feet from Third Street. Apparently the Novotnys obtained from the municipal building official a permit to construct a motel, the plans for which indicated that certain projections of the building to be used as access ways, porches, sundecks and flower planters would extend beyond the building setback line of Coronado Drive a total of 20 feet and beyond the setback *134 line of Third Street a distance of 8 feet. The complaint alleges that appellants Boucher registered their objections when they noticed the scaffolding which had been set up as a part of the building project. Thereupon the original building permit was revoked by the building official but at a subsequent meeting of the City Council the permit was reinstated. Allegedly this reinstatement was brought about without public notice as required by the zoning ordinance. Subsequently the building was completed in accordance with the original plans. This proceeding was instituted by appellants Boucher to obtain mandatory injunctive relief to compel appellees Novotny to remove the allegedly illegal encroachments which they claim were constructed in violation of the setback provisions of the zoning ordinance. A motion to dismiss the complaint was sustained apparently on the theory that the Bouchers had failed to allege sufficiently damages peculiar to themselves as distinguished from the public generally. They amended their complaint to meet this objection by adding the following: "* * * The erection of said overhang in violation of the zoning ordinance aforesaid has caused the plaintiffs special damage by reason of its proximity to their property. Its continued existence in notorious violation of the zoning ordinance is a legal nuisance which depreciates the value of plaintiffs' property in that its continued existence destroys the protection of the zoning ordinance on the faith of which plaintiffs and others have purchased and improved their properties located within the limits of the zone's area." Both the City and the Novotnys assaulted the amended complaint by a motion to dismiss included in their answers in which they contended that the complaint failed to allege grounds for equitable relief and that the plaintiffs Boucher failed to show affirmatively that they had suffered or would suffer irreparable damage peculiar to themselves sufficient to entitle them to a mandatory injunction. The Chancellor agreed with the appellees -defendants and dismissed with prejudice the complaint as amended. Reversal of his order is now sought. It is the contention of the appellants that the mere violation of a zoning ordinance is sufficient to support a claim for relief in equity brought by one whose property is similarly zoned. Appellants further contend that if special damage is required, their complaint adequately meets the requirement. The appellees contend that one assaulting alleged violations of a zoning ordinance must show that he suffered damages different in kind from that suffered by the community generally and that the appellants have failed to bring themselves within the required rule. Appellees concede that appellants proceeded with dispatch and have not been guilty of laches. At the outset we point out that the zoning powers of the City of Clearwater apparently are exercised pursuant to the city charter which has been provided by local act, Section 79, Chapter 9110, Laws of Florida 1923, and Chapter 15671, Laws of 1931. We are not here concerned with the provisions of Chapter 176, Florida Statutes, nor with the application of decisions dealing with restrictive covenants in deeds or subdivision plats. Consequently, cases dealing with the latter subjects are not here applicable. We have on a number of occasions held that where municipal officials threaten or commit a violation of municipal ordinances which produces an injury to a particular citizen which is different in kind from the injury suffered by the people of the community as a whole then such injured individual is entitled to injunctive relief in the absence of an adequate legal remedy. With equal consistency, however, we have likewise held that in order to sustain a complaint for relief against threatened or *135 consummated municipal action such as the creation of a nuisance or the blocking of a street the injury suffered by the complaining individual must be special and peculiar to himself and not merely different in degree from that suffered by the remainder of the community. In other words, the complaining citizen along with all other people in the community might suffer some injury and it may be that the extent of the injury suffered by the one complaining is greater in degree than that suffered by many other citizens. Nevertheless, the complaining citizen is without redress in equity unless he can allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself and differing in kind rather than in degree from the damages suffered by the people as a whole. Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass'n, 59 Fla. 447, 52 So. 802; Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50, 200 So. 238; Richard v. Gulf Theatres, 155 Fla. 626, 21 So. 2d 715. The appellants appear to concede that this has been the rule in such matters as the abatement of nuisances and the obstruction of public highways. However, they assert that we have never announced this to be the rule in the case of a violation of a zoning ordinance. Indeed, it is their contention that the rule should not apply to zoning ordinance violations and that the courts of other states, particularly Georgia, Kentucky and some others, have held that the mere violation of a zoning ordinance, regardless of special damage, produces a right of action in favor of a complaining citizen the use of whose property has been restricted by the same ordinance. We have the view that the rule of our cases cited above with reference to the abatement of alleged nuisances resulting from threatened or consummated municipal conduct is equally applicable to actions to remedy or prevent breaches of municipal zoning ordinances. An investigation of the authorities leads us to the conclusion that the position which we here take is adequately supported by the numerical weight of authority and by what we consider to be the better reasoned cases. The sum of the rule is pointed out in McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 3rd Edition Revised, Section 25.351, where it is stated as follows: "To be entitled to maintain a suit to enjoin a zoning violation constituting a nuisance, a private party must, it has been variously ruled, be specially and irreparably injured or specially damaged in a way differing in character and kind from that common to the general public; his rights must have been injured; his property must have been materially damaged and depreciated or rendered less desirable and greatly depreciated in value and usefulness; or he must have suffered a special and private wrong. Moreover, it is one's own injury and damage and not that of others that determines the propriety of his bringing a suit for injunctive relief against zoning violations." See also Kooman, Florida Chancery Pleading and Practice, Section 265; 58 Am.Jur., Zoning, Section 189; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 22b, 123 and 182; Metzenbaun on Law of Zoning (2d ed.) Vol. 1, pp. 155-158, and Vol. 2, P. 1029; Yokley on Zoning Law and Practice (2d ed.) Vol. 1, P. 262, Section 112, and Vol. 2, pp. 7-12, Section 192. Also see Momeier v. John McAlister, 193 S.C. 422, 8 S.E.2d 737,129 A.L.R. 88o (annotated at page 885). We, therefore, align ourselves with the authorities which hold that one seeking redress, either preventive or corrective, against an alleged violation of a municipal zoning ordinance must allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself differing in kind as distinguished from damages differing in degree suffered by the community as a whole. We now return to the allegations of the amended complaint to ascertain whether the appellants Boucher have brought themselves within the announced rule. It seems to have been well settled that in the cases where individuals have sought to enjoin *136 obstructions in public highways or have sought relief against threatened violations of municipal ordinances the complaint should distinctly allege facts showing the special and peculiar injury. This should be done with sufficient clearness to enable the court to determine whether the complainant is entitled to maintain the suit. A bald allegation of irreparable injury which is not accompanied by specific allegations of fact will not warrant the granting of relief. Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass'n, 59 Fla. 447, 52 So. 802; Stoner v. South Peninsula Zoning Commission, Fla. 1954, 75 So. 2d 831. Although by the amended complaint the appellants apparently attempted to bring themselves within the requirements of the rule, we think that an examination of their complaint will reveal that they failed to do so. They allege generally that the violation of the zoning ordinance has caused the plaintiffs "special damage by reason of its proximity to their property." We are left to speculate just what the "special damage" is. The complaint further alleged that the continued existence of the violation of the ordinance "is a legal nuisance which depreciates the value of plaintiffs' property in that its continued existence destroys the protection of the zoning ordinance on the faith of which plaintiffs and others have purchased and improved their properties located within the limits of the zone's area." By this allegation the appellants apparently reached out for a specific fact on which to ground their complaint but the strength of the allegation is destroyed when they go on to explain it away by stating that the depreciation of land values as the result of a failure to enforce a municipal zoning ordinance is an injury suffered by the community as distinguished from a peculiar injury suffered by the immediately complaining citizens. In other words, we find from this complaint the substance of an allegation which points out that a failure to enforce a zoning ordinance produces a depreciation in land values throughout the community. While this may logically follow, it does not necessarily follow that a right of action springs into being in favor of a particular property owner unless it be shown that the violation of the ordinance results in a peculiar injury or special damages to that property owner different in kind from that suffered by the community as a whole. Appellants refer to our opinion in Hartnett v. Austin, Fla. 1956, 93 So. 2d 86. The plaintiffs in that case alleged peculiar damages to themselves as the result of an illegal exception to the zoning ordinance by the allowance of a commercial enterprise in a residence district. Similarly, in Josephson v. Autrey, Fla. 1957, 96 So. 2d 784, the parties were proceeding under Chapter 176, Florida Statutes, to obtain a review of an alleged illegal act of a board of adjustment and in addition special damage was alleged. Appellants also refer to our opinion in Larkin v. Tsavaris, Fla. 1956, 85 So. 2d 731. We think the decision last cited supports the conclusion which we here reach. There two violations of the zoning ordinance were alleged. The sum of our conclusion was that with reference to the violation that caused no peculiar injury to the complaining property owner, relief was denied. On the other hand the violation which did cause special injury to the complainant resulted in the granting of the requested relief. None of the parties makes reference to our opinion in Fortunato v. City of Coral Gables, Fla. 1950, 47 So. 2d 321. The situation revealed by the opinion in that case bears a striking resemblance to the matter before us. In order to avoid any apparent conflict between this opinion and the one last cited we deemed it advisable to point out that an examination of the record in the Fortunato case reveals that the plaintiff there carefully and in thorough detail delineated special and peculiar damages to himself which resulted from the violation of the setback requirements by his next door neighbor. There is, therefore, no conflict between our opinion in the Fortunato case and our opinion in the instant case. *137 This opinion is not to be construed as any endorsement of the zoning procedures that were employed in the instant case nor as an encouragement to ignore the requirements of municipal zoning ordinances. Comprehensive planning and zoning, and the regulation of uses of property have been productive of much good in the improvement of land values and the protection of the general welfare. In the case before us it appears that the appellees came dangerously close to creating a situation that could have given rise to a cause of action in the appellants. Fortunately for the appellees the complaint failed to present factual allegations that would sustain the granting of the relief requested. For that reason the motion to dismiss was properly granted and the decree under assault is, therefore, Affirmed. TERRELL, C.J., THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., and PARKS, Circuit Judge, concur. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Fsearch all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Renard v. Dade County Supreme Court of Florida Apr 19, 1972 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972) Copy Citation i Download Fm Treatment No. 41388. April 19,1972. Help Sign In Sign Up 833 Aneal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Grady L. Crawford, J. efiE g6ipel lbfihayMami, for petitioner. Stuart Simon, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., and Paul Siegel, of Sinclair, Louis, Sand Siegel, Miami, for respondents. BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the d4gision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at So.2d 50ofidxhd9d9dmDi et10nitfte certi 834 under Article V, § 4(2) of *834 the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., that the decision sought to be reviewed passes upon a question of great public interest, to -wit: fWd�teaifdi aodW w7rfimp p I a i n t i ordinance; (2) attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as not being fairly debatable and therefore an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of legislative power; and (3) attack a void ordinance, i.e., one enacted without proper notice required under the enabling statute or authority creating the zoning power." Petitioner Renard and respondents Richter, owned certain adjoining properties in the unincorporated area of Dade County zoned IU-2, industrial. The Richters applied for a rezoning of their parcel. The Board of County Commissioners ultimately permitted a rezoning from IU-2 to multiple family residence with certain exceptions relative to a nine -hole golf course and a variance for private, in lieu of public, roads. This was in accordance with the recommendations of the planning board as approved by the zoning appeals board of the county. Petitioner was an objector in the zoning proceedings held before the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board and an objector before the Board of County Commissioners. Following adverse rulings by the appeals board and County Commission, petitioner sought certiorari before the Circuit Court pursuant to applicable county ordinances! 1 JMetvapig#riav&dodc of Dade County, § 33-316: "No by any zoning resolution, order, requirement, decision or determination of an fiffih&ib�ral dwcision of the zoning appeals board may l�eu�tinstr�maareef unless he has provided for herein and taken all available steps provided in this article ... it lk*tended and suggested that such decision may be reviewed by the of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in accordance with the procedures and within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules for the review of the rulings of any commission or board; and such time shall commence to run from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed." (Emphasis supplied.) The Circuit Court ruled that petitioner, not having alleged a special interest, had no standing to prosecute the matter in the Circuit Court and, even if she had standing, the record adequately demonstrated that the issue was fairly debatable and petitioner would not have been entitled to the relief sought. flknvqVaWi*1Oistrict Court held that petitioner had su institute suit in the trial court but, that the rezoning in question was fairly debatable and therefore within the legislative discretion of the Board of ffnuaht CPC, l oia)& (The District Court a fiddfs ducisbut earohe passing on a question of great public interest. 1Wsd9cfoimNiE the District Court on the question certi a Renard v. Dade County, 249 So.ad Soo, 502 (F1a.App.3rd 1971). "First, as indicated above, the appellant as an abutting property ffrmepaoiahe property rezoned would, in fact, su ffimagia by virtue of the increased setback restriction di kind from the community generally; and this would meet the test of special damage. But, even without meeting this test, we hold that these cases would not be applicable to a property owner within the area wherein actual notice was required to be sent to him prior to any rezoning hearing. Anything to the contrary said in S.A. Lynch Investment Corporation v. City of Miami, supra, is hereby hpUFireceded from. We further note that there is a distinction in the cases relied on by the County when there is a proceeding in ffb&kh D#xiftnice an existing zoning ordinance, such as a violation of a setback requirement, special damage is necessary, 835 ffredkiaspecial damage is necessary when a plainti *835 have an act of a zoning authority declared void or is within the ffrnnaa. ivoin, Fla. 1956, 93 So.ad OfdSop1d9H4v. Autrey, Fla. 1957, In other words, we hold special damage must be shown when a taxpayer or property owner s[&ks ft & the violation of an existing ordinance Novotny, Fla.1958, ioa So.ad 132; Conrad v. Jackson, Fla. 1958, 10'7 So.ad 369 but need not be shown if the taxpayer or property owner is jYHddrrdhgvof the property which requires actual notice before the rezoning made may be considered by the legislative body [Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Elwyn v. City of Miami, F1a.App. 1959, 113 So.2d 849; Friedland v. City of Hollywood, F1a.App.1961,130 So.ad 3o6PWOl. 3, American Law of Zoning, Anderson, § 21.05, P. 558], when he seeks to review an alleged void act. Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Josephson v. Autrey, supra; Rhodes v. City of Homestead, F1a.App. 1971, 248 So.ad 674£(dlpbi Yn5, 19'71). Therefore, we that in the instant case the appellant had the standing to institute the suit in the trial court." (Emphasis supplied.) In the years following this Court's decision in Boucher v. Novotny,3 a split has developed between the various District Courts on the issue of standing to sue in zoning matters. The Boucher case was a suit to enjoin the violation of the setback requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance. The Bouchers sought to obtain mandatory injunctive relief to compel the Novotnys to remove allegedly illegal encroachments constructed on their motel. The City had approved the building plans for the Novotny's motel which included the complained of encroachment. The properties of the parties located in the City of Clearwater, were separated by a sixty -foot wide street. The Bouchers attempted to allege special damages by reason of proximity and by reason of being within the zoning area subject to the same setback requirements as the Novotny's property. This Court held, however, that the Bouchers did not ffwvff standing to sue and stated the following rule: 4 3 102 So.2d 132 (Fla.1958)• 4 Id. at 135• "We, therefore, align ourselves with the authorities which hold that one seeking redress, either preventive or corrective, against an aflqpW1akdimcbfmovunicipal zoning ordinance �fPigatx�e giss peculiar to himself di ffrfrsim damages di community as a whole." (Emphasis supplied.) TbacfiiVecial damage" rule of the case is an outgrowth of the law of public nuisance.5 Zoning violations have historically been treated as public nuisances not subject to suit by an individual unless that individual has ffnedtiimildgdsadid degree from the rest of the community. The Boucher rule was not intended to be applied to zoning matters other than suits by individuals for zoning violations.6 5 B=8hcr&iN9mny, (Fla. 1958); North Dade Bar Assoc. v. Dp jNoCWmm9nviTalth Title Ins., (F1a.App.3rd 1962): &} ubOaisststhw6tiatfpand as such is subject to abatement or indictment on the motion of the proper governmental agency. "' x' * * An individual cannot maintain an action for a public nuisance as such. fficStsipheia �idra*Ba public nuisance, he may maintain an action.' "This rule has been applied in Florida to suits to enjoin a zoning violation. Mw8h-cxdTi,Vovotny, Fla. 1958, 6 Boucher has been subject to criticism even as applied to zoning violations: 12 Univ. Fla.L.Rev., Third Parties in Zoning, 16, 23, 40 (1959)• The general rule regarding standing to contest the action of a zoning 836 authority was *836 stated by this Court in Josephson v. Autrey:7 7 OH103*74 787 "We have on numerous occasions held that persons adversely ffcted by zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agencies have ffwmtkg aR ibkkhcau to proceed in court to seek relief." HEtfike is Court's decision in Hartnett v. Austin. 8 93 So.2d 86, 9of*1hy. *56)iClUffiag(rhanter no di the appellees were entitled to bring the suit. They occupied their homes immediately across the street from the proposed parking area. They relied on the existing zoning conditions when they bought their homes. They had a right to a continuation of those conditions in the absence of a showing that the change requisite to an amendment had taken place. They allege that the contemplated change would damage them and that it was contrary to the fid&y& if geamdith=K)MhigLg;r�e them a status as parties entitled to come into court to seek relief. True their rights were subject to the power of the city to amend the ordinance on the basis of a proper showing. Nonetheless, they have a right to insist that the showing be made." ff0WdbT, 35 F1a.Jur., Zoning Laws, § 30: "Persons adversely a zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agencies have a status as parties font to entitle them to proceed in court to seek relief." In Wags Transportation System v. City of Miami Beach,9 this Court held that homeowners in a zoning district would be permitted to intervene in an appeal from a decree breaking zoning restrictions and commercializing the area where their homes were located. 9petition for leave to intervene alleges that petitioners are within the same zoning district as the property described in the complaints in the consolidated causes, that the decree destroys the value of their property because petitioners have homes on said property which they use for residential purposes, therefore the decree of the lower court breaking these zoning restrictions and commercializing the district renders their property less suitable for residential purposes. Petitioners' property was purchased on the strength of the zoning ordinance and in reliance upon the fact that all property within the zoning district would be maintained as residential property. * * * "We think the petition to intervene showed such an interest in the res that the ends of justice require that it be granted. * * * Nothing is more sacred to one than his home and the petitioners should have been permitted to come in and bring their rights in this to the attention of the court." The District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Elwyn v. City of Miami,10 held that abutting homeowners were entitled to maintain a suit challenging an ordinance granting a variance for a gasoline service station. On petition wearing, the case was raised by the zoning authority and distinguished by the District Court as follows: " i(JElao9VO4;0); cert. denied 116 So.ad 773, (Fla. 1959)• "That case [Boucher] was not applicable here because of material drence in the factual situations presented in the two cases. "The instant case was not one dealing with the violation of a zoning ordinance, but one which challenged the validity of an amendatory zoning ordinance, which, by granting a variance amounting to spot zoning, permitted appellees to put their property to a liberal business use (gasoline service station), prohibited in the more f3a>stoiefed *43iclut hb area involved was zoned. idiot of an adjacent or nearby home owner directly a an alleged improper intrusion of such liberal business to challenge the validity thereof, is recognized." A similar case is that of Friedland v. Hollywood," wherein the District Court 837 43'7 Appeal, Second District, held void an ordinance which would have allowed the variance for the construction of a service station in the vicinity fff property owned by the plainti 11 1( de gApo.gd6g61). Some of the foregoing cases attacking the validity of zoning ordinances came to the Circuit Court as petitions for writ of certiorari to review actions of the zoning board of adjustment under Florida Statutes Chapter 176, F.S.A.; others originated in the Circuit Court. On the question of standing to sue there is no basis for distinguishing between cases reaching the courts after appeal to a zoning board, in areas where such boards exist, and those cases originating in the court system.12 Florida Statutes § 176.11, F.S.A., provides for appeals to the zoning board of adjustment by "any person aggrieved." Florida Statutes § 176.16, F.S.A., provides that "any person aggrieved" by the decision of the zoning board of adjustment may petition the Circuit Court for writ of certiorari. 12 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, 36-1 (1971): "Generally, any person who can show that the existence or enforcement of a zoning restriction ffdtpqmiy*rd*tLvested in him or that the grant of a permit to another or rezoning of another's land will fntiHariylaas the requisite justiciable interest in the controversy, iifnd is a proper party plainti In this aspect, the right of a litigant to sue for declaratory judgment or for an injunction is based upon the same criteria as are determinative of the status of a petitioner as a party aggrieved' to bring certiorari j mradgi�f the determination of a board of appeals or adjustment. The di k("ht[si9is4IJplthdfprum and form of the remedy. firta#gaeved haddgeatzi�ing to sue is a person fitodlhy �liegally recognizable interest which is or will be a action of the zoning authority in question. The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an ffnter� hu4odmeborFlrissident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. An individual fiizd*=mdinWcaditAithe ga coral interest in community good share in common with all citizens. So-called "spite suits" will not be tolerated in this area of the law any more than in any other. ffudqeoftIn&pptbiesVnterest to give standing, factors such as the proximity of his property to the property to be zoned or rezoned, the character of the neighborhood, including the existence of common restrictive covenants and set -back requirements, and the type of change proposed are considerations. The fact that a person is among those entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance is a factor to be considered on the question of standing to challenge the proposed zoning action. However, since the notice requirements of the many zoning laws throughout the State vary greatly, notice requirements are not controlling fffirmh&wpaesW=of who has standing. Persons having su challenge a zoning ordinance may, or may not, be entitled to receive notice of the proposed action under the zoning ordinances of the community. f idattMacidbmgctmbered that even though a person has su challenge the action of the zoning authority, he must still carry the burden of proving that the challenged action of the zoning authority was not fairly debatable.l3 �3 City of Miami v. Hollis, 77 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1959); City of Jacksonville v. Imler, 235 So.2d 526 (F1a.App.ist 1970). IF&eagthi-.tfi5nLuTrtsiet out supra, has three parts. Part (1) deahhwith standing to enforce a valid zoning ordinance. The rule requiring special damages still covers this type of suit. However, in the twenty years since the Boucher decision, changed conditions, including 838 isweased population growth and density, require a more lenient Bpgltion of that rule. The facts of the case, if presented today, f oufc:gn lgpbeiskdamage. Odrtto(ti)ieirgwiitkrttanding to attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as being an unreasonable exercise of legislative power. As indicated above, persons having a legally recognizable ffherb* t iplHQpada action, have standing to sue. fidmle( afithesquu&hWtamt1tiack a zoning ordinance which is void because not properly enacted, as where required &ttdda-usddnwtt, gitrhmnAmnwoperty owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge such an ordinance.14 �4 S48 Erg&h94es v. City of Homestead, (F1a.App.3rd 1971); 'K4#WAVFhqt)c)f Kenneth City, ff%ia1I)iwmi&gaurt found that petitioner Renard had su attack the rezoning here in question, but, on review of the record, determined that the rezoning was "fairly debatable" and so was a valid exercise of power by the zoning authority. We agree. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the District ffinudt of Appeal is a It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and McCAIN, JJ., concur. 839 *839 Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext's legal research suite. Get a Demu Casetext research Parallel Search Compose Pricing Switch Big firm Coverage SmartCite Public records search Partnerships and Resources Law school access Bar associations About us Jobs Blog Podcast News Twitter Facebook UnKegln Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Privacy Terms © 2021 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Fsearch all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details Help Sign In Sign Up Rinker Materials Corp, v. Dade County District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District Dec 22, 1987 528 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) Copy Citation ♦ Download Fm Treatment No. 86-3135. December 22, 1987. Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Maria Korvick, J. John G. Fletcher, South Miami, Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Schuster Sachs, Miami, for appellant. Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty., and Scott D. Fabricius, Asst. Co. Atty., Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadows Olin and Joel S. Perwin, Miami, for appellees. Before HENDRY, NESBITT, and FERGUSON, JJ. On Motion for Rehearing NESBITT, Judge. lid Nbwnfing-,ye10tdnAr(*baopinion it with the following opinion. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 11/23. Subscribe Now casetext Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details Help Sign In Sign Up 9o5 rOgtively isolated portion of west Dade County. Rinker uses blasting in order to quarry. In 1984, Inversiones Armadeni, S.A. (Inversiones) and RidwrAklondddevelopment Corporation (Statewide) with the Dade County Commission requesting an amendment to the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan. The application sought fid1fim267 acres of land adjacent to Rinker's operations reclassi open land to low -density residential land. The Dade County Commission conducted public hearings, at which Rinker presented evidence. At the conclusion of the hearings, the commission enacted ordinance number 85- 49, approving the application. kch9fl3?fl4nkr1raction seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in Dade County Circuit Court. Rinker challenged Dade County Ordinance number 85-49 as an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the county's authority and section 2-116.1 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code, which establishes the procedure for amending the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, as unconstitutionally vague.' Rinker asserted that granting the amendment, which permitted the re -zoning of the land to low - density residential use, was unreasonable and arbitrary because such a usage was incompatible with the zoning of Rinker's adjacent property, which is used for blasting. Rinker is required to obtain permits to blast, Metropolitan Dade County, F1a.Code § 13-5 (1977), and its right to blast on its property is seLbject to termination or limitation even after it has obtained a permit, Metropolitan Dade County, F1a.Code § 13-13(c) (1977). Rinker asserted, therefore, that the county's action, which would inevitably bring complaining residents who would have Rinker's blasting permits revoked or fsmddudyaffie!r&* wperations. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the county, Inversiones, and Statewide, holding that section 2-116.1 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code is not unconstitutionally vague. The trial court held a trial on Rinker's Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 11/23. Subscribe Now �! CaSeteXt Help Sign In Sign Up Search all cases and statutes... JX Opinion Summaries Case details frafi�udgment the trial court held that Rinker failed to prove that the fbtadt is broiyarecognizable interests. The court concluded, therefore, that Rinker lacked standing to challenge the ordinance. The court went on, however, to hold that the ordinance was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable but was fairly debatable. Rinker appeals. I. Posture of the Proceedings The trial court's ruling that witnesses who had not appeared before the commission could not testify at the trial was erroneous. The trial court's ruling appears to be predicated upon its improper assessment of the posture of the case. The trial court incorrectly treated the case as either an appeal from quasi-judicial action taken by the commission, or a petition for a writ of certiorari from a commission's zoning action. The case before the circuit court was neither. Instead, it was an original action properly mounting a direct attack on an ordinance. As such, Rinker was entitled to present evidence to prove its contention that the ordinance was unreasonable and Srbi.Gables Federal Says. Loan v. City of Lighthouse Point, 444 1$FY.I% 84); 192 So.zd 324 (Fla. ist DCA K9A0);xfiavAri improper method of challenging re -zoning ordinance on the basis that it was unreasonable; proper method is w lTddhr#ft1ien*eiW0rcuit court) 492 S0.2d 852, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (writ of certiorari proper remedy to challenge county's grant of variance where record in the circuit court limited solely to the dsfi1krr*s,liafbre Vadboard) County, 358 S0.2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (when reviewing zoning action of the county commission on petition for writ of certiorari the circuit court is 906 t9D6onsider only the record of proceedings before the commission). Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 11/23. Subscribe Now �! CaSeteXt Help Sign In Sign Up Search all cases and statutes... JX Opinion Summaries Case details was therefore entitled to not only oppose the passage of the ordinance at the county commission hearing but it also had every right to challenge the legality of the ordinance in an original action in circuit court. In an original action Rinker was not limited to presenting only the record developed before the commission but could introduce admissible evidence whether it Hadfexd 6zrhiisi&dam the commissioners or not. Savings Loan, 4Apffeex*at 4, the trial court's ruling, which precluded Rinker from presenting additional evidence to prove that the ordinance was unreasonable, arbitrary, and not fairly debatable, was erroneous. a As the county correctly pointed out on rehearing, although an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Development Master Plan is legislative in nature, proceedings on applications for zoning changes, variances, or special exceptions and which provide interested parties with procedural due process are generally considered quasi-judicial. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. 6x 6T 648, 653 *Fl6it3d9J)KAn$fl0,wa > � (Cowart, J., concurring), review dla4dp.2d 76o (Fla. 1982). II. Standing to Challenge the Ordinance Whether a party has standing to challenge the zoning action or inaction of a Bounty depends on the nature of the challenge the party seeks to bring. Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.ad 832 (Fla. 1972). A party challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance as an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the county's legislative power must show that the zoning action adversely ffcts its legally recognizable interests. Renard, ?,61 S0.2d at 838 Citizens Growth Management Coalition, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, 45o S0.2d 204, 2o6 (Fla. 1984); E�ahS p&mm3jmy. Alachua County, (Fla. ist DCA 1985); see Albright, 492 S0.2d at 855; Carlos Estates, Inc. v. Dade Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 11/23. Subscribe Now casetext Help Sign In Sign Up Search all cases and statutes... ix Opinion Summaries Case details In considering whether a property owner has standing because its interests ffauml�ueaoadviywlyansider "the proximity of [its] property to the area to be zoned or rezoned, the character of the Rei 1prhood, ... and the type of change proposed." 261 So.2d at 837; see Paragon Croup, Inc. v. Hoeksema, 4 l§&zdd)Q4, 246 rledig;7 (Fla. 1986). If Rinker could have d1ht r d,Ethat the commission's action had adversely a of its property interests, which surely represents a legally recognizable i:fitY{ough v. Villeneuve, 16o So.2d 7747 (Fla. ist DCA 1964) (although revocable license confers no vested rights in a constitutional sense, it does amount to property in a commercial sense), it would have established that it had standing to pursue its suit. Cf. Renard, 261 So.2d at -zoning of petitioner's neighbor's adjoining property from industrial to residential use conferred standing upon petitioner to challenge validity of EbtddAiart *aUy unreasonable because it adversely a Mrhz®,ble interests by increasing her setback requirements); z(flmnabfth*e family home directly across from land re- Ebt ufflfpr apartment and condominium buildings had been a zoning and hence had standing to bring action questioning interpretation of 907 zoning'907 hlminan&' y of Miami, 113 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA) (pr4brty owners whose property values would be adversely a variance granted to adjacent property owner had standing to challenge the validity of the granted variance), cert. denied, 116 S0.2d 773 (Fla. 1959), approved Renard, 28irtv.zHeatr$ghcourt improperly prevented ffitiklae from presenting expert testimony concerning the e ordinance had on the value of its interests, its decision that Rinker's legally Hete#raizdJAhTnafpccty interests were not adversely a that Rinker lacked standing, was erroneous. Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Fsearch all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 6ndi n maa ave reverse the trial court's remand this cause for a new trial consistent with this opinion. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext's legal research suite. Get a Demo Casetext research Parallel Search Compose Pricing Switch Big firm Coverage SmartCite Help Sign In Sign Up 1❑ Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Fsearch all cases and statutes... Opinion About us Jobs Blog Podcast News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Privacy Terms Summaries Case details © 2021 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Help Sign In Sign Up JX Black Friday Deal: 30% off if you purchase by Tuesday 12/23. Subscribe Now casetext Fsearch all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District Jun 16, 1993 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) Copy Citation i Download Fm Treatment No. 92-03948. May 14,1993. Rehearing Denied June 16,1993• Help Sign In Sign Up Petition for review from the Circuit Court for Lee County, James R. 997 Thompson, J. *997 James G. Yaeger, County Atty., and Thomas L. Wright, Asst. County Atty., Fort Myers, for petitioner. 8WuDra1(bNfftwelWha.Rmepf�aFcn&, Haver Myers, for respondent. PER CURIAM. V&ratiww Lee County's petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Development Center, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals, 541 �Mxd n99) and fldjBef &vrVaillant, 419 S0.2d 624 (Fla. 1982). Finding that the circuit court did not apply the correct law to the facts and issues presented in this case, we grant the petition. I. BACKGROUND This action stems from a request for rezoning submitted by respondent Sunbelt Equities II (hereafter "Sunbelt"). Sunbelt owns a parcel currently zoned for agricultural use, upon which it wishes to construct a f rduelup*ont. Apparently the proposal is consistent with future land use projections as embodied in the Lee County comprehensive plan. However, opponents of the proposal have asserted that continuing the Pads3miszpnifigabie�bt least for the time being. 1 fihdae chWgp =irgstxmmended 999 approval of the ,999 proposal with changes, the county commission overruled that recommendation and denied the rezoning. In so doing the fiassion issued a written resolution which made three separate of fact:' 1 A collateral issue in the proceedings below was Sunbelt's contention that "the real reason the application was denied" was the vocal opposition of residents of a neighboring development. Clearly, such opposition, to the &tuntsiabjr_ctive "polling" rather than a discrete legal argument, PDRatchwalid basis for denying a permit or rezoning application. rab7SBezdh9&nty, (Fla. 4th DCA 199o). However, accepting the notion that rezonings are quasi-judicial does not operate to exclude the public from those proceedings where such applications are considered on their merits. The need to allow such public access, which includes the right to voice objections (at least on the part of those claiming to be substantially mtlihthnellig action), points out the di flepoliticizing such proceedings. The requirement of providing speci reasons for a ruling, in accord with the characterization of such proceedings as quasi judicial, should diminish (if not altogether eliminate) the likelihood fk'bRganv 1Uani ynask the "real reason [an] application was denied." a fidiiig4taattEmp eouskPkanay three of these be that the circuit court agreed with Sunbelt's evaluation. If this were the only issue before us, we would be compelled to uphold the circuit court so long as it otherwise applied the correct principle of law. That is, we would not reweigh the circuit court's determination whether or not adequate evidence was presented. (i) The proposal is inconsistent with the site location standards for Neighborhood Commercial Development as set forth in ... the Lee County Comprehensive Land Use Plan ... which requires Neighborhood Commercial Developments to be located at the intersection of a collector and arterial or an arterial and arterial road so as to allow access to two roads. (a) The proposal would result in unreasonable development expectations which may not be achievable because of commercial acreage limitations on the "Year 2010 Overlay [map]" for the subdistrict in question in violation of.... the Lee County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (3) The proposal would permit a commercial development to locate in such a way as to open new areas to premature, scattered, or strip development.... Sunbelt then sought relief in circuit court via a proceeding the county aptly describes as a "hybrid."3f0fb*#�court granted certiorari, " there was no substantial, competent evidence to support the decision of the Lee County Board of County Commissioners in ... denying [Sunbelt]'s application for rezoning." The county now asks us to review that decision. 3 ialhi*iaalm9atidon for certiorari, Sunbelt ni�,leoflt claims that certain statutory prerequisites were overlooked which require dismissal of the civil action. Because the circuit court addressed the certiorari petition on its merits, the second case is not before us at this time. II. REZONING: LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING? The circuit court, in asserting its power to review the matter via certiorari, Sppdars,tBdwv&fcMnko0ammissioners of Brevard County, 595 So.Zd 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), jdo5c&cep&d, fia&z01Rlap99z), which states that owner initiated, site-speci proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature. The county had moved to dismiss Sunbelt's petition because, in its view, all zoning decisions are legislative F6 R i i im1a kOi*epts a accepted method of subsequent judicial review and the scope of that review. (a) Is there conflict between Snyder v Brevard County and prior holdings of this court? The county contends that SnyderfUmwith cases from this court de4ce*j4gerO%mA&ygvaAWu,lative activity. 3";Kcadd)gA), l d,1o86 (Fla. 19go); Polk County Board of County Commissioners, _<)&Ec&ddVP 1991).4fBianbi3 soipdituAehabebnur court has employed certiorari review in settings factually similar to the present case. Manatee County v. Kuehnel, _ O�&czdd)gA, PASdenied, So.2d 663 (Fla.1989). 4 W§mIb0Yu9B4O County, (discussing the act of a Lee County zoning ordinance which prescribes review by certiorari). Vkm#ee lbhtNvncxnnaterial con Lee County v. Morales and Sny6velfw&mprehensive downzoning of an environmentally sensitive barrier island initiated by the county, and did not ibWbLftv=wwner initiated zoning change. Moreover, any con ffi#dftYbx7yGbzdRjta. Mat not a rezoning, but rather a neighboring property owner's challenge to approval of a Planned Unit Development. The case was disposed of on procedural grounds — the circuit court had dismissed Hirt's certiorari petition, and i000*loon fidiag(Dhetgounty's construction of applicable rules to have been a "judicial" undertaking, ordered the petition reinstated and decided on its merits. Hoge Scheb engaged in a functional analysis of the underlying kdydrAdtiakivmproceedings quite similar to that in lft*x& u1sin.tive judicial determination turns on (1) the nature of the challenge; and (2) the manner &*ii;h the zoning authority went about making its decision. Sunbelt urges, is "the logical culmination of [this] functional analysis." However, Judge Scheb did remark in passing that rezonings were "legislative." S78 So.zd at 417. He did not distinguish between a county - initiated, broad -based rezoning, as in Morales, 4mcfkmeite-speci initiated rezoning as in Kuehnel. (b) When, if ever, is rezoning a "judicial" matter? Florida's appellate courts are neither unanimous nor consistent on the question whether rezonings are legislative or quasi judicial.5 Neither are they consistent about the method or scope of review. For example, in St. Johns County v. Owings, _q5WSc5dd igA 1989), g64denied, Sal l�&`lrau e)Tim&rman, 517 So.ad 699 *&&pkd)fIA31 ),1988), the courts applied the "fairly debatable" standard appropriate for legislative decisions, but reviewed the proceedings by certiorari as if they were judicial in nature. 5 If, indeed, such distinction can be clearly drawn. As one commentator Farmladed, after a lengthy analysis of the functional approach of Washington County, infra,ffislmw ehariageideisions are di as distinctly legislative or quasi-judicial." Peckingpaugh, "Burden of Proof in fid4Phsm&gLddtAVplitffiuin to Florida," 8 F1a.St.U.L.R. 499 (198o)• "A judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present facts and under laws supposed already to exist ... Legislation, on the other hand, looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power." Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., all U.S. 210, 2267 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, _O§cEo, qv gaoin Jennings v. Dade County, 1, 1992) (Ferguson, J., concurring). A judicial decision involves a controversy avisiibpw daw a set of facts — what Judge Scheb called Sgflf&cidgItt0qcurrent ordinance. . Placed in the zoning/code enforcement context, the court or agency asks: "Has the party done something in violation of the law?" or "Will the law allow the party to dhu*dM*dava?AWabh,4rast, legislation €riefithmpudahim*ther such change stems from the body ( e.g a comprehensive rezoning) or from an individual request to "change the law for me" (the melt rezonings). Sncluding that owner initiated rezoning proceedings are nevertheless quasi-judicial in character, borrows heavily from two sources. 03xV Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648, 652 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), declares that "it is the character of the administrative hearing leading to the action of the administrative body that determines the label to be dkwxfiR&fo the action...." The court in was deciding whether hLdjudidatvAtive operated to bar a second rezoning application; though they eventually determined that the nature of these rezoning lfedrdngsirhnd6lhem "judicial," the court went on to a deference to the local government in deciding whether circumstances had ffrntly changed to defeat application of the res judicata principle. Another source is the widely -cited opinion of the Oregon Supreme Court, Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 2,64 Or. 574 507 P.2d 23€(ix973). The plainti Awdmnsuccessfully opposed a zoning change before their county commission, but prevailed at all levels of iooi the Oregon court *iooi system because the rezoning was not shown to be consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The supreme court began its analysis by stating, "Any meaningful decision as to the proper scope of judicial review of a zoning decision must start with a characterization of the _a".edfatlgt &cision." . Most jurisdictions, including Oregon itself, heretofore had "state [d] that a zoning ordinance is a bq#4a rtaiA and is thereby entitled to presumptive validity." This approach, however, may have been "ignoring reality." Id. Ordinances laying down general policies without regard to a kpdeice of property are usually an exercise of legislative authority, are subject to limited review and may only be attacked upon constitutional grounds for an arbitrary use of authority. On the other hand, a determination whether the permissible use of a 4deice of property should be changed is usually an exercise of judicial authority and its propriety is subject to an altogether Brent test. Id 6 6 Fasano is not universally accepted as a correct statement of law or desirable judicial policy. One commentator, comparing decisions from "major comprehensive planning states," notes that California continues to adhere to the "legislative" option, and describes FasanofiaaiA*ni ffw0diLhdf225&VhmdVq Know It, F1a.B.J., March 1993, at 31 n. 35. Ftdwngtable that like most of the "consistency" cases we will discuss, involved a challenge to a rezoning that (initially) was successfully obtained despite a claim it was not only bad policy but not in compliance with the law. That is, the question, unarguably judicial in character, "Does the existing law permit it?" fflIve fact remains, however, that many rezoning decisions properly reviewable by certiorari. While legislative authority (that is, the discretion to determine what the law should be) may not be Mlle#Med, a legislative body may delegate to a board or o ffxt�mstqidar#dFdVrbmdfia safeguards are adopted to ensure a proper application of legislative intent. Most zoning ordinances delegate, with standards, the authority to decide such things as variances or conditional use approvals, and these quasi-judicial determinations are reviewable by certiorari. Similarly, the authority to decide what zoning district to apply to each property could, with adequate standards, become a delegated, quasi-judicial determination. Far more often, however, rezoning decisions are held to be reviewable by certiorari merely because a zoning ordinance, charter or special act provides that they shall be. LaCroix, The Applicability of Certiorari Review to Decisions on Rezoning, F1a.B.J., June 1991, at io5 ( footnotes omitted We believe a fair and workable solution is to adopt the functional analysis of ikk,is consistent procedurally with our prior decision in Manatee Countyv. Kuehnel.ah&4rier*dtigtedthat site-speci ffkba1Y39&4ubktscharauter that administrative orders are thereafter appropriate for appellate review. (c) What Does It Mean to Label a Proceeding "Judicial"? Our decision to adopt this portion of the S7piKmn will measurably ffct those local governments who, in continuing to regard &N&r rezonings as purely legislative, may utilize overly informal procedures when considering such requests. "When acting in a truly legislative function, a 4T,tiafefld sfaeBgiDfred to make reasons supporting its decision as is necessary in order for the courts to ffctively review governmental action for compliance with constitutional and statutory rights and limitations." Snyder, 595 So.ad at 68. flfto4labeling rezoning decisions as quasi-judicial is to refer them to an independent forum that is isolated as far as is possible from the more politicized activities of local government, much as the judiciary is constitutionally independent of the legislative and executive branches. iooz Because these decisions today are inextricably linked with property rights -related claims, we view this shift toward enforced neutrality as fidb�ary. The evolving law of property rights, exempli Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, U.S. , }iz S.Ct. z886 izo L.Ed.zd 798 (1992), does not augur well for local governments who are reluctant to justify their decisions with explicit references to evidence and public policy. If reached under a veil of silence, even honest land -use decisions are vulnerable to charges of arbitrariness or improper motive. Moreover, it is debatable whether the new procedural requirements implicit ShydmidbopAirmo&either as onerous or as infringing ffphn powers traditionally reserved for local elected o [W]e note that the quality of due process required in a quasi- judicial hearing is not the same as that to which a party to a full judicial hearing is entitled. Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. Nonetheless, certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to fifrd due process.... A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross- examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.zd at 1340 III. THE SCOPE OF REVIEW AT THE CIRCUIT AND D.C.A. LEVELS Efctwibs.sani�6nhlWs that any party adversely a decision is entitled to some form of direct appellate review. Therefore, we turn to the standard of review that should be employed by the circuit and district courts when presented with such cases. At the outset we acknowledge the existence of several terms of art which warrant (and may fikimt�unw1* 6beSfidely debatable," "substantial competent evidence,"and, in the wake of mandatory statewide comprehensive planning, "consistency" and "strict scrutiny." All come into in the present case. (a) "Fairly debatable" and "substantial competent evidence" The terms "fairly debatable" — generally applied to sustain actions thought of as legislative — and "substantial competent evidence" — which must exist to support quasi-judicial determinations — may in fact be more similar than some decisional and textual authorities suggest. The "fairly debatable" rule is a rule of reasonableness; it answers the question of whether, upon the evidence presented to the municipal body, the municipality's action is reasonably based. The primary purpose of the "fairly debatable" test is to allocate decision - making authority over zoning matters between the legislative municipal body and the judiciary. The test purports to prevent the edtixirdgord kibstt t ihsjudgment ekxcthnv9& the zoning authority. In other words, the tfgO&yt&batable" test was created to review the enactments of zoning ordinances. Town of Indialantic v. Nance, �& hdDPA3W81), approved, OUa.O4041 citations omitted; emphasis in original). At issue in ffidoroot [v. She 95 So.2d gig (Fla.1957M was the proper method and scope of review of a quasi-judicial county board &EUrvM-dAb1ntTlHwre ... notice and hearing are required and the judgment of the board is contingent on the showing made at the hearing, the action is judicial or quasi- judicial ... The court then explained that "competent substantial evidence" was evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate fk= 6ubei-aeitixl The &td aflye" standard of review of quasi-judicial action e provides the same standard the "fairly debatable" test provides for 1003 raw of legislative municipal zoning action: For the action to be sustained, it must be reasonably based in the evidence presented." .��I -,"(I 1vp 7 Fhddwymms were employed virtually interchangeably in Metropolitan Dade County, �E_p&OW19"), wherein the court found "competent, substantial evidence that the granting of the unusual or special use was at least fairly debatable." (b) "Consistency" and "Strict Scrutiny" In Florida, all zoning and development permitting must now be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city or county in question. See § 163.3161(S), Fla. Stat. (1991). The comprehensive plan has been likened to a "constitution" and has been described as "a limitation on a local government's otherwise broad zoning powers." Machado v. Musgrove, Sig So.2d 629, 632 (Fla.3d DCA 1987), rp9c &d,693 (Fla. 1988). 8 See also, Hillsborough County v. Putney, �E0chffi:A41986). And cf. City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher, �6d e rlj J08pipurring specially). 8 But seek'09 31644tffile.irtant of the legislature that [this Act] shall not be interpreted to limit or restrict the powers of f WnjdiptLhhnl&dxd tcrpreted as a recognition of their broad statutory and constitutional powers to plan for and regulate the use of land." AkOkAgg to "where a zoning action is challenged as violative of the comprehensive land use plan, the burden of proof is on the one seeking a change to show by competent and substantial evidence that the proposed development conforms strictly to the comprehensive plan and its elements." Id.ftus arises the term "strict scrutiny." Apparently there is con fiftidbmidt Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Broward County, (MSgthd:WA), ryu S®ni&,999 (Fla. 1987), as to when "strict scrutiny" should be employed. Mitchell, "In Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan: The Rise of Strict Scrutiny in Florida," 6 F1a.St. U.J.Land Use Envtl.L. 79 (1990).9 9 Jig siq"4ugposed solid waste facility objected that the rezoning which permitted the facility was more intensive than, and therefore inconsistent with, the comprehensive plan. The district court held that "[w]here the zoning authority approves a use more intensive than that proposed by the plan ... the decision must be subject to stricter scrutiny than the fairly debatable standard contemplates." 5oz So.zd at 936e nphasis ours). 46e dbm&r&rd4nn6#e Beach v. Grubbs, n. 2 (Fla.lst DCA). By contrast, Afabhs dhat strict scrutiny applies "to [all] cases addressing the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan, regardless of the direction of the change." Mitchell, at 89. (c) Scope of judicial review The standards for judicial review of local government administrative actions �ce�sdEnc1�1aEBne court in Aft& Palm Beach fideBeach v. Uaillant. At the circuit level, three questions are asked: whether due process was fifrded, whether the administrative body applied the correct law, and fidic*arie$upported by competent substantial evidence. This last requirement is susceptible to misunderstanding. It involves a purely legal question: whether the record contains the necessary quantum of evidence. The circuit court is not permitted to go farther and reweigh that evidence ( e.g.,fl&tlsaretfiwevi *,a=o substitute its judgment about what should be done for that of the administrative agency. Bell v. City of Sarasota, 3�HlS add)_04 1979) On further review by certiorari in the District Courts of Appeal, only the fist two questions are considered. Where (as in the present case) there is no suggestion of a due process violation in the initial appeal, the district court determines only whether the circuit court "applied an incorrect iSrhonip1mcffdudVpment Center, 541 So.ad at 1o8. We may not exceed these extremely restrictive parameters and "disagree with the circuit court's evaluation of the evidence." 541 So.ad at 1o8-9. Thus, if the correct rule of law for a circuit court to apply were the "substantial competent 1004 evidence" standard, '1004 and the court did apply that standard, its decision should be sustained. Our power of review would entitle us to quash the circuit court's decision only if it imposed aftent standard upon the parties than that required by law. Kuehnel. @cjwWrahsigsAhat the district court in that case, havkWiaphird a supportable conclusion that site-speci quasi-judicial proceedings, thereafter embarked upon a considerable departure from prior holdings in the realm of land use law. We decline to fenr&hsimsoifelwill explain in due course. Accordingly, by imposing upon Lee County certain burdens of #fiydftqitirE&ftydid apply the incorrect law to the dispute between the county and Sunbelt, justifying our issuance of a writ of certiorari. IV. WHERE SNYDER HAS DEPARTED FROM PRECEDENT(a) What Must Be Shown Under Snyder After a lengthy discussion of related legal issues ranging from the RigidPative/judicial distinction to private property rights, the stated its conclusions, beginning with the statement that "[t]he initial burden is on the landowner to demonstrate that ... the use sought is Sgp&ot dtLw&h the applicable comprehensive zoning plan." Assuming this can be done, the landowner is presumptively entitled to use his property in the manner he seeks unless the opposing governmental agency asserts aidlpmuod convincing evidence Wig stapedi §ljAvrwcestityJvelusesAfspeci such a showing the burden shifts to the landowner to assert and §dcrwrhaysttdhtiW6nd use constitutes a taking of his property for public use for which he is entitled to compensation.... iphasis ours; footnote omitted ). (b) The Distinction Between Zoning and Comprehensive Planning RzfyflMWmread too much into the use, in "comprehensive zoning plan,"but it gives us pause. As is made clear in lkdhai-er "consistency" cases, comprehensive planning and zoning frefitfeffre$aaad bfilDaffil government. "As the court in . acksonville Beach v. Nr t&* the purpose of a comprehensive plan is to set general guidelines for future development, and not necessarily to accomplish immediate land use changes." Southwest Ranches, 5o2 So.2d at 936. A comprehensive plan might accommodate a range of permissible zoning categories for a given area. In a case decided after the advent of comprehensive planning but before the 1985 Growth Management Act mandated such planning statewide, the Third District Court of Appeal held that it is within the discretion of a local government to impose a zoning category at the low end of that range. Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., m �trtba)til suspect this was not still a correct statement of law.10 to For example, § 163.3164(22), Fla. Stat.f(h%t)q[dd development regulations," implies the persistence of legislative recognition of the separate concept of zoning. hu�lkp3nce in fw iinpjp s posed to the broader land use projections embodied in a comprehensive plan, particularly where the zoning in question would allow only low -intensity uses of the land. Perhaps this skepticism might be supportable based on record evidence presented in the Snyderfl kil*i0saridwircuit court proceedings, but we court's pronouncements unacceptably overbroad if intended for general application to all jurisdictions statewide: Most communities in actual practice have zoned their undeveloped 1005 &nibmaahighly restrictive classi *1005 "general use" and agriculture.... The original intent was not to permanently preclude more intensive development but to adopt a "wait and see attitude toward the direction of future development. Most ffw1eftmwhtide motivation to incur the "wrath of neighbors by zoning vacant land for industrial, commercial, or intensive residential development in advance of an actual proposal for development." In reality, therefore, at the inception of zoning most land was zoned according to its then use, exceptions were grandfathered in and most vacant land was under -zoned or "short -zoned." In order for development to proceed, rezoning becomes not the exception, but the rule ... [R]ezoning is granted not solely on the basis of the Untibsinuida6htpatihH4ew zoning classi with the use of surrounding acreage, but, also and perhaps foremost, on local political considerations including who the owner is, who the objectors are, the particular and exact land improvement and use that is intended to be made and whose ox is being fattened or gored by the granting or denial of the rezoning request. 595 So.ad at 72-30tations omitted 11 11 mast such timid politics as described in with the reaction of the Fasano court to suggestions that "planning authorities be vested with the ability to adjust more freely to changed conditions": "[H]aving weighed the ffaitM3ini urthkidgn4Nisal lelylange more di almost irresistible pressures that can be asserted by private economic interests on local government, we believe that the latter dangers are more to be feared." S ft&mleat 219-30 MrtSk9Ao.zd 634: "[T]he opponents, neighboring landowners, contend that conditions change in rapid and uncontrolled fashion in Dade County, increasing the need for costly public services and facilities, due to loose enforcement of the land use planning scheme." As we have elsewhere implied, most "strict scrutiny" cases prior to Snyder have invoked "consistency" to place brakes on development some thought too intensive, rather than to enforce a right to more intensive development than has been allowed. Reassessing site- hpio¢ionings as quasi-judicial should help place limits both on gndkMonabigengamn adistidopment underzoning of developable property. It has long been the law that when the applicant makes a threshold showing that existing zoning is unreasonable, the local government must prove Selja Fs@ity of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, 3(ff &qk fts City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.zd 16or(elPla.1st DCA 1984), eHp.ad 749 (Fla.1985). However, absent the assertion of some enforceable property right, an application for rezoning appeals at least in ffrdr.'tdilwetiaDn to accept or reject the applicant's argument is hai*a&s,ic idabk-nfie ipas(facto the burden on a party seeking to overturn a decision made by a local government, and certainly does not confer any property -based right upon the owner where none previously existed. An old saying has it, "If you bought a swamp, there is some presumption you wanted a swamp." Put another way, there must be some presumption, even if only an easily rebuttable one, that land zoned for agricultural use is best suited for that purpose. This does not mean that comprehensive planners, with an eye toward conditions years hence, might not expect that same land someday to be crowded with houses, industrial plants, or commercial establishments. Nor does it mean that zoning authorities, during their initial (and truly "legislative") attempts to classify properties, always act wisely or fairly in designating low -intensity uses. However, implicit in Sayder suggestion that the future -oriented comprehensive planning process12 always will result in a more accurate and appropriate use designation than fi# tbAxW&(bb aYedhaa' act of zoning a speci both 6whomFamhpneimnnitdrvelycvali*ning classi and that one seeking a change in either has the burden of showing its invalidity. is See, e.g.,§§ 163.3167(i) ,163.3177(l), and 1019947411)0), Fla. Stat. which are distinctly future -oriented. fd&w- ,tv�&Adsigl3d,Mqdng classi =6comprehensive plan is relevant only when the *ioo6 suggested use is fiacbm-Fidtent with that plan. Where any of several zoning classi consistent with the plan, the applicant seeking a change from one to the ddims 4wqpventitled to judicial relief absent proof the reasonable. It is not enough simply to be "consistent"; the proposed change cannot be b4 subject to the "strict scrutiny" of to insure this does not happen. (c) "Clear and Convincing Evidence" The use, in Sy4tfwterm "clear and convincing evidence" (as opposed fkPwbanttifitzwnpetent evidence") is derived from Enforcement v. Real Property, _qMfia.90�5end numerous other cases, all of which involve a clear and acknowledged deprivation of property or other fundamental legal rights. See S9S So.zd at 81 n. 70. Heretofore it has fr&emliwn a requirement in zoning cases that an existing classi substantiated to this degree.13 We believe this shift in the burden of proof derives from an incorrect assumption about the nature and extent of a landowner's property rights. �3 dons of "clear and convincing evidence" abound. For example, the supreme court, in The Florida Bar v. Rayman,238 So.ad 594 (Fla.197o), appears to have contemplated something stronger than the "preponderance of evidence" standard ordinarily seen in civil cases, but less than the criminal "reasonable doubt" standard. Perhaps the best-known attempt to fle the term occurs in 4094dti ygW&Iher, DCA 1983), wherein the court spoke of evidence or testimony that is 'credible," 'distinctly remembered," "precise," and "explicit" — evidence which "must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fiafloolief and conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established." This would appear to us to be considerably more rigorous a standard of proof than the relatively deferential "competent substantial evidence" test applied to the quasi- judicial decisions of administrative bodies. This test requires "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion."ffid0root v. She 0Eb.*9)2,, 916 It has never been the law that a landowner is always entitled to the "highest and best" use of his land. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978). This is not to suggest that a local government, in enacting land use codes, may disregard the landowner's rights. First of all, land use restrictions must substantially advance some legitimate state interest, or they are invalid. Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 I07 S.Ct. 3141 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). Second, they cannot be so intrusive as to deprive the landowner of reasonable economic use of the property, nor should previously permissible b0grandfathered" uses be incautiously rescinded. However, assuming a regulation is necessary for the welfare of the public, and is not cyW inmeivxietingiproperty right, it is Jftl�GEdtfii-} the government's "police power" to enact it. Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., ,,72 U.S. 365 47 S.Ct. 114 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). It must be remembered that zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and similar enactments are (or should be) debated in a public forum with all ffdted parties having the right to be heard. Thereafter, the dissatis landowner has several avenues of redress, including injunctive relief against ffidbiftudinunmdrth(suit for inverse fidndaindvion. Even the landowner who is temporarily satis silktuAqMthout options when conditions change and undercut what once were reasonable expectations of fruitful use. This is the occasion for individualized rezoning application, which we now declare to be quasi-judicial and therefore subject to procedural safeguards. ffit htssdc,lta bys=pcda-cbt— repairing the errors that sometimes occur may expend resources and judicial labor. The alternative, however, is to reject or at least fundamentally undercut the power of local governments to superintend the use of real property. The Supreme Court, whose most "conservative" statement may have come in 1007Lucas, has never interpreted the Fifth Amendment *1007 "just compensation" clause (the source of "takings jurisprudence") as demanding this. In the Ltdi4ases, those favoring land use restrictions fid#eir activities the subject of heightened scrutiny into their reasonableness and intrusiveness. However, and despite the apprehensions (or hopes) of some observers, more fundamental change than this did not hartu. in 14 14 This portion of our opinion analyzes the tension between regulation and property rights in light of decisions interpreting relevant portions of the United States Constitution. The test for "takings" under the Florida }t'stxxi�ffi.il��arhsialm�l�ytf�ar same. *'. gfv# sub nom. Taylor v. Graham, 454 U.S.1083,10a S.Ct. 640, 7o L.Ed.ad 618 (1981). (d) Reconciling Our Views with the Procedure Adopted in Snyder The courts, reviewing a rezoning application, should not presume the landowner does or can assert an enforceable property right, one which triggers application of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, every time a more intensive use of the property is sought. Instead, the landowner must prove the existence of such a right, not just consistency with a comprehensive plan, before so rigorous a burden will be imposed upon the local government. The question arises, however, just how much the landowner must prove before the burden shifts. In this regard, we have no quarrel with the procedure adopted in &yder t or example, that the initial burden is still upon the applicant, who must demonstrate something more than that a rezoning is subjectively desirable. Before the advent of mandatory statewide comprehensive planning, that "something" was whether "the existing ffr&bnpbr was con St. Petersburg v. Aikin, aid So.ad at 317. Ruydbe pared as easing this burden without actually changing the law. Its emphasis on "consistency" means that wherever planners have determined a particular use is same#yble, the local government must now prove that the present zoning is not fi=ory rather than requiring the landowner to prove it isfi=ory. So far this shifting of burdens, which emphasizes that governments must bear some responsibility to act carefully when restricting property rights, can be accommodated without abandoning traditional notions about the "police power" that underlies all zoning ordinances. It is at this point that Sny&glearly departs from precedent. According to rezoning proposal is shown to be "consistent," the local government must provea ... more restrictive use." Instead, we believe that the local government is required only to show 1g1=1dtaxtWtduWpetent evidence (pbkinwdy Tdatrictive) zoning classi furtherance of some legitimate public purpose and that the public interest is Eg0timdfedycsemiidA)ynhntk¢flng that classi gstmtaitiDnehstitutional in the face of whatever changes have prompted the landowner to request rezoning, the rezoning may be refused provided the local government can justify this conclusion with evidence on the record. Assuming it can do that, Snyder thereafter correctly shifts the burden back to the landowner "to assert and °a3'_ . a taking" — that is, that the ordinance is con V. RESOLVING THE SUNBELT REZONING APPLICATION Implicit in the circuit court's holding is an acceptance of Sunbelt's argument that its design is consistent with the Lee County comprehensive plan. There is evidence to support this argument, albeit contradicted by the county commission ordinance. Although Sunbelt's property is currently zoned "agricultural," a Future Land Use Map depicts the surrounding area as "suburban." Such a designation limits commercial development to "neighborhood centers," which in turn are limited to a maximum of ioo,000 ioo8are feet. Sunbelt has projected only 65,000 square feet of commercial space.'5ffAhAkbAg1Ement order cannot be issued until after certain amendments are made to the Sunbelt application; Sunbelt "is fully aware of this impediment," and the mere acts of rezoning and approval of the "master concept plan" do not ipbefbmw or vest any development rights." r5 ffixsibelt also wants to construct an additional 85,000 square feet for o ffq4jmwrE6(nfldimquu*LWdrgued that the o flrefimuakfd ktdng the total square footage, but a hearing o the county's planning policy clearly dictates otherwise. ea�r�t� ieT�h�teka�uh that Sunbelt's proposal is consistent with what Lee County planners envision as pkesevtntual buildout of this area. One must also look to the ffithAdterlufekismin# icAaasi ftsadq1mleaddheugomprehensive plan represents, in e above which development should not proceed. It does not give developers carte blanche to approach that ceiling immediately, or on their private timetable, any more than a city or county is entitled to view its planning and zoning responsibilities as mere make-work. Nothing in this opinion is intended to imply that Sunbelt, after remand, cannot establish a present right to the rezoning it desires. However, the mere fact of consistency with the comprehensive plan, even if undisputed by the county, would not mandate such a result. To sustain the county's ff=kAhwuMnhWbn0nsoant favorin continuation of the i6 This decision likely will �� g Y fia use analysis of the reasons underlying the present zoning classi — whether it represents a considered belief that agriculture is the most appropriate use, or was idly chosen as the court suggested had occurred in Snyder. r6 Though the circuit court's order states that no such evidence was presented to support denial of the rezoning, the record suggests that the court did hold the county to the more rigorous burden of proof required by Snyder. There appears to have been no examination or consideration of the faaimnableness of the existing zoning classi The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby granted, the order of the circuit court is quashed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HALL, A.C.J., and THREADOILL and BLUE, JJ., concur. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext's legal research suite. Get a Demo Casetext research Parallel Search Compose Pricing Switch Big firm Coverage SmartCite Public records search Partnerships and Resources Law school access Bar associations About us Jobs Blog Podcast News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Privacy Terms © 2021 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. LEAGLE f in f1 Home / Browse Decisions / So.2d / 58 S9 o.2d / 589 So.2d 1337 (1991) JENNINGS v. DADE COUNTY Nos. 88-1324, 88-1325. Email I Print I Comments (o) View Case Cited Cases Citing Case 589 S0.2d 1337 (1991) Milton S. JENNINGS, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTYand Larry Schatzman, Appellees. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. August 6,1991. On Rehearing Granted December 17,1991. Attorney(s) appearing for the Case John G. Fletcher, South Miami, forappellant. RobertD. Korner and Roland C. Robinson, Miami, Robert A. Ginsburg, CountyAtty., and Eileen Ball Mehta and CraigH. Coller, Asst. CountyAttys., for appellees. Joel V. Lumer, Miami, for The Sierra Club asAmicus Curiae. Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ. ON REHEARING GRANTED NESBITT, Judge. The issue we confront is the effect of an ex parte communication upon a decision emanating from a quasi-judicial proceeding of the Dade County Commission. We hold that upon proof that a quasi-judicial officer received an ex parte contact, a presumption arises, pursuant to section 90.304, Florida Statutes (1989), that the contact was prejudicial. The aggrieved party will be entitled to a new and complete hearing before the commission unless the defendant proves that the communication was not, in fact, prejudicial. For the reasons that follow, we quash the order under review with directions. Respondent Schatzman applied for a variance to permit him to operate a quick oil change business on his property adjacent to that of petitioner Jennings. The Zoning Appeals Board granted Schatzman's request. The county commission upheld the 1589 S0.2d 13401 board's decision. Six days prior to the commission's action, a lobbyist Schatzman employed to assist him in connection with the proceedings registered his identity as required by section 2-11.1(S) of the Dade County Ordinances. Jennings did not attempt to determine the content of any communication between the lobbyist and the commission or otherwise challenge the propriety of any communication prior to or at the hearing. Following the commission order, Jennings filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in circuit court wherein he alleged that Schatzman's lobbyist communicated with some or all of the county commissioners prior to the vote, thus denying Jennings due process both under the United States and Florida constitutions as well as section (A)(8) of the Citizens' Bill of Rights, Dade County Charter. Jennings requested the court to conduct a hearing to establish the truth of the allegations of the complaint and upon a favorable determination then to issue an injunction prohibiting use of the property as allowed by the county. Based upon the identical allegations, Jennings also claimed in the second count of his complaint that Schatzman's use of the permitted variance constituted a nuisance which he requested the court to enjoin. The trial court dismissed Count I of the complaint, against both Dade County and Schatzman. The court gave Jennings leave only against Dade County to amend the complaint and to transfer the matter to the appellate division of the circuit court. The trial court denied Schatzman's motion to dismiss Count II and required him to file an answer. Jennings then timely filed We have jurisdiction based on the following analysis. The trial court's order dismissed Jennings' equitable claim of non -record ex parte communications while it simultaneously reserved jurisdiction for Jennings to amend his complaint so as to seek common law certiorari review pursuant to Dade County v. Marra, S.A., 326 So.2d 183. (Fla. 1976). Under Marra, Jennings would be entitled solely to a review of the record as it now exists. However, since the content of ex parte contacts is not part of the existing record, such review would prohibit the ascertainment of the contacts' impact on the commission's determination. This order has the effect then of so radically altering the relief available to Jennings that it is the functional equivalent of requiring him to litigate in a different forum. Thus, Jennings' timely petition activates our common law certiorari jurisdiction because the order sought to be reviewed a) constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, and b) requires him to litigate a putative claim in a proceeding that cannot afford him the relief requested and for that reason does not afford him an adequate remedy. See Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1956); Norris v. Southern Bell Tel & Tel Co., 324 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA i96o). The same reasoning does not apply against Schatzman. Nonetheless, because we have jurisdiction, there is no impediment to our exercising it over Schatzman as a party. At the outset of our review of the trial court's dismissal, we note that the quality of due process required in a quasi-judicial hearing is not the same as that to which a party to full judicial hearing is entitled. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Hadley v. Department of Admin., -411 So.2d 184. (Fla. 1982). Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. See Astore v. Florida Real Estate Comm'n, 374 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Woodham v. Williams, 207 So.2d 32o (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Nonetheless, certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to afford due process. See Hadley, 411 So.2d at 184; City of Miami v. Jervis, 13 5�513. (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Consequently, a quasi-judicial decision based upon the record is not conclusive if minimal standards of due process are denied. See Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 480-81, 56 S.Ct. 906, 911-12, 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1936); Western Gillette, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. COmm'n, 121 Ariz. 5_41, 592 P.2d 375 (CLApp. 1979). A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity [589 So.2d 13411 to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. BabcockCo., _4 o So.2d 648, 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).' The reported decisions considering the due process effect of an ex parte communication upon a quasi-judicial decision are conflicting. Some courts hold that an ex parte communication does not deny due process where the substance of the communication was capable of discovery by the complaining party in time to rebut it on the record. See, e.g., Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 410, 91 S.Ct.1420,1431-32, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); United Air Lines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 3o9F•2d 2 (D.C. Cir.1962); Jarrott v. Scrivener, 225 F.Supp. 827, 834 (D.D.C. 1964). Other courts focus upon the nature of the ex parte communication and whether it was material to the point that it prejudiced the complaining party and thus resulted in a denial of procedural due process. E.g., Waste Management v. Pollution Control Bd.,17 IS 11.App.3d io23, 125 I11.Dec. 524, 53o N.E.2d 682 (Ct.App. 1988), appeal denied, 125 I11.2d 575, 130 I11.Dec. 490, 537 N.E.2d 819 (1989); Professional Air Traffic Controllers Org. (PATCO) v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 685 F.2d 5-47, 564-65 (D.C. Cir.1982); Erdman v. Ingraham, 28 A.D.2d 5, 280 N.Y.S.2d 865, 870 (Ct.App.1967). The county adopts the first position and argues that Jennings was not denied due process because he either knew or should have known of an ex parte communication due to the mandatory registration required of lobbyists. The county further contends that Jennings failed to avail himself of section 33- 316 of the Dade County Code to subpoena the lobbyist to testify at the hearing so as to detect and refute the content of any ex parte communication. We disagree with the county's position. Ex parte communications are inherently improper and are anathema to quasi-judicial proceedings. Quasi-judicial officers should avoid all such contacts where they are identifiable. However, we recognize the reality that commissioners are elected officials in which capacity they may unavoidably be the recipients of unsolicited ex parte communications regarding quasi-judicial matters they are to decide. The occurrence of such a communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding does not mandate automatic reversal. Nevertheless, we hold that the allegation of prejudice resulting from ex parte contacts with the decision makers in a quasi-judicial proceeding states a cause of action. E.g., Waste Management; PATCO. Upon the aggrieved party's proof that an ex parte contact occurred, its effect is presumed to be prejudicial unless the defendant proves the contrary by competent evidence. § 90.304. See generally Caldwell v. Division of Retirement, 372 So.2d 438 (Fla. 1979) (for discussion of rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof). Because knowledge and evidence of the contact's impact are peculiarly in the hands of the defendant quasi-judicial officer(s), we find such a burden appropriate. See Technicable Video Sys. v. Americable, 4.79 So.2d 810 (Fla-3d DCA 1985); Allstate Finance Corp. v. Zimmerman, 33o F.2d 740 (5th Cir.1964). In determining the prejudicial effect of an ex parte communication, the trial court should consider the following criteria which we adopt from PATCO, 685 F.2d at 564-65: [w]hether, as a result of improper ex parte communications, the agency's decisionmaking process was irrevocably tainted so as to make the ultimate judgment of the agency unfair, either as to an innocent party or to the public interest that the agency was obliged to protect. In making this determination, a number of considerations may be relevant: the gravity of the ex parte communications; whether the contacts may have influenced the agency's ultimate decision; whether the party making the improper contacts benefited from the agency's ultimate decision; whether the contents of the communications were unknown to opposing parties, who therefore had no opportunity to respond; and whether vacation of the agency's decision and remand for new proceedings would serve a useful purpose. Since the principal concerns of the court are the integrity of the process and the fairness of the result, mechanical rules have little place in a judicial decision whether to vacate a voidable agency proceeding. Instead, any such decision must of necessity be an exercise of equitable discretion. Accord E & E Hauling, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd., 116 Ill.App.3d 586, 71 Ill.Dec. 587, 603, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571 (Ct.App. 1983), affd, 107 I11.2d 33, 89 111.Dec. 821, 481 N.E.2d 664 (1985). Accordingly, we hold that the allegation of a prejudicial ex parte communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding before the Dade County Commission will enable a party to maintain an original equitable cause of action to establish its claim. Once established, the offending party will be required to prove an absence of prejudice. 2 In the present case, Jennings' complaint does not allege that any communication which did occur caused him prejudice. Consequently, we direct that upon remand Jennings shall be afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint. Upon such an amendment, Jennings shall be provided an evidentiary hearing to present his prima facie case that ex parte contacts occurred. Upon such proof, prejudice shall be presumed. The burden will then shift to the respondents to rebut the presumption that prejudice occurred to the claimant. Should the respondents produce enough evidence to dispel the presumption, then it will become the duty of the trial judge to determine the claim in light of all the evidence in the case. 3, 4 For the foregoing reasons, the application for common law certiorari is granted. The orders of the circuit court are quashed 5 and remanded with directions. BARKDULL, J., concurs. FERGUSON, Judge (concurring). I concur in the result and write separately to address two arguments of the appellees: (1) This court in Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rejected attempts to categorize county commission hearings on district boundary changes as "legislative," while treating hearings on applications for special exceptions or variances as "quasi-judicial"; and (2) the petitioner does not state a cause of action by alleging simply that a lobbyist discussed the case in a private meeting with members of the County Commission prior to the hearing. It is clear from Judge Nesbitt's opinion for the court that neither argument is accepted. Legislative and Quasi-ludicial functions Distinct In support of its argument, that "[t]his Court has previously rejected attempts to categorize county commission hearings on district boundary changes as 'legislative', while treating hearings on applications for special exceptions or variances as 'quasi-judicial', " Dade County cites Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Company, _4 o So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The argument is made for the purpose of bringing this case within what the respondents describe 1589 SO-2d 13431 as a legislative -function exception to the rule against ex parte communications. Indeed, there is language in the Coral Reef opinion, particularly the dicta that "it is the character of the administrative hearing leading to the action of the administrative body that determines the label" as legislative or quasi-judicial, Coral Reef at 652, which, when read out of context, lends support to Dade County's contentions. As an abstract proposition, the statement is inaccurate. Whereas the character of an administrative hearing will determine whether the proceeding is quasi-judicial or executive, De Groot v. Sheffield, .9 SS o.2d �12, 915 (Fla. 1957), it is the nature of the act performed that determines its character as legislative or otherwise. Suburban Medical Center v. Olathe CommunityHosp., 226 Kan. 320, 328, 5-97 P.2d 65-4, 661 (1979). See also Walgreen Co. v. Polk County, 524 So.2d 111% 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) ("The quasi-judicial nature of a proceeding is not altered by mere procedural flaws."). A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present facts and under laws supposed already to exist. That is its purpose and end. Legislation, on the other hand, looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power. Suburban Medical Center, 597 P.2d at 661(quoting Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line CO., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, 53 L.Ed.150 (1908)).1 It is settled that the enactment and amending of zoning ordinances is a legislative function — by case law, Schauer v. City of Miami Beach,112 So.2d 838 (Fla.1950 Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (en banc), rev. denied, 529 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1988), by statute, sections 163.3161 and 166.041, Florida Statutes (1989), and by ordinance, Dade County Code § 35-303. See also Anderson, Law of Zoning, § 1.13 (2d Ed. 1976) (zoning is a legislative act representing a legislative judgment as to how land within the city should be utilized and where the lines of demarcation between the several zones should be drawn); ioi C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning § 1 (1958) (same). It is also fairly settled in this state that the granting of variances, 2 and special exceptions or permits, are quasi-judicial actions. 3 Walgreen Co. v. Polk County, 524 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); City of New Smyrna Beach v. Barton, _414 So.2d 5_42 (Fla. 5th DCA) (Cowart, J., concurring (589 S0.2d 13"] specially), rev. denied, 424 So.2d76o (Fla. 1982); City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So.2d 65_7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade,166 So.2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). A variance contemplates a nonconforming use in order to alleviate an undue burden on the individual property owner caused by the existing zoning. Rezoning contemplates a change in existing zoning rules and regulations within a district, subdivision or other comparatively large area in a given governmental unit. Troup v. Bird, 5 So.zd 717 (Fla. 1951); Mayflower Property, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 187 5o.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); 1o1A C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning§ 231(1979). Coral Beef Case Clarified Coral Reef involved a legislative action. The issue before the court was whether there was a showing of substantial and material changes in a 1979 application for a rezoning so that a 1978 denial of an application for the same changes, on the same parcel, by the same applicant, would not be precluded by res judicata principles. It was not necessary to hold the 1978 hearing quasi-judicial in character in order to find that the 1978 resolution had preclusive effect on the 1979 zoning hearing. There is a requirement for procedural fairness in all land use hearings, whether on an application for a boundary change or a variance. Adherence to that constitutional standard, however, does not alter the distinct legal differences between quasi-judicial and legislative proceedings in land use cases. We clarify Coral Reef, in accordance with its facts, as holding only that legislation denying an application for rezoning has a preclusive effect on a subsequent application for the same rezoning, unless the applicant can show substantial and material changes in circumstances. Treister v. City of Miami, 5_75 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA i99i), relying on Coral Reef. An interpretation of Coral Reef as holding that there is no longer a distinction between legislative actions and quasi-judicial actions of a county commission in land use cases goes far beyond the actual holding of the case, and is clearly erroneous. See note 1 supra. we held that county commissioners, when acting in their legislative capacities, have the right to publicly state their views on pending legislative matters. Izaak Walton League does not address the issue of ex parte communications or prehearing pronouncements in quasi-judicial proceedings. Lobbying Jennings argues here that the behind -the -scenes lobbying 4 of the commissioners by Schatzman, for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an appeal from a quasi-judicial proceeding, violated the Citizens' Bill of Rights 5 of the Dade County Charter, as well as the due process provisions of 1589 So.2d 13451 the United States and Florida Constitutions. We agree, obviously, that the lobbying actions were unlawful. Dade County and Schatzman respond that Jennings is entitled to no relief because he has not alleged and demonstrated a resulting prejudice. In the opinion on rehearing this court now clearly rejects that argument. Prejudice is to be presumed, without further proof, from the mere fact that any county commissioner granted a private audience to a lobbyist, whose purpose was to solicit the commissioner to vote a certain way in an administrative proceeding for reasons not necessarily addressed solely to the merits of the petition, and that the commissioner did vote accordingly. Starting with the legal definition of lobbying, see note 4 supra, and applying common knowledge as to how the practice works, there is a compelling reason for placing the burden of proving no prejudice on the party responsible for the ex parte communication. Although an ex parte communication with a quasi-judicial tribunal makes its final action voidable, rather than void per se, the presumption which is drawn from the fact of the improper conduct, is applied to promote a strong social policy and is sufficient evidence to convince the fact -finder that the innocent party has been prejudiced; the rebuttable presumption imposes upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof concerning the nonexistence of the presumed fact. 6 § 90.304, Fla. Stat. (i99i); Department of Agriculture & Consumer Servs. v. Bonanno, 568 So.2d 24, 31-32 (Fla. 1990); Black's Law Dictionary 1349 (4th ed.1968). Ex parte lobbying of an administrative body acting quasi -judicially denies the parties a fair, open, and impartial hearing. Suburban Medical Center v. Olathe Communityllosp., 226 Kan. 320, 5-Q7 P.2d 65-4. (1979)• Adherence to procedures which insure fairness "is essential not only to the legal validity of the administrative regulation, but also to the maintenance of public confidence in the value and soundness of this important governmental process." Id. 597 P.2d at 662 (citing 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 351). The constitutional compulsions which led to the establishment of rules regarding the disqualification of judges apply with equal force to every tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. i Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 64, at 860 (1962); City of Tallahassee v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 441 So.2d 620 (Fla. 1983) (standard used in disqualifying agency head is same standard used in disqualifying judge). See also Rogers v. Friedman, 4 83 F.SupP_428 (E.D.Tex.1977) (rule as to disqualification of judges is same for administrative agencies as it is for courts) (citing K. Davis, Administrative Law§ 12.04, at 250 (1972)). Ritter v. Board ofComm 'rs ofAdams County, 96 Wn.2d 503, 63.7 P.2d 940 (1981) (same). FootNotes * Judge Barkdull participated in decision only. 1. It was conceded at oral argument that the hearing before the commission in this case was quasi-judicial. 2. In such a proceeding, the principles and maxims of equity are applicable. See 22 F1a.Jur.2d Equity§§ 44, et seq. (1980). 3. In rebutting the presumption of prejudice, respondent may rely on any favorable evidence presented during the claimant's case -in -chief, including that adduced during respondent's cross-examination of claimant's witnesses. 4. Under the PATCO test adopted, one of the primary concerns is whether the ex parte communication had sufficient impact upon the decision and, therefore, whether the vacation of the agency's decision and remand for a new proceeding would be likely to change the result. 5. Nothing in this decision shall affect our holding in Izaak Walton League ofAmerica v. Monroe County, 448 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (county commission acting in a legislative capacity). 1. Relying on Coral Reef, the majority opinion refers to "quasi-judicial zoning proceedings," a confounding phrase which has its genesis in Rinker Materials Corp. v. Dade County, 528 So.2d 204, 906, n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). There Dade County argued to this court that the according of "procedural due process" converts a legislative proceeding into a quasi-judicial proceeding, citing Coral Reef. That proposition runs afoul of an entire body of administrative law. If an act is in essence legislative in character, the fact of a notice and a hearing does not transform it into a judicial act. If it would be a legislative act without notice and a hearing, it is still a legislative act with notice and a hearing. See Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L.Ed.150 (1908); Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., i5_4U_S. 362,14 S.Ct.1047, 38 L.Ed.1014 (1894). 2. A variance is a modification of the zoning ordinance which may be granted when such variance will not be contrary to the public interest and when, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. 7 F1aJur2d, Building, Zoning, and Land Controls, § 140 (1978). The normal function of a variance is to permit a change in "building restrictions or height and density limitations" but not a change in "use classifications". George v. Miami Shores Village, 15_4So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). 3. An administrative body acts quasi -judicially when it adjudicates private rights of a particular person after a hearing which comports with due process a cyuaa 1.aacaaw, aaau aaaanca auaunara va L-a aaau cvaacauoauaao va aavv vaa a.aac uwyuwu aaauco. L-1-aaa6 wu a-UL aac,c yuaoa-Iuuauaa Qc uy aavaa- deferential judicial standards. See City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)• On review of legislative acts, the court makes a deferential inquiry, i.e., is the exercise of discretionary authority "fairly debatable." Southwest Ranches Homeowners Assn v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1987). Further, there is no requirement that a governmental body, acting in its legislative capacity, support its actions with findings of fact and conclusions of law. 4. "'Lobbying is defined as any personal solicitation of a member of a legislative body during a session thereof, by private interview, or letter or message, or other means and appliances not [necessarily] addressed solely to the judgment, to favor or oppose, or to vote for or against, any bill, resolution, report, or claim pending, or to be introduced ..., by any person ... who is employed for a consideration by a person or corporation interested in the passage or defeat of such bill, resolution, or report, or claim, for the purpose of procuring the passage or defeat thereof." Black's Law Dictionary 1086 (rev. 4th ed.1968). (Emphasis supplied). The work of lobbying is performed by lobbyists. A lobbyist is one who makes it a business to "see" members of a legislative body and procure, by persuasion, importunity, or the use of inducements, the passing of bills, public as well as private, which involve gain to the promoters. Id. 5. Section a(8), Citizens' Bill of Rights, Dade County Charter, provides in pertinent part: At any zoning or other hearing in which review is exclusively by certiorari, a party or his counsel shall be entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The decision of any such agency, board, department or authority must be based upon the facts in the record. 6. PATCO v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 685 F.2d 5_47 (D.C. Cir.1982), relied on by Judge Nesbitt, supports this view. There the court was construing section 557(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, governing ex parte communications. The Act provides, in subsection (C), that a member of the body involved in the decisional process who receives any prohibited communication shall place the contents of the communication on public record. Subsection (D) states that where the communication was knowingly made by a party in violation of this subsection, the party may be required "to show cause why his claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed, denied, disregarded, or otherwise adversely affected on account of such violation." 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(d)(1)(C), (D). Comment Your Name Your Email Comments Submit 1000 Characters Remaining Leagle.com reserves the right to editor remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. Copyright © 2019, Leagle, Inc. Disclaimer I Terms of Use I Privacy Statement I Corporate Social Responsibility I About Us I Contact Us Cited By (21)1 (/feed/search/?type=o&q=cites%3A(1666417)) This case has been cited by other opinions: • Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co. (1982) (/opinion/1115503/coral-reef-nurseries-inc-v-babcock-co/?) • BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS v. Casa Dev. Ltd. (1976) (/opinion/1716713/board-of-cty-comrs-v-casa-dev-Itd/?) • City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel's, Inc. (1977) (/opinion/1658337/city-of-miami-beach-v-mr-samuels-inc/?) • Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade (1964) (/opinion/1696610/sun-ray-homes-inc-v-county-of-dade/?) • Dade County v. YUMBO, SA (1977) (/opinion/1933206/dade-county-v-yumbo-sa/?) View Citing Opinions (/?q=cites%3A(1666417)) Q Get Citation Alerts (/?show_ alert_ modal =yes&q=cites%3A(1666417)) Authorities (3) This opinion cites: • Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1959) (/opinion/1783431/schauer-v-city-of-miami-beach/?) (1 time) • Friedland v. City of Hollywood, 130 So. 2d 306 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961) (/opinion/1691430/friedland-v-city-of-hollywood/?) (1 time) • Mayer v. Dade County, 82 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1955) (/opinion/1786657/mayer-v-dade-county/?) (1 time) View All Authorities (/opinion/1666417/harris-v-goff/authorities/?) Share F71 (mailto:? subject= Hard s%20v.%20Goff%2C%20151%20So.%202d%20642%20at%20CourtListener.com&body=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666417/harris- v-goff/) fi (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666417/harris-v-goff/&t=Harris v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 at CourtListener.com) ©(http://twitter.com/home?status=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666417/harris-v-goff/) https://www.courtiistener.com/opinion/1 66641 7/harris-v-goff/ �.7 Harris v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963) District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: April 9th, 1963 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 151 So. 2d 642 Docket Number: E-86 Author: John T. Wigginton (/person/7122/john-t-wigginton/) 151 So. 2d 642 (1963) Bob HARRIS, Ray Greene, Lem Merrett, Julian E. Warren and Fletcher Morgan, as Members of the Board of County Commissioners of Duval County, Florida, St. Johns Enterprises, Inc., a corporation, and Sskib Corporation, a corporation, Appellants, V. H.A. GOFF, individually, and as President of Arlingwood Civic Association, a corporation not for Profit under the Laws of Florida, and Robert T. MacGill, individually and as President of Alderman Park Civic Association, a corporation, not for profit under the laws of Florida, Appellees. No. E-86. District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District. April 9, 1963. J. Henry Blount, Frederick H. Lenczyk, and Thomas D. Oakley, Jacksonville, for appellants. John S. Duss, Jacksonville, for appellees. *643 WIGGINTON, Judge. This interlocutory appeal presents for our decision the single question as to the proper method of obtaining judicial review of a county zoning resolution or ordinance. The complaint in this case alleges that after public hearing appellant board adopted a resolution rezoning a parcel of land in Duval County, changing the use classification from rural to business. Appellees objected to the adoption of the resolution at the public hearing held by the Board, and its subsequent petition for rehearing on the board's action was denied. The public hearing was held pursuant to published notice, but no witnesses were sworn, no testimony was taken, no evidence was adduced and no record of the proceedings was made. After exhausting their administrative remedies appellees brought this suit in which they allege that the resolution in question is unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. It is further alleged that as applied to their property the resolution deprives them of equal protection of the laws and constitutes a taking of their property without due process of law contrary to the guarantees of our State Constitution. The complaint prays for a decree declaring the resolution null, void and of no effect, and for an injunction restraining the board from enforcing or giving effect to the resolution and enjoining other defendants from using the rezoned land except for purposes permitted by the original zoning ordinance previously in effect. The statute authorizing the board to zone and rezone property in the county provides that its ordinances and resolutions shall not become effective until after a public hearing of which notice is given by two weeks publication in a newspaper.111 The statute further provides that any person aggrieved by any zoning ordinance or resolution adopted by the Board may apply to the Circuit Court of the County for relief. The statute does not provide the procedure to be followed in seeking the relief permitted thereby. Appellant board moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the only proper method for reviewing the board's action is by certiorari, and that appellees' attempt to assault the board's action in a direct proceeding brought in equity for injunction is unauthorized. From an order denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint this interlocutory appeal is taken. Appellants rely for reversal upon Rule 4.1, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., which provides that: "All appellate review of the rulings of any commission or board shall be by certiorari as provided by Florida Appellate Rules." Summarized, it is appellants' position that the foregoing rule is exclusive and the procedure prescribed therein must be followed in all cases wherein review of the ruling of any board or commission is sought. In the DeGroot caselzl our Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Thornal, devoted a substantial part of its opinion to an explanation of the manner in which rulings of administrative boards, commissions and agencies may be reviewed by the judicial branch of government. It is there held that where the statute under which the board or agency purports to act requires notice and hearing, and the judgment of the board is contingent on the showing made at the hearing, then its judgment becomes judicial or quasi-judicial in character. It was there held that the decision of the board in that case was reached only after a full hearing pursuant to notice based on evidence submitted in accordance with the statute involved. A record of the proceedings was made which was susceptible *644 of review by the court in certiorari proceedings. In the Bloomfield case[3] this court was confronted with a similar problem regarding the appropriate method of reviewing the action of an administrative agency. In that case we held that before an administrative order may be considered quasi-judicial in character and therefore subject to review by certiorari, the statute authorizing the entry of such an order must also require that the administrative agency give due notice of a hearing to be held on the question to be considered, and provide a fair opportunity to be heard in a proceeding in which the party affected is accorded the basic requirements of due process of law. Such requirements must afford the affected party the opportunity of being present in person and by counsel, to present evidence in support of his position and to cross-examine adverse witnesses whose testimony is offered at the hearing. If the board, agency or commission intends to insist that its ruling or order to be entered upon the showing made at the hearing be reviewed only by certiorari, the obligation rests upon the board or agency to see that a proper record of the entire proceeding is made, which record shall include its ultimate findings and conclusions. In DeGroot, supra, we were reminded that certiorari is a discretionary writ bringing up for review by an appellate court the record of an inferior tribunal or agency in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. It was held that in certiorari, the reviewing court will not undertake to reweigh or evaluate the evidence presented before the tribunal or agency whose order is under examination, but will merely examine the record made to determine whether the lower tribunal had before it competent substantial evidence to support its findings and judgment which must also accord with the essential requirements of law. In Bloomfield, supra, we held that since no record had been made of the proceedings conducted by the administrative agency there concerned, there was no record capable of being reviewed on a proceeding in certiorari. The action by the administrative agency in Bloomfield was held to have been executive rather than quasi- judicial in character, and therefore not reviewable by the process of certiorari. Reverting to Florida Appellate Rule 4.1 we are convinced, and so held in Bloomfield, supra, that the review by certiorari of the rulings of commissions and boards as authorized thereby pertains only to such rulings as have been made in a quasi-judicial proceeding, and which are quasi-judicial in character as distinguished from those which are purely administrative or legislative in character. Since the zoning ordinance under attack in this case is not quasi- judicial in character, and was entered pursuant to a hearing having none of the characteristics or safeguards of a quasi-judicial proceeding, it cannot be made the subject of appellate review by certiorari. The "fairly debatable" rule by which the reasonableness of zoning ordinances or resolutions is tested would be impossible of application in the absence of a record of the hearing containing the evidence upon which the questioned action is predicated. This holding does not apply to zoning ordinances adopted by municipalities proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Ch. 176, F.S.A. This statute specifically provides that review of municipal zoning ordinances adopted pursuant thereto may be had by writ of certiorari issued by the courts in which complaint against the ordinance is filed, and the proceedings had thereon will be in the nature of a trial de novo. An explanation of the operation of this statute was made by our Supreme Court in the Josephson case.141 It is noted, *645 however, that this statute has no application to boards of county commissioners adopting zoning ordinances or resolutions pursuant to other statutory authorization. It has been uniformly held in this state that the function of a board or commission in the enactment of zoning ordinances is a purely legislative function.isl The decisions on this subject dispel any contention that a zoning ordinance or resolution is quasi-judicial in character. Suits in equity seeking injunctive relief against a zoning ordinance or resolution on the ground that it is arbitrary, capricious, confiscatory or impinges on some right or guarantee of the Constitution of this State has long been the traditional method of assaulting the validity of zoning ordinances or resolutions As said by the Supreme Court in De Groot, supra: "Injunction has been many times employed to assault legislative action at the state and local level where such action allegedly impinged on some constitutional right. Attacks on municipal zoning ordinances are typical." The foregoing procedure has been repeatedly recognized, and approved by the appellate courts of this state .isl Based upon the foregoing authorities it is our conclusion, and we so hold, that the suit in equity instituted by appellees to directly attack the validity of the questioned zoning resolution adopted by appellant board is properly brought, and the chancellor was correct in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the procedure adopted was improper and unauthorized. The order appealed is accordingly affirmed. CARROLL, DONALD K., Chief Judge, and STURGIS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Ch. 17833, Laws of Florida, 1937, as amended by Ch. 25510, Laws of Florida, 1949. [2] DeGrott v. Sheffield et al., (Fla. 1957) 95 So. 2d 912 [3] Bloomfield v. Mayo, (Fla.App. 1960) 119 So. 2d 417. [4] Josephson v. Autry, et al., (Fla. 1957) 96 So. 2d 784. [5] Alianell v. Fossey, et al., (Fla.App. 1959) 114 So. 2d 372; Schauer et al. v. City of Miami Beach, et al. (Fla. 1959) 112 So. 2d 838 (/opinion/1783431/schauer-v-city-of-miami-beach/), 71 A.L.R. 2d 562; Josephson v. Autry, et al., see footnote 4. [6] Friedland, et al. v. City of Hollywood et al., (Fla.App. 1961) 130 So. 2d 306 (/opinion/1691430/friedland-v-city-of-hollywood/); Schauer et al. v. City of Miami Beach, et al., see footnote 5; Hartnett et al. v. Austin et ux. (Fla. 1956) 93 So. 2d 86; Mayer et al. v. Dade County, (Fla. 1955) 82 So. 2d 513 (/opi n ion/ 1786657/mayer-v-dade-county/). Newsletter Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. Email Address 0 Subscribe Compiled Cited Case Law Exhibit C MARKJ. WOODWARD Braid CcrdI cd' Rol fescue Punned Dmr4in ,r Law ANTHONY P. Pl RES, f R. Swid Cerafied Cik ay, nns ;uxi Load Cnrverunenc Lnv J. CHRISTOPHER LOMaARDO ANTHONY J. ❑iMORA I. cmk-d in 1 L avd 0H LENORE T. 6RAKEFiELD CRAIG R. WOOOWAFLD senior Cournd a,:ui1 Cmdm]7 PmJ E 5m Law faNNET]i V. MUNDY ZACHARYW. LOMBARDO ChMERON G. WOODWARD BOSS E. SCHULMAN Ucer.ed in FL and NY F. SCOTr PAu7AR in CHRISTOPHtR R. HEFLIN R1 PLY TO 0 3200 TAMwm TWL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES. FL 34103 239-639-65 55 239-649-7342 FAX © 60b BALD FAGLE DFuvE SUITE 500 P.O. BOX ON E MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146 239.394-5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM WOODWARD, PIKES & LOMBARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 22, 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer, Chairman and Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Via F7MgiI. Edwin.fryer@colliercountyfl.gov Nancy.gundlach @ collliercountyfl.gov Re: Objections to St. Matthew's House (PURR) Project (the "Project"), PUD Rezone, Petition No. PL20210000176, (the "Application"): Initial Objections and Concerns Regarding The Application Dear Mr. Fryer and Planning Commissioners: This law firm is co -counsel with the law firm of Akerman LLP, representing West Shore Point Naples, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida ("West Shore"). West Shore is the owner and manager of the well -established 248-unit residential apartment community known as The Point at Naples. The Point at Naples is located immediately adjacent and contiguous to the East property line of the properties that are the subject of the Application (see attached Exhibit A). West Shore has significant concerns relating to the Project and the Application. This letter is for the purposes of outlining some of the objections, comments and concerns of West Shore. ' West Shore, by separate communication provided to County Staff this date, has submitted a Memorandum regarding standing and being accorded party status at the Planning Commission and County Commission hearings on the Application. West Shore respectively requests that the Collier County Planning Commission forward the Application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. No rights, concerns, arguments. positions or objections of West Shore concerning the Application and Project are waived by anything stated herein or omitted herefrom and the right to present, make and submit additional motions, objections, arguments and materials before the Collier County Planning Commission tCCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is specifically reserved. West Shore reserves the right to make additional objections, filings and submittals to protect its interests and to ensure the due process rights of West Shore. 1 SOME BACKGROUND AS TO WEST SHORE AND THE POINT AT NAPLES The Point at Naples community fills an important work force housing need in Collier County providing a variety of community and apartment amenities with rental rates for apartment homes ranging from $1,151+ for a 709 sq. ft one bedroom unit to from $1,375+ for a 1,081 sq. ft three -bedroom unit. West Shore acquired The Point at Naples in 2016. At the time of that acquisition, West Shore performed its due diligence regarding surrounding land uses with the knowledge as to the zoning and land use limitations in place for the property that is the subject of the Application, i.e., St. Matthew's House. West Shore closed on the purchase of The Point at Naples in December of 2016 (see attached Exhibit B). Since that time, based on the current contiguous zoning and land uses. West Shore has expended substantial amounts of money to upgrade The Point at Naples, SOME BACKGROUND AS TO THE APPLICATION In January 2021, the applicant submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acre "Tract A" of the St. Matthew's House property. Tract "A" was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Collier County Resolution 99-87, that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. In March 2021, the applicant modified its request to a PU❑ rezoning application, to combine the 9.55 acres of "Tract B" with the 2.55 acres of "Tract A", to "unify" the St. Matthew's House properties, into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by: (a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District: and, (b) amending the existing Devoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The proposed rezoning would concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus, increasing the number of homeless beds located on "Tract A" frorn 104 to 150: increasing the total permitted square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130.000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The application further requests a deviation from the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") to reduce the otherwise required minimum square feet of habitable space for each occupant, in order to accommodate the approximately 50% increase in the number of beds, and, also requests relief from certain landscape buffer requirements. OBJECTIONS. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS As outlined in further detail below and in the attached "Expert Opinion by Cecelia Ward, AICP" dated November 22, 2021 ("Planning Report". attached Exhibit "C") based on: 1. the Collier County Growth Management Plan ("GMP"); 2, the criteria in the Collier County LDC to be applied in the evaluation of the Application; and, 3. the Collier County Community Character Plan; the Application and proposed PUD are: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. a. Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP; and, b. Inconsistent with the Conservation Element of the GMP; and, c. Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 27 Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.13 for Planned Unit Developments. 3] Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.08 for Rezonings. 4) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. 1. THE PROJECT SHOULD BE DENIED AS IT IS NEITHER COMPATIBLE WITH NOR COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES A. POLICY 5.6 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: The starting point and high threshold for all new development in Collier County is outlined in Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the GMP. All new development "small be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." (see Exhibit 0) In order to be consistent with Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e., `'compatible with the surrounding land uses", the FLUE and zoning should only allow land uses, densities and intensities that are the same as or Less intensive than the existing land use patterns, densities and intensities on surrounding improved, vested or exempt property. In order to be consistent with the compatibility requirement of Policy 5.6 of the FLUE, i.e.. "compatible with the surrounding land uses", the FLUE and zoning should only allow land uses, densities and intensities that are the same as or less intensive than the existing land use patterns, densities and intensities on surrounding improved, vested or exempt property. In order to be consistent with the complementary requirement of Policy 5.6 of the FLUE. i.e.. "complementary to the surrounding land uses", the proposed new development must complete, contribute and add to the surrounding properties in a way that enhances or improves the qualities of the surrounding land uses, "Combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another."' In addition, for a PUD rezoning, LDC Section 4.07.023 states that "Development within a PUD District shall be compatible with established or planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods and property." As proposed in the Application, it is the opinion of West Shore that among other issues, the Project is inconsistent with Policy 5.6 of the FLUE. By virtue of the proposed intensity of use and density. the Project is neither compatible with nor complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. 1, THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH NOR COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. 2 See. example, on-line Oxford English Dictionary. US Dictionary, definitions of "complement and "complementary"; https://www.lexico,com/en/definition/complement and https:i'/www.Iexic;o.com/en/definition/compiementary. 3 a. The proposed density is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and well - established residential communities. This incompatibility has also been well analyzed and addressed by Cecelia Ward, AICP in her Planning Report concerning the Project's compatibility issues. b. The Applicant's/Applicant's agent(s) repeatedly assert that the current land use entitlements allow up to 130,000 square feet of commercial uses under the current zoning, c. The proposed perimeter landscaping is woefully inadequate. 13. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AN❑ CONCERNS 1, From a review of the submitted Traffic Impact Statements ("TIS") we have the following comments and concerns: a. As noted above, the TIS and current trip generation rates were prepared based upon the assertion that the current land use entitlements allow up to 130,000 square feet of commercial. The basis for this assertion was not provided in the TIS. b. It is our understanding that a is a policy of St. Matthew's House that the homeless that stay at the shelter are required to leave the shelter frequently to find work or to attend work. This is part of the facility's goal to transition the homeless that stay at the shelter into self-sufficiency. For this reason, there are significantly more trips than there would be at an assisted living facility ("ALF"), the facility type utilized by the Applicant in its traffic analysis, C. ADDITIONAL ISSUES/CONCERNS While we have just received the Staff Report, the following are some initial observations concerning the Staff Report: 1. Transportation Element - no review of impact going from 64,000 st to 130,000 st of commercial uses. 2. Conservation Element - Staff states that the application does not affect CCME requirements in that 0.29 acres is being maintained - which was a condition of the HEX decision - which pertained to the 4,55 acre DeVoe Pontiac site - in that the application is now for a much greater site - 11.89 acres - 15% of native vegetation and preservation is now required by Policy 6.1.1 (which is 1.78 acres) - Policy 6.1.1 (13) allows for a deviation request from the requirements - which has not been requested by the applicant. 3. Zoning and land development review -the applicant's approach is to present this as a limitation on the potential commercial that could otherwise be achieved under the current zoning. This is a disingenuous argument - in that all zoning is interpreted in terms of up t❑ a maximum, with n❑ guarantee of achieving the maximum amount of sf or units without meeting all other provisions of the code, 4. Staff also represents that what is toeing proposed is similar to the previously approved DeVoe Pontiac CPUD - even though what is being proposed doubles the amount of development of commercial space, and further adds refrigerated warehousing which in and of itself has its own impacts with respect to loading and distribution. 5. Staff also admits that the rezoning "is not necessary" to develop the site and further dismisses criteria for rezoning that speaks to the need to rezone the subject property, 6. Rezoning Criteria: 4 Staff does not adequately address many of the rezoning criteria or PUD criteria- relieving the applicant from its responsibility to satisfy the evaluation criteria with information and data. By way of example the staff makes the following unsupported general "findings": • Rezoning will not adversely impact living conditions in the neighborhood - with insufficient evidence regarding traffic, access, parking, loading, noise, vagrancy issues already impacting the adjacent residential neighborhood. ■ No evidence that it will adversely impact property values - even though nothing was submitted by the applicant supporting this "finding". ■ `Shoutd not" be a deterrent because the review process should give reasonable assurance. • Disregards review criteria to ident4y substantial reasons why property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. ■ Not out of scale with neighborhood or County - even though the application proposes a concentration of social service uses in support of a 30% expansion of the homeless shelter. PUD Criteria: ■ Ignores physical site constraints and access issues. ■ Current homeless facility operations that result in vagrancy issues in the residential neighborhood are not addressed by staff. • No articulated basis for the determination of consistency with GCPs, especially those which relate to requirement for compatibility with the adjacent residential. • Similar comments as those provided above. Deviations: ■ No review of impact by staff to demonstrate that the deviation in sf, per bed is justified. No review of potential impact on homeless persons as well who may be residing in this much smaller space. D. CONCLUStON West Shore, respectfully requests that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend rejection and denial of the pending Project and Application. Enclosure(s) Cc. with enclosures} Collier County Planning Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko: Board of County Commissioners, Stephen Tilbrook 5 A11- - , N tc� r f I FQW .~ �•r � f�'�i� � a � �. - � _— � I �'+'_ 7 LI���`.+�-,--FBI � f MAP LEGEND Street Najrws i L parceis El x. �. +` 1 Nu its } I C-0111ler County I r {� �� � fr . I�r h• F C21'�'� J Ir, •r ', 5 ',� I � i.. '� �� �� #r . � i •fad+' Folio Number: 00389880006 Name: WEST SHORE POINT NAPL LLC TF 3�-- 'I pa Str_ GREAT '. dw . - yr -' .. ,.f11 , h .. F i • i l FI- S 1320FT,661 1 INSTR 5346663 OR 5344 PG 2064 RECORDED 12/16/2016 2:25 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $241,500.00 REC $35.50 CONS $34,500,000.00 4e 35.E THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY AND AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: POLSINELLI 900 W. 481h Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Attn: Robert M. Adams Parcel ID Number W389 80006 c9 -`&V-; , aLl l -93 d SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED This Special Warranty,dee4 is made this N day of December 2016, between HERON PARK PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida li �Ited partnership, whose address is 3475 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 1640, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, Attm:0in Strong ("Grantor"), and WEST SHORE POINT NAPLES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ---whose address is 1 Huntington Avenue Apartment 401, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 ("Grantee").',.—, : „E THAT the Grantor, for and in con 'id other good and valuable consideration to G1 hereby acknowledged, has GRANTED, BAR( does GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL, AND COP and assigns forever, the land, situate, lying described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the' ESSETH: of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00), and :kin hand paid by GRANTEE, the receipt whereof is i'D), SOLD, and CONVEYED and by these presents nt6zGRANTEE and GRANTEE'S heirs, successors ice911 • ink the County of Collier, State of Florida, and TOGETHER WITH all improvements thereom.an thereto, and all of the rights, privileges, appurtenances, hereditaments, easements, reversions, and remaind6rs pertaining to or used in connection therewith (including, without limitation and to the extent the sa , exist, all easements, rights -of -way, development rights, privileges, licenses and other rights and- fits belonging to, and running with the owner of, or in any way relating to the Property), together with right, title and interest, if any, of Grantor in and to gaps, strips or gores pertaining solely to the Propeyyorany land lying in the bed of any street, road, highway, avenue or alley (opened or unopened, existin �rl Y roposed, now vacated or hereafter to be vacated) in front of or adjoining the Property, and all rgttitle and interest of Grantor in , and to any award made or to be made in lieu thereof and in and to ariy�i award for damage to the Property by reason of change of grade of any such street, road, highway, avueoalley. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in ;fee simple forever. F" Without reimposing the same, this conve}ance is subject to, and by accepting this deed Grantee does hereby agree to assume the encumbrances set forth on Exhibit `B" attached hereto (the "Permitted Encumbrances"). And Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns that Grantor is lawfully seized of the Property in fee simple; that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the Property; that Grantor hereby fully WARRANTS the title to said Property and will FOREVER DEFEND the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor, and that the Property is free of all mortgages, encumbrances, and liens other than the Permitted Encumbrances. OR 5344 PG 2065 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto executed this deed the day and year first above written. Witnesses: STATE OF Fl= COUNTY OF D � O I b Grantor: HERON PARK PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Waypoint Naples GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, General Partner { By: Name: Thomas S. Ref Title: General Couns�t The fore oing instrument was acknowl 1'117 iYl MS S. �61 , on behalf of produced as identi {Notary Seal must be affixed) My Commission Expires jp�j0 me this day of C&LrO Z016, by He is personally known to be or (Signature of Notary) (Print Name of Notary Public) Notary Public, State of Florida clex (0I o-, mission Expires: qa� ssibn No.: OR 5344 PG 2066 Exhibit "A" to Deed (Legal Description of the Property) Parcel 1: A parcel of land located in the West Half of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida;, beipag more particularly described as follows: Commence atlhe uthvest corner of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence run , 00'� egrees 18' 50" W, along the West line of said Section 12, for a distance of 2836.80 feet; thenoc`run. ` t89 degrees 41' 10" E for a distance of 270.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel therein described Thence run North 00 degrees 18' 50" W a distance of 990.00 feet; thence run N 89 degrees 41' 10" E "istance of 1120.00 feet; thence run S 00 degrees 18' 50" E a distance of 1320.00 feet; thence run S 89 degrees 41' 1,0" W a distance of 660.00 feet; thence run N 00 degrees 18' 50" W a distance of 330.00 feet; thence-i-' S 89 degrees 41' 10" W a distance of 460.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel 2: An Access Easement on, over, unde that certain access, signage and lanc Page 6, Public Records of Collier Cc A strip of and lying in the Southwest Quarter County, Florida and being more particularly df the following described parcel of land as described in it agreement recorded in Official Records Book 2267, Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 12',t1 degrees 18' 50" W 2506.80 feet; thence N 89 degrees A Airport Pulling Road (C.R. No. 31), N 06 degrees 18' 5 continue N 00 degrees 18' 50" W 60.00 feet; thence lez 200.00 feet; thence S 00 degrees 18' 50" E 60.00 feet; Point of Beginning of the herein described lands. Parcel 3: 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier ollows: rig the West line of said Section 12, N 00 70.00 feet to the East right-of-way line of .22 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence fight -of -way line N 89 degrees 41' 10" E $4deerees 41' 10" W 200.00 feet to the Together with that certain Utility Easement Agreement in favor of Join D Jassy recorded In Official Records Book 2267, Page 23, Public Records of Collier County, Florida:-,.-- ", *** OR 5344 PG 2067 *** Exhibit `B" to Deed (Permitted Encumbrances) 1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2017 and subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Easement in vor of Florida Power & Light Company recorded in Official Records Book 674, Page 36to, Parcels 2 and 3 only) 3. Utility Easem 'nt in favor of East Naples Water Systems, Inc. recorded in Official Records Book 1172, Pages�J' 58;44�J559. (As to Parcels 2 and 3 only) 4. Utility Easement favor of Collier County Water -Sewer District recorded in Official Records Book 1401, Page 2166. (As to Parcel 2 only) 5. Reservation of Right to se Access, Signage and Landscape Easement agreement in favor of John D. Jassy recorded itf Official`Records Book 2267, Page 6. 6. Utility Easement Agreement recorded"in Official Records Book 2267, Page 23. 7. Easement in favor of Florida Power & ,sight Company recorded in Official Records Book 2345, Page 2406. 8. Deed of Conservation Easement in f vo oVthe South Florida Water Management District recorded in Official Records Book 2A 06; P. ge,, 3162, as corrected by Corrective Deed of Conservation Easement recorded in Official°`, cards,Book 3401, Page 421. 9. Drainage Easement in favor of Collier Count"! pWit(cal subdivision of the State of Florida recorded in Official Records Book 2687, Page 180tJ,'an re -recorded in Official Records Book 2693, Page 1716..� 10. Easement for Cable Television and Communications' -ice in favor of Florida Cablevision Management Corporation (Time Warner, Inc.) an affiliate of �Tirrie,Warner Cable, Inc., a Florida corporation recorded in Official Records Book 4078, Page 1198,- and as amended by Amendment to Grant of Easement to Comcast of the South, Inc. recorded in ffi tdI%Records Book 4879, Page 997. 11. Rights of tenants in possession as of the date hereof, as tenants 01 residential leases without options to purchase or rights of first refusal. prior unrecorded 55359274.3 EXPERT OPINION BY CECELIA WARD, AI CP PRESIDENT JC CONSULTING ENTERPRISES INC. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, Unit 313 Tequesta, Florida PH: (954) 815-4298 cward@icconsultinginc.net DATE PREPARED: November 22, 2021 Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit Development Number: Collier County, FL - PL20210000176 Outline of Expert Opinion Report Part 1— Introduction and Application Background.................................................... 2 Part 11- Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion ................................................. 4 A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions......................................................................4 Part 111— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria .................. 6 A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan6 B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning.............................................................................................................................. 6 C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria .......................... 7 EXHIBITS................................................................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT1.......................................................................................................................12 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals.............................................................12 EXHIBIT2.......................................................................................................................13 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan...............................13 EXHIBIT3.......................................................................................................................15 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.13. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning..............15 EXHIBIT4....................................................................................................................... 21 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan......................................21 EXHIBIT5....................................................................................................................... 27 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria...............................................27 1 Part I — Introduction and Application Background I, Cecelia Ward, AICP, President of JC Consulting Enterprises Inc., have been retained by West Shore Point of Naples LLCP to provide my expert planning opinions regarding the St. Matthew's House Inc. ["the applicant"] application for rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendments for property located in Collier County, just west of and adjacent to The Point at Naples multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point of Naples LLP. The Point at Naples Apartments West Shore Point of Naples LLP Property The subject property is comprised of two tracts of land owned by St. Matthews House Inc., with a total of 11.89 acres, located on the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road South and Glades Boulevard. 2 1 P a g e ,PM��ry�Eo- Ds�F �DNE 1.D1-FEa afar 11. 111e- y U uGE. COMMERCIAL AND GwERNMENrAL GFFlrcc LEGEND_ W4iER MWYAG3AENT ­�z,­AC,wA,ER ❑ PA��AREAs E# En H=resEE No,E , ® DEA -,RACTA ZONED. —III l AT POD T ILSE RFS oEAMILY NnAL T SCALE: 1" = 2W In January 2021, the applicant initially submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acres (Tract A) of the St. Matthews House property. In March 2021, the applicant requested a change from the Conditional Use application to expand its request to include Tract B, which encompasses 9.55 acres, to unify the St. Matthew's House properties, and to provide for a rezoning from C-4 Commercial (Gateway Triangle Mixed Use) and an amendment to the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) and expanding the PUD designation to encompass the total development site of 11.89 acres. The Collier County staff administratively approved the change in application and did not require a new application to be submitted. The applicant proposes to combine the subject property into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District, and b) amending the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD, as reflected in Collier County Case No. PL20210000176. Tract "A" of the subject property was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Resolution 99-87) that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. 3 1 P a g e The proposed rezoning would further concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus that increases the number of homeless beds located on Tract A from 104 to 150 and increases the total permitted square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130,000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional to administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The application further requests deviation from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to allow for less square feet of habitable space than what is required by the LDC to accommodate the increase in the number of beds and relief from certain landscape buffer requirements, as follows: o Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C. Group Housing to reduce the required minimum habitable floor area for homeless shelters from 1,500 s.f. plus 150 s.f. for each person over six, to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 s.f. per bed. o Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. Table 2.4 Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classification, which requires a 10 ft. Type A Buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the proposed PUD. The applicant proposes to include a 10 ft. wide Type A landscape buffer at the time of redevelopment of that portion of the PUD that is adjacent to the southern property boundary that impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line. A timeline of prior rezonings and recordation of approvals relative to the subject property has been provided in Exhibit 1. Part II - Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Based on my review of the information related to the St. Matthew's House CPUD Application PL L20210000176, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Collier County Community Character Plan and Collier County Land Development Code, it is my professional opinion that the application is: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Regulations Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. Part III of this report provides my findings of each of the evaluation criteria, with supporting documentation provided in Exhibits 2-5. Additionally, it is my professional opinion that the following issues have not been considered, 4 1 P a g e but are required to be considered by Collier County in its review of this application: 1) The failure to review the elimination of prohibition of homeless shelter use: The proposed list of Permitted and Accessory Uses (Appendix A of the Application) would eliminate the current prohibition of homeless shelters on all of Tract "B", namely the 9.55- acre southerly portion of the subject property. This includes the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD site (Ordinance 97-14). As to current permitted uses, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD provides in part: "Group care facilities (Category I and 11, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; and nursing homes, subject to section 2.6.26." This "change in permitted/prohibited use" by now permitting a homeless shelter on Tract "B" has not been clearly identified in the application and neither has it been addressed by the applicant nor addressed by the staff in its review of application. 2) The failure to review the potential future expansion of homeless beds: Approval of the rezoning in combination with increasing the total approved square footage on the entire site to 130,000 sf of commercial use could result in the development of additional homeless shelter beds across the entire 11.89 acre site. As such, it is unclear whether or not the requested additional commercial square footage could be converted to accommodate additional future homeless shelter beds. 3) The failure to review the potential impact resulting from requested deviation in required habitable space for homeless shelter beds: The applicant is seeking a deviation in the minimum square foot required per bed, i.e. from 150 sq. ft/bed to 100 sq. ft/bed, which would result in a much denser concentration of homeless beds on the subject property. a) We are not aware of any review by the County staff as to whether or not the request complies with the occupancy requirements of the Florida Building Code. b) We are not aware of any review regarding whether the direct increase in beds and potential conversion of additional square footage [without a standard for calculation of square footages] could have the effect of concentrating these uses and services to a single site, causing a saturation of such social service uses, that could adversely affect adjoining residential properties (people, vehicles, noise, litter, outdoor activities). c) We are not aware of any review of the potential impact on the welfare of the homeless residents caused by a significant reduction in the minimum required square foot area for each bed as proposed by the applicant: 4) The failure to review the traffic impacts and parking Impacts that have not adequately been addressed: There has been no independent review of the applicant's traffic analysis and the potential traffic, parking and loading impacts that may result from: a) Significant increase in commercial square feet and uses; and, b) Increase in the number of residents, adding more personnel and administrative staff; and, c) Parking, loading and trips generated from proposed restaurant, soup kitchen, used vehicle donations and sales. d) Traffic impacts on the Tract "B" 60-foot-wide access easement as recorded and shared with the adjoining Point at Naples residential development. 5 1 P a g e 5) The failure to review the Health, Safety and Welfare Issues: a) Various code violations have been asserted in relation to vagrancy associated with the existing homeless shelter. These violations have impacted the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. There has been no review of the potential for increased vagrancy impacts as a result of the proposed increase in the number of beds of the existing facility. 2. There has been no operation and maintenance information provided by the applicant that addresses current and potential future vagrancy and property management impacts. b) The applicant should provide similar information in relation to the operation and maintenance of the existing thrift store and used vehicle sales lot at the south end of the proposed CPUD, which would require additional monitoring and maintenance. Part III— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 (PUD Criteria), 10.02.08 (Rezoning Criteria) and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code (Process), staffs 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. The following provides a review of these evaluation criteria, which illustrates that the application does not comply with the review and evaluation criteria contained in said LDC Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.08, as further addressed herein. A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan According to Subsection A. Generally.l. PUD master plan. "The Community Character Plan For Collier County, Florida (April 2001) should be referenced as a guide for development and redevelopment in the PUD district. The Administrative Code shall establish the information to graphically illustrate the development strategy." Findings: While this is a guide that should be referenced for development and redevelopment of a PUD, the application does not include any review of compliance with the Community Character Plan for Collier County, which would otherwise demonstrate that the application is not in compliance with this Plan as further illustrated in Exhibit 2 of this report. B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings Generally: The application is not in compliance with the PUD rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.13, as discussed below. Additional supporting 6 1 P a g e documentation for these findings is provided in Exhibit 3. • Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. • Findings criteria (b): No comments. • Findings (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as illustrated in Exhibit 4. • Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. • Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. • Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. • Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and resultant concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. • Findings criteria (h): The application does not provide justification for the deviations requested. C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria The LDC requires that the "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: " Findings Generally : The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein. Further documentation in support of these findings is provided in Exhibit 5. I Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 7 1 P a g e • Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (3) The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. • Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. • Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. • Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. • Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. • Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC. There is no indication in the application that such plan has been submitted to the County for this "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities" or "if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities.112 • Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas. z See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 8 1 P a g e • Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. • Findings criteria (11): The applicant attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. • Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelter. There is no justification provided to support this deviation. • Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. The application for rezoning removes the current zoning and DeVoe Pontiac PUD restrictions that do not permit homeless shelter and soup kitchen uses on Tract B. This change would allow the use of Tract B. • Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. • Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. • Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics, as previously addressed in this report. • Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. • Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, .01 which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 101 Page EXHIBITS 11 1 Page EXHIBIT 1 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals The following provides a summary of prior rezoning and recordation relative to the subject property: Tract "A" Total: 2.34 acres Parcel No 390000008. • Glades Unit Two Plat, Lot 1, Block K, Lot 1, DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Change of Use, CU 98-24, Resolution 99-87 dated 1.26.1999 • Rezoning to C4 - Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District GTMUD MXT, LDC Ordinance 06-08, dated 02.28.2006 Tract "B" Total: 9.55 acres Parcel No 34840520004. • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Permitted and Accessory Uses excludes Homeless Shelter • Requires 10% Open Space — 3 Strata Tract "B" (North 5.00 acres — includes LuLu's Diner) • DeVoe PUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 Tract "B" (South 4.55 acres aka Dealership Parcel) • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-05, dated 9.11.2020 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-29 (Scrivener's Error) dated 9.15.2020 Great Blue Drive (60-ft Private Access, Signage and Landscape Easement • Access, Signage and Landscape Easement Agreement, OR2267, Page 0006 o Non -Exclusive ingress, egress, regress, and access easement o Dated 16 DEC 1996 12 1 Page EXHIBIT 2 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan The application is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan:' 1. Design... The spaces between buildings are as important as the private realms inside them. Development should be designed so that the architecture and neighborly arrangement impart an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity while making daily life more practical. Findings: The uses proposed for the subject property include heavy commercial uses that do not make daily living more practical. Neither will thrift store uses, restaurant/soup kitchens, thrift store and used vehicular sales, when adjacent to neighborhood residential uses, provide an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity. 2. Choice... Provide more housing choices in Collier County by reintroducing walkable traditional neighborhood development as a counterbalance to the multitude of gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years. Findings: The application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods. It instead could have an isolating effect on the location of the renovated and expanded shelter at a busy traffic intersection. 3. Balance... Create a balanced road network by improving Collier's principal arterial roads while simultaneously creating a secondary network of smaller roads that link neighborhoods. Findings: The application does not add any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the doubling of heavy commercial uses and 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network and shared access with adjacent residential uses. 4. Connections... Make frequent connections between new neighborhoods and the land around them, and fully integrate them with the secondary street network and with parks and other urban open spaces. Improve existing neighborhoods in the same way. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhoods that surround them. Rather they propose a social service campus that accommodates a homeless shelter that includes homeless beds and heavy commercial uses, and light industrial warehousing. s https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=63126 13 S. Growing smart... All new development approvals should be based on a resilient pattern of streets and lots, because the initial street and lot pattern will long outlast the first generation of buildings and land uses that are placed on them. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not support a resilient pattern of streets and lots to support a 30% increase of homeless beds and a doubling of high intensity commercial uses. 6. Hold the line... Make much better use of the remaining vacant acreage within the existing urban boundary before allowing new development to creep further into the countryside. Findings: While the proposed development is located in the urban service area, the compatibility of the use cannot be merely supported by its location. 7. Respect environmentally sensitive places... Enhance the character of Collier's more rural and environmentally sensitive places through rural design techniques and further protection of the County's vital natural resources. Findings: The application does not add elements that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places, but rather merely maintains a surface management area that was required under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 141 Page EXHIBIT 3 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings: The application is not in compliance with the PUD and rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.13, as discussed below. 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. Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. 1. The North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200-feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will all likely result in limited useable space available for development. This would also likely result in a more typical "strip center" configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. 2. This PUD-amendment also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying approved square footage from the existing 64,000sf to a total of 130,000sf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 3. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity or compatibility with the adjacent residential uses, but rather serves to isolate and increase the incompatibility of the proposed uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, 15 1 Page noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life for adjoining residents. 4. The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 5. The application does not include any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the substantial increase in heavy commercial uses (from 64,000 sf tO 130,000 s.f.) and proposed 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network. Potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 6. With respect to the suitability of development in relation to infrastructure, there has been no data provided by the applicant to demonstrate adequacy of services and facilities. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would essentially double the approved amount of existing heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 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 public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. Findings (b): No comments. 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.) Findings criteria (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 3. 4 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 161 Page 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. Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. Tract "B" of the property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples residential apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incapability of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 2. Additionally, the application does not support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by Policy 6.1.1. of the Conservation Element of the GMP. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and result in a concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses 171 Page without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. 1. The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. 2. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (h): The applicant does not provide justification for the deviations requested. 1. The applicant proposes a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Indi duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. 2. There has been no parking analysis that demonstrates that the amount of parking proposed is sufficient to meet the increase parking demand created by the increase in homeless shelter beds. Rather, the applicant points to the use of administrative parking that is located on Tract B of the Conceptual PUD Master Plan. As such, the applicant attempts to satisfy ancillary parking for the homeless shelter use on Tract B, which currently does not permit homeless shelters either as a primary or accessory use. a) Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, as well as the used vehicle sales have not been evaluated in terms of demand in parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off -site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. b) Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. 181 Page I The applicant is also seeking deviation from the County's buffering requirements. a) The property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incompatibility of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 191 Page 20 1 Page EXHIBIT 4 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan Findings: The application is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan: Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 5.4 Findings: The application is inconsistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan in that the application is inconsistent with Policy 5.6, 5.8, 5.10 and provisions for Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Policy 5.6 Findings: The application is not compatible with and does not complement The Point at Naples residential apartments located just east of and abutting the subject property: 1. The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the PUD-amendment proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 2. The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless individuals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to 21 1 Page adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet throughout the County. 3. Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, and particularly the used vehicle sales area have not been evaluated in terms of increased demand for parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off - site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. Further, the applicant does not assess or address increased demand for policing to maintain parking, accessible routes and emergency access within this portion of the property. 4. Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. Policy 5.8 Findings: The application does not propose an "innovative approach" that would otherwise conserve open space. Additionally, the application proposes to deviate from the buffer requirements of the County's LDC. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the Future Land Use Element's requirement for implementation of regulations such as minimum open space requirements and native vegetation preservation requirements. 2. The application does not include an assessment as to whether potential mitigation or remediation are required, nor does it address whether preservation strategies are required if the previously identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. The plan as proposed instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. Policy 5.10 Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent 221 1 a g e with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. Policy 5.10 Findings: The application proposes a campus for social services on the "unified properties", that provides for the expansion of homeless beds on Tract A and its support uses onto Tract B, which does not comply with the regulations of the County's LDC for group housing, as follows: 1. The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the Devoe Pontiac CPUD. 2. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are not uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. 3. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. Policy 5.13: Properties whose zoning has been determined to comply with the former Commercial under Criteria provision of the Future Land Use Element shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. These properties are not subject to the building floor area or traffic impact limitations contained in this former provision. Policy 5.13 Findings: This policy does not permit circumvention or oviscapte the need to demonstrate consistency with all other policies of the County's Future Land Use Element and other elements of the Plan. Further, there is no direct indication that this policy applies to the subject property which has Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay land use designations. 23 1 Page OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 Findings: The applicant claims that the application complies with Objective 7 and Policy 7. 1 because it includes internal interconnections and connection to Airport -Pulling Road. However, the context of Objective 7, frames the objective as being supportive of connections that promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adhere to existing development character. The application is inconsistent with all three objectives. It does not promote smart growth planning which otherwise promotes streets that are safe for people walking and bicycling and by protecting open green spaces. The expansion of the homeless shelter and doubling of heavy commercial uses on the land violates these smart growth planning principles. Additionally, the doubling of high intensity commercial uses does not substantiate compliance with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Findings: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, none of which lend 241 1 a g e themselves to uses that would otherwise incentivize the private sector to invest in this urban area, inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Overlay. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity with the adjacent residential use, rather serves the increase the incompatibility of the uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 1. Mixed -Use Development: A mix of residential and commercial uses is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed -use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. Mixed Use Development Findings: The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses or services, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. Findings The application is also inconsistent with the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Elements Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Coastal High Hazard Area Non -Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 5 acres. 10% Less than 2.5 acres 10% Equal to or greater than 5 acres 2esidential and Mixed Use Development Equal to or greater and less than 20 acres. 15% than 2.5 acres 25% Equal to or greater than 20 ac. 25% s https://www.colliercountvfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/40905/635883137282O70000 25 1 Page Policy 6.1.1 Findings: The applicant claims compliance with this policy and these standards; however, the application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by this policy. Nor does it assess the existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD's compliance with environmental commitments made part of Ord 97-14. Specifically, Section 4.9 Environmental conditioned approval upon..."shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and retaining 10% of the existing native vegetation on site, by area, in all three strata"... The application does not include an assessment as to whether the potential mitigation and preservation strategies are required if the identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. It instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD of 0.29 acres. Nor does the application consider the increase in requirement for native vegetation preservation resulting from an increase in the total site area to 11.89 acres, which requires a 15% minimum per the above objective and policy. 261 Page EXHIBIT 5 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria Findings: The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. 2. The existing land use pattern. Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD for the following reasons: a. Although the property has been developed under the existing zoning, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD and the C-4 zoning do not permit the homeless shelter use as proposed under the rezoning. i. The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. ii. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. b. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. c. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. 271 Page d. Additionally, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Findings criteria (3) As previously noted, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Additionally, the social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. To the contrary, the current zoning is C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and DeVoe Pontiac CPUD contain existing uses that have been approved under the current zoning, as either conditional uses, or as part of the PUD Resolution. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject 281 Page property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. a) The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Indi duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. Further, the application includes no assessment of the effects this reduced space and increased occupancy has on living conditions at the facility. Additionally, no documentation was provided as to best practices and whether other communities in Florida have adopted such criteria and with what effect. b) The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to adversely affect the living conditions of the adjacent residential neighborhood by increasing noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 291 1 a g e 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC, a "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities shall be granted" or " if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities."6 There is no indication in the application that such a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities plan has been submitted to the County for this determination. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would allow twice as much heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas: a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial 6 See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 301 Page and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. a) That being said, it should be noted that the proposed change includes the intensification of social service uses and activates with the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which can result in adverse effect on the property values of the adjacent residential development. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Findings criteria 11: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelters. There is no indication in the application that such waiver of the code requirements has been granted to other group homes in the County. Nor is there any justification provided to support this deviation. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. The application for rezoning removes the current zoning and DeVoe Pontiac PUD restrictions that do not permit homeless shelter and soup kitchen uses on Tract B. This change would allow the use of Tract B. 31 1 Page 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements that impart beauty, confidence, and societal continuity. b) This application includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) This concentration of site development would not make daily living more practical. It would in fact be contrary to the requirements of the Future Land Use Element at Overview Paragraph "C." Underlying Concepts, Attainment of High -Quality Urban Design, specifically ..."These Architectural and Site development standards include building design, parking lot orientation, pedestrian access, vehicular movement, landscaping and lighting. These standards will provide for quality development that is responsive to the Community's character..." d) Additionally, the application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods in that its focus is upon addressing the needs of the homeless and necessary ancillary support services. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. a) There has been no evidence provided in the record that it is "impossible" to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use, without the need to rezone the property or amend and expand the existing PUD, as is proposed for the subject property. Neither has there been any review of the 321 1 a g e potential to locate elements of the homeless shelter individually without the need to create an aggregation of the uses at this location of the County. 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. Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) Such physical constraints to the site would result in significant alterations to the existing structures, parking and water management system to support the proposed development. 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 [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended. Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. 33 1 Page 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. Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 341 Page Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. (Vll)(IX)(XXX)(XLIV) Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County's Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). (VII)(IX)(XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.7: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas. (VII)(IX)(XLIV) Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. (XLIV) Policy 5.9: Encourage recognition of identifiable communities within the urbanized area of western Collier County. Presentation of economic and demographic data shall be based on Planning Communities and commonly recognized neighborhoods. (XV)(XLIV) Policy 5.10: Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. (XLIV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017-22 on June 13, 2017 19 Exhibit D MARK J. WOODWARD tkxd CeruinL Rmd &-tne LmxO inCardunanaun ZL' Planned Dev&pnirnt L:iw ANTHONY P. PIRES, f It mid Leal Govem iem La%v ]. CH R! STO P H E R LOM BARDO ANTHONY).DwORA Licrn.td in FL arai OH LENORET. BRAKEFIELD CRAM R. WOODWARD Senior C ourLA Cloud Crru6KcL Pc,d E:_.= L-w KENN ET H V. MU N DY ZACHARY W, LomaARDO CAMERON G. WooDWAR.D ROSS E. SCHULMAN Lkwced in FL,un11i' F. SCOTT PAuzAR in C]iRISTOPHER R. FIEFLIN I;E PLY TO; 0 3200 TAML4Ail TRAIL N. SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 239.649.6555 239-649-7342 FAX U 606 BALL] EAGLE DRIVE SUITE 5DO P.O. BOX ONE MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146 239-394.5161 239-642-6402 FAX WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM WOO DWARD, P I RES & LOM.BARDO, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 30, 2021 Via Email; Edwin.fryer@colliercountyfl.gov Nancy.gundlach@collllercountyfl.gov Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer. Chairman and Nancy Cundlach, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning Division Re: Supplement to Previously Submitted Objections to St. Matthew's House (PUDR) Project (the "Project"); PUD Rezone, Petition No. PL20210000176; (the "Application"): Dear Mr. Fryer and Planning Commissioners: This letter on behalf of West Shore Point Naples, LLC, ("West Shore"). supplements the previously submitted correspondence of November 22, 2021 that outlined various initial objections to the PURR Application. Since the time of the initial submittal, we have had the opportunity to review the Staff Report, the materials in the agenda packet, and we met with the Applicant's agents. While we believe that progress has been made after the meeting, there remain significant areas of concern with the proposed PUD. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter is a redlined edited PUD Document. "Exhibits A-F", that we prepared and provided to the Applicant's agents yesterday. If the proposed PUD that is recommended for approval contains these provisions, it would allay the various concerns of West Shore to the Application, The Applicant's agent has advised that not all of the requested changes to the PUD document are acceptable to the Applicant. In reviewing our suggested PUD language, the attached Exhibit "B", pages from the 1991 and 1992 LDC illustrates that the current LDC minimum square footage applicable to homeless shelters (150 sq. tt. per bed for each bed over six (6) beds) is a well -established requirement in Collier County. We have also obtained the benefit of an analysis by a transportation consultant, Pramod Choudhary, PE. PTOE. His report and analysis is attached as Exhibit "C" to this letter along with an Errata Sheet from Planner Cecelia Ward. Exhibit "D". Page 1 1 West Shore respectively requests that the Collier County Planning Commission forward the Application, as it exists, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. If there is to be a recommendation of approval, we respectfully request that the PUD Document. "Exhibits A-F attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners as the operative document. Respectfully_su.hm' d, An oriy P. ires, Jr, Esq. Enclosure(s) Cc: with enclosure(s) Collier County Planning Commissioners; Jeffrey Klatzkow, Heidi Ashton-Cicko; Board of County Commissioners, Stephen Tilbrook; R. Yovanovich. W. Arnold Page 12 EXHIBIT "A" TO 11-30-21 LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GN4PGMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area ;+I Up to 150 residential care or shelter beds'^ peFl:Ritted withi., the roi Iron Tract A. No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for ❑therthan the following: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322; excluding Alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; Offender rehabilitation agencies; Offender self-helpagencies; Probation offices: Refugee services; and Public welfare centers, offices of ); and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. al , eh .s;Ra starage (4 372. elily(4222) (not for nrefit {e9d bank); and 473lLegal counsel and prosecution (9222); and -5-4.Used vehicle sales (5521); and 6-.SS Boat dealers (5551). 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 - (St. Alattheu+'s House CPUD PL20210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 1 of 9 1. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and S. Self -Yelp groups 5,76. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only(4222) (not - for profit food bank only) 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. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL202111000176) (October 1.3, 2021) Page 2 of 9 LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sci. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Eastern Project Boundary 50 FEET 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or % sum of building heights * la FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SQUARE FEET N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. (St. Afrrf!lrE 's Horrse CPL1D PL10?IOOODI'6) (October 13, 2011) Page 3 of 9 9.A.2.a 120 FEET 15' Nl1OE TYPE 'O' LANDSCAPE SUFFER 1 D' W I DE TYPE 'D' -- INCS PECK BL7FFER 15 UE (OR 7156. PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 1105) r GLADES BOULEVARD E1 1 I ZONED: 1111E-6 ACTA USE H MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ` 15' YODE TYPE 'B• LANDSCAPE BUFFER ..::. A m—,�--- 00 0 0 o t� v C r E3 2D FEET -I a 1 ' WIDE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER II m N w PROJECT BOUNDARY 15' WIDE TYPE'& LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED• DAVID A GAL LMAN ESTATE PUD USE MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LEGEND: I 7 WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (DR 5699 PG 2572I 0.Y9 AC 1 WATER MANAGEMENT PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) # DEVIATION TRACT A TRACT 8 15' W IDE TYPES' LANDSCAPE BUFFER `frJ ZONED- DAVID A. GALLMAN j, ESTATE PUD USE MULT)-FAMILY 'r RESIDENTIAL f I N r � NO BUFFER REOLPRE] (SDP W-82) 2 ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MX3 AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD va rm USE COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES SCALE: 1' 200' ST.MA TTH!"s W' S HOUSE CPUA . n..., n. .. �+. EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN IVII IiiCrn-rn 1-�I.iln r.r. . P.Jf11H�. L.11NIlIJp! .\Ia MIerV nu fNle MI.Val Vw REVISED 09/02/202 scar s z E7 —GREAT BLUE DRIVE l EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER {SDP 98-82 f EXISTING 14' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER PURR-PL20210000176. ST. MATTHEW S HOUSE CPLI❑ November 23, 2021 Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 25 SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA. 11.89± ACRES TRACT 'A'- 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'B': 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL- MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% PRESERVE: REQUIRED: 0-29± ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2-90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS [SEE EXHIBIT 1 . RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES" ON TRACT .A ONLY. 2, RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4,06,02. "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY - LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX- E1 - 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESS/EGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1 188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1 181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NC]TFfi 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. SK WATTHEW-S HOUSE CPUD GradyMinor �xHi31T C VASTER 'LAN NOTES Z'Ineers LsndSurvevors Planners lana•,caln�.ir.11urrts , 0, �.nA,Ah LA;lM%l 3E dISEQ 09/02/2021 „-47.1[Si F-1 My-2_W{Ml,ai$u �NBET 2 OF EXHIBIT ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89-41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00'19'00'' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00'19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (.51. Mait&nv s House CPUD PL 20? 10000176) (October 13, 2021) Pane 6 of 9 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS tMZ swan .. .. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (5!. A9atrhew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (October 13. 2021) Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafterthe 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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 theCounty Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations uponwritten approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer seal off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by thePUD 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. ► p 91311101111161 I A. 4,r--The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect atthe time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. A-8. Prior to the tine of the issuance of any development orders, SDP or SDPA for any property in the PUD that will use the access road known as Great Blue Drive, _competent, Substantial evidence must be submitted to Collier County,with a copy to the property owner of the residential community in the David A. Galiman Estate PUD, that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive . see section 5.5.D of the David A. Gallman Estate PUDI. (St. Alarrhe+s•'s House CPUD PL 0.210000176) (October 13, 202 1) Page 8 of 9 19►►■A*9101LIFA NOIr_lI A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses may be provided on Tract `B', after installation of the required landscaping outlined herein and must be reflected ona Site Development Plan SDP to demonstrate that minimum required parkingspaces are met for each -use. LOADINGIUNLOADINGINOURS OF OPERATION A. Any new overhead doors will not face east. B. Loadinglunloading and delivery hours will be limited to between lam and 9 m weekdays. 111110 A A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport- Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determinewh ether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on theMaster Plan. If it is determined bythe Countythat additional CUE area is needed, the additionalCUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with theCollier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING: A. At the time of the issuance of any development orders, SDP or SDPA for any portion of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, a 15' wide Type B landscape buffer shall be provided along the property boundary of the PUD adjacent tothe David A. Gallman Estate PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development orders for any portion of the PUD located within Activity Center 416, a 20' wide Type D landscape buffer shall he provided along the property boundary of the PUD adjacent to any road right-of-way external to the PUD, [See LDC Section 4.05.02.C.4 ] (St. Matlheiv's House CPUD PL20210000176) (October 13, 2021) Page 9 of 9 1991 AND 1992 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 2flision i.b _ &Pplemensn! pisrrirj Rej darrn>Ls 2.6.26.1.2 Group Carer Facili(v WatMory I and Category ll): A Group Care Facility shall be governed by the development standards identified in the zoning district assigned to the property and the following standards: 1. Minimum Habitable Floor Area: A. Group Care Facility (Category I): 1,500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Category II): (1) Homeless Shelters: 1,500 square feet plus 150 square feet per hero-W person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than the Homeless Shelters: 1.500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 2. Minimum 1..ot Area: a. Group Care Facility (Category I): 6,0Ct0 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live- in person, beginning with the seventh 11%a-in person. b. Group Care Facilit} (Category 11): (.l) Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 4W square fret per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. (^) Uses other than Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 1.500 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person, z. Parking ReWuired: 2 parking spaces per 5 heds (Minimum requirement: 2 parking spaces). 4. Stpsration Requirements: a. A riew Group Care Fsc ility shall he required to be located greater than a radius of 1,200 feet from an, other existing Group Care Facility (.applicable to the RMF-6, RNIF-12. R IF-16, RT, and VR zoning districts). b. A new Group Care Facility shall be required to be located greater than a radius of 500 feet from any other existing Group Care Facility (applicable to the A, Estates. and RSF 1-5 zoning districts). c. Distance requirements shall he measured along a straight line from the nearest point of the existing Group Care Facility property to the nearest point of the proposed new Group Care Facility property. Collier Courn :-178 October 30, 19;1 Lend Deveiopmenr Code EXHIBIT d Division 5 Supplemental District a ufatinns 2.6.26.1 All Group Housing structures shall meet the following requirements specified for each type of structure: Site Development Plan (SDP) approval in conformance with Div. 3.3 (with the exception of a Family Care Facility). 2. All applicable State and County building and fire code standards, 3. All applicable State and County licensing requirements. 2.6.26.1.1 Family Care Facility: A Family Care Facility shall be treated as a single dwelling unit for the purpose of determining applicable development standards and, therefore, shall conform to the standards identified for a single-family dwelling unit or mobile home in the toning district assigned to the property, as well as other applicable standards found in the Toning Code . However, a new Family Care Facility shall not be located within a radius of one thousand feet (1,000') of another existing Family Care Facility. 2.6.26.1.2 Group Care Facility n • 1 and CatWryli : A Group Care Facility shall be governed by the development standards identified in the zoning district assigned to the property and the following standards: 1. Minimum Habitable Floor Area: a. Group Care Facility (Category 1): 1,500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Category II): i 1 : Homeless Shelters: 1.500 square feet plus 150 square feet per live-in , person, begtnntog with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than the Homeless Shelters: 1,500 square feet plus 200 square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. 2. Mitummun Lot Ares: a. Group Care Facility (Category I]; 6,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per live- in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. b. Group Care Facility (Categon I1): (1) Homeless Shelters: 6.000 square feet plus 400 square feet per Iive-in person. beginning with the seventh live-in person. (2) Uses other than Homeless Shelters: 6,000 square feet plus 1,50D square feet per live-in person, beginning with the seventh live-in person. CoMer Counn 2-I80 October 30, 1991 Land Development Code Amrndrd October 14, 199= !Z7 KEITH Engineering Inspired Design. Anthony P. Pires, Jr., B.C.S. Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103 239-649-6555 Phone; 239-649-7342 Fax apires@7a wpl-legal.com Ref; The Point at Naples Review of Traffic Impact Statement far St. Matthews House dated June 29, 2021 Dear Mr, Pires- At the request of Lee Rosenthal, President, Westshore Point Naples. LLC, KEITH has conducted a review of the Traffic Impact Statement dated May 12. 2021 and revised on June 29. 2021 for the St. Matthews House development in Naples, Florida The following summarizes our review of the Traffic Impact Statement: 1. Pro- COVID Traffic Volumes: The temporary reduction in traffic volumes due to COV1D has not been taken into consideration while assessing the impact of the development. The pre-COVI❑ peak hour volumes should have been grown using historical growth rate to develop 2021 volumes for the assessment of the impact. Attachment C of the 2021 AUIR shows that Airport Pulling Road has experienced anywhere from 10-20% reduction in traffic since 2020 and this reduction could be higher from 2019. The impact assessment is not conservative in nature. 2. Trip Generation: Land Use code 254 has only two data points and should not have been used to estimate trip generation for the group home/homeless shelter (Assisted Living Facility). Since this is an existing facility, existing trip generation data should have been collected from the site and extrapolated to estimate the trip generation for the proposed increase in number of beds. The trip generation procedure used in the traffic impact study does not follow the guidelines recommended below by ITE. Below is the process for estimating trip generation and is contained on Pages 26 and 28 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition. Use Fitted Curve Equation when: . A fitted curve equation is provided and the data plat has at least 20 data potnts OR • A fitted curve equation is provided, the curve has art R-- of at least 0.75. the fitter curve falls within data dustef, and the weighted standard deviation is more than 55 percent. of the weighted average rate. Use Weighted A verage Rate when: • The data plat has at least three data prints (and preferably, six or more): • The W value for the fitted curve is less than 0.75 of no fitted curve equation is provided: • The weighted standard deviation for the average rate is Tess than 55 percent of the weighted average rate; and EXHIBIT • The weighted average rate is wthin data duster in plot. llect Local Data when: a Co • Study site is not compatible with ITE Land Use Code definition; • Data plot has only One of two data points (and preferably. when five or fewer}; • The weighted standard deviation for the average rate �s greater than 55 percent of the weighted average rate, ■ Independent variable value +s not within range of data: or • {Neither weighted average rate line nor fitted curve is within data duster at size of sbudy sole. www.KEITHteam.com Pompano Beach i H M • Fort Lauderdale ■ Miami ■ West Palm Beach • Orlando ■ 7aliat aster November 30, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Figure 4.2 Process for Selecting Average Rate or Equation in Trip Generation Manual Data tee- Ot r4O Gf:� lfwV � 1JM ►IF17 a ■ as taa O OWQW JAW wr w ,n r V11040. It FA It L =Am r a1S w nv 1 +ryrws f lAn�yl �wiod OEM Dim 3. Pass -By Trips: Pass -by trips should not simply be deducted from the total trips for assessing the impact on roadway segments. These trips already exist on the roadway network, but they do change their travel pattern depending on the access to the site. The pass -by trips, otherwise destined as through trips, will make a left turn or a right turn into the development as pass -by trips, and should be graphically depicted on a figure. These trips accordingly get added or subtracted from turning movements at the intersections or access points. The Primary trips should accordingly be shown graphically on the roadway network. The combination of the pass - by trips and primary trips will become the basis for assessing the impact on the roadway segments. The traffic report fails to correctly assess the impact on roadway segments. 4. Trip Distribution: No adequate justification has been provided for trip distribution. This should be based on actual traffic volumes on the roadway segments. The peak hour volume split on Airport Pulling Road is 56% for the segment from Radio Road to Davis Blvd. and 44% for the segment from Davis Blvd. to US 41 based on 2021 AUIR peak hour volume data. The trip distribution shows 65% from the north and only 30% from the south. The project site is on the segment from Davis Blvd to US 41 and equal split from the north and the south would make more sense. According to the traffic report, the net change in trips will be from the St. Matthews House with the increase in number of beds from 104 to 150. It is important to note that St. Matthews House has a driveway an Airport Pulling Road and another one on Glades Blvd. Considering the access control on Airport Pulling Road and 1 j Engineering Inspired Design. November 30. 2021 Page 3 of 3 Glades Blvd- the driveway on Airport Pulling Road will be used by all vehicles entering the site from the south. The entering traffic from the north will use the driveway on Glades Blvd. The exiting traffic destined to go south will use the driveway on Glades Blvd. and make a westbound left at the signal on Airport Pulling Road. The exiting traffic destined to go north can use either of the driveways. An existing driveway count would indicate the use of this site and the driveways, and the trip distribution and assignment should be done accordingly based on actual data. 5. Trip Assignment and Site Access: The main access point to the site also provides access to the residential development (The Point at Naples) located on the east of the site. This access point does not have a full median opening and therefore, all exiting traffic from this driveway will have to go north on Airport Pulling Road and make a U-turn to go south. This results in 100% of the site traffic on this link of Airport Pulling Road and therefore, should be evaluated accordingly for impact assessment. 6. Future 2025 LOS: It is not clear from Table 4A how the future LOS letter gravies were arrived at. No vic ratios and corresponding LOS reference thresholds have been provided. 7. Increase in Commercial Land Use: The Zoning and Land Development Review section of the Staff Report (Page 9 and 10) identifies 64.000 sq ft. of existing commercial land uses. The applicant in its submittals, including the TIS, has not analyzed the traffic impacts based upon a comparison of the existing 64,000 sq.ft to a greater amount of 130.000 sq. ft. of commercial land use. This potential increase in commercial land use has not been accounted for in the trip generation. This increase in commercial land use will potentially add additional 270 trips during the PM Peak Hour resulting in much more than 2% impact on the roadway segments- 8. Development Commitments -- Transportation Condition A: As per Condition A, "the maxinlam total daily trip generation for the PUD small not exceed 534 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the rise codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for 5DPI5DPA or subdivision plat approval'. The Traffic Impact Statement shows exactly 534 PM peak hour trips to be generated by the proposed development. The trip generation estimate based on actual data from the site could potentially increase the total trip generation. 9. Impacts On Great Blue Drive; No analysis has been performed for Great Blue Drive to evaluate the existing and the proposed conditions and establish that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive. [See section 5.5. ❑ of the David A- Gallman Estate PUDT' Should you need any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me on my email at pchoudhary(a�KE1THteam.com or call me at (407) 252-7606- Sincerely Prarnod Choudhary, PE, PTOE Director of Traffic Engineering r— j Engineering Inspired Design. ERRATA SHEET NOVEMBER 26, 2021 Cecelia Ward, AICP !C Consulting Enterprises Inc. Expert Opinion Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit ❑evelopment Number: Collier County, FL - PL20210000176 PAGE PARAGRAH LINE FROM TO 2 1 2 "LLC P" "LLP" 4 1 3 "permitted" "amount of IT a Exhibit E Opposition to — St. Matthew's House Ines Application for Commercial Planned Unit Development Collier County, FL, PL20210000176 Presenters • West Shore Point Naples, LLC • Adjacent Property Owner • Legal Counsel: • Stephen Tilbrook, Esq. • Anthony Pires, Esq., BCS • Expert Planner: • Cecelia Ward, AICP • Expert Traffic Engineer • Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE Summary of Objections and Issues • The Project is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan • The Project is not in compliance with the Collier County LDC section 10.02.13 • The Project is not in compliance with the Collier County LDC section 10.02.08 • The Project is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan III Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the land development code ("LDC"), the impact of which has not been evaluated, such as vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. III Objections and Issues Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. Name wEST $HORE "NT NAME$ «C 5lrunla a if : 21%6REAY SLUE 011 Balw ! Onnl 01 a I LAGAl Dwrip11an: ,7 507$ FROM SW COP, SEC RAIN N 21MAC)FT, F 2MF TO POD. N 9WIF E1120F7, 5 1320FT, W 6r"T, N 330FT, W e50FT TO POE Subject Property is located just West of and adjacent to The Point at Naples, multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point Naples, LLC The Point at Naples • Workforce housing • Owner managed Owner acquired in 2016 Planner — Cecelia Ward, AICP Planning Review The Rezoning and PUD Application is: • Inconsistent with the County's GMP, including: • the Future Land Use Element. • is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. • Not in compliance with: • the County's LDC Evaluation Criteria for PUDs; and, • the County's LDC Evaluation Criteria for Rezoning. • Inconsistent with the County's Community Character Plan. Impact of rezoning on Permitted and Conditional Uses PROPOSED COMMERCIAL Change in uses — proposed rezoning USES: Expands C-4 permitted uses over entire 11.89-acre area Tract B; 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and Removes Conditional Use Review for the following, 2. General warehousing and storage (4225); and proposed new uses: and expansion of existing uses: I Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only General Warehousing and Storage (42 25 ); Legal counsel (42221(not-for profit food eankl;and and prosecution (9222; Used vehicle sales (5521; Boat 4, Legal counsel and prosecution (9222);and dealers (5551); and Homeless Shelter 5. Used vehicle sales (5521); and Allows uses that are currently only permitted in Industrial 6. Boat dealers (5551). District [2.03.04.A.1.a.35]: • Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only (4222) Allows uses that are not currently permitted uses: • Not -for -profit food bank. • Homeless shelter use is not allowed in existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD 10 Significant difference between: Allowing the uses as conditional uses M�9�� Allowing the uses as Proposed by the Application (permitted uses) Conditional Use Application Would Otherwise: • Allow imposition of various site/development conditions on any approval to assure adequate protection of impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. • Conditions and safeguards. In recommending approval of a conditional use, the Planning Commission may also recommend appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the LDC. Section 10.08.00 of the LDC Inconsistent with Growth Management Plan The Application is Inconsistent with FLUE Policy 5.6 in that it: ➢ Increases the opportunity for incompatibility with the adjacent multifamily residential neighborhood by proposing the expansion of Social Service Uses and Introduction of Commercial and Industrial Uses without the "protections" afforded under Conditional Use Review; and, ➢ Creates the potential for additional Impacts caused by vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter, lighting, loading, and the like from such proposed uses, which, without Conditional Use review, has the potential to result in impacting the quality of life of the nearby residents. The Application is Inconsistent with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and Mixed -Use Development in that it: ➢ Proposes a Social Service Campus that does not: ➢ Provide pedestrian connections with an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize uses that would otherwise be provided from a shopping center/retail type of mixed -use development. 12 Not in Compliance with County PUD and Rezoning Evaluation Criteria The Application: MI I ➢ Lacks information and analysis in order to: • determine impacts on light and air to the adjacent residential neighborhood; • assure there will be no negative impacts on adjacent property values; • assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development; and, • justify the deviations requested. ➢ Potentially grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of square feet required by the LDC for homeless shelters. Not in Compliance with County PUD and Rezoning Evaluation Criteria (Continued) 11 ➢ Has not demonstrated a need for the rezoning. • According to both the County staff and the applicant, the C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow the nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. • Ownership of the property in and of itself should not be the sole basis for the rezoning. Traffic Engineer Pramod Choudhary, PEPTOE Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement No Adjustment in Traffic Volumes for Fluctuations Caused by COVID: ➢ The pre-COVID peak hour volumes should have been grown using historical growth rate to develop 2021 volumes for the assessment of the impact. Trip Generation Estimate is not consistent with the ITE Guidelines: ➢ St. Matthews House is an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. ➢ Land Use code 254 has only two data points and should not have been used to estimate trip generation for the group home/homeless shelter (Assisted Living Facility). ➢ The trip generation procedure does not follow the guidelines on Pages 26 and 28 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. 16 Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement 11 Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact: ➢ Pass -by trips should not be deducted from the total trips for assessing the impact on roadway segments. ➢ The pass -by trips, otherwise destined as through trips, will make a left turn, U-Turn, or a right turn into the development as pass -by trips, and should accordingly be considered for impact assessment. No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions: ➢ Trip Distribution should be based on actual traffic volumes on the roadway segments. ➢ The project site is on the segment from Davis Blvd to US 41 and equal split from the north and the south would make more sense. Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations: ➢ The Great Blue Drive access point does not have a full median opening and therefore, all exiting traffic from this driveway will have to go north on Airport Pulling Road and make a U-turn to go south. This results in 100% of the site traffic on this link of Airport Pulling Road and therefore, should be evaluated accordingly for impact assessment. Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for traffic impact assessment: ➢ Staff Report (Page 9 and 10) identifies 64,000 sq.ft. of existing commercial land use to be increased to 130,000 sq. ft. of commercial land use. This increase has not been accounted for in the trip generation. ➢ This increase in commercial land use will potentially add additional 270 trips during the PM Peak Hour resulting in much more than 2% impact on the roadway segments. Impacts on Great Blue Drive: ➢ No analysis has been performed for Great Blue Drive, the main access to the residential development, to evaluate the existing and the proposed conditions and establish that sufficient capacity exists on Great Blue Drive. [See section 5.5.D of the David A. Gallman Estate PUD] Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Statement • No Adjustment in Traffic Volumes for Fluctuations Caused by COVID. MI I • As an existing facility, and actual trip generation data should have been collected from the site. • Trip Generation Estimate is not consistent with the ITE Guidelines. • Pass -By Trips not adequately accounted for in assessing the traffic impact. • No adequate justification for Trip Distribution assumptions. • Trip Assignment fails to account for median openings and driveway locations. • Increase in Commercial Use not accounted for in traffic impact assessment. • No Analysis of the impacts on Great Blue Drive. II` Summary of Objections and Issues • The rezoning is not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. • The impacts of a 50% increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. • The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the land development code ("LDC"), the impact of which has not been evaluated, such as vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. • The significant expansion of commercial and homeless related uses is not evaluated nor justified. III Summary Continued • The traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. • The expansion of allowed commercial and addition of an industrial district use will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential community. • The application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential communities. • The application does not meet the criteria for a rezoning and is not appropriate for a new PUD. Requested Changesto Proposed PUDI As contained in our proposed revisions • Prohibit homeless shelter, residential care, and group care facilities on Tract B. • Exclude alcoholism counseling (nonresidential), offender rehabilitation agencies, probation offices, refugee services, and public welfare centers on Tract A. • Eliminate warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as a principal use on Tract B. • Permit warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as an accessory use to not for profit food bank only on Tract B. • Eliminate deviation 1, that would otherwise reduce the minimum floor area for homeless shelter from 150 square feet per person to 100 square feet per person. • Provide for enhanced landscape buffers at the time of redevelopment of 15-foot wide, type B landscape buffer adjacent to residential, and 20-foot wide, type D for areas adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road located within the Activity Center #16. • Prohibit overhead loading doors facing East. • Limit loading/unloading and delivery house to between 7am and 9pm on weekdays. 22 In Conclusion: Respectfully request Planning Commission recommend denial of the application as submitted. Or, if inclined to recommend approval, respectfully request recommending approval of the PUD with West Shore's changes to the PUD. Exhibit F EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GM- GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area, and up to 150 residential care or shelter beds be peFrnitt d within the CPI I^on Tract A. All principal uses must be owned by a not -for -profit corporation. 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: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322); excluding non-residential probation offices, refugee services, public defenders' and public prosecutors' offices, and public welfare centers; and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 4.2. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and 5.3. Used vehicle sales (5521); and 64. Boat dealers (5551). 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: (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 1 of 9 Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5. Self-help groups; and 6. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing (4222), cold or refrigerated only for a not- for profit food bank only and 4225). 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. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Northern Project Boundary 50 FEET *** 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or% sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. *** Setback applicable to principal structures and additions to principal structures constructed after 1/25/2022. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 3 of 9 10' WIDE TYPED' 15' UE WDS /pq PE BUFFER (OR 2150, PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 1105) GLADES BOULEVARD 15' WIDE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER D 15' WIDE TYPE'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 6 E9 E1 ZONED: RMF-6 CT A USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER :--E4 m gym,, ^' LEGEND: PROJECT BOUNDARY 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL E7 -GREAT BLUE DRIVE I EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) i WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 5699 PG 2572) 0.29 AC. / WATER MANAGEMENT ❑ PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ® DEVIATION 15' WIDE TYPE'B' i f LANDSCAPE BUFFER i i i ZONED: DAVID A. TRACT A 'T B TRACT B / ESTATEN � �� ESTATE PUD � USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL i N NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 97-145f ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES 0 100, 200' SCALE: 1 rr = 200' WHEN PLOTTED @ 8.5" X 1 V © GradyMinor �. Grady lilloralld 1s.1us: irs. R'y �1111111 \ t, Roy Rordia Springs. FWrida 31131 ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD SCALE: z EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN SOH CODE: sM - 21 DATE : g PNAMD Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architects Cert. oFAdh. EB 0005151 Cert. oFAdh. LB 0005151 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 owo. Gradyd/inor. com Business LC 26000266 Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 10/25/2021 SHEET 1 OF 2 P SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.89± ACRES TRACT 'A': 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'B': 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS (TO BE LOCATED ONLY ON TRACT A) OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% REQUIRED: 0.29± ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2.90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E) 1❑ RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES" (TRACT A ONLY) 2❑ RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: E1 - 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESS/EGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD SCALE ((ly1q�7 �/�j y� y1 V Grady A1iuor auJ 1ssu3•J:ilrs, P.A. aor cone: lJ 1 U dyMi n o r 13f1111I v Ia nni Rey s Bmaln Springs. Fimhde 34134 EXHIBIT C DATE MASTER PLAN NOTES : APR - Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects C,o,fA,Ah. hn30005151 Cer,.of AULh. 1,130005151 Business CC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 .—.Grady9/hmr.rom Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 12/14/2021 SHEET 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00-19-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89-41-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00°19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities", which requires a minimum habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 sq. ft. per bed with a maximum of 150 beds. On Tract A onlv. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafterthe 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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: A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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. ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 8 of 9 meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses may be provided on Tract 'B' and must be reflected on a Site Development Plan to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION: A. Any new overhead doors will not face adjacent residential uses. B. Loading and unloading will be limited to between 7 am and 9 pm Monday through Saturday. C. No deliveries, loading or unloading by tractor trailers. UTI LITY: A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determine whether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on the Master Plan. If it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additional CUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING/BUFFERING/FENCING/SECURITY: A. At the time of the issuance of any SDP or SDPA for Tract B, a 15' wide type 'B" landscape buffer shall be provided along the PUD boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development order to increase in the number of beds on Tract A to greater than 104, install and thereafter maintain a minimum 6 foot high security fence on Tract A of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, to connect to the existing wall on Tract B. Co Within six months of the approval of this PUD the entire boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD shall have a w,;n;rnung se) {^^*fence consistent with the existing44g4 fence Ar IL (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 9 of 9 Exhibit G EXPERT OPINION BY CECELIA WARD, AICP PRESIDENT JC CONSULTING ENTERPRISES INC. 18081 SE Country Club Drive, Unit 313 Tequesta, Florida PH: (954) 815-4298 cward @icconsultinginc. net DATE PREPARED: Revised/Updated December 20, 2021 Application: St. Matthew's House Inc. Commercial Planned Unit Development Number: Collier County, FL - PL20210000176 Outline of Expert Opinion Report Part 1— Introduction and Application Background ................................................... 2 Part 11- Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion ................................................ 4 A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions.....................................................................4 Part 111— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria .................. 5 A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan5 B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning............................................................................................................................6 C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria ..........................7 EXHIBITS............................................................................................................... 10 EXHIBIT1.....................................................................................................................11 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals.............................................................11 EXHIBIT2.....................................................................................................................12 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan ............................12 EXHIBIT3.....................................................................................................................14 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.6. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning..............14 EXHIBIT4.....................................................................................................................20 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan......................................20 EXHIBIT5.....................................................................................................................26 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria...............................................26 1 1 P a g e Part I — Introduction and Application Background I, Cecelia Ward, AICP, President of JC Consulting Enterprises Inc., have been retained by West Shore Point of Naples LLP to provide my expert planning opinions regarding the St. Matthew's House Inc. ["the applicant"] application for rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendments for property located in Collier County, just west of and adjacent to The Point at Naples multifamily residential apartments owned by West Shore Point of Naples LLP. This Revised/Updated December 20, 2021 Expert Opinion addresses what I believe is the proposed PUD recommended for approval on December 16, 2021, based upon my viewing of the Planning Commission meeting video from CollierTV. Naples Apartments Point of Naples LLP 3roperty The subject property is comprised of two tracts of land owned by St. Matthews House Inc., with a total of 11.89 acres, located on the southeast corner of Airport Pulling Road South and Glades Boulevard. 2 1 P a g e woe�a roc ��inxnswe. revn�mY tew�rrrc Y• 1 waswe w.rEe tTYq{T'Nf � 4 �Fll0ECA/e I � w Y>• �ecEko. IF wnTFa YnYA�uvn � ts'NtpF TnF>< wATEn W4:CNE rsEee �AV[9 ARW EO lv IS � zarsa�rAie Puo`w"'w� u:C' WLTi-i,u4Y R/9DfieYL ® bFrS.Ttn l rE7 eecT. �O —ulEAT1R.UE INlrE E9 rTnAcre w�eE �*N .W � tbwRET*✓'Ft �WQIGM eWN 1 J .y� �•.y� 6 •% 1 �1.. 1 G ,, A I R't59 WY4w ESTw ANTE M1X. ueE � 1Is!A1wr ,A ""carriucuu Aaow.wAwErrtuorfces SC11Ei'=70R' In January 2021, the applicant initially submitted a Conditional Use application requesting an increase in the number of existing homeless beds located on the 2.55 acres (Tract A) of the St. Matthews House property. In March 2021, the applicant requested a change from the Conditional Use application to expand its request to include Tract B, which encompasses 9.55 acres, to unify the St. Matthew's House properties, and to provide for a rezoning from C-4 Commercial (Gateway Triangle Mixed Use) and an amendment to the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) and expanding the PUD designation to encompass the total development site of 11.89 acres. The Collier County staff administratively approved the change in application and did not require a new application to be submitted. The applicant proposes to combine the subject property into a single Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by a) rezoning those portions of the site presently zoned CA Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District, and b) amending the existing DeVoe Pontiac Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The entire property would be known as the St. Matthew's House CPUD, as reflected in Collier County Case No. PI.20210000176. Tract "A" of the subject property was developed as a 104-bed men's and women's homeless shelter via approval of a Conditional Use by Resolution 99-87) that included a restaurant, thrift store and additional ancillary uses. 3 1 P a g e The proposed rezoning would further concentrate and convert the entire site into a social service campus that increases the number of homeless beds located on Tract A from 104 to 150 and increases the total amount of square footage of commercial use from 64,000 s.f. to 130,000 s.f. to include additional refrigerated warehouse and distribution space, additional to administrative social service offices, and ancillary restaurant, thrift store, and used vehicle sales spaces. The original application further requested deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to allow for less square feet of habitable space than what is required by the LDC to accommodate the increase in the number of beds and relief from certain landscape buffer requirements, as follows: o Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C. Group Housing to reduce the required minimum habitable floor area for homeless shelters from 1,500 s.f. plus 150 s.f. for each person over six, to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 s.f. per bed. o Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. Table 2.4 Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classification, which requires a 10 ft. Type A Buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the proposed PUD. The applicant proposes to include a 10 ft. wide Type A landscape buffer at the time of redevelopment of that portion of the PUD that is adjacent to the southern property boundary that impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line. A timeline of prior rezonings and recordation of approvals relative to the subject property has been provided in Exhibit 1. Part II - Cecelia Ward — Summary of Expert Opinion A. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Based on my review of the information related to the St. Matthew's House CPUD Application PL L20210000176, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Collier County Community Character Plan and Collier County Land Development Code, it is my professional opinion that the application is: 1) Inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2) Not in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code Regulations Section 10.02.13 (PUD) and Section 10.02.08 (Rezonings). 3) Incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential use. 4) Not complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. 5) Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. Part III of this report provides my findings of each of the evaluation criteria, with supporting documentation provided in Exhibits 2-5. Additionally, it is my professional opinion that the following issues have not been considered, 4 1 P a g e but are required to be considered by Collier County in its review of this application: 1) The failure to review the potential impact resulting from requested deviation in required habitable space for homeless shelter beds: The applicant is seeking a deviation in the minimum square foot required per bed, i.e. from 150 sq. ft/bed to 100 sq. ft/bed, which would result in a much denser concentration of homeless beds on the subject property. 2) The failure to review the traffic impacts and parking Impacts that have not adequately been addressed as further described in the traffic analysis prepared by Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE, of Keith and Associates, including but not limited to: a) Significant increase in commercial square feet and uses; and, b) Increase in the number of residents, adding more personnel and administrative staff; and, c) Parking, loading and trips generated from proposed restaurant, soup kitchen, used vehicle donations and sales. d) Traffic impacts on the Tract "B" 60-foot-wide access easement as recorded and shared with the adjoining Point at Naples residential development. 3) The failure to review the Health, Safety and Welfare Issues: a) Various code violations have been asserted in relation to vagrancy associated with the existing homeless shelter. These violations have impacted the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. There has been no review of the potential for increased vagrancy impacts as a result of the proposed increase in the number of beds of the existing facility. 2. There has been no operation and maintenance information provided by the applicant that addresses current and potential future vagrancy and property management impacts. b) The applicant should provide similar information in relation to the operation and maintenance of the existing thrift store and used vehicle sales lot at the south end of the proposed CPUD, which would require additional monitoring and maintenance. Part III— Not in Compliance with Collier County PUD Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 (PUD Criteria), 10.02.08 (Rezoning Criteria) and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code (Process), 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. The following provides a review of these evaluation criteria, which illustrates that the application does not comply with the review and evaluation criteria contained in said LDC Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.08, as further addressed herein. A. Section 10.02.13. A. Inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan According to Subsection A. Generally.l. PUD master plan. "The Community Character Plan For 5 1 P a g e Collier County, Florida (April 2001) should be referenced as a guide for development and redevelopment in the PUD district. The Administrative Code shall establish the information to graphically illustrate the development strategy." Findings: While this is a guide that should be referenced for development and redevelopment of a PUD, the application does not include any review of compliance with the Community Character Plan for Collier County, which would otherwise demonstrate that the application is not in compliance with this Plan as further illustrated in Exhibit 2 of this report. B. Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.13. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings Generally: The application is not in compliance with the PUD rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.O2.13.13, as discussed below. Additional supporting documentation for these findings is provided in Exhibit 3. • Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. • Findings criteria (b): No comments. • Findings (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 4. • Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. • Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. • Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. • Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and resultant concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses without 1 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 6 1 P a g e analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. • Findings criteria (h): The application does not provide justification for the deviations requested. C. Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria The LDC requires that the "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: " Findings Generally : The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein. Further documentation in support of these findings is provided in Exhibit S. • Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD, as outlined in this report. • Findings criteria (3) The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. • Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. • Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. • Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for adjacent residential uses to the east. • Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 7 1 P a g e • Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC. There is no indication in the application that such plan has been submitted to the County for this "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities" or "if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities."Z • Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas. • Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. • Findings criteria (11): The applicant attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. • Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelter. There is no justification provided to support this deviation. • Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. • Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. • Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. • Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics, as previously addressed in this report. z See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 8 1 P a g e Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. • Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. 9 1 P a g e EXHIBITS 101 Page EXHIBIT 1 Timeline of Prior Rezonings and Recordation of Approvals The following provides a summary of prior rezoning and recordation relative to the subject property: Tract "A" Total: 2.34 acres Parcel No 390000008. • Glades Unit Two Plat, Lot 1, Block K, Lot 1, DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-21 Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Change of Use, CU 98-24, Resolution 99-87 dated 1.26.1999 • Rezoning to C4 - Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District GTMUD MXT, LDC Ordinance 06-08, dated 02.28.2006 Tract "B" Total: 9.55 acres Parcel No 34840520004. • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • Permitted and Accessory Uses excludes Homeless Shelter • Requires 10% Open Space — 3 Strata Tract "B" (North 5.00 acres— includes LuLu's Diner) • DeVoe PUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 Tract "B" (South 4.55 acres aka Dealership Parcel) • DeVoe Pontiac CPUD No. 97-2, Ordinance 97-14 dated 3.11.1997 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-05, dated 9.11.2020 • PDI - PL 20-201, HEX 20-29 (Scrivener's Error) dated 9.15.2020 Great Blue Drive (60-ft Private Access. Signaee and Landscape Easement • Access, Signage and Landscape Easement Agreement, OR2267, Page 0006 o Non -Exclusive ingress, egress, regress, and access easement o Dated 16 DEC 1996 111 Page EXHIBIT 2 Findings of Inconsistency with the Collier County Community Character Plan The application is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan:' 1. Design... The spaces between buildings are as important as the private realms inside them. Development should be designed so that the architecture and neighborly arrangement impart an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity while making daily life more practical. Findings: The uses proposed for the subject property include heavy commercial uses that do not make daily living more practical. Neither will thrift store uses, restaurant/soup kitchens, thrift store and used vehicular sales, when adjacent to neighborhood residential uses, provide an enduring image of beauty, confidence and societal continuity. 2. Choice... Provide more housing choices in Collier County by reintroducing walkable traditional neighborhood development as a counterbalance to the multitude of gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years. Findings: The application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods. It instead could have an isolating effect on the location of the renovated and expanded shelter at a busy traffic intersection. 3. Balance... Create a balanced road network by improving Collier's principal arterial roads while simultaneously creating a secondary network of smaller roads that link neighborhoods. Findings: The application does not add any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the doubling of heavy commercial uses and 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network and shared access with adjacent residential uses. 4. Connections... Make frequent connections between new neighborhoods and the land around them, and fully integrate them with the secondary street network and with parks and other urban open spaces. Improve existing neighborhoods in the same way. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhoods that surround them. Rather they propose a social service campus that accommodates a homeless shelter that includes homeless beds and heavy commercial uses, and light industrial warehousing. a https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=63126 12 5. Growing smart... All new development approvals should be based on a resilient pattern of streets and lots, because the initial street and lot pattern will long outlast the first generation of buildings and land uses that are placed on them. Findings: The uses proposed in the application do not support a resilient pattern of streets and lots to support a 30% increase of homeless beds and a doubling of high intensity commercial uses. 6. Hold the line... Make much better use of the remaining vacant acreage within the existing urban boundary before allowing new development to creep further into the countryside. Findings: While the proposed development is located in the urban service area, the compatibility of the use cannot be merely supported by its location. 7. Respect environmentally sensitive places... Enhance the character of Collier's more rural and environmentally sensitive places through rural design techniques and further protection of the County's vital natural resources. Findings: The application does not add elements that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places, but rather merely maintains a surface management area that was required under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. 131 Page EXHIBIT 3 Not in Compliance with Subsection 10.02.13.B. of the LDC - Procedures for PUD Zoning Subsection 10.02.13 B requires petitions for rezoning to PUD to comply with the rezoning criteria contained in LDC Section 10.02.08, addressed later in this report, and to be processed in accordance with the following PUD criteria for review, including amendments to PUDs. Findings: The application is not in compliance with the PUD and rezoning criteria as required under LDC Section 10.02.13.13, as discussed below. 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. Findings criteria (a): The physical characteristics of the property are not well suited for expansion of the homeless shelter use and creation of a campus for social service, retail and office uses in relation to the surrounding area, traffic and access and infrastructure. 1. The North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200-feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will all likely result in limited useable space available for development. This would also likely result in a more typical "strip center" configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. 2. This PUD-amendment also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying approved square footage from the existing 64,000sf to a total of 130,000sf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 3. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no interconnectivity or compatibility with the adjacent 141 11age residential uses, but rather serves to isolate and increase the incompatibility of the proposed uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life for adjoining residents. 4. The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 5. The application does not include any improvements that balances the roadway network. Rather the substantial increase in heavy commercial uses (from 64,000 sf t0 130,000 s.f.) and proposed 30% increase in homeless beds only serves to impact the existing roadway network. Potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at Naples apartment community. 6. With respect to the suitability of development in relation to infrastructure, there has been no data provided by the applicant to demonstrate adequacy of services and facilities. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would essentially double the approved amount of existing heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 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 public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. Findings (b): No comments. 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.) 151Page Findings criteria (c): The application is Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan' as illustrated in Exhibit 3. 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. Findings criteria (d): The proposed social service campus uses are incompatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. 1. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples residential apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incapability of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 2. Additionally, the application does not support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Findings: criteria (e) The application does not address compliance with the open space commitments made under the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. a) The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by Policy 6.1.1. of the Conservation Element of the GMP. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Findings criteria (f): There is no phasing of development provided in relation to the proposed PUD to be able to assure the adequacy of available public and private improvements based on the timing or sequence of development. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 4 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021, Collier County Growth Management Plan - Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2021-12, adopted March 9, 2021 161 Page Findings criteria (g): The application contains no analysis to demonstrate the ability of the subject property and the area to accommodate expansion of the homeless shelter use and result in a concentration of homeless shelter and ancillary social services uses without analysis of the impact of such expansion on the surrounding area. 1. The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. 2. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Tract A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (h): The applicant does not provide justification for the deviations requested. 1. The applicant proposes a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. 2. There has been no parking analysis that demonstrates that the amount of parking proposed is sufficient to meet the increase parking demand created by the increase in homeless shelter beds. Rather, the applicant points to the use of administrative parking that is located on Tract B of the Conceptual PUD Master Plan. As such, the applicant attempts to satisfy ancillary parking for the homeless shelter use on Tract B, which currently does not permit homeless shelters either as a primary or accessory use. a) Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, as well as the used vehicle sales have not been evaluated in terms of demand in parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off -site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. 171 Page b) Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. 3. The applicant is also seeking deviation from the County's buffering requirements. a) The property has largely been developed under the existing PUD and C-4 development standards, both of which currently prohibit homeless shelter uses. While buffers have been installed, and mature vegetation exists between the CPUD and The Point at Naples apartment complex located immediately to the east of the PUD, the increased concentration of homeless shelter beds, doubling of ancillary social service commercial uses and deviation from buffer landscaping requirements serve to increase the incompatibility of the proposed development as a result of the increased opportunity for vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 181 Page 191Page EXHIBIT 4 Findings of Inconsistency with Collier County Growth Management Plan Findings: The application is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan: Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 5.4 Findings: The application is inconsistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan in that the application is inconsistent with Policy 5.6, 5.8, 5.10 and provisions for Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Policy 5.6 Findings: The application is not compatible with and does not complement The Point at Naples residential apartments located just east of and abutting the subject property: 1. The uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the PUD-amendment proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Track A and the existing thrift store uses. 2. The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless individuals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to 201 Page adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet throughout the County. 3. Restaurant and soup kitchen uses, and particularly the used vehicle sales area have not been evaluated in terms of increased demand for parking and loading impacts, thus potentially leading to overflow parking and off - site loading impacting the adjacent residential properties. Further, the applicant does not assess or address increased demand for policing to maintain parking, accessible routes and emergency access within this portion of the property. 4. Addition of new training facilities and the increase in the number of homeless beds has also not been properly analyzed for parking impacts resulting from an increase in administrative and staff to support the 30% increase in homeless residents. Policy 5.8: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. Policy 5.8 Findings: The application does not propose an "innovative approach" that would otherwise conserve open space. Additionally, the application proposes to deviate from the buffer requirements of the County's LDC. 1. The application does not include an assessment of consistency with the Future Land Use Element's requirement for implementation of regulations such as minimum open space requirements and native vegetation preservation requirements. 2. The application does not include an assessment as to whether potential mitigation or remediation are required, nor does it address whether preservation strategies are required if the previously identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. The plan as proposed instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. Policy 5.10 Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent 211 11age with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. Policy 5.10 Findings: The application proposes a campus for social services on the "unified properties", that provides for the expansion of homeless beds on Tract A and its support uses onto Tract B, which does not comply with the regulations of the County's LDC for group housing, as follows: 1. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: a) Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. b) Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). c) Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. Policy 5.13: Properties whose zoning has been determined to comply with the former Commercial under Criteria provision of the Future Land Use Element shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. These properties are not subject to the building floor area or traffic impact limitations contained in this former provision. Policy 5.13 Findings: This policy does not permit circumvention or oviscapte the need to demonstrate consistency with all other policies of the County's Future Land Use Element and other elements of the Plan. Further, there is no direct indication that this policy applies to the subject property which has Mixed Use and Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay land use designations. OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: 221 Page The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 Findings: The applicant claims that the application complies with Objective 7 and Policy 7. 1 because it includes internal interconnections and connection to Airport -Pulling Road. However, the context of Objective 7, frames the objective as being supportive of connections that promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adhere to existing development character. The application is inconsistent with all three objectives. It does not promote smart growth planning which otherwise promotes streets that are safe for people walking and bicycling and by protecting open green spaces. The expansion of the homeless shelter and doubling of heavy commercial uses on the land violates these smart growth planning principles. Additionally, the doubling of high intensity commercial uses does not substantiate compliance with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. F. Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Findings: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, none of which lend themselves to uses that would otherwise incentivize the private sector to invest in this urban area, inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Overlay. Additionally, the proposed social service uses do not lend themselves to interconnect with the adjacent residential property in that that the intense social service activates that will result from the proposed uses have no 231 11age interconnectivity with the adjacent residential use, rather serves the increase the incompatibility of the uses as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, with negative results on the quality of life of the nearby residents. 1. Mixed -Use Development: A mix of residential and commercial uses is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed -use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. Mixed Use Development Findings: The social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses or services, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. Findings The application is also inconsistent with the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Elements Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) ntial and Mixed Use Development Coastal High Hazard Area than 2.5 acres 10% it to or greater 2.5 acres 25% Non -Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 5 acres. 10% Equal to or greater than 5 acres and less than 20 acres. 15% Equal to or greater than 20 ac. 25% Policy 6.1.1 Findings: The applicant claims compliance with this policy and these standards; however, the application does not include an assessment of consistency with the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements as required by this policy. s https://www.colliercountvfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/40905/635883137282O70000 241Page Nor does it assess the existing DeVoe Pontiac CPUD's compliance with environmental commitments made part of Ord 97-14. Specifically, Section 4.9 Environmental conditioned approval upon..."shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and retaining 10% of the existing native vegetation on site, by area, in all three strata"... The application does not include an assessment as to whether the potential mitigation and preservation strategies are required if the identified 10% was not maintained or that further enhance Collier's more environmentally sensitive places. It instead maintains a minor surface water retention area required by the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD of 0.29 acres. Nor does the application consider the increase in requirement for native vegetation preservation resulting from an increase in the total site area to 11.89 acres, which requires a 15% minimum per the above objective and policy. 251Page EXHIBIT 5 Not in Compliance with LDC Section 10.02.08 F — Rezoning Criteria Findings: The application is not in compliance with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10,02.08 for rezoning of the subject property as further addressed herein: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Findings criteria (1): The proposed change is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as outlined in this report. 2. The existing land use pattern. Findings criteria (2): The existing land use pattern is not supportive of the rezoning of the properties from C-4 GTMUD-MXD and PUD to CPUD for the following reasons: a. Although the property has been developed under the existing zoning, the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD and the C-4 zoning do not permit the homeless shelter use as of right as proposed under the rezoning. i. The homeless shelter use is not a permitted or conditional use allowed in the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD. ii. Additionally, the homeless shelter use and soup kitchens are uses permitted as of right in the existing C-4 zoning. b. The homeless shelter use being proposed is a "campus for social service, retail and office uses". It should be noted that the application proposes light industrial warehouse and storage uses, as well. c. While the applicant goes through great lengths to distinguish Tract A as a homeless shelter where the beds will be located, the fact is that the thrift store, restaurant warehouse, legal and educational/training uses proposed for Tract B are ancillary to the function of the unified site as part of the homeless shelter campus, which encompasses the following homeless shelter uses: i. Transitional and supportive housing on Tract A. ii. Programs that help support the housing on Tract A through food support, resale of goods on Tract B. (warehouse, restaurant, thrift store, used vehicle sales). iii. Programs that help support individuals housed on Tract A through legal and administrative case management, training and self-help groups. 261 Page d. Additionally, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to be compatible with and complement the adjacent residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to add to the current noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Track A and the existing thrift store uses. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Findings criteria (3) As previously noted, the uses proposed in the application do not lend themselves to fully integrate with the residential neighborhood. Rather the application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Additionally, the social service -oriented uses as proposed do not provide an opportunity for nearby residents to utilize such commercial uses, as would otherwise be provided from a shopping center or similar retail type of development. Nor does the application support pedestrian connections, as a result of the health, safety and welfare issues associated with the homeless shelter and its ancillary uses and activities. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Findings criteria (4): No evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property. To the contrary, the current zoning is C-4 Commercial/ Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and DeVoe Pontiac CPUD contain existing uses that have been approved under the current zoning, as either conditional uses, or as part of the PUD Resolution. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Findings criteria (5): Change in ownership in and of itself does not automatically warrant the proposed amendment as being necessary. The rezoning will in fact result in the ability to change the conditions of development of the subject 271 Page property by expansion of homeless shelter use into an area where such use is currently prohibited. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Findings criteria (6): The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for both the existing homeless group home on Tract A and adjacent residential uses to the east. a) The applicant has requested a significant deviation from meeting the minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A and is providing 15,000 sf versus the 24,000 sf that would otherwise be required for the proposed 150 beds (homeless persons), which is only 63 % of the required minimum. This results in "compact space" accommodations, which has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Indi duals, thus potentially leading to more vagrancy in the area. It also poses a question as to why this specific facility should not be required to adhere to the minimum standards that other similar facilities are required to meet in the County. Additionally, no documentation was provided as to best practices and whether other communities in Florida have adopted such criteria and with what effect. b) The application proposes intensification of homeless beds and further expansion of the social service campus principal and accessory uses that expands the existing homeless shelter to 150-beds and brings the most intense forms of heavy commercial uses including warehousing -distribution, and the reintroduction of the storage, display and sale of used automobile and boat sales activities more appropriate to light industrial zoning. Such concentration of social service uses, and activities have the potential to adversely affect the living conditions of the adjacent residential neighborhood by increasing noise, litter, vagrancy and traffic issues associated already with the existing homeless shelter on Track A and the existing thrift store uses. 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. Findings criteria (7): The applicant's traffic analysis does not adequately address the impacts from traffic resulting from a "doubling" of the commercial sf (from 64,000 sf to 130,000 sf), nor does it address the potential traffic conflicts via the shared access to the newly constructed Lulu's Kitchen restaurant and drive -through facility and The Point at 281 Page Naples apartment community, as further addressed in the traffic analysis prepared by Pramod Choudhary, PE, PTOE of Keith and Associates. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Findings criteria (8): While it is understood that the proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed by the SFWMD, according to Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements of the County's LDC, a "determination of public facility adequacy for drainage facilities shall be granted" or " if the proposed development has a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities.116 There is no indication in the application that such a drainage and water management plan that has been approved by the County Manager or designee as meeting the LOS for capital drainage facilities plan has been submitted to the County for this determination. This is especially disconcerting in light of the fact that the application would allow twice as much heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the unified site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Findings criteria (9): There is insufficient information provided in the application to reach a determination that the proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, as otherwise stated by the applicant. That being said there are some site constraints that lend themselves toward development that could reduce light and air to adjacent areas: a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Tract B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements so that they do not impact the light or air to adjacent properties. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former 6 See Collier County LDC — Section 6.02.04 Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. 291Page dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration, resulting in a concentration of heavy commercial and light industrial uses, both of which could lend themselves to increasing negative impacts on light and air of adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Findings criteria (10): While the applicant claims that the proposed change "should" have no impact on property values in the adjacent area, no such analysis has been provided with the application to support this statement. a) That being said, it should be noted that the proposed change includes the intensification of social service uses and activates with the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which can result in adverse effect on the property values of the adjacent residential development. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Findings criteria 11: The application attempts to concentrate an increased number of homeless center beds, coupled with social service uses that result in a saturation of such uses in this one urban area of the County and expand its ancillary components to provide for restaurant/soup kitchens, used vehicle sales, and thrift store, which would discourage the private sector to invest in improvements to the adjacent residential property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Findings criteria (12): The proposed change grants special privileges to the applicant by seeking to significantly reduce the amount of sf required by the County's LDC for each occupant of a homeless shelters. There is no indication in the application that such waiver of the code requirements has been granted to other group homes in the County. Nor is there any justification provided to support this deviation. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Findings criteria (13): The C-4 zoning and the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD both allow nonresidential commercial uses without the need to rezone the subject property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 301 Page Findings criteria (14): The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of both the neighborhood and the County. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Parcel B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. Actual buildable area would reduce the ability to design improvements that impart beauty, confidence, and societal continuity. b) This application includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) This concentration of site development would not make daily living more practical. It would in fact be contrary to the requirements of the Future Land Use Element at Overview Paragraph "C." Underlying Concepts, Attainment of High -Quality Urban Design, specifically ..."These Architectural and Site development standards include building design, parking lot orientation, pedestrian access, vehicular movement, landscaping and lighting. These standards will provide for quality development that is responsive to the Community's character..." d) Additionally, the application does not provide housing choices that support walkable traditional neighborhoods in that its focus is upon addressing the needs of the homeless and necessary ancillary support services. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Findings criteria (15): While it is true that the applicant "currently" owns all the property included in the application, ownership in and of itself does not warrant the rezoning request. a) There has been no evidence provided in the record that it is "impossible" to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use, without the need to rezone the property or amend and expand the existing PUD, as is proposed for the subject property. Neither has there been any review of the potential to locate elements of the homeless shelter individually without the need to create an aggregation of the uses at this location of the County. 311 Page 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. Findings criteria (16): The applicant did not address the physical constraints of the site, and the degree of site alteration that would be required to make the property usable based on its physical characteristics. a) As previously noted, the North 990-feet of Parcel B is shallow in depth (200- feet) and not amenable to future development that includes a neighborly arrangement of space. Considering required front and rear setbacks, access and drive lanes, accessible pedestrian routes, and required handicap - standard parking spaces will result in limited useable space available for development. This would likely result in a more typical strip center configuration than a neighborly arrangement. b) This application also includes a request to increase homeless shelter related principal and accessory uses supported by an increase in the underlying square footage by 130,OOOsf. Future development would likely be concentrated to the southernmost portion of the parcel, i.e., the former dealership facilities location where the depth widens to a more useful 330x660-feet configuration. c) Such physical constraints to the site would result in significant alterations to the existing structures, parking and water management system to support the proposed development. 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 [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended. Findings criteria (17): The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the statement that there are no "anticipated" public faculties deficiencies that impact the site as a result of the proposed change. This is in violation of Section 10.02.07- Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy of the County's LDC, which requires a review of potential impacts or demands on public facilities as may be necessary to serve the proposed development prior to approval of any development order that is subject to concurrency regulations, including in this case potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage. 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. 321 Page Findings criteria (18): The proposed change includes the intensification and aggregation of homeless shelter related social service uses that have the potential to exacerbate impacts on the adjacent residential use as a result of vagrancy, traffic, noise, litter and the like, which does not otherwise protect the public health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residential development. Additionally, the requested change represents a significant deviation from meeting the existing minimum standards for homeless shelter beds for Tract A that results in "compact space" accommodations for the homeless individuals. This has the potential to discourage the use of the facility by homeless Individuals, thus having the potential to lead to more vagrancy in the area. Approval would not protect the health, safety and welfare of either the homeless individuals or the adjacent residential community. 331 Page Exhibit H Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 EXCERPT TRANSCRI PT CF THE IVEETI NG CF THE CCL L I ER COUNTY PLANNI NG CCIVM SSI CN Napl es, FI or i da Decerrber 2, 2021 Agenda I t em PL20210000176 - St . Nbt t hen! s House LET I T BE REIVEIVBERED, t hat t he Col I i er Count y PI anni ng Comm ssi on, i n and f or t he Count y of Col I i er , having conducted business her ei n, net on t hi s dat e at 9: 00 a. m , i n REGULAR SESSI CN i n Bui I di ng " F" of t he Cover nnent Corrpl ex, East Napl es, FI or i da, wi t h t he f of I owi ng n-errber s present : Ed wi n Fryer, Ch a i r rra n Kar en Horn ak, Vi ce Chai r Kar I Fry Joe Schmi t t ( pr esent when i ndi cat ed) Paul Shea Tom East man, Col I i er Count y School Boar d Repr esent at i ve ABSENT: Robert L. KI uci k, J r . Chr i st opher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bel I ows, Zoni ng IVbnager M ke Bosi , PI anni ng and Zoni ng Di r ect or Jef f r ey KI at zkow, Count y At t or ney Hei di Asht on- Ci cko, IVhnagi ng Assi st ant Count y At t or ney U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ( The f of I owi ng i s t he r equest ed excer pt of proceedings.) CHAI RNAN FRYER The second rrat ter corn ng before us today is PL20210000176. I t' s t he St . Nbt t he\A/ s House CPUD. AI I those wi shi ng to testify i n this matter, please rise to be sworn i n by the court reporter. ( The speakers wer e dui y swor n and i ndi cat ed i n the of f i r mat i ve. ) CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Ex part e di scl osur es f r om t he PI anni ng Comi ssi on st ar t i ng wi t h Nf• . East man, please. NR. EASTNWN: No disclosures. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: St of f mat er i al s onl y. COMM SSI CNER FRY: St of f rrat er i al s, publ i c record only. CHAI RNAN FRYER Let' s see. I made a si t e vi si t t o St . lVbt t he\n! s. I had com-runi cat i ons wi t h and rrat er i al s from st off , and si ni I ar I y with the appl i cant , merrber s of t he publ i c. AI so, I ' ve r evi ewed t he publ i c code enf or cement r ecor ds per t ai ni ng to this property. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Can I a rre n d m n e? I di d rake a staff visit - - a site visit as wet I . CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 2 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Vi ce Chai r. COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: I spoke t o Nt. Yovanovi ch. CHAI RNAN FRYER AI I r i g ht . VW I I begin with t he appl i cant' s pr esent at i on. ". Yovanovi ch, you' re on. MR YC\/ANC\/I CH: Thank you. Good rro r n i n g . For t he r ecor d, Ri ch Yovanovi ch. Do you want rre t o st art even t hough t he Count y At t or ney' s chai r i s errpt y at t hi s poi nt ? CHAI RNAN FRYER VC I , I et ' s wait. But M i I e we're waiting, I et ' s talk about your traffic consul t ant . MR YOVANOVI CH: Yes. As I talked t o t h e Chai r, Ji m Banks, our traffic consultant, is - - he said I could t el I this on the record. He previously had colon cancer, and he's having issues ever since the surgery for t hat . Sornet i rues he has f I ar e- ups t hat rrakes i t very uncorrf or t abl e f or hi m So he' s goi ng t o - - wi t h your i ndul gence, woul d appear by phone and on Zoom because he just, candi dl y, doesn' t f eel wel I enough to be here i n person. CHAI RNAN FRYER I under stand corrpl et el y, and I don't t hi nk there wi 1 1 be any obj ect i on f r om t he U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 3 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PI anni ng ConTi ssi on -- COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: No. CHAI RN/AN FRYER - - f or t hat t o happen. AI I r i ght . So I et ' s proceed. M::,' YOVANOVI CH: Thank you. As I said, rry name for the record. The i ndi vi dual s who are here i n person that wi I I be di scussi ng t he pet i t i on are Steve Brooder, who' s t he chi of execut i ve of f i cer for St. IVbt t heW s House. St eve' s r i ght t her e; rrysel f ; IVh . Ar nol d, who you' r e f ami I i ar W t h; Frank Feeney i s not goi ng t o make a pr esent at i on but i s her e t o answer any quest i ons you rray have t hat ar e ci vi I engi neer i ng related; and then J i m Banks, after IVh . Arnold, W I I do a brief overview of his TI S. The I ocat i on of t he proper t y i s on t he screen. What we're here t o do is act ual I y consol i dat e t hr ee par cel s of pr oper t y t hat are cur rent I y owned by St . IVbt t hen! s House t hat have t hr ee di f f er ent zoning desi gnat i ons. The most northern piece up her e i s wher e t he cur r ent St . IVbt t hen! s House i s, whi ch i s goi ng to r emai n. That i s zoned C- 4, and i t ' s W t hi n t he over I ay, Bayshor e/ Gat eway Over I ay, and i t has a condi t i onal use. The ni ddl e 4. 5 acr es, r oughl y r i ght her e, i s zoned t he DeVoe U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 4 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUD. And, f i nal I y, t he most sout her n pi ece wher e t he f or rrer deal er shi p was, r i ght her e, i s zoned C- 4. So we' r e coni ng i n t o consol i dat e t he pr oper t i es i nt o one comrer ci al PUD. The essence of t he pet i t i on, and Nt . Ar not d wi I I get into greater det ai I , is to increase the nurrber of horrel ess shel t er beds on t he exi st i ng horrel ess shel t er si t e and, if approved wi t hi n the exi st i ng horrel ess shel t er, f r om 104 beds to 150 beds, and t o est abl i sh wi t hi n t he PUD a maxi rrum of 130, 000 squar e f eet of comrer ci al - r el at ed devel oprrent . Ri ght now t here i s no cap on t he corrrrer ci al - r el at ed devel oprrent . I t' s what ever you can f i t on t he t vvo G 4 par cel s you can have as long as you meet t he devel opment st andar ds. C- 4 hei ght i s 75 f eet . ". Arnold wi I I expl ai n in greater det ai I t hat we' r e r educi ng t hat t o 50 f eet . So t her e ar e some changes t hat ar e bei ng made t hr ough t hi s pet i t i on. CHAI RN/AN FRYER I s t hat zoned or act ual ? NR. YG/ANG/I CH: That is - - that ' s actually -- t hat i s zoned hei ght , and we have an actual height in there as wet I . But r i ght now, as you know, st r ai ght zoni ng di st r i ct s only have zoned height in U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 5 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hem They do not have an act ual hei ght def i ni t i on or I i ni t at i on. What we' r e not her e t o do - - and whi ch was I , t hi nk, rri ss - - I ' m assurri ng you' ve r ead met er i al s f r om U . Pi r es and t he pl anner who pr ovi ded t est i rrDny. We are not here t o al I ow f or the horrel ess shel ter beds to be on Tract B. And, i n fact, if you look at the G 4 zoning district al I owabl a uses, t he G 4 zoni ng di st r i ct rrakes i t cl ear t hat group housi ng excl udes horrel ess shel ter beds. So we' ve never asked f or t he abi I i t y t o put horrel ess shel ter beds on Tract B. A have agreed t o say i t nor e cl ear I y by put t i ng anot her expr ess pr ohi bi t i on f or horrel ess shel t er beds on Tract B, but we' ve never asked f or horrel ess shel t er beds on Tr act B. VM are - - ". Brooder is goi ng t o come up and expl ai n t o you t he vi si on f or St . IVbt t hen! s House. They do nor e t han j ust pr ovi de a horrel ess shel t er. He wi I I expl ai n how t he horrel ess shel t er wor ks, because I t hi nk t here rray be some ni sconcept i ons out t here about how t he horrel ess shel t er act ual I y wor ks. Ter rrs I i ke " we' r e goi ng t o i ncr ease vagrancy" i s not a f act , because t he homel ess shel t er t akes great care i n rraki ng sure bot h t hose U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 6 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 who need t he ser vi ces ar a saf e but t he sur r oundi ng conmani t y i s saf e. And I ' m goi ng to have ". Brooder come up and expl ai n i n det ai I how t hat wor ks, how t hey do t hat , t hei r goal f or t hi s campus, and t hen ". Ar nol d wi I I come up and pr ovi de hi s pl anni ng test i rrDny, and of t er t hat ". Banks wi I I pr ovi de some t r ansport at i on t est i mony. IVR. BROODER Good mar ni ng. I ' m St eve Brooder, St . IVbt t he\n! s House CEO I wanted t o gi ve some background, as Ri ch said, and be able to answer any questions. For over 34 years now, St . IVbt t he\A/ s House has been focused on serving people experiencing horrel essness, hunger, and addi ct i on. That ' s our f ocus. That' s what we do. That ' s our mi ssi on. And t oday, we oper at e t he onl y t wo hor el ess shelters in Col I i er County. The f ocus of t oday' s meet i ng i s t he Campbel I Lodge in Naples wi t h 104 beds, and we also have the I nTmkal ee Fri endshi p House i n I nTmkal ee wi t h 44 beds. Bot h shel t er s ar e oper at ed ver y much i n t he same way, and I ' I l describe that a little more. Cur Napl es shel t er was bui I t i n 1994 and underwent ext ens ve renovat i on i n t he past f ew U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 7 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year s. V\hi I e we wer e const r ai ned by t he condi t i onal use t o t he number of beds and ai r condi t i oned space, we wer e abl e t o cr eat e n-or e of f i ci ent space during the renovation and add non-ai r condi t i oned space, whi ch i s a rwl t i pur pose space. Now we' r e abl e t o make t hi s appl i cat i on t o i ncr ease our capaci t y t o 104 beds wi t hi n t he exi st i ng f oot pr i nt . Today our cur rent wai t I i st dai I y i s aver agi ng 50 to 60 people. Now, t hat ' s a nix, and it varies every day bet ween men and women and nnrrs wi t h ki ds. VV t h t he r enovat i on we act ual I y i ncr eased our abi I i t y to serve nroms with chi I dr en by creating rror e secure apart Trent s f or t hem V\6 have a very ext ensi ve i nt ake process when f of ks corre to us. They're drug screened. There's a dai I y Breathalyzer. A also do a thorough background check. So we have r ul es. A don' t al low cer t ai n offenders i nt o the shelter. This rrakes our shel t er s, bot h of t heat what we cal I hi gh- bar r i er shel t er s. You may be f ani I i ar with t he t er rrs " wet shel t er, " " darrp shel t er, " " I ow bar r i er . " Curs is a high barrier in the sense that t her e' s no dr ugs, no al cohol i s al I owed, no di sr upt i on i s al I owed. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 8 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 V16 al so, t hr ough t he r enovat i on, wer e abl e t o establish a rruch better cont r of I ed access to the property. So as you visited the property, you saw t he f ence and t he gat es. That ' s t o make bot h t he people i nsi de secure and the popul at i ons i nsi de the f aci I i t y secure. So we separ at e, wi t h a cont r of I ed access, t he rnen f r om t he women f r om t he n-orrs wi t h kids. Anybody can I eave any t i me, but i t ' s a very cont r of I ed access to enter the shelter. V16 also assign a bunk and a locker to everyone t hat comes i n, and of t er i nt ake our goal i s t o pr ovi de i nt ensi ve case management t o everybody t hat we serve. That means everybody has a case file. Everybody meets with a case manager. And t he whol e process i s to get peopl e exper i enci ng horrel essness back on t hei r f eet back t o a nor mat I i f e. VM vi ew t hi s model - - we call it t r ansf or mat i ve r ehabi I i t at i on. I t' s very different from some shelters i n other ci ties where people can I i ne up for a bunk every night . That' s not how we oper at e. So once you're assigned a bunk and a I ocker , you can stay up to 90 days. Ri ght now our t ypi cal stay is about 68 days. Some f of ks st ay I onger . There are except i ons. I f you' r e wor ki ng on t hi ngs U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 9 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hat are very i rrpor t ant get t i ng back t o your r egul ar I i f e, t hen we can ext end t hat 90 days. V6 work with a lot of partners which are i nval uabl e t o t he shel t er oper at i on: Neighborhood Heal t h Cl i ni c, NCH, Davi d Lawr ence Cent er. These are all i nval uabl e partners to us. You pr obabl y heard about t he annual poi nt i n t i rre count . That's one night in January all across t he count r y. Basi cal l y all the coalitions in every count y or ever y rruni ci pal i t y, wi t h vol unt eer s, go out t o seek t o count t he nurrber of homel ess i n t hat rruni ci pal i t y. One ni ght i n January. So i t ' s an est i rrat ed count . And i n Col I i er Count y, t he I at est nurrber s are between 600 and 700 i ndi vi dual s experi enci ng horrel essness. That' s what t hey counted. But i t ' s wi del y r ecogni zed t hat ' s about a t hi r d, t ypi cal I y, as you I ook across t he count r y, of t he act ual nurrber of hornel ess i n any area. I t ' s j ust har d t o f i nd peopl e when t hey don' t want t o be found. So as we get i nt o our t r ansf or rrat i ve r ehabi I i t at i on, we' r e r eal I y f ocused on hel pi ng peopl e f i nd errpl oyrrent , t aki ng car e of rrat t er s t hat have affected their abi I i t y to find a home, and get back to a nor rral life. And part of t hat i s we have U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 10 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t r ansi t i onal housi ng. VIb oper at e V\61 f e Apart ment s. So f of ks that are doing well can transition to apart rrent I i vi ng and t hen rrove on f r om t here. But , basi cal I y, our shel ter s can onl y acconTmdat e t hose wi shi ng t o be served, wi shi ng t o i rrpr ove their situation, and are wi I I i ng to come in and abide by the r ul es. So there are many chronic horrel ess on t he st r eet s t hat don't wi sh t o be shel t er ed. IVhny are suf f er i ng wi t h rrient al i I I ness. Anot her pr obl ern of course, wi t h horrel essness i s addi ct i on. I n 2010, when we saw a r evol vi ng door of f of ks com ng i nt o t he shel t er, I eavi ng and t hen corn ng back, addi ct i on was part of t hei r pr obl em So i n 2010 we st ar t ed a men' s r ecover y pr ogr am so t hat peopl e com ng i nt o t he shel t er t hat wer e suf f er i ng f r om addi ct i on coul d rrove r i ght i nt o - - be referred to our recovery program and in 2013 we started our women' s pr ogr am So t hat ' s wor ked ver y wel I t o t r ansi t ion peopl e f r om t he st at e of homel essness when t hey' r e i n addi ct i on i nt o recovery. Our county drug court has been a great part ner i n referring people to the shelter to avoid i ncar cer at i on, and we' ve wor ked ver y cl osel y wi t h the drug court. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 11 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I ment i oned our t hr ee core m ssi on i t ems, and hunger i s f orerrDst i n t hat . That' s how St . IVbt t hen! s House began those 34 years ago was feeding hungry people. And t hen CCNI D came al ong i n IVbr ch and Apr i I of 2020 and had a huge i rrpact on our f ood assi stance pr ogr am So we met the chal I enge to date. A have delivered over 270,000 rreal boxes t o peopl e suf f er i ng f r om f ood i nsecur i t y at 12 different di st r i but i on sites. These are mai nl y our church part ner s. And we wor k t oget her wi t h our f ood bank part ner s, Harry Chapin and M dwest Food Bank and i ndi vi dual donors and cont r i but or s t o pr ovi de t hat f ood. V\6 now have a 10, 000- squar e- f oot war ehouse t hat di dn' t exi st pr e- COVI D, but t hat ' s t o ser ve our f ood and emergency assistance in the county. VM acqui red t he DeVoe proper t y, I t hi nk Richard rrent i oned, in 2013 with the help of a generous donor, and we' ve mai nt ai ned and i rrpr oved t hat proper t y over t hese years. Thi s acqui si t i on r eal I y al I owed us to expand i n this area to meet t he gr owi ng needs of our ser vi ces and t o oper at e one of our thrift st or es. V\b have si x t hr i f t stores. V\b oper at e t hose as soci al enter pr i ses that provide job t r ai ni ng for U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 12 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f of ks that are in our shelters and in our programs, and t hey pr ovi de t he revenue t o hel p f and t he pr ogr arcs. A oper at e of her soci al ent er pr i ses. Lul u' s Ki t chen i s t he newest on Tract B. That' s an 8, 000- squar e- f oot f aci I i t y t hat was bui I t gr ound up f or our pur pose, and t hat ' s a gr eat f aci I i t y. If you haven' t vi si t ed t he Fr esh St ar t Caf e at Lul u' s Ki t chen, I woul d encourage you t o do t hat because it benefits the ni ssi on. The whole bui I di ng is to serve t he ni ssi on. As a soci al enter pr i se, we oper at e t he Fresh St art Caf e and Del i ci ous by Desi gn Cat er i ng, but we al so cr eat e al I of our ni ssi on meal s; t hose are al I t he n-eal s t hat go t o al I of our carrpuses and of her cent er s, assi st ed I i vi ng centers, senior centers, every day. And, I ast I y, we oper at e a cul i nar y t r ai ni ng cent er i nsi de Lul u' s Ki t chen. So f of ks that are in our shel t er or i n our pr ogr arcs can get t hat cul i nary t r ai ni ng t o t hen Trove on t o j obs i n hospital i t y. The of her soci al ent er pr i ses we oper at e, I n-ent i oned we oper at e Del i ci ous by Desi gn Cater i ng. A also operate the Port LaBel I e I nn i n Hendry Count y as a f ul I hot el wi t h meet i ng r ooms, meet i ng space. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 13 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So all of these are i nt egr al parts of our ni ssi on, and i t' s real I y about ser vi ng peopl e, meeting the - - i t ' s a growing need. And so we' r e t here t o expand and del i ver ser vi ces as best we can. So we' r e r equest i ng t he hel p t oday t o cont i nue to serve, real I y, t he n-ost vul ner abl e i n Col I i er County. Thank you. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Con-ni ssi oner Fry. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: V\byne, i f you don' t ni nd, I want ed t o ask " . Brooder a f ew quest i ons. IVR. ARNCL D: Cf course. COMA SSI CNER FRY: ". Brooder , t hank you f or t hat over vi ew, and I appr eci at e i t . Sorre quest i ons j ust i n r eadi ng some of t he opposition to this and just i n bet t er under st andi ng your ni ssi on. Under what ci r currst ances are rrorm and chi I dr en accepted? Is it gener al I y a hunger? I s-- it j ust - - NR. BROODER Into the shelter? COMA SSI CNER FRY: Yes. NR. BROODER They' r e exper i enci ng U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 14 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 homelessness. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Hormel essness? IVR. BROODER So they're living in cars with r el at i ves, and t hey have nowher e el se t o t ur n. The shocki ng part of t hat wai t I i st every day i s t he rrorrs wi t h ki ds t hat have nowher e t o go. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Is that a si gni f i cant port i on of that wai t I i st ? IVR BROODER I t var i es every day, but i t can be as many as 10 n-orrs, and r i ght now we' re f ul I . COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. So one of the devi at i ons is to reduce the square footage per occupant f r om 150, as i n t he codes, t o 100. You n-ent i oned t hat you can bui I d - - you can grow f r om 104 to 150 in the same foot print . So expl ai n t o us why t hat r educt i on i s sensi bl e, and I guess part of t hat is why the 150-foot I i rri t at i on t hat ' s i n the codes i s not appl i cabl e. IVR. BROODER Yes. A' ve been very successful with the space t o date, but then with the r enovat i on we real i zed t hat , when it was bui I t in ' 94, t her e wer e a lot of i nef f i ci ent ut i I i zat i ons of the space. So bei ng cr eat i ve, we wor ked wi t h a consul t ant out of California that only works on desi gn of horrel ess shel t er s, and we wer e abl e to U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 15 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t ake a I ook at t he space dedi cat ed t o of f i ces and of her areas and dorm space and act ual I y carve out nor e bed space i n t he exi st i ng f oot pr i nt . CCM\A SSI CNER FRY: So no need t o - - t he of her opt i on woul d have been, I t hi nk, t o add t o t he square f oot age, rrai nt ai n t he 150, and j ust bui I d a bi gger f oot pr i nt , but you deci ded t hat i t was det r i ment al t o t he r esi dent s t o have a srral I er f oot pr i nt ? Is the current facility 150 square f eet , or is it -- is it 100 square feet already? MR ARNCL D: I f I rri g h t. I' m V\by n e Ar n o l d, cer t i f i ed pl anner wi t h Q Grady M nor & Associ at es, and I' I I t r y t o answer t hat quest i on. VW t h t hei r r enovat i ons, t hey j ust rreet t he st andar d f or t he 104 beds t hat t hey have, and as St eve rrent i oned, t hey' ve r ecapt ur ed space. And not to n-ent i on the fact that if you've toured the f aci I i t y, they no I onger have t he St . IVbt t hen! s House or gani zat i onal busi ness of f i ces t her e. Those are above t he t hr i f t store on the south end of t hi s property. So t hey have space that they can r ecapt ur e. And t he st andar d t hat we asked f or - - essent i al I y, t he bui I di ng t oday i s about 15, 000 square feet. Cur idea was, I et' s keep it in the same f oot pr i nt as t hey di d when t hey added t he 20 U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 16 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beds back in 1999. The idea was, we can keep the f oot pr i nt t he same, have I ess i rrpact t o any of our neighbors by doing t hat . So t he st andar d we' ve written is a real l y si rrpl e opportunity to get 150 beds in about 15,000 square feet. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. Thank you. Next quest i on, i t was i nt ended f or M. Brooder, i f he' s abl e to corre back up. ". Brooder, what i s your vi si on f or t he 130, 000 square f eet of conTmr ci al t hat ' s been requested? I n t he opposi ng I et t er i t rrent i oned t hat 64, 000. That was not rrent i oned by Nt. Yovanovi ch, but t hey seem t o i rrpl y t hat i t grew f r om 64, 000 t o 130, 000 i n t he appl i cat i on, whi ch appears t o be a doubt i ng of t hat f oot age. I t' s general C- 4 uses in a lot of cases. So I guess rry quest i on i s, what i s your vi si on f or i t ? Why do you need general G 4 versus just some specific uses t hat ar e corrpl errent ar y t o your ni ssi on? NR. BROODER Yes. As Ri ch was going through the different tracts, i t ' s - - we have been t al ki ng f or a nurrber of years t o cl can i t up, t o get i t under one zoning desi gnat i on. In fact, the I i ne bet ween t he PUD and t he C- 4 desi gnat i on t o t he sout h r uns r i ght t hr ough par t of t he bui I di ng, t he U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 17 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of d DeVoe deal er shi p. So t hi s woul d cl can i t up. I don' t - - I don' t know i f t hat 64, 000 nurrieer i s r i ght , because when you I ook at t he deal er shi p, second f I oor, , t he war ehouse space we have, and t hen we j ust added 8,000 square feet. Sol t hi nk i t' s n-ur e - - exi st i ng squar e f oot age i s rror e t han t hat . The only i mredi at e pl an t hat we woul d have f or any comrer ci al expansi on i s t o pot ent i al I y add t wo bays to our warehouse, and we've been di scussi ng t hi s. So t hat ' s at the furthest south portion of t he proper t y. Our warehouse space was the old service -- were t he of d ser vi ce bays f or t he DeVoe deal er shi p. And as we' ve gr own to now have si x st ores, i t woul d be benef i ci al t o have t wo ext r a bays. But we have no i mediate ate plans to do t hat . A don' t have bi ds for it or anyt hi ng at this poi nt . Some of t he of her st r uct ur es on t he pr oper t y, t he anci I I ar y war ehouse space i s qui t o of d. I t' s met al , super st r uct ur e, and pot ent i al I y i n t he f ut ur e we coul d see i rrpr ovi ng t hat . But t here are no i mredi at e pl ans beyond t hat . CCNM SSI CNER FRY: And there are - - i t doesn' t sound I i ke t here are any pl ans f or general f or - pr of i t conTmr ci al uses on t he pr oper t y. I t ' s U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 18 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 al I corrpl en-ent ar y uses t o - - MR BROODER The ni ssi on. COMA SSI CNER FRY: - - St . IVbt t he\A1 s House? MR BROODER Yes. COMA SSI CNER FRY: I t hi nk t hat ' s all I have. Thank you very rruch f or t he cl ar i f i cat i ons. MR BROODER Thank you. CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Ct her quest i ons bef ore t he appl i cant cont i nues? ( No response.) CHAI RN/AN FRYER M. Ar n o I d. M:. ARNCLD: Thank you. Agai n, V\hyne Ar nol d. I' ma certified planner with Q Grady M nor & Associ at es. And I ' m goi ng to run you through a few of the sl i des. You know, we' ve t al ked al ready about the zoni ng on t he proper t y, and I ' ve hi ghl i ght ed sort of t he t hr ee di st i nct areas. So going from nor t h to south, on the north is considered Tract Ain our proposed PUD. I t ' s currently zoned C- 4, part of t he ni xed- use over I ay f or t he CRA. The ni ddl e pi ece i s what i s known as the DeVoe Pont i ac CPUD, and t hat al I ows a var i et y of G 3 t ype uses as well as auto deal er shi p and t hi ngs of t hat nature, speci f i cal I y pr ohi bits horrel ess shelters in U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 19 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i t s t oday ver si on. CHAI RNAN FRYER I n t hat CPUD, i s t here act u a l and a zoned hei ght I i ni t at i on? IVR. ARNCLD: I t does not have an actual and zoned hei ght I i ni t at i on. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ck a y . NR. ARNCLD: And t he sout her n bl ue pi ece t hat ' s hi ghl i ght ed - - and you can see what Nt . Brooder ment i oned - - the zoning I i ne goes through a portion of t he bui I di ng. So a t hr i f t st ore' s not t echni cal I y al I owed i n t he C- 3 DeVoe PUD t hat al I ows C- 3 t ype uses. So that portion -- and St eve can cor r ect rre. I haven' t been i n t he bui I di ng f or a whi I e, but i t was oper at ed as a caf e, a I i t t I e, srral I St ar bucks caf e, because t hat was a per ni t t ed use i n t he DeVoe PUD. So i t' s a quirky scenario. You know, t hat or i gi nal DeVoe bui I di ng goes back i nt o f he ear I y 1970s when i t became an aut o deal er shi p, and i t grew. The DeVoe PUD gr ew out of the need for the DeVoe deal er shi p to expand. And those of us who've been around long enough know t hat t hat was t he used car I of f or t he DeVoe sal es I of f or rrany, rrany years. And t hen, of cour se, St . IVbt t hew! s House came U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 20 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 al ong i n t he ni d 1980s and was an 84- bed f aci I i t y and then grew into the 104- bed f aci I i t y with a condi t i onal use. So unt i I , I t hi nk i t mast have been 1991- i sh t i rre f r arre, maybe I at e 1980s, G 4 per rri t t ed hon-el ess shel t er s by r i ght i n the G 4 zoning di strict , and it subsequently changed to require a conditional use for soup ki t chens and horrel ess shel ter s. So t he 20- bed expansi on was r equi red t o go through the conditional use process. And the ni nut es are very short. I t was appr oved unani n-ousl y by t he Board at t hat t i rre. And the idea was let us ut i I i ze t he existing footprint that we have. A don' t need t o expand our bui I di ng t o do t hat . And I don't know the history of t hi s cal cul at i on with regard to the 1,500 square feet pl us 150 square f eet per person f or t hose over seven. I don' t know Mer e t hat came f r om I don' t t hi nk anybody on cur rent st of f knows. I was at t he county i n 1990 t hr ough 1998, and I have no i dea wher e t hat st andar d carve f r om, but i t' s been i n your code f or sorre t i me. But we' ve done sorre research. A don' t f i nd anyt hi ng t hat woul d pr ohi bi t us f r om a bui I di ng code or fire code st andpoi nt to ut i I i ze that U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 21 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard. Ri ch has done some research, and ni I i t ar y bar r acks ar e, I i ke, 73 squar e f eet per person. ALFs have various standards depending on wher e you I ook, but t hose st andar ds can r ange f r om 75 to 90 square feet per person as a gui del i ne for desi gn purposes. So wee t hi nk t hat t he 100 square f eet wee' ve asked f or, i t j ust makes t hat a real I y si rrpl e oppor t uni t y f or us t o come i n and rrake t hat st andar d wor k and I et t hem r ecapt ur e some of t hese spaces that they've renovated and no longer have the need for other than for bed space, because t here' s such a demand f or i t. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Co rrrri s s i o n e r Fry. COMA SSI CNER FRY: I don' t necessar i I y need t o i nt err upt you, V\hyne. I j ust was si gnal i ng t hat I have quest i ons maybe at an appr opr i at e poi nt . NR. ARNCL D: Ck ay . Sure. So one of t he of her hi ghl i ght s here, and I don' t t hi nk i t was brought out i n t he opposi t i on I et t er , but t hi s property is i n the Activity Center No. 16. Al I of the property is, with the exception of t he Tract A, whi ch i s t he horrel ess shel t er, , and i t' s reflected on both of these. The one shows a cl oser ver si on, and t he one on t he r i ght shows t he U. S. Legal Support I wow. usl egal support . com 22 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entirety of the activity center boundary. So i t ' s i n an activity center. You know, under the Corrpr ehensi ve PI an, we can seek al nest any comrer ci al or I i ght i ndust r i al use t hat i s deerred t o be corrpat i bl e. Knowi ng t hat t hi s has been I ar gel y used f or a car I of and a horrel ess shel t er f or t he I ast 25- pl us years, we honest I y don' t t hi nk we' r e changi ng t he dynani c of what' s goi ng on around us. W r e si rrpI y rraki ng t hi s a consol i dat ed PUD wi t h consi st ent devel opment st andar ds. I t ' s easy for all of us t o under st and what t he r ul es ar e, and i t wi I I be easi er f or our nei ghbor s t o under st and what t he rules areas wel I . Some of t he sur r oundi ng uses. The Poi nt at Napl es Apart rrent s are our most i mredi at e nei ghbor to the east. They have an access easement across a por t i on of our pr oper t y t hat ser ves as t hei r onl y f or m of access t o t he apart rrent corrpl ex. I t hi nk t here are about 290 uni t s t hat have been const r uct ed. They' r e t wo- and t hr ee- st or y uni t s. Our property is out I i ned in yel I ow on that page. The government center is a very close pr oxi mat e use t o us. And t hen, of course, Home Depot i s our nearest nei ghbor on t hi s si de of U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 23 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ai r por t Road acr oss C3 ades Boul evar d. And, you know, to talk a little bit about corrpat i bi I i t y. And I know ". Brooder sai d they don' t have i mredi at e pl ans f or bui I di ng some of t he of her f aci I i t i es, but gi ven t he I ocat i on and adj acency t o t he gover nrrent cent er , we t hi nk t hat there are a whole series of pot ent i al uses t hat St . IVbt t he\n! s House may use t o suppl ement al t hei r of her soci al ser vi ce i ssues t hat t hey' r e deal i ng wi t h, and t hat coul d be I easi ng out of f i ce space. They coul d bui I d an of f i ce bui I di ng, f or i nst ance, and we know t hat t hat can f i t . They could tear down the existing thrift store bui I di ng that was t he deal er shi p and make a t rue of f i ce bui I di ng out of i t and capt ur e nnr e space and t hen, rror e i rrpor t ant I y, r at her t han I easi ng 10, 000 squar e f eet or more for food storage offsite, there's an oppor t uni t y t o bui I d I egi t i mat e war ehousi ng here for t hem t o do it on site, and it woul dn' t be a food di st r i but i on center I i ke I know t hat - - Nt. Horn ak, i n your conver sat i on wi t h NA. Yovanovi ch, i t was whet her t hi s i s a pl ace Mere people are going to I i ne up for a ni I e with hundreds of cars and get a f ood di st r i but i on, and t hat ' s not t he case. As ". Brooder rrent i oned, U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 24 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hey do t hat t hr ough t hei r connect i on wi t h of her churches t hat t hey serve. So you' I I see on t he news i n t he n-Dr ni ng, when they're having these di st r i but i ons, it wi I I be at t he Fi r st Bapt i st Church campus or t he Pr esbyt er i an Church campus or some of her church campus t hat t hey have an of f i l i at i on wi t h t hat can accomrodat e t he large vol urres of peopl e who, unf or t unat el y, need t he f ood ser vi ce. So those are some i deas of how we can get to t he square f oot age. And as i t ' s been said, there is no I irritation today. And, you know, we obvi ousl y di d a t r of f i c anal ysi s, and we I ooked at Mat woul d be a maxi rrum f oot pr i nt t hat we coul d f i t here I egi t i mat el y, keepi ng i n rri nd t hat we' ve shrunk the two G 4 pieces from 75 feet down to 50 f eet . So t hose woul d pr obabl y support three-story office bui I di ngs. V\b know i n the Ci t y of Napl es t hey have a 42- f oot hei ght I i rri t . You can bui I d a three-story office bui I di ng and 42 feet if you choose to do so. So 50 f eet was our est abl i shed hei ght . I t was consi st ent wi t h C- 3 and t he m ddl e pi ece t hat was DeVoe PUD. And we can f i t t he 130, 000 square f eet in son-e form You know, we' ve I ooked at can we f i t U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 25 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an of f i ce bui I di ng of , you know, 10, 000 square f eet per f I oor and do a 30, 000 square f oot of f i ce bui I di ng t hat coul d be I eased t o t hei r part ner s, t o at t or neys who want t o be cl ose t o t he gover nrrent cent er and t he court s, or t o any of her vi abl e busi ness t hat' s al I owed under C-4. So t hat' s why i t' s i rrpor t ant for t hem t o have other uses i n the I ong run here, Nt. Fry. The existing site plan, this is the Tract A. Thi s is the shelter bui I di ng itself. And in orange i s hi ghl i ght ed ever yt hi ng t hat ' s cur r ent I y under r oof t oday. And the area i n the little northeast corner of the site t hat you can see with the shadi ng, t hat i s a - - i t ' s an unencl osed screen room And, you know, t hey coul d r ecapt ur e t hat space, f or i nst ance, by wal I i ng i t i n and get t i ng t he square f oot age t o t he square f oot age t hat woul d support our cal cul at i on of 100 square f eet per person. And, again, not changing the over al I footprint of the bui I di ng. One of t he of her changes t hat was r ecent I y rrade - - and you probably saw in your backup, we went t hr ough - - CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: V\byne, I ' m sor r y. I wi I I i nt er r upt , just because it's t i n-el y. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 26 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR ARNCL D: Ck a y . CCNM SSI CNER FRY: So you showed t he gray ar ea. You're going to r ecl ai m t hat . You're going to convert it to air conditioned space. Nf• . Brooder ment i oned bunks, and I ' m cur i ous, does each r esi dent have t hei r own room W t h a bunk i n it, or i s i t a bunk r oorr9 NR. ARNCL D: I t' s a bunk room I t' s -- t he won -en and chi I dr en' s ar eas ar e separ at e r oohs. The men sleep i n the bunk room so there are mal t i pl e cots, if you wi I I , beds for - - CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: I n one I ar ge r oom? NR. ARNCL D: Yes. COMM SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. So woul d the unshaded areas be r econf i gur ed i n any way, or are you si rrpl y maki ng changes to the shaded area? NR. ARNCL D: What we' r e pr oposi ng to do - - and not t o say t hat i t woul d pr ecl ude t hem f r om rraki ng f ut ur e changes, ". Fr y, but under t he squar e footage cal cul at i on that I' m t r yi ng to show you is we' r e I i ni t i ng our set ves t o 150 beds maxi marry and t hat woul d equat e t o 15, 000 square f eet ni ni rrum that I need t o do t hat . That area still wi I I have di ni ng space f or t hem The meal s are not pr epar ed on si t e anyn-or e. They' re prepared at Lul u' s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 27 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ki t chen next door , and t hey' r e br ought over f or f eedi ng t here. As I sai d, t he adni ni st rat i ve of f i ces have been - - except f or t he r esi dent s who - - t he r esi dent adni ni st r at i ve peopl e who ar e t her e f or t he shel t er pur poses onl y, t he adni ni st r at i ve business offices are all located at the t hr i f t st ore bui I di ng on t he second f I oor. . So t her e ar e spaces that are no longer needed to serve the over al I adni ni st r at i ve f unct i ons f or St . IVbt t he\n! s House as an or gani zat i on. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So you can add the r errai ni ng bunk beds i n t hat ar ea t hat' s shaded, and t hat ' s the plan? IVR. ARNCL D: That ' s t he p l an. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Just t o - - okay. So -- okay. So you woul d not necessar i I y have to change t he I ayout of t he existing bui I di ng in order to rreet t he obj ect i ve. W ARNCLD: Cor r ect . And j ust to t hat , if you go t hr ough t he mat h and cal cul at e what we woul d need t o sat i sf y 150, 000 [ si c] peopl e by t he f or rrul a t hat ' s i n the code today, i t ' s about 24,000 feet. So i f you deny t he devi at i on, i t woul d r equi r e St . Nbt t hew! s House, t o get t o t hei r 150 beds, t o U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 28 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 modi f y t hat f oot pr i nt t o i ncr ease i t by about 10,000 square feet. And it's possi bl e to do t hat . I t' s just not the ideal situation for a charity t hat ' s t r yi ng to help of her s. They'd I i ke t o do i t in the least costly way t hat t hey can and st i I I be the good neighbor t hat t hey' ve proven to be. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Thank you. IVR. ARNCLD: Thi s was t he exi st i ng mast er pl an and, agai n, hi ghl i ght s t he f act t hat we' ve got a bui I di ng t hat over hangs t wo di f f er ent zoni ng di st r i ct s. Thi s was t he mast er pl an t hat was or i gi nal I y created, oddly enough, for the DeVoe PUD, f or t he ni ddl e pi ece, but i t showed t he existing dealership on i t . And t here was some conf usi on over t he years t hat t hi s was how bi g t he DeVoe PUD was. I t was never a 10- acre PUD. It was al ways about a f our - and- a- hat f -acre PUD, but over t i rre peopl e sort of t hought t hat t he DeVoe deal er shi p was one - - i t was one parcel under t he tax r ecor ds, but i t was never consol i dated zoni ng. So i n our proposed mast er pl an, we show a Tract A, whi ch i s t he horrel ess shel t er. And as Ri ch rrent i oned, i f we need to expr essl y pr ohi bi t the shelter to be on Tract B, we're happy t o do t hat . And, I i kewi se, I rrent i oned t he war ehousi ng U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 29 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 use. A' ve added t hat as a per ni t t ed use, t he r of r i ger at ed war ehousi ng. And i f we need to make t hat an accessor y use onl y, we' r e happy t o do t hat as wel I i f t hat al I evi at es some of t he concer n f r om our nei ghbor i ng pr oper t y owner s. And on t hi s pl an, j ust nor t h of t he sout her n Tr act B, you see a box, and t hat box r epr esent s an area wher e we t hi nk we coul d f i t a smal I of f i ce bui I di ng in the future that could house ei t her truly the adni ni st r at i ve offices for St. Mat t he\n! s House or some of her busi ness f unct i on t hat' s a per ni t t ed use under G 4. So t hese ar e our per ni t t ed uses. And as I sai d, t he onl y pl ace t hat t he horrel ess shel t er i s per ni t t ed is on Tract A. And as Ri ch rrent i oned i n hi s openi ng r errar ks, you can' t get - - and I t hi nk t her e was some r epr esent at i on f r om t he opposi t i on' s expert t hat somehow we were al I owi ng t he homel ess shel t er t o be t hr oughout Tr act B. But if you go t o t he - - and I ' m sure Nt . Bel I ows or Nt. Gundl ach can of f i r m t hi s, but if you look at the G 4 per ni t t ed uses, i t does al I ow cer t ai n soci al ser vi ces, but i t speci f i cal I y excludes horrel ess shelters and soup kitchens. Those are only found as conditional uses. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 30 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER VW t h respect to the pr i nci pal uses on Tract A, you ci t e SI C Code 8322. Are you want i ng al I of t hose uses? IVR ARNCLD: ". Fryer, in our brief conver sat i on yest er day, you rrent i oned t hat t o us, and I t hi nk t here are cer t ai n uses t hat we can cer t ai nl y gi ve up. And I can - - when we move on t o anot her expert , I can sort of maybe j of down some of those uses. You Trent i oned par of e of f i ce and, I t hi nk, probation offices - - ( Si rrul t aneous cr osst al k. ) NR ARNCLD: - - refugee services. And those ar e uses we can cer t ai nl y expr essl y pr ohi bi t i n t hat I i st of uses. CHAI RN14N FRYER So y o u' I I give us a list bef ore we del i ber ate? NR. ARNCL D: Yes, I wi I I. You al so n-e n t i oned I egal counsel ser vi ces t o us, and t hat ' s one of t he 9000s, and i t al I ows f or Publ i c Def ender CF f i ces and t hi ngs I i ke t hat . I ' m not sure that we need t hose, but i t' s I arger I egal counsel t ype f aci I i t i es. I' m not sure if there's a concern there or not. CHAI RNWN FRYER I t wa s n' t - - rry concern was not wi t h publ i c def ender . It was with parole and U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 31 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pr obat i on of f i ces. Now, I real i ze t hat across t he st r eet t he count y has such an of f i ce - - NR. ARNCL D: Ri g h t . CHAI RNAN FRYER - - but I don' t see why you would need one as wet I . NR. ARNCL D: I think we wo u I d agree with that. CCIVNI SSI CNER SHEA: Qj es t i o n . CHAI RNAN FRYER Go ahead, Comri ssi oner. . CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Just so I under st and - - I ' m not sure that I do - - if you expanded the footprint to stay at 100 square foot per bed, you could proceed wi t hout any - - any appl i cation, any process - - NR. ARNCL D: No. CCNNI SSI CNER SHEA: -- f r o m us or -- NZ ARNCL D: I would - - if we weren't going t hr ough the PUD process, I woul d be corn ng bef ore you f or a condi t i onal use change, and t hat woul d be to i ncr ease t he beds. Right now i t' s I i ni t ed to 104. So I woul d, ei t her by condi t i onal use or t hi s PUD vehi cl e, get t o t he 150. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Ck a y . CHAI RNAN FRYER No of her quest i ons f r om up here, so please continue. NR. ARNCL D: Ck ay . And we' v e t al k e d a I of U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 32 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about the devi at i on on group housing and the need f or t hat . One of her devi at i on t hat we r equest ed was at t he request of your I andscape r evi ew person. When t hi s pr of ect was bui I t , your code di d not r equi r e a buf f er bet men corrrrer ci al uses. So t here i s no buf f er on our sout her n boundar y bet men our rrost i mredi ate comrer ci al use. So st of f asked us to write a devi at i on t hat , i n the f or m of r edevel oprrent of t he si t e, i f we deci de t o r aze portions of it that affect the southern property I i ne, t hat we woul d put back i n a buf f er t o code, so t hat ' s what t hat devi at i on pur port s t o do. So we added t hat as a devi at i on. And I woul d say, j ust f r om t he st andpoi nt of over al I corrpat i bi l i t y t hat , in rry opi ni on, we' r e not changi ng t he r el at i onshi p to our nei ghbor s. And I know t hat t hey' ve raised several issues, but t he reality is, t here is no cap on our square f oot age. If you t el I us no t o the PUD, St. IVbt t hen! s House wi I I find away to continue t o operate under i t s exi st i ng zoni ng. They rray have t o come back to you for a conditional use regarding t he beds. And t hat' s not i deal , obvi ousl y, because t hey do have t he need t oday f or t hi s, and I t hi nk t hey' ve proven over t i rre t o be very good neighbors, U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 33 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I don' t know t hat you' r e goi ng to f i nd i nTmdi at e nei ghbor s f r om t he G ades com-mni t y here, f or i nst ance, whi ch, back i n t he day, was of great concern. And I t hi nk t hey' ve gr own t o be good neighbors W t h them And the other t hi ng I would say is you're I ooki ng at a site t hat ' s, I i t er al I y, 100 percent developed. I rrean, i t ' s been a comrer ci al si t e now for years. And t he apart ment corrpl ex devel oped of t er t he si t e was devel oped f or a car deal er shi p, and t he cur r ent owner shi p of The Poi nt Apar t rrent s acqui red t hei r proper t y of t er t he horrel ess shel t er was t here. So I ' m not changi ng rry f oot pr i nt , or I ' m pr oposi ng t o not change rry f oot pr i nt f or t he horrel ess shel t er. I ' m pr oposi ng t o I over ny hei ght s. And I ' m aski ng f or uses t hat are al ready per ni t t ed t her e t oday. And f r om a traffic st andpoi nt , I know Banks is here to talk about t hat . But knowi ng t hat t he car deal er shi p i s not oper at i ng t here, I mean, t hi nk about i f you' r e concer ned about t he t r of f i c goi ng i nt o f he apar t rrent corrpl ex and I' m t r yi ng to offload 18 Wheel er s f ul I of car s. I can' t t hi nk of anyt hi ng t hat ' s pr obabl y n-Dr e i ncorrpat i bl e f r om a use st andpoi nt t han havi ng t o U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 34 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deal wi t h t hat because, you know, we are awar e of t hat , and I t hi nk when you I ook at - - not t o st eal M- . Banks' t hunder , but i f you I ook at t hat t r of f i c anal ysi s, he concl udes t hat t her e' s onl y 12 p. m peak hour change f r om t he si t uat i on t hat we have t oday as opposed t o t he 130, 000 square f eet t hat we' re aski ng f or wi t h t he i ncr eased horrel ess shel t er . And I know t hat t her e was some concer n over the horrel ess shel t er , whet her or not an assi st ed I i vi ng facility was the appropriate t hi ng to use, and I ' I I let Nr . Banks get into that . I ' m not going to go through all of the criteria, the f i ndi ngs. You have 18 or so of those cr i t er i a. I i dent i f i ed t hose i n ny appl i cat i on. St of f has analyzed those as part of their staff r epor t . I ' m 100 percent conf i dent we' r e cons i st ent wi t h your Corrpr ehensi ve PI an. Thi s i sn' t subj ect t o a comruni t y char act er pl an. This is subject to the Col I i er County Gr owt h IVbnagerrent PI an. Vt' r e I ar gel y i n the activity center. Al I t he uses we' r e pr oposi ng are al I owed. The corrpat i bi I i t y and t he r el at i onshi p t o our nei ghbor s i s r emai ni ng as i t has been. I t ' s not an i ncorrpat i bl e r el at i onshi p. You have other U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 35 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 com-rer ci al uses t hat coul d be t here, coul d be mach n-Dr e, I t hi nk, i nappr opr i at e t han what we coul d have i n t he si t uat i on we have t oday. So I' m happy t o cont i nue t o answer quest i ons, or i f you want t o have U . Banks do a br i of description of the traffic anal ysi s, we can do that. CHAI RNAN FRYER I have a couple of questions for hi M if t hat' s all right. Ch, and Comi ssi oner Fry' s al so si gnal i ng. COMA SSI CNER FRY: I have a couple nnr e for you, V\Ayne. NR. ARNCL D: Ck ay . COMA SSI CNER FRY: You ment i oned a St ar bucks on the portion that is not zoned. I t ' s part of the ver t i cal part of Tract B. VW I I t hat be - - i s t hat st i I I a St ar bucks? VW I I t hat be re -purposed now once the zoning is unified and become part of the thrift -- NR ARNCLD: Nf• . Brooder's nodding his head yes. COMM SSI CNER FRY: - - become part of t he t hr i f t store then at that poi nt ? NR. ARNCL D: Yes. COMM SSI CNER FRY: Speak to what coul d be done U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 36 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 today without this appl i cation in terms of commer ci al devel oprrent on t he DeVoe part of t he par cel . NR ARNCLD: On t he DeVoe par cel t hat ' s zoned PUD i n the mi ddl e, i t al I ows f or C- 3 uses as wel I as new and used aut orrubi I e sales and some other uses. I t speci f i cal I y pr ohi bi i s t hi s horrel ess shel t er , whi ch we' r e cont i nui ng t o pr ohi bi t t oday. On the C-4 piece, t hat' s where the thrift st or e has been const r uct ed and t he admi ni st r at i ve of f i ces ar e I ocat ed, you coul d r ecapt ur e t hat as an aut on -obi I e deal er shi p. I t ' s al I owed under t he C- 4 use. Any of t he C- 4 uses woul d be per mi t t ed t her e. I coul d carve i t up i nt o t hr ee out parcel s and put i n fast-food restaurants. I coul d do a I of of t hi ngs t hat woul d maybe not gener at e squar e f oot age, but t hey cer t ai nl y gener at e t r i ps. So al I t he under I yi ng zoni ng st ays t he same. This is part of the overlay. The over I ay al I ows different uses. They don't use SIC codes. They use some, you know, mor e gener al t er ms f or uses. But t he PUD t hat we have woul d pr evai I anyway, as does t he C- 4. You can el ect t o use al I t he under I yi ng zoning, or you can elect to go into the overlay. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 37 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Let me r ephr ase i t sl i ght I y and j ust under t he assurrpt i on t hat t he St . Nbt t hen! s House W I I cont i nue t he oper at i ons as are currently on the foot print . What coul d you add in that -- in that ni ddl e, the ver t i cal section in t er rrs of, could you bui I d an office bui I di ng, a three- or four-story office bui I di ng today that you are cont errpl at i ng f or t he f ut ur e under t he rezone. NR. ARNCLD: So t hi s i s our proposed mast er pl an. And on Tract B, the first Tract B des gnat i on t hat ' s out I i ned, t hat r oughl y i s wher e Lul u' s Ki t chen i s I ocat ed and t he caf e t hat exi st s t hat was r ecent I y bui I t . Sout h of Great Heron Dr i ve i s a smal I r ect angul ar area - - square area. That' s wher e we t hi nk an office bui I di ng would fit and wfher e one ni ght want t o be assuni ng t hat St . Nbt t heW s House on t he sout h end woul d i ncr ease i t s war ehouse space, adni ni st rat i ve f unct i on space, t hr i f t st or e, per haps, or what ever of her soci al enterprises they have. You' I I not i ce t hat we added the ability to sell used boats and cars because t hey do have donat i ons f or t hose i t errs t o t he t hr i f t st or e, and t hey obvi oust y want t o cont i nue t o sel I t hose i t ems. So t hat' s why t hat was added as a pot ent i al use. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 38 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: But t hat oper at i on of t he used cars and boat s vvoul d onl y be i n support of t he St . IVbt t hen! s House ni ssi on, not a r et ai I I of that -- and you're wi I l i ng to st i pul ate that in t he - - NR. ARNCL D: 1/\6 can st i pul at e t hat , yes. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Thank you. NR. ARNCL D: " . Yovanovi ch j ust poi nt ed out t hat I ni sspoke on t he DeVoe PUD. I t al I ows G 2 pl us uses not C- 3. 1 just wanted to correct the record on t hat . CCMVI SSI CNER FRY: Bei ng - - and t hat bei ng t he ni ddl e - - the ver t i cal sect i on, t he cent r al sect i on? MR ARNCL D: Yes, s i r . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: The nar row sect i on? MR ARNCL D: Yes. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Is the office bui I di ng st i I I al I owed? W ARNCL D: I t' s st i 1 1 a1 1 owed as a p e r ni t t e d use i n G 2, yes. COMA SSI CNER FRY: So you could bui I d that of f i ce bui I di ng t oday wi t hout corn ng bef or e us? W ARNCL D: A c o u l d. CHAI RNAN FRYER Any of her quest i ons or U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 39 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 com-rent s f r om up here? ( No response.) CHAI RN/AN FRYER Does t he appl i cant have anyt hi ng further at this t i me? NR YCVANCVI CH: I just want t o see i f Jim Banks is on t he I i ne. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ch, good, yeah. NR YC\/ANC\/I CH: Jim you there? NR BANKS: Yes, I am Good n-or ni ng. I don' t know if you can hear rre. IVR YC\/ANC\/I CH: Yeah, vUe' re good. V\6 c a n hear you. V\b can hear you. CHAI RN/AN FRYER V6 can hear you, Nr . Banks, and best wi shes for a speedy recovery. Thank you f or part i ci pat i ng r ennt el y. NR BANKS: And I want t o t a k e a normn t j u s t t o t hank t he PI anni ng Corn-ri ssi on f or al I owi ng rre t o part i ci pat e vi deo. I never know when I ' m goi ng t o have these events happen. And i t st ar t ed yest er day and kept me up al I ni ght I ast ni ght . So I do appreciate you al I owi ng rre to participate in t hi s manner . CHAI RN14N FRYER V6 wi sh you a speedy recovery. NR. BANKS: Thank you very much. U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 40 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER I have a quest i on or t wo, unl ess you want t o make a pr el i ni nar y st at errent , Nt. Banks. IVR. BANKS: Why don' t you ask your quest i ons, and t hen maybe we can go f r om t here. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ckay. Fi r st of al I , the concer n t hat I had i s anal ogi zi ng t o an assi st ed I i vi ng facil i ty. I r eal i ze t her e i s no di r ect anal ogy t o be set ect ed f r om t he TI S codes that you use. But when I t hi nk of an ALF, I t hi nk of a pl ace wher e peopl e - - sort of t hei r t er ni nal habi t at . That ' s wher e t hey' r e goi ng t o go I i ve out the r errai ni ng years of their life W t hout necessar i I y bei ng out and about i n t he cormruni t y t r yi ng to find work. And, so t o me, t he ALF anal ogy i s, I t hi nk, not as appr opr i at e as, f or i nst ance, an adul t daycar e center woul d be. For the rrost part, if I under st and cor r ect I y, at St . IVbt t hen! s you have people coning and going during the day to receive f ood and t o r ecei ve of her ser vi ces. Some people spend t he ni ght t her e, but f or t he most part peopl e are out of t here by t he cl ose of busi ness. I r eal i ze t hat some ar e pedest r i ans and some r i de bi kes. Some t ake publ i c t r ansi t. But t here U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 41 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ar e, undoubt edl y, peopl e who get dr i ven i n a pr i vat el y owned vehi cl e. And t o rre, t hat set s up a di st i nct i on bet ween what St . IVbt t he\A1 s i s pr oposi ng and what you woul d expect f r om an ALF. Do you have a comment on t hat , si r ? IVR. BANKS: I do, and I appr eci at e t he quest i on. When we wer e I ooki ng at what we t hought was a good r epr esent at i ve I and use by I TE, we consi der ed how t he ALF and t he horriel ess shel t er oper at e and function in some of their si ni I ar i t i es. And I' l l br i of I y t ouch upon t hose. For one, both require staff to help the needs of t hose t hat are t here. The ALF, however, requires rruch nnr e st of f t han what a horrel ess shelter does because of the dai I y care needs required for el der I y f of ks. You' ve got rredi cal needs. You' ve got comron - - t hi ngs t hat we t ake f or gr ant ed t oday, j ust get t i ng up and t aki ng a shower , what ever . Typi cal I y at the ALF, there's a rruch rror e at t ent i ve and hi gher I evel of service by st of f t han what ' s necessary at t he homel ess shel t er . So t he ALF gener at es mach mor e t r of f i c f r om t he st of f st andpoi nt t han what t he hon-el ess shel t er U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 42 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does. Also, both f aci I i t i es have food delivered to t hei r I ocat i on. They prepare the food, and they serve t he food to those that are st ayi ng at the ALF as wel I as t he horrel ess shel t er . But i n t hi s case, some of the f of ks that are t here at t he hon-el ess shel t er act ual I y assi st wi t h t he meal servi ngs and cleanup and t hat t ype of t hi ng. So an ALF requires all staff for all the cooking and all the cl eani ng and all the - - and therefore [si c] . So in that respect it also r equi r es rror e st of f i n an ALF t han does a horrel ess shel t er . Now, wi t h r espect t o t he f of ks at t he horrel ess shel t er , I bel i eve, when I spoke wi t h t he oper at or of St . IVbt t he\n/ s, he has expl ai ned t o me t hat on average, about 10 percent of the people that vi si t the shelter act ual I y have aut on -obi I es, and most wal k and r i de bi kes. And I t hi nk we' ve al I been on Ai r port Road, and we' ve seen some of t hose f of ks wal ki ng and r i di ng bi kes goi ng i n and out of t he horrel ess shel t er. And al though at an ALF obvi ousl y the owner shi p of aut on -obi I es i s rruch I ower, , t hey al so have f ani I y and f r i ends t hat cone vi si t on a dai I y basi s, and U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 43 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know, check up on t hose t hat are st ayi ng at t he el der I y. So we t hi nk t hat t hat pr et t y rruch of f set s t he f act t hat some of t he horrel ess peopl e have aut on -obi I es but , yet , t her e' s f ani I y and f r i ends that drive to and f r om t he ALF. And so, agai n, we subrri t t ed t hi s - - we pr epar ed t he Tr of f i c I rrpact St at ement rnet hodol ogy, and we out I i ned t hi s i n t he r epor t, and we subni t t ed i t to your staff, and they r evi ewed i t, and t hey agr eed t hat i t was a r epr esent at i ve I and use for est i rrat i ng si ni I ar annunt s of t r of f i c derrands. Agai n, t hey don' t - - t hey don' t f unct i on i dent i cal t o one anot her , but t hei r pat t er ns and t he way t hey oper at e does have some si ni I ar i t i es. And I al so woul d I i ke t o poi nt out t hat t he ALF - - i f we woul d have j ust went out and di d a survey of what i s gener at ed t oday at St . IVbt t hen! s House, try to correlate that with the i ncr ease, I don' t bel i eve t hat woul d be as accur at e as t he ALF because that would have only been a one -day survey. The ALF in I TE had nine survey sites for the a. m peak hour and ni ne survey si t es f or t he p. m peak hour, and t he average nurrber of beds at t he ALFs t hat wer e surveyed by I TE was 123. So some of the ALFs had rror e than 123 beds. Some have I ess. So U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 44 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hat ' s right around where we are. So we j ust ( uni nt el I i gi bl e) as rrysel f and your st of f agreed t hat t hat ALF woul d be o f ai r I y good r epr esent at i on of t he arrount of traffic generated. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ck a y . Did you - - we I I , let me r ephr ase i t . I t' s rry under st andi ng t hat one of t he ser vi ces t hat St . IVbt t hen! s per f or rrs i s i t f aci I i t at es f of ks get t i ng j obs. And so rry quest i on is, is part of f aci l i t at i on dr i vi ng people to pot ent i al j ob I ocat i ons? NR. BANKS: I would— - all I could say is, Nf• . Fryer, is that we base it on the ALF t r of f i c pat t er ns. VM di d not - - we di d not , you know, ni cr oanal ysi s t hat t ype of ( uni nt el I i gi bl e) t hat ni ght occur f r om t he horrel ess shel ter. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Al I r i g h t. A' I I hear from t he CEO who - - NR. BANKS: The answer t o your quest i on i s, no, we di d not consi der t hat . NR BROODER V\b do oper at e t wo vans, passenger vans, f or appoi nt n-ent s t hat t he f of ks f r om t he shel t er have. That coul d be to Car eer Sour ce or of her j ob sear ch oppor t uni t i es. Nbki ng di f f er ent appoi nt ment s over at Nei ghbor hood Heal t h CI i ni c, so t hat ' s how t hose are hand) ed wi t h U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 45 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t he t r ansport van. That i s parked i n t he adj acent parking lot in Tract B. CHAI RN/AN FRYER About how rrany t i mes per day woul d such a van i ngr ess or egr ess t o t he pr oper t y? NR BROODER I t var i es every day. I woul d say t her e' s pr obabl y t wo t r i ps per day per van - - CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ckay. NR BROODER - - on average. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. Corrrri ssi oner Fry. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ji m - - Ji m Banks, t hese ar e for you. NR. BANKS: Yes. COMM SSI CNER FRY: I n your ALF corrpar i son - and I under st and, I mean, t he corrpar i sons you' r e rraki ng, t he concl usi ons you' re dr awi ng make sense t o rre on one I evel . I guess one level where they don' t necessar i I y, you ment i oned t he average ALF i s 123 beds. They're asking for 150 beds. So t hat ' s roughly 20 percent less or about 23, 24 percent mor e t han t he ALF - - t he subj ect aver age ALF. So woul d you not , t hen, have t o add 23, 24 percent t o t he t r of f i c count s t o ar r i ve at a r easonabl e nurrber for this f aci I i t y? NR. BANKS: Yes, i t' s i n the -- i t' s i n t h e U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 46 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corrput at i ons. Because we have the additional beds and t he t r i ps ar e based on t he number of beds, i t' s a I i near equat i on. So i f you i ncr ease t he nurrber of beds, you' r e goi ng t o gener at a rror e t r of f i c, and t hat ' s what we di d. COMM SSI CNER FRY: So you di d f act or i n 150, okay. MR BANKS: That ' s c o r r e c t. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Speak t o - - one of the concer ns of t he nei ghbor s was t he i rrpact on, I t hi nk i t ' s cal I ed Great Blue Drive, just in terms of t he r edef i ned use of t hi s. You' ve got an of f i ce bui I di ng t hat t hey' r e cont errpl at i ng r i ght besi de t he - - you know, r i ght besi de Gr eat BI ue Dr i ve, and the residents that access their property through Great Blue Drive are concerned that the traffic on t hat r oad wi I I become rror e congest ed. Can you speak t o t hat , pl ease. MR BANKS: Yes. As it relates t o t h e i ncr ease i n t he number of beds, 44 [ si c] beds, t he a. m peak hour, t he addi t i onal t r i ps t hat we expect to be generated wi I I be nine two-way trips. That ' s, you know, a I of rror e t han - - one every 45 seconds. That' s t wo ways. Then i n t he p. m peak hour, it was 12 additional trips. And we - - not U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 47 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all of the trips wi I I come in and out on that segrrent of road. Ther e' s of her poi nt s of access onto Ai r port - Pul I i ng Road as wel I as Davi s Road [ si c] to the north. So t her e ar e of her means of i ngr ess and egr ess i nt o t he si t e, so we' r e not expect i ng t hat t hose addi t i onal t r i ps gener at ed f r om t he i ncr eased nurrber of beds wi I I al I use t hat sout her n rout e. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: But you did factor i n t he pot ent i al traffic from 130,000 square feet of corn-ner ci al , cor r ect ? IVR. BANKS: I di d f or I ooki ng at t he adj acent I i nks. And t he onl y reason t hat we di d t hat i s, as I under st and i t , we' r e not aski ng - - we' r e not pr oposi ng t oday t o raze t he si t e and bui I d 130, 000 square feet, but i t ' s the pot ent i al that it could happen. And so I coul d at t wo - - I I ooked at two scenarios. I I ooked at t he addi t i onal t r of f i c that would be generated by the 44 beds. V\6 analyzed its i rrpact on t he adj acent roads and f ound t hat t her e i s adequat e capaci t y on t hose adj acent roads to acconTmdat e the 44 beds, and then we al so did the hypot het i cal anal ysi s t hat we woul d - - t hat t he site would be razed. There woul d be 130, 000 square U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 48 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f eet of m xed com-rer ci al use bui I t , pl us t he 150 beds f or t he horrel ess shel t er, , and t hen what woul d i t s i apact be on t he adj acent r oad, and t her e was st i I I adequat e capaci t y t o accomrodat e t hat t ype of i nt ense devel oprrent whi ch, agai n, i t ' s not bei ng requested here today. And t o anot her poi nt - - because I do know t hat there was a rrerro where somebody suggested that rraybe t he t r of f i c count s t hat we used wer e dur i ng CCNI D, and maybe we shout d be t r yi ng t o f act or t hem up t o f ut ur e condi t i ons because of t he possi bl e r educt i on i n t r of f i c on t hese adj acent r oads dur i ng t he hei ght of t he COVI D I ockdowns or not - - rraybe not I ockdowns. I t' s not a good word, but t he pr of ocol t hat t ook pl ace at t he t i rre. As i t t urns out, the 2021 AUI R report act ual I y reflects that t here i s a decrease i n t he arrount of t r of f i c on t hose adj acent roads in 2021. So t here was act ual I y rror e t r of f i c on our adj acent roads i n 2020 t han t here was i n 2021 except f or one I i nk of Ai r port Road, whi ch i s 10 addi t i onal t r i ps, whi ch i s negl i gi bl e. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. I t hi nk t hat ' s Segment 6 of Ai r port , and I bet i eve we' ve had t est i rrony i n pr evi ous hear i ngs t hat , br oadl y U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 49 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 st at ed, t hat i s on account of CG/I D. V\6ul d you disagree with that? NR. BANKS: I t hi nk - - I t hi nk t hat the 2020 vol urres and 2021 vol umes ref I ect what was goi ng on wi t h CCNI D, yes. CHAI RIVAN FRYER AI I r i ght . The Tr act B, how rrany - - how rrany square feet are developed on Tr act B? I made a si t e vi si t , and I ' ve seen some of t he anci I I ar y uses accessory to the main use of St . IVbt t he\A/ s, but I was not abl e t o est i mat e t he square feet of t hose i rrpr overnent s. Are you abl e t o do t hat , Nr . Banks? NR. BANKS: I t hi nk V\hyne would probably have a bet t er idea of that - - CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ckay. NR YCNANCNI CH: They wh i s p e r e d i n rry ear t hat i t ' s 56, 000 squar e f eet t hat - - appr oxi mat el y 56, 000 squar e f eet t hat exi st t her e t oday wi t h Lul u' s and t he exi st i ng bui I di ngs. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ckay. So 54,000 square feet i s bei ng used now, and you' r e aski ng for a maxi rrum of 130,000 square feet. And I have not heard a suf f i ci ent expl gnat i on as t o why you woul d need al I t hat mach. NR. YCNANCNI CH: The answer t o your quest i on U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 50 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is right now t he nurrber i s-- there is no cap, okay. A have C- 4 zoned pr oper t y. \A6 have C- 2 pl us zoned proper t y. And we don' t know what our future wi I I be. So we di d a r easonabl e I ayout on the property to figure out what could fit on the pr oper t y, and we cane up wi t h 130, 000 squar e f eet . Anot her f act or i s, we' r e r equi r ed now t o do t r i p caps as part of PUDs, so we had t o have a r easonabl e nurrber of square f eet t hat we t hought we could fit on the site for purposes of the trip cap, and t hat ' s wher e t he 130, 000 came f or war d. Right now we don't t hi nk we're going to hit t he 130- , but we don' t know, and we t hought t hat was a r easonabl e an-Dunt of square f eet t hat coul d f i t on t hi s proper t y based upon I ayi ng out what we t hought we coul d f i t . So t hat ' s wher e t he 130, 000 square f oot came f r om, because we di dn' t want t o have t o come back i n t he f ut ur e and ask f or an i ncr ease i n t he squar o f oot age. CHAI RNAN FRYER I don't think there's a person i n t hi s room who has anyt hi ng of her t han t he ver y hi ghest r egar d f or t he wor k t hat St . IVbt t hen! s does. I t' s an i rrpor t ant asset t o our com-runi t y. That stated, there are outer I i ni t s that it is our r esponsi bi I i t y to respect with regard to the U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 51 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adj of ni ng nei ghbor hoods and t he pot ent i al f or adverse and unintended consequences of what may be being requested. And t he t hi ng t hat concer ns me most i s not what St . lVht t hen' s i s aski ng f or because, f r ankl y, Segment 6 on Ai r por t - Pul I i ng has got a I of of capaci t y I of t. IViy concern is is t hat i f some day a very generous benef act or deci des t o award St. IVht t hew` s a very, very large sum of n-oney and takes that rroney and wants to find a site t hat' s two or three times the size of this and i t ' s going to sell the property, and the property, as you're pr oposi ng, woul d be zoned CPUD W t h al I kinds of oppor t uni t i es t hat we are al I corrf or t abl e woul d not be expl of t ed by St . IVht t hen! s but m ght we I be exploited by its successor in i nt er est . IVR. YCNANCNI CH: So let's figure out wh a t happens i f you don' t I i ke t he 130, 000 square f eet and you ul t i mat el y vot e no. What ' s t her e t oday? The benefactor comes al ong and deci des we' r e goi ng t o sel I t he si t e. I don' t t hi nk t hat ' s ever goi ng t o happen, because I don' t I i ke t he chances of act ual I y get t i ng a homeless shelter approved through the rezoning process anywhere i n Col I i er County. I don' t I i ke U. S. Legal Support I wow. usl egal support . com 52 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rry chances, but I et' s j ust say we f i nd t hat rragi cal site that act ual I y is i n the right I ocat i on to serve t he horrel ess and we can n-ove, so you t el I us no. I have existing G 4 with all the uses al I owed i n G 4 t hat we' r e aski ng f or . No cap on square f oot age. I have exi st i ng G 4 on Tract A uses we' r e asking for; no cap on square footage. I' m act ual I y - - I ' d be 75 feet in height zoned versus t he 50 f eet I' masking for, so I could probably fit nnr e. And then I ' ve got Tract B Mich is G 2 plus at 50 f eet zoned hei ght . So I t hi nk we coul d pr obabl y f i t n-or e t han 130, 000 square f eet i f we r errDved al I t he i of r ast r uct ur e, and you woul d have uses t hat we' r e asking for today under the existing zoning. So if you t el I rre no, we' r e i n t he same pl ace t hat we ar e t oday wi t h no cap on squar e f oot age and t al I er bui I di ngs. Now, that is - - with all due respect t o the opposition, t hat' s what they bought i nt o: G 4 zoni ng on t he horrel ess shel t er pi ece of proper t y wi t h a condi t i onal use; G 4 zoni ng on t he nest sout her n pi ece of pr oper t y whi ch i ncl udes used and new car s and al I t he of her G 4 uses; and G 2 pl us U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 53 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zoni ng i n t he m ddl e pi ece. That person who bui I t t hat apart rrent corrpl ex and t hat person who bought t he apar t ment corrpl ex det er m ned t hey wer e okay wi t h t hose al I owed uses and t hose al I owed hei ght s and t hose pot ent i al i rrpact s t o t hem A t hi nk we' r e doi ng a bet t er j ob f or t hem t han what t he existing zoning does. And t hey knew i t was corrpat i bl e because - - CHAI RNAN FRYER I t hi nk we coul d do bet t er st i I I and st i I I , at I east i n rry personal opi ni on, get al nnst ever yt hi ng t hat St . lVbt t he\n! s want s by rreans of associ at i ng al I of t he comrer ci al uses al I t he way up to your 130, 000 pr ovi ded t hat t hey are accessory to t he uses of St . Nbt t he\n/ s pr i mar y goal or a successor 501(c)(3). NR YCNANCNI CH: So I et me ask what t hat means. Let' s j ust say t hat St . lVbt t he\A/ s House has t he benef act or come al ong, and t hey' r e wi I I i ng t o r epl ace t he Tr act B pi ece, t he Trost sout her n Tract B piece with an office bui I di ng. They want to replace it with an office bui I di ng. Some of t he space woul d be used by St . Nbt t' s, but t he r emai nder of t he space woul d be rent ed t o whoever want s t o r ent t hat space, because i t coul d be a revenue source f or oper at i ng t he ni ssi on. Am I U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 54 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 al I owed to do that? Because those office users are not t here t o support St. Nbt t he\n! s House of her t han by payi ng them rent and, you know, subst i t ut i ng f unds f or t he rri ssi on. I s t hat an al I owed use? CHAI RNAN FRYER I wo u l d g i v e you rro r e t h a n j ust 501( c) 3. 1 would give you public f aci I i t i es PUD because of t he pr oxi ni t y t o t he court house, t o t he of her of f i ces. I t hi nk there would be quite a r obust mar ket f or - - i n t he event of a sal e. But r i ght now what you' r e aski ng f or i s sorret hi ng t hat I could cer t ai nl y vote for if I thought it was al ways goi ng t o be St . Nbt t he\n/ s, because of t he gr eat j ob t hey do, but I don' t want t o see t he door open wi t hout having to corre back here. And people can al ways come back here and ask f or a rezone, and W t h t he advantage of knowi ng what has happened, i n t he f ut ur e t hey coul d ver y wel I gr ant rruch rror e I i ber al uses t han I ' m aski ng f or. NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: So let me flip the question, i f you don' t ni nd. What use t hat we' r e aski ng f or in this PUD i s r ai si ng a concern for t hei r sur r oundi ng comruni t y? Because I can' t t hi nk of a use of her t han t he C- 4 uses we' r e aski ng f or t hat ar a al r eady al I owed on t he pr oper t y and t he f ew additional SIC codes. ni ch one of those U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 55 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 addi t i onal SI C codes i s t r oubl i ng you, U. Chai r, t hat you can' t support t hi s PUD wi t h 130, 000 square foot cap? CHAI RNAN FRYER Niy vi ew of the future is that if this property is sold to a developer that is not f ocusi ng upon or dedi cat ed to comYuni t y servi ce i n t he same very benef i ci al way t hat St . lVbt t he\n/ s i s, t hat t hey woul d have al I t he benef i t s wi t hout any of the restrictions. And t hat I f i nd very t r oubl i ng. NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: And I' m a s k i ng wh i c h uses a r e creating the ul t i mate benef i t f or t hat devel oper who may come al ong i n t he f ut ur e t hat doesn' t already exist with a property t hat ' s in an act i vi t y cent er t hat your Corrpr ehensi ve PI an says we can ask f or up t o C- 5 uses and some I i ght i ndust r i al uses under t he Corrpr ehensi ve PI an, and I ' ve al ready got G 4. CHAI RNAN FRYER Personal I y, I woul d - - I woul d f avor gi vi ng St . Nbt t he\n/ s al I uses, wi t hi n reason, not pr obat i on and parole and not refugee, and there are a f ew of hers - - NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: They' I I c o rre out . CHAI RNAN FRYER - - whi ch you sai d t hey' I I come out , as I ong as t hey ar e accessor y t o t he U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 56 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or gani zat i on' s n-ai n ser vi ce. And I don't care i f i t' s a car wash. If the proceeds are going to go hel p homel ess peopl e, t hat ' s f i ne wi t h me. Now, t hi s i s j ust me personal I y speaki ng. But what I' m of r ai d of is after we're al I gone, and rrerror i es are short , and another kind of a devel oprrent comes i n. Now, granted you' ve got ent i t I en-ent s now, but t hey wer en' t suf f i ci ent f or your purposes or you woul dn' t be here. IVR. YCNANCNI CH: V61 1 , the main reason we' r e her e i s because t he - - t her e ar e some uses t hat we woul d I i ke t o have on t he campus, but one of t he pr i mar y pur poses t hi s al I st ar t ed was t o addr ess t he I ack of horrel ess beds. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Are those uses accessory to t he mai n ni ssi on? NR. YCNANCNI CH: Wh i c h ones? CHAI RN/AN FRYER The ones that you said you woul d I i ke t o have. NR. YOVANOVI CH: The addi t i onal ones t hat are not C- 4? CHAI RN/AN FRYER Yeah. IVR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: So why don't we say - - a r e you okay W t h t hi s? IVR. BROODER Yes. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 57 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. YOVANOVI CH: Why don' t we say ever y t hi ng t hat ' s not C- 4 has to be accessory to St. IVbt t ' s. CHAI RKAN FRYER I can - - I t hi nk I can get to a poi nt of accept i ng t hat . NR. YOVANOVI CH: And we' I I d e l et e, you know, the probation officer, t hi ngs I i ke t hat . CHAI RNAN FRYER I want to c a I I on Comri ssi oner Shea, who' s been si gnal i ng, f or hi m t o speak, and also so that I rmy excuse rrysel f f or a br i of ni nut e. Com-ri ssi oner Shea. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: I' ma little farther behi nd under st andi ng what' s goi ng on. Why woul dn' t you j ust drop your request f or a cap i f t here' s no cap nova/? NR. YOVANOVI CH: That was - - v o u know, t hat' s -- COMM SSI CNER SHEA: Why don' t you j ust drop i t , and t hen we don' t even have t hi s di scussi on? MR YOVANOVI CH: The reason the cap is in there is because I had to have that for the TI S t o establish a trip cap. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Ck a y . MR YOVANOVI CH: I wo u I d love-- I' v e offered t o drop t he cap. I' m wi I l i ng to drop the cap. And U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 58 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know what , we' I I f i t what we f i t, and we' I I meet t he devel oprrent st andar ds. I ' I I be 50 feet zoned hei ght . And I f or get ny act ual hei ght r i ght now, it's bl anki ng on i t . But happy to do t hat and drop the cap. But we're now in the - - we're in the wor I d now wher e we have t o have a t r i p cap, and t hat ' s why we -- I' m happy to drop it. I f st of f i s wi I I i ng to drop it, we' I I drop it. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Just use t he n u rrb e r s f or the trip cap and say t hat' s the basis of your t r i p cap. But I ' m not aski ng f or a cap on t he devel opn-ent . I rrean, does t hat rrake t he TI S useless? NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: If staff -- i f staff is cord or t abl e wi t h you get X t r i ps, peak- hour t r i ps with no trip cap and t hen I ' ve got t o st ay under t he trip cap and it turns out I can only do 90,000 square feet or I can do 170,000 square feet, dependi ng on what t he uses are, I ' m f i ne wi t h t hat . But t hat cap was just t her e - - the cap [ si c] was to establish the t r i p cap. CHAI RNAN FRYER: Co mni s s i o n e r Fry. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So, Ri ch, a coup) e of di f f er ent uses on t he Tract B have been brought up, U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 59 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and a coupl e of t hem wer e addi t i on of war ehouse space and auxi I i ar y r of r i ger at ed war ehouse, t hi s t ype - - st or age bays and t hose t ypes of t hi ngs, and t hose t hi ngs make per f ect sense t o me. They' r e di r ect support of t he St . Nht t he\A/ s House mi ssi on. And t hen you t al k about - - and I t hi nk Chai r man Fryer al I uded t o a car wash; he' d be okay wi t h t hat . You' ve t al ked about an of f i ce bui I di ng, whi ch i s basi cal I y, I t hi nk, a r evenue- gener at i ng i dea - - NR. ARNCL D: Co u l d be. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: - - to r ai se funds for St . Nht t heW s House. Sothis is where I ' m - - if I' m st r uggl i ng with this in any one major area, i t ' s really you're in a - - St. Nht t he n! s House has a - - there's noway this pr obl em i s going to reduce over t i me. The homelessness, the hunger, these t hi ngs, we' r e not - - we' r e not sol vi ng t hese pr obl errs. Ther e ar e rror e and nor e homel ess peopl e. I mean, I can onl y see t hei r mi ssi on i ncr easi ng. So wher e I st r uggl e i s, why not have t he entire footprint reserved for uses that are accessory or di r ect I y support i ve of t he St . Nht t hen! s House mi ssi on, not comer ci al enterprises to raise money I i ke an office bui I di ng, U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 60 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but si rrpl y al I ow t he gr owt h of St . IVbt t hevV s House to utilize that footprint for di r ect I y supporting uses, so - - IVR. YOVANOVI CH: I ' v e got - - CHAI RNAN FRYER That ' s exact I y where I am t oo. IVR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: I' v e got 150 beds i f we g e t approved; t hat ' s rry max. There are of her uses t hat - - f or i nst ance, I coul d go eat at Lul u' s. I t ' s a conTmr ci al vent ur e t hat makes money f or St . IVbt t ' s. I t al so t r ai ns and errpl oys peopl e who come f r om t hat pr ogr am CCIVM SSI CRIER SHEA: Wh i c h - - IVR. YOVANOVI CH: What happens i f we want to expand and have another horrel ess f aci I i t y? A f i nd t hat magi cal space somewher e i n Col I i er Count y t hat I can act ual I y get i t appr oved, but i n or der t o make t he rroney wor k, I need t o bui I d an of f i ce bui I di ng on this site to generate additional revenue so I can bui I d beds sorrewher e else. Because I agree \M t h you; t hi s pr obl erTi s not goi ng away, and I' m sur e Steve wi I I t el I you t hi s pr obl erri s not goi ng away, and t hi s has been - - I used to be on the I mnekal ee Fri endshi p House board way back when bef ore St . IVbt t hev\/ s can-e i n and made U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . com 61 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it a much better facility. Thi s i s a pr obl errs and we need - - and t hey ar e I ooki ng f or oppor t uni t i es. They've got t hr i f t st or es, you know, t hr oughout Col I i er Count y t o raise money. VVhy can't they use this site for pr oper t y t hey al r eady own t o oper at e a vent ur e t hat rray rrake rror e n-Dney? V\hy are you asking to I i ni t uses we can al r eady have on t he pr oper t y? V\b' ve already said any of the additional above G 4 have to be - - have to be accessory to St. Nbt t' s. VVhy are you I i ni t i ng rights they already have to put on t hat proper t y because sorret hi ng may change i n t he f ut ur e and t hey rray want t o r e- pur pose a por t i on of t he proper t y? I don' t under stand why you' r e doi ng it. CHAI RNAN FRYER I ' m not sure that you understand what we' re sayi ng. I would be quit e sat i sf i ed W t h what ever revenues are t o be made on Tr act B bei ng used on any of her St . lVbt t hen! s si t e. I t doesn' t have t o be here. I I i ke - - the ni ssi on of St . lVbt t he\n/ s i s a gr eat one, and i f they could rrake money W t h an of f i ce bui I di ng here and spend it sonewher a else, I' m f i ne with t hat . NR YCNANCNI CH: So as long as St. lVbt t' s i s t he I andl or d, t hey coul d have an of f i ce bui I di ng? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 62 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER Cr anot her 501( c) 3. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: What i f St . IVbt t ' s says, y o u know what , t hi s si t o woul d be per ect t o sel I t o an office developer and - - or the county even, and sai d - - but you're probably going to t el I rre t hat ' s a 501(c) 3. But I et' s just say I W n rrega- rri I I i ons and I want t o bui I d a bui I di ng her e. I want to buy it f r om t hem and I want to bui Id an of f i ce bui I di ng and t hey say, you know what , we can get a I of of money out of Ri ch. He' s f eel i ng pretty generous. Why would you t el I them-- why would you say no to that opportunity? I al ready can do t hat bui I di ng. I can already do that bui I di ng - -CHAI RNAN FRYER I di d n' t say no. IVR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: You did. You said it -- CHAI RNAN FRYER No, I d i d n' t. NR. YOVANOVI CH: -- has to be owned a n d operated by a 501(c) 3, and Ri ch Yovanovi ch is not a 501(c) 3. CHAI RNAN FRYER If you sell the property, a por t i on of Tr act B, and t he pr oceeds go t o a 501(c)3 I i ke St. IVbtthe\n/ s, I' m al I for that. IVR YO\/ANO\/I CH: Al I, you j u s t t o l d rre y o u wer en' t , because you sai d you don' t want rre t o set I this property to a devel oper because t hey want t o U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 63 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r ai se money f or - - t hr ough t he sal e. IVhybe I rri sunder st ood t hat , but - - CHAI RN/AN FRYER AI I , you're not under st andi ng what I ' m sayi ng. IVhybe I ' m not expl ai ni ng it ml I . But I ' m goi ng t o - - I ' m goi ng to withdraw for now, and I know you' I I be back f or r ebut t al , and we can cont i nue t hi s i f appr opr i at e. Any other pl anni ng comrri ssi oner want t o be heard at this time? ( No response.) CHAI RIV14N FRYER Ckay. IVr . Yovanovi ch, do you want t o say anyt hi ng rror e at t hi s t i me? IVR. YOVANOVI CH: No, but , you know, per haps - - wel I , I don' t know i f you want t o keep goi ng and I et whoever' s t he publ i c speak or st of f speak. At some poi nt we woul d I i ke t o be abl e t o talk about j ust - - what we' ve been di scussi ng, and I don' t know i f t hat makes sense or not . CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Al I , cer t ai nl y you' I I be coning back for rebuttal, and we can also use a lunch hour. Vb can f i gur e out a way to get our heads t oget her on t hi s t hat maybe wor ks f or everybody. NR. YOVANOVI CH: So we have not hi ng f u r t her . I t hi nk st of f goes next , so... U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 64 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ck ay . St of f ? W. GUNDLACH: Good rro r n i ng, Co rrrri s s i o n e r s. For the r ecor d, I ' m Nancy Gundl ach, pr i nci pal pl anner wi t h t he zoni ng di vi si on. And st of f i s r ecomTendi ng approval of t he St . Nbt i s pet i t i on. And i f you have any quest i ons, i t woul d be our pl easur e t o answer t hem CHAI RN/AN FRYER Anybody si gnal i ng at t hi s poi nt ? ( No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER Thank you. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: I rrean, I do t hi nk - - CHAI RN/AN FRYER Go ahead. COMA SSI CNER FRY: - - part of what we' re t al ki ng about i s f ul I support f or St . IVbt t hen! s ni ssi on and rraybe concerns about Pandora's box here wher e we open up uni nt ended uses of t he pr oper t y not i n di r ect support of t hei r ni ssi on t hat yi el d addi t i onal t r of f i c, addi t i onal i rrpact s change t he char act er of i t , and t he r el at i onshi p, t he con -pat i bi I i t y wi t h t he nei ghbor hood, and al I t hat . So speak t o st of f ' s anal ysi s of t hat and put us at ease, i f you can, about why you t hi nk t hi s i s a safe appl i cation to approve if you were in our shoes. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 65 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NB. GUNDLACH: Ck a y. Did you want t o a I s o-- KR BOSI : M ke Bosi , Zoni ng di r ect or. And I woul d j ust add a r ecogni t i on. The I and- use ar r angerrent s wi t hi n our count y ul t i mat el y or i gi nat e f r om our Gr owt h Nbnagerrent PI an. And our G- owt h IVbnagerrent PI an ant i ci pat es where we have t he hi ghest i nt ensi t y of uses, and t hen we bl end t hose uses down away f r om t hat i nt ensi t y. This entire facility is within an activity cent er . I t' s wher e we say t he rrost i nt ense uses ar e goi ng t o be f r om our Gr owt h IVbnagement PI an, f r om t he hi ghest r egul at or y document , f r om how we arrange our land use - - our land uses. This pet i t i on pl aces a cap upon son -et hi ng t hat r i ght now i sn' t capped. And t he annunt t hat coul d be devel oped wi t h good engi neer i ng i n t he hei ght I i ni t at i ons t hat are associ at ed at 75 f eet coul d be rruch rror e i nt ense t han 130, 000 square f eet . V6 under st and t he concer n i f a f ut ur e owner woul d occupy t hi s, but i f o f ut ur e owner woul d occupy t hi s and was f of I owi ng t he Gr owt h IVbnagerrent PI an and t he gui dance of t he Gr owt h IVbnagement Plan, a wide variety of C- 4 and C- 5 uses are t hi ngs t hat t he Gr owt h IVbnagen-ent PI an says i s appr opr i at e i n this I ocat i on. And f r om t hat st andpoi nt , we U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 66 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vi ew t hat , t he cappi ng of t he square f oot age t hat' s proposed, as i rrpr overrent f or t he i rrrredi at e nei ghbor s because i t i s goi ng to pl ace a rruch I over t hr eshol d t han what coul d have been ent i t I ed wi t h t he endor serrent of t he Gr owt h IVbnagen-ent PI an, of t he Fut ur e Land Use IVbp. And f r om t hat st andpoi nt , we vi ewed t hese as an i rrpr oven-ent . Now, I under st and t he concer ns t hat t he PI anni ng ComYi ssi on have, but f r om pur el y a st andpoi nt of how our Gr owt h IVbnagerrent PI an arranges I and uses, what ' s cur r ent I y - - what currently exists f r om t he existing zoni ng, t he hei ght I i ni t at i ons t hat ar e associ at ed wi t h t hat zoning, and the i nt ensi t y and the wide range of uses t hat are associ at ed wi t h t hat , we vi ew t hat having more finite I i ni t at i ons how much can fit within this box, so to speak, we t hi nk is an i rrpr oven-ent , and t hat ' s wher e we ul t i mat el y ar r i ved upon our r ecormiendat i on of approval . CCIVIA SSI CNER SHEA: Thank you. That was very hel pf ul . CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. IV6. GUNDLACH: Thank you, M ke. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Anything further for staff? ( No response.) U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 67 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER If not, I et' s talk qui ckl y about our schedule for today. It's about 20 ni nut es of noon. What is goi ng t o be t he W sh of t he PI anni ng ComTi ssi on? CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Do we know how many publ i c speaker s we have on t hi s mat t er ? CHAI RMgN FRYER That ' s a good quest i on. Nf . Youngbl ood, what do we have? M: YCUNGBL OOD: Nf' . Ch a i r man, I do not have any registered public speakers for this item CHAI RMgN FRYER Ckay. CCMVI SSI CNER FRY: What about Nr . Pi r es - - CHAI RNAN FRYER Nf• . Pi r e s, I think. MR PI RES: Yeah. V\6 di dn' t know t hat we had to register as being t he party. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. Al I , you' I I have every oppor t uni t y. How many - - i f you - - whet her you' ve r egi st er ed or not , pl ease r ai se your hand i f you W sh to speak. W PI RES: A W I I si gn everybody up, Nf . Chai r man, i f t hat ' s t he pr of er ence. MP. YOVANOVI CH: I need to address sorret hi ng he j ust said. He j ust sai d he di dn' t t hi nk he had to si gn up because he' s a party. He's not a part y to these proceedings. U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 68 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER A haven't conceded he's a part y. IVR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: But h e j u s t said it o n t h e record. I want to make cl ear he' s not a party to the record, and he should have signed - - he's not a part y t o t he proceedi ng, and he shoul d have si gned up. He can speak because you al ways al I ow peopl e t o speak who don' t si gn up. But I j ust want t he record to reflect he's not a part y. CHAI RIVAN FRYER All, the record wi I I so r of I ect . He' s not . The party i s t he appl i cant and t he county. IVR. PI RES: IVl . Ch a i r man, we wi I I al I s u b mi t speaker slips. CHAI RNAN FRYER A u l d v o u c o rre u D so t hat we can hear you. IVR. PI RES: Tony Pi r es, V\,bodwar d, Pi r es, Lorrbar do, f or t he r ecor d. Good n-or ni ng, al rrost of t er noon - - CHAI RNAN FRYER Good mor ni ng. IVR. PI RES: - - t o t he PI anni ng Comm ssi on. And we were under the i mpr essi on we di d not need to sign up. A wi I I si gn up to speak. V\,b have our t earn A have our presentation. And we wi I I ask f or some consi der at i on of about 45 ni nut es U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 69 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pr esent at i on. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. That' s what we needed t o know. No har M no f oul . VW I I - - NR. PI RES: ". Bosi has a quest i on, I t hi nk. CHAI RNAN FRYER Nf• . Bosi . NR. BCSI : Chai r, I f or got t o r ecogni ze, we did invite ". Eric Short, one of our Code Enf or cement of f i cer s, down her e i n case the issue of Code Enf or cement corrpl ai nt s, i ssues associated with anything related to the var i ous si t es, and I j ust want ed t o make t he PI anni ng Con-ni ssi on aware. I di dn' t know i f t here was any quest i ons i n t hose regards as wel I . CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. So t hose peopl e wi I I be pr epar ed t o speak but won' t necessar i I y do so. NR BOSI : Yeah. They're prepared to address any quest i ons t hat t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on may have. No f or rral pr esent at i on. NR. PI RES: And, ". Chai r man, we have one t r anspor t at i on exper t . Vt woul d ask the Corrrri ssi on' s cons der at i on of al I owi ng hi m t o t est i f y r en-Dt el y and appear r en-Dt el y. He's signed up f or t hat . CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. AI I r i ght . I ' ve noticed that there are two sheriff's deputies i n U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 70 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t he audi ence and woul d I i ke t o know, gent I en -en, ar e you here to testify? SERGEANT KALLENBERG Yes, sir. CHAI RN/AN FRYER You are? M:: YOVANOVI CH: If asked. CHAI RIVAN FRYER Co me on up, s i r, so we c a n hear what you' re sayi ng. SERGEANT KALLENBERG V\h have -- we have a brief - - just a few st at i st i cs that I was asked to pr esent t o you guys j ust about St . IVbt t' s sur r oundi ng ar eas I i ke The Poi nt , Just i n' s PI ace, and Horne Depot . CHAI RN/AN FRYER Okay. Thank you. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: Can we do hi m bef ore we br eak f or I unch so t hey don' t have t o si t around here? CHAI RN/AN FRYER V6 can cer t ai nl y do t hat now, yeah. SERGEANT KALLENBERG I woul d appr eci at e i t . CHAI RN/AN FRYER Are you testifying for t h e appl i cant ? SERGEANT KALLENBERG I ' m j ust here - - I was asked to come here for the Sheriff ' s Office. IVR. BELLMS: For t he r ecor d, ConT i ssi oner, , st of f asked t hei r assi st ance. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 71 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ckay. That' s what I needed to know. Thank you. V)bul d you please i dent i f y yourself, Officer, and then you have the f I oor . SERGEANT KALLENBERO 4 narre i s Ser geant Adam Kal I enber g. I' m cur r ent I y one of the day -shift super vi sor s i n East Napl es. Li ke I sai d, I was asked to come here and j ust present sorre t hi ngs f or you. I t ' s just some of our cal I s for service. Over t he past t hr ee n-Dnt hs, si x n-Dnt hs, ni ne nnnt hs, and t hen we went back t o 2018 t o 2021. 1 wi I I be brief. Don't worry, we won't go I i ne by I i ne, I prom se you. I know everybody' s ready f or lunch. So, I i ke 1 said, t he proper t i es t hat our anal yst s pr ovi ded us wi t h was St . IVht t hen! s House, Just i n' s PI ace, t he Home Depot , and The Poi nt Apart ment corrpl ex. So son-e of t hese t hat we' r e goi ng t o go over I s -- CHAI RN/AN FRYER Does t hi s i ncI ude Lu1 u' s? SERGEANT KALLENBERO It i s j ust the ent i r e St . IVht t ' s pr oper t y. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ck a y . SERGEANT KAL L ENBERO So s o rrie of the calls f o r U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 72 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 service i ncl ude i nt oxi cat ed persons, suspi ci ous i nci dent s, di st ur bances, t r espassi ngs, anyt hi ng dr ug r el at ed, and t hen nedi cal cal I s, whi ch can be f r om t he mundane al I t he way up t o t he most ser i ous and ever yt hi ng i n bet men. So, I i ke I sai d, i t was broken down i nt o t hr ee n-Dnt hs, si x n-Dnt hs, ni ne rront hs, and t hen a corrpar i son bet ween 2018 and 2021. Just some of t he hi gher nurrber s j ust f or some of t hese t hi ngs: Suspi ci ous i nci dents, i n 2018 at St . Nbt t' s House, we had 19 t of al . In 2021 so far to date we have 23; disturbances are even bet men 2018 and 2021 wi t h bot h corm ng i n at 18; and f or nedi cal cal I s, we have - - 2018 we had 35, and t hen i n 2021 t o dat e we have 89. So rrovi ng on t o Just i n' s PI ace, some of t he suspi ci ous i nci dent s, t her e was one i n 2018; i n 2021 we have 12; trespasses, one and one for each, 2018 and 2021, we received only one call for ser vi ce f or t hat . Nbdi cal cal I s, 2018, we have four, and then 2021 we have 18. Nbvi ng on t o Horne Depot , suspi ci ous i nci dent s for 2018, we have 33, and for 2021 we have 38. A lot of these cal I s, like a trespassing, in 2021 we don' t have any cal I s, and i n 2018 we onl y U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 73 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have one. And then n-edi cal - r el at ed cal I s, 2021 we have 12, and then 2018 we have five. And t hen nevi ng on t o The Poi nt , suspi ci ous i nci dent s, even - - pr et t y even acr oss t he boar d. 2018, we had 27. 1 n 2021 t o dat e we have 28. Di st ur bances, agai n, f ai r I y even. 2018, we had 32; i n 2021 we have 34. And t hen, I ast I y, f or rredi cal - r el at ed i ssues, 2018 we had 18, and 2021 we' r e corn ng i n at 39 so f ar . CHAI RN/AN FRYER Do you keep records wi t h respect to the residents of t he subj ect i n quest i on? SERGEANT KALLENBERG VM do. I t woul d be i n our -- what' s cal I ed our CAD system I t' s our corrput er aut on -at ed di spat ch syst em That' s al I public record that - - t hi ngs that we can pul I up. V6 al so have an i n- house syst em cal I ed VW ngs 4, whi ch has peopl e' s names, addresses, al I t hat ki nd of st of f , who we come i n cont act wi t h t o t ake r epor t s f or , whet her i t be acci dent r epor t s, suspi ci ous i nci dent s, di st ur bances. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. Comr ssi oner. . CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: So when you - - o h , I ' m sor r y. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 74 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER Go ahead. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: I don' t know how you nor rral i ze t hat . For somebody I i ke me, t hat doesn' t mean anyt hi ng. SERGEANT KALLENBERG Right. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: So if you took a s i rri I a r area of t own t hat had si ni I ar apart ment s and Home Depot , son -et hi ng I i ke t hat , are t hose nurrber s hi gh? Are they unusual? SERGEANT KALLENBERG I t' s all r el at i ve. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Rel at i ve t o what ? SERGEANT KALLENBERG It would depend on where you ar e, t he t i rre of year , al I t hose ki nd of t hi ngs. They ebb and f I ow. So I coul dn' t gi ve you a di r ect answer on, yes, t hi s i s hi gher here; no, i t' s lower here. I t pr et t y much depends on t he day, the t i rre of year, and where i t ' s at. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: So do you f eel t hat you' r e bei ng cal I ed t her e rror e t han you ni ght be t o of her ar eas of t he comYuni t y? That woul d st and out . Af t er a whi I e somebody woul d say, oh, no, we' ve got another call over here again. V\6 keep get t i ng - - you're not -- the force is not f eel i ng I i ke t here' s an i nor di nat a amount of cal I s associ at ed wi t h t hi s f aci I i t y ver sus r egul ar ar eas t hat don' t have a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 75 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hon-el ess shel ter? SERGEANT KALLENBERG As far as the Sheriff ' s Cf f i ce, we' re neutral on i t . You know, our n-ot t o is i t ' s the duty of the Col I i er County Sheriff ' s Cf f i ce to protect, preserve the I i ves, property, and const i t ut i onal guar ant ees of al I peopl e. So whet her i t ' s an area t hat ' s got a lot going on or an area t hat doesn' t , we' r e goi ng t o come ei t her way. So it's - - I ' m j ust here t o kind of present you guys wi t h j ust some nurrber s f or our cal I s of service. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: You need to run for of f i ce. SERGEANT KALLENBERG V\6I I , I don' t know about t hat . I don' t know about t hat . CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Understood. CHAI RNAN FRYER Corn-Ti ssi oner Fry, t h e n Corrm ssi oner [ si c] East rran. COMA SSI CNER FRY: You need to outright lie rror e. So I agree wi t h Con ri ssi oner Shea. I ' m not sure what t he nurrber s mean exact I y. So I guess rry quest i on and one of t he concer ns was t hat I t hi nk The Poi nt , per haps, ar e t hey havi ng i nt r usi ons from peopl e f r om St . IVbt t he\n! s House t hat are - - are U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 76 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hese cal I s f or di st ur bances and t r espassi ng and al I t hese t hi ngs t hat are happeni ng i n The Poi nt , ar e t hey St . IVbt t he\n! s House r esi dent s, or i s t her e any dat a t hat woul d I et us know whet her i ncr easi ng t he use i n the St. IVbt t hen! s House facility with addi t i onal r esi dent s cr eat es an addi t i onal r i sk t o the neighbors? SERGEANT KALLENBERG That woul d pr obabl y be sorret hi ng mor e f or our anal yst s t o f i gur e out . I wi I I level with you; t hat ' s definitely a job t hat ' s not f or rre. So I coul dn' t give you a def i ni t i ve answer on i t at this poi nt . I' m sur e all that st of f coul d be dr awn up and f i gur ed out , but as f ar as j ust t he nurrber s, t hat' s al I I have f or today. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG You're welcome. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Any of her quest i ons of t he Sergeant? U . East rran. MR. EAST MN: So what I' m g at h e r i ng is that you' r e not r eal I y cord or t abl e t o gi ve an opi ni on or a concl usi on. You' r e j ust her e t o gi ve t he number s and t he dat a and I et t hose speak f or t herrsel ves? SERGEANT KALLENBERG Cor r ect . NR. EASTMN: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG I ' m j ust here for a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 77 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f act ual st at i st i c basi s. IVR EASTMN: Thank you. SERGEANT KAL L ENBERG You' re we I come. CHAI RNAN FRYER. An y t hi ng f u r t her? ( No response.) CHAI RIVAN KAUF IVAN: Thank you, Deputy. SERGEANT KALLENBERG Thank you very rruch. Appr eci at e i t , guys. CHAI RNAN FRYER AI I r i g h t. I t' s-- I wo u l d r econTmnd t hat we break f or I unch now and t hen come back and hear n-errber s of t he publ i c, but I ' m open t o suggest i ons f r om t he PI anni ng ConT i ssi on. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: I t doesn' t sound I i ke we wi I I - - I mean, we have a 45- ni nut e pr esent at i on t o come and t hen some di scussi on rebut t al . Have we heard f r om staff yet? Did we hear - - we did hear st of f . So we r eal I y - - we're into the 1: 30, 2: 00 if we just stay, I' m of r ai d. So having I unch now woul d make sense to me. CHAI RNAN FRYER Anyone disagree? ( No response.) CHAI RN/AN FRYER Al I r i ght . I t ' s 11: 48. How rruch t i rre do we need? CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: I usual I y ask for the f ul I hour, but today I woul d be - - personally I' m okay U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 78 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with a 45- ni nut e lunch if -- CHAI RNAN FRYER Is - - the pl ace t hat you used t o be Zach' s, i s t hat open? Do t hey serve - - do t hey serve f ood t here? NR BCSI : Yes, it has t r ansi t i oned nror e to a Nbxi can st yl e eatery, but i t ' s good. CHAI RNAN FRYER A can get I unch t here. NR BOSI : And i t' s open. CHAI RNAN FRYER Can we do 40 m nut es? ( No response.) CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. What ' s 40 pl us 49, ff-e-LOW CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: 12: 30. CHAI RNAN FRYER 12: 30 i t i s. VW r e in recess unt i I 12: 30. Thank you. ( A I uncheon recess was had f r om 11: 49 a. m t o 12: 33 p. m ) NR. BOSI : Chai r , you' ve got a I i ve m c. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Bef ore we cal I upon member s of t he publ i c, t he appl i cant has request ed an oppor t uni t y t o i ndi cat e t o us what concessi ons t hey' r e pr epar ed t o rrake as a result of the hearing so far , so I ' I I turn it over to ". Yovanovi ch. NR YCNANCNI CH: Based upon what we understood U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 79 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t he f eedback t o be f r om t he Chai r and what we per cei ve t o be f eedback f r om of her s, i t appear s that - - as there's not an issue with what we' re - - wi t h what we are request i ng. I t ' s a question of who' s benef i t i ng f r om t hat , and t her e' s concer n t hat i f t he proper t y ever i s di sposed of by St . IVbt t he\n! s House, anot her devel oper can come i n and t here woul d be unf or eseen ci r currst ances r el at i ng to what could happen today. So dur i ng I unch we di scussed what are t he odds that I' m goi ng to win the lottery and come in and of f er t hem t oo much n-oney f or t he pr oper t y, and I t hi nk we' ve al I agreed t hat t hose odds are sl i m and t he chances t hat St . IVbt t he\n! s House i s ever goi ng to dispose of this property is slight. And we' I I deal wi t h t hat i f t hat ever happens sornet i me i n t he future. So what we' r e pr epar ed t o do, based upon f eedback we' ve got t en, i s we' I I agree t hat al I t he uses have t o be f or t he benef i t of St . IVbt t he\n! s House. A under st and t hat i f we wer e t o bui I d an of f i ce bui I di ng, t hat woul d be okay as I ong as we' r e t he I andl or d and we col I ect ed r evenue and i f we bui I t of her t hi ngs t hat wer e r evenue gener at or s as I ong as i t was f or t he benef i t of St . IVbt t he\n! s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 80 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 House. As I ong as we owned t he pr oper t y or anot her 501( c) 3 owns t he pr oper t y, t hese uses woul d be per ni t t ed. So we're willing to do that. A're willing to put t hat on t he r ecor d. Hopef ul I y that wi I I address concerns by t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on, and hopef ul I y i t wi I I address concerns by t he opposi t i on. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: IVby I ? CHAI RNAN FRYER Yes, Co rrrri ssi o n e r Fry. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ri ch, one of t he great t hi ngs, I t hi nk, about Lul u' s Kitchen is that i t' s not onl y pr ovi di ng ser vi ces f or t he publ i c and t he cat er i ng, but i t al so pr ovi des an oppor t uni t y f or t r ai ni ng career devel opment f or t he r es dent s of St . IVbt t hen! s House. So Try question is - - you've t al ked about t he most I i kel y next use i s goi ng t o bean office bui I di ng. NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: That was hypot het i cal . CCMVI SSI CNER FRY: Hypot het i cal . But I guess, i f i t was an of f i ce bui I di ng, woul d it be ut i l i zed si ni I ar l y to provide benefit to the residents i n order to give t hem j ob t r ai ni ng ski I I s of sorre kind, or would that be just purely profits f r om t he rent goes - - U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 81 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. YOVANOVI CH: The hi s t or y of wh a t St . IVbt t he\n! s House has done i s t hey' ve I ooked at oppor t uni t i es t o benef i t t hose t hey' r e ser vi ng. So I' m sure t hey woul d I ook at an oppor t uni t y f or errpl oyn-ent t her e as wet I r el at ed t o - - and I ' m not saying there's going to bean office bui I di ng. That ' s j ust a "what coul d happen some day. " IVbr e I i kel y t han not you' r e goi ng t o see of her oper at i ons I i ke ei t her Lul u' s expand t he cat er i ng services, expand the - - what you've heard is expand t he war ehousi ng so t hey can keep t he f ood t here and then bring it out and di st r i but e it. I was j ust gi vi ng you what' s t he hypot het i cal of what coul d happen sorre day. I ' d rather not focus so rruch on that could happen some day. But, you know, maybe i f i t di d, but we under stood t hat t hat meant t hat t he r ent s had t o go t owar ds t he benef i t of St . IVbt t hen! s House, and t hat ' s t he onl y reason I brought t hat up. CCMVI SSI CNER FRY: But you' re sayi ng t he t endency and t he pat t er n of St . IVht t he\n! s House has to be to look for opportunities to raise money but al so benef i t t he merrber s and hel p f ur t her t hei r j our ney. MR YOVANOVI CH: They've been in the catering U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 82 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 business long before Lul u' s, so they have looked at t hat - - t hey have I ooked at t hose t ypes of oppor t uni t i es. CCM/M SSI CNER FRY: I rrean, real I y, I unch gave me an oppor t uni t y t o real I y t hi nk about wher e I was struggling, and it r eal I y was the - - it was the hope t hat anyt hi ng you do on t hat pr oper t y i s an oppor t uni t y t o hel p f ur t her your r esi dent s, t hat t her e i s some ki nd of oppor t uni t y f or t hem t o wor k, learn a new ski I I , si ni I ar to what Lul u' s Kitchen and t he cat er i ng oper at i on does. So t hat ' s r eal I y, i n a nut shel I , what I was rreani ng by what I was saying. IVR. YCVANCVI CH: Ri g h t. They' v e al ways l o o k e d f or t hat oppor t uni t y, as you know. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. V\,bul d you al so, Nt. Yovanovi ch, be wi I I i ng to exclude probation and par of e and ref ugee ser vi ces? NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: Yes. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Anyt hi ng f ur t her? NR. YCVANCVI CH: No, sir. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. ". Pi r es. NR. PI RES: Yes, Nt . Chai r n-an, IVbrrber s of t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on, t hank you. 4 name i s Tony Pi r es with the law f i r m of Vtodwar d, Pi r es, U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 83 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lorrbar do. And I wi I I try t o - - and Andr ern! s been very hel pf ul i n t r yi ng t o navi gat e, t here we go, t he Power Poi nt on t hi s rrat t er . I ' ve got the first screen up, so - - right there. Thank you. Initially, we'd like to -- we're in opposition and represent - - our t eam i s - - the client is Vest Shore Poi nt Napl es, LLC. They are t he owner of t he apart Trent corrpl ex, The Poi nt Napl es, t hat ' s t he i nTmdi at el y adj acent nei ghbor . Legal counsel f or t he proper t y owner i s rrysel f and St ephen Ti I br ook wi t h Aker rran Law Group; we have our expert pl anner, , Ceci I i a V\Ar d, AI CP; and exper t t r of f i c engi neer , Pr an-od Choudhar y. I f I ni spr onounce hi s narre, he' s I i st eni ng, so I ' m sure I wi I I hear about i t at some f ut ur e t i rre. And wi t h t he PI anni ng Corrrm ssi on' s i ndul gence, with the hol i days and t r yi ng to coordinate everybody' s schedul e, we request t hat t he PI anni ng ComTi ssi on, of t er you hear f r om Nb. V\br d and hear f r om Nr . Choudhar y, accept t hem as experts in t hei r f i el d and al so al I ow M. Choudhar y to appear r en-ot el y t oday, i f t hat ' s accept abl e. CHAI RNAN FRYER That is accept abl e. NR. PI RES: Thank you. And one other - - i t ' s j ust sort of a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 84 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 housekeepi ng mat t er, and I - - we have, f or t he r ecor d, t wo subrri t t al s t hat we made: One Noverrber 22nd; one Noverrber 30t h. Hopef ul I y al I t he PI anni ng Comi ssi oner s had a chance t o r evi ew t hose. I have ext r a copi es t o gi ve. Terri ' s al ways happy t o wal k out of her e wi t h a br i of case of document s t hat I pr ovi de, so I have addi t i onal document s f or Ter r i f or t oday. ". Yovanovi ch has i ndi cat ed he's not happy with the f act that I f i l ed a suppl errent al subni t t al on Noverrber 30t h, 2021, as i t was ar guabl y, f r om hi s per spect i ve, not wi t hi n the seven days prior to t he PI anni ng Com7i ssi on. VW t h al I due respect , t hi s PI anni ng Comi ssi on, one of t he hal I mar ks of i t i s t he wi I I i ngness and t he openness of accept i ng mat er i al s by any part y, even when t hey show up t he day of t he hear i ng wi t h phot ogr aphs, docurent s, and mat er i al s. And the subni t t al was made of t er we had a meet i ng. It was a ni ce meet i ng. I was i n per son, " . Ti I brook was on t he phone, wi t h Vtyne and Ri ch t o t al k about possi bl e ways of r esol vi ng t hi s mat t er . Vb di dn' t r esol ve al I t he i ssues, and so t hen we sai d, okay, I et' s t ake t he PUD document and out I i ne what we bet i eve are the appropriate changes U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 85 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hat woul d make i t corrpl event ar y t o and corrpat i bl e with our client ' s property, and t hat ' s what ' s in t he Noverrber 30t h I et t er as wet I as our expert t est i mony f r om M . Choudhar y and an er r at a sheet from Nt. V\hr d. So we woul d ask t hi s t he PI anni ng Comrri ssi on not excl ude i t , because I t hi nk t hat ' s what Ri ch i s goi ng to ask. And also t he publ i c not i ce t hat goes out to people doesn't say you have to have your mat er i al s i n. I t says i f you want t hem i n t he agenda packet , you have t hem i n ahead of t i me. So we would request, i n the spi r i t of how t hi s PI anni ng Comm ssi on has al ways oper at ed, t hat t he PI anni ng Comrri ssi on accept bot h submi t t al s. CHAI RN/AN FRYER A - - I ' ve considered t hat , and I ' ve spoken W t h t he Count y At t or ney, and as a mat t er of pot i cy and pr act i ce, we ar e get t i ng rruch n-or e r est r i ct i ve and stricter on r ecei vi ng mat er i al s at t he I ast rri nut e. So what I wouI d suggest t hat you do - - and I ' m goi ng to be ver y I eni ent in al I owi ng you t o have t i me t o make your presentation, but i t ' s going to need to be oral rat her t han subrri t t i ng - - subrri t t i ng document s at the 11t h hour. IVR. PI RES: Ckay. But i f I can, for the U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . com 86 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record, at I east proffer them f or the record to pr eser ve t hat r i ght . And I guess the only subni t t al that Rich is obj ect i ng to is Noverrber 30t h, Ri ch, f or cl ar i f i cat i on, because t he of her one was November 22nd, wel I i n advance. NR. YCNANCNI CH: Yeah, i f I may. For t he r ecor d, t he r ul es ar e ver y cl ear t hat you have t o provide it seven days in advance. The first subrri t t al meet s t he seven-day r equi r ement . The second subni t t al di d not meet t he seven-day r equi r ement . So, obvi ousl y, I ' m not goi ng t o obj ect t o sorret hi ng t hat met t he seven- day r equi r en-ent . CHAI RNAN FRYER I f you want to make your record, you n7ay, but it wi I I be on the basis of the Chai r' s havi ng over r ul ed your r equest t o subrri t t he second subrri t t al . IVR. PI RES: Thank you, M- . Chai r rran. I f I may wal k over t o Ter r i f or a second and hand t hi s t o her before I forget and she has to track me down I at er . CHAI RIVAN FRYER Ck a y . COMA SSI CNER FRY: IVby I ask f or a cl ar i f i cation whi I e he's doing that? CHAI RNAN FRYER Yes. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 87 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So someone f r om t he publ i c coul d send us an emai I t hi s rmr ni ng or I ast ni ght , and t hat woul d be accept abl e, cor r ect ? A don' t have to disregard an errai I that cones i n f r om t he publ i c at any poi nt , or are we supposed to be di sr egar di ng anyt hi ng t hat doesn' t ar r i ve a week bef ore? CHAI RNAN FRYER I ' m goi ng to ask the County At t or ney t o wei gh i n. CCM/M SSI CNER FRY: Because coul dn' t they also wal k i n and have a Power Poi nt , a speaker, and wal k up? I showed sl i des at a County Comm ssi on meet i ng. I mean, so what woul d pr ecl ude ". Pi r es f r om showi ng hi s present at i on or present i ng t hat I et t er on t he overhead j ust as a publ i c speaker even if he was hot - - he's not a party t o the t hi ng. I j ust want t o under st and what t he r ul es ar e here. NR. KLATZKON A coup) e of t hought s. Cne, this issue wi I I ul t i rrat el y be det er ni ned by the Board of Count y Corn-Ti ssi oner s, and I woul d urge U . Pi r es to get his rrat er i al s in on time for that hear i ng i f he want s t hem par t of r ecor d. Two, f undan-ent al I y, t hi s i s a court esy t o t he PI anni ng Corrrri s s i on. A' ve had t oo many t i mes wi t h peopl e U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 88 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 durrpi ng rmssi ve quant i t i es of document s i n your I ap on t he day of t he hear i ng and t hen sayi ng, I ' m putting it in the record. What t he heck does t hat rrean? I t' s not I i ke you guys had t he chance t o act ual I y read i t . So I ' ve never understood anybody doi ng t hat . For a member of t he publ i c t o send i n an emai I , of course you shoul d read t hat . You know, we' r e her e f or t he peopl e of Col I i er Count y. But t her e' s a bi g di f f er ence bet ween somebody sendi ng you guys an en -ail because they heard the hearing was t aki ng pl ace and t hen an at t or ney, you know, gi vi ng a plethora of document s at t he I ast second t hat you guys possi bl y haven' t had t he oppor t uni t y to r evi ew. I s t here a har d- and- f ast r ul e, no, but t he Chai r made a r ul i ng based on t hi s part i cul ar set of f act s and ci r currst ances, and I agr ee W t h hi m But at the end of the day, " . Pi r es knows it doesn' t mat t er . Because t hi s i s a cont est ed mat t er, i t i s goi ng t o be heard by the Board of Count y Comm ssi oner s unl ess bet ween now and t hen t he opposi t i on can make some sort of compr oni se with the appl i cant . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Thank you. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Ckay. IVh . Pi r es. U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 89 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. PI RES: And, agai n, we preserve our subni t t al - - we made t he r ecor d subni t t al . And, agai n, f or t he r ecor d, al I t he pl anni ng comri ssi oner s di d r ecei ve i t and had an oppor t uni t y to review it, it sounds I i ke. CHAI RMAN FRYER VIbI I, I d i d n' t. COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: I di d. I r e a d i t. CHAI RN/AN FRYER I pr obabl y r ecei ved i t , but I di dn' t have an opportunity to review i t . And I don' t I i ke r ecei vi ng I ar ge quant i t i es of mat er i al at the 11t h hour. But we' ve enabl ed you t o rrake your record. You proffered i t. I ' ve overruledits adni ssi on i nt o evi dence but , real I y, t hat i sn' t goi ng t o make rruch di f f er ence because t he Board of County Com-ri ssi oner s wi I I deci de, and I ' m sure you' I I have it in for t hem i n a t i rrel y way. MR PI RES: Yes, sir. Thank you, M- . Chai r rran. And f or t oday' s hear i ng, agai n, t he - - t hat ' s our t eam t hat' s i nvol ved in t hi s. And i n t hi s par t i cul ar rrat t er , we al so have Kr i st i Si nnot t . And Kr i st i , i f I ni spr onounce your name - - she's t he di r ect or of pr oper t y rranagerrent f or our cl i ent . And in this matter, you wi I I hear testimony, I bet i eve, f r om our pl anner and f r om our U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 90 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 transportation engi neer , traffic engi neer , that the pr of ect i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Gr owt h lVbnagerrent PI an, not i n corrpl i ance wi t h t he Land Devel opment Code Sect i on 10. 02. 13, not in corrpl i ance with the Land Devel opment Code Sect i on 10. 02. 8. HeI I o, Joe. Nf• . Schni t t . ( Joe Schni t t i s now present i n t he boar dr oom ) CHAI RNAN FRYER Pardon me , Nr . Pi res. I want t o r ecogni ze t he ar r i val of Corrrri ssi oner Joe Schni t t . COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Yeah, t hanks. CF course, Tony wet I knows I was at Phi I ' s - - MR PI RES: Phi I ' s, yeah. CCNM SSI CNER SCHM TT: - - ceremony, and Tony knows Phi I wet I . But sorry to i nt er r upt . M:. PI RES: No. No i n t er r u pt i on. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you for the effort to be here, Comri ssi oner. . Go ahead. W PI RES: And t he pr of ect i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Col I i er Count y Corrmani t y Char act er PI an. The obj ect i ons and i ssues we have - - and you' I I hear again, is the r ezoni ng' s not corrpat i bl e wi t h nor corrpl en-ent ar y t o t he adj acent r es dent i al comYuni t y. And t hat' s al ways an i rrport ant aspect , U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 91 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and t hat was i n our f i r st subni t t al , Noverrber 22nd, t hat part of Pol i cy and Cbj ect i ve 5. 6 of t he Fut ur e Land Use El errent i s t hat a new devel oprrent i s not onl y corrpat i bl e wi t h but has t o be corrpl ement ar y t o t he adj acent devel opment , whi ch mean i t enhances, i t i rrpr oves. And t hat anal ysi s general I y i s not wet I f I eshed out , and we bel i eve t hat wi I I be f I eshed out by our present at i on. AI so t he i rrpact s of a 50 percent i ncr ease al n-Dst i n t he horrel ess shel t er beds, we don' t bel i eve, has been eval uat ed nor ni t i gat ed, and we' I I get i nt o t hat di scussi on. The si gni f i cant r educt i on i n I i vi ng space per horrel ess r esi dent i s cont r ar y t o t he exi st i ng Land Devel oprrent Code, t he i rrpact of whi ch has not been eval uat ed f or vagr ancy, t hef t , and cr i me gener al I y. And t he exi st i ng I anguage i n t he Land Devel oprrent Code wi t h r egar ds t o t he 150 squar e f eet has been in the code since 1991, when the LDC was first adopt ed. I di dn' t go back t o al I rry zoni ng parrphl et s I have f r om t he ' 60s and ' 70s and ' 80s, but I di d f i nd and have t he f act t hat t he 1991 Land Devel opment Code t hey adopt ed, and t hey have - - t hey have i n t hat code t he r equi r ement s f r om t he 150 square feet. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 92 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And, i f I may bor row t he vi sual i zer f or j ust a ni nut e. And I al ways - - t hank you, ". Bosi . I usual I y t ur n t hose t hi ngs si deways or upsi de down. Thi s i s t he excer pt f r om t he 1991 Land Devel oprrent Code, and you can see the 150 square foot per bed i n a horrel ess shel t er of t er si x was i n exi st ence back in 1991. And the second page is from 1992 Land Devel oprrent Code. And you' I I hear t here' s been no t est i n-ony or - - CO M SSI CNER SCHM TT: Put t hat back up agai n. That was quick. NR PI RES: Sorry. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: So r r y , t hanks. Got i t , okay. I wanted t o see if it said the same t hi ng. Thanks. M:. PI RES: Yes, sir. It said the sane t hi ng in 1992. And all - - rry r ecol I ect i on of the t est i rrony, and I st and t o be cor r ect ed, i s t hat i t sounds I i ke i t ' s just for convenience. Now, t he ar gurrent was t hat t he appl i cant di d not want t o - - coul d have a gr eat er i rrpact on t he nei ghbor hood by bui I di ng and pr ovi di ng t he additional 46 beds at the 150 square feet, and he wants to do it for 100 and, therefore, stay i n the same f oot pr i nt . I' m not sure how t hat justifies a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 93 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 si gni f i cant reduction i n the space from-- by a t hi r d, from 150 to 100 square feet, and we' I I hear some t est i n-Dny on t hat . And t he si gni f i cant expansi on of comrer ci al and hon-el ess- r el at ed uses we bel i eve i s nei t her eval uat ed nor j ust i f i ed. You' I I hear f r om t he traffic engineer that the t r of f i c i rrpact s associ at ed wi t h t he comer ci al and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor eval uat ed. And i n t he conTmr ci al , there's an addition of an industrial district use t hat wasn' t t here pr evi ousl y t hat we bel i eve wi I I have an adver se i rrpact t o t he adj acent r esi dent i al apart Trent conTmni t y. And you' I I also hear di scussi on about I andscapi ng and buffering; that t hey' r e aski ng f or devi at i ons f or cer t ai n I andscapi ng, and the appl i cation does not provide adequat e buf f er i ng of adj acent r esi dent i al proper t i es, i s our argument , and doesn' t meet t he criteria for r ezoni ng. And part of what you' I I hear, we bel i eve, f r om the testimony is that this property, as it is in an act i vi t y cent er , r equi r es a Type D 20- f oot buf f er al ong Ai r por t Road, al ong ext er nal r oadways. And we wi I I have t hat - - we' I I have t hat sect i on, and U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 94 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we' I I t al k about t hat sect i on i n our present at i on. So we' I I have t hat , t hat r of er ence, and t hat i s part and parcel of our present at i on. I t ' s sort of an over vi ew. VW I I go into greater det ai I . And, Nt . Chai r man, al so at t he end, what I wi I I concl ude i s 1 ' 1 1 read into the record what we bel i eve woul d be t he appropriate r evi si ons to the subm t t ed PUD docurrent t hat we bel i eve woul d m t i gat e and make i t con -pat i bl e and corrpl errent ar y t o t he sur r oundi ng and adj acent nei ghbor hood. V6 appr eci at e t he devel oper or t he appl i cant i n t hi s case i ndi cat i ng that the - - I ' 1 I call it the r of ugee ser vi ces and pr obat i on of f i cer s - - of f i ces wi 11 be excluded. A couple others are, and you' 1 I hear i t, of f ender r ehabi I i t at i on cent er s, publ i s wet f ar e cent er s woul dn' t be al I owed r i ght now, and we woul d ask t hat t hose be excl uded, pl us we' I I have some of her di scussi on about of her uses. I n one aspect we rray want t o ask t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on t o ask t he appl i cant - - I know t hey t al ked about havi ng a consul t ant f r om Cal i f or ni a t hat came i n and addressed or di scussed wi t h t hem how f o r econf i gur e t hei r space. And t hey di dn' t gi ve t he name of t hat or gani zat i on. I wonder, i s i t t he Heal t by Housi ng Foundat i on, or what t he U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 95 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or gani zat i on i s because I t hi nk t hat ' s a si gni f i cant i t em f or t he PI anni ng Comrri ssi on t o consi der . Next, we have - - I ' d I i ke to introduce Steve Ti I br ook. Steve is with the law f i r m of Aker man and representing the developer and has known the devel oper f or qui t e a whi I e. And, Steve, i f you want me to, I can do t he mouse, or you can do i t . M: TI LBROCK: I t hi nk we can do i t . Thank you, Tony. St eve Ti I br ook wi t h Aker man Law Fi r m I do not r epr esent t he devel oper . I represent Vest Shore Poi nt Napl es, whi ch i s t he owner of Vest Shore. CHAI RNAN FRYER Are you in the M a mi office, si r? MR TI LBROCK: Fort Lauderdale office. CHAI RNAN FRYER Fort Lauder dal e. MR TI LBROCK: Yes. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. NR TI LBROCK: Thank you. And what you see on t he screen i s t he I ocat i on of The Poi nt at Napl es, whi ch i s an apart ment corrpl ex wi t h appr oxi mat el y 260 units. I t' s structured. It was purchased by Vest Shor e, LLC, whi ch i s a nat i onal owner and U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 96 Excerpt CCPC Nbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oper at or of apart ment com-runi t i es. They are all over the country. A have with us today Kr i st i Si nnot t , who is the property - - director of property management f or Vtst Shore t hr oughout t he country. She happens to I i ve here in Venice, so she dr ove down f or t he hear i ng t o be par t of t hi s; i t' s t hat i rrpor t ant t o t hem V\bst Shore al so owns t he Bel veder a at Quai I Run, so t hey own over 500 uni t s i n t he Napl es area. They' ve made a si gni f i cant i nvest rrent i n bui I di ng, oper at i ng, and pr eser vi ng comrruni t i es f or peopl e, apart ment horres i n Napl es, and t hi s i s i rrpor t ant t o t hem They acqui r ed t hose pr oper t i es i n t he 2016 [ si c] to 2019 range, so i t ' s been 15 years. They are a I ong- t er m hol d. They own and operate these f aci I i t i es for the long term CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Di d you say 2016 and 2019 and then say 15 years? IVR. TI LBRCCK: I ' m sor r y. 2016 was they - - 2006. 2006, 1 bel i eve, i s when t hey acqui red - - COMA SSI CNER FRY: And 2009? IVR. TI LBRCCK: And 2009, yes, i s when t hey acqui red t he proper t i es. So t hi s i s a - - j ust an exarrpl e of t he wor kf or ce housi ng. I t' s owner oper at ed. I ' m sor r y. I t was acqui red in 2016. 1 U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 97 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 apol ogi ze f or t hat . I t i s 2016. So Kr i st i Si nnot t is going to give a st at ement as - - from her perspective as the di rector of proper t y management . She has di r ect contact wi t h t he pr oper t y manager s on si t e. Vt' r e just here to ask f or your consi der at i on as t he adj acent pr oper t y owner t hat real I y i s t he cl osest proper t y owner t hat does f eel t he brunt of t he proposed changes that are I i kel y to occur at this I ocat i on, so we appr eci at e you gi vi ng Nit. Si nnot t an oppor t uni t y t o speak. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. IVE. S I NNOTT: So my name' s act u a l l y Kr i s t i Si nnot t , but t hat' s - - it's okay. Nobody ever says my I ast name r i ght . And I am wi t h V\6st Shore, di r ect or of proper t y management . CHAI RNAN FRYER V\6ul d you spel I t hat f or t he cour t r epor t er , your I ast name. IVE. SI NNOTT: Yes. I t ' s S- i - n- n- o- t - t . CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. IVE. SI NNOTT: You' re we I come. V\hat I want t o talk about is that - - with the on- si t e pr oper t y manager , on- si t e t earns, and what t he r es dent s have had compl ai nt s over t he past sever al year s r egar di ng t he amount of homel ess t hat U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 98 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 come t o t he proper t y and t hen set up t he t ent s and t he camps, corrpl ai nt s, cal I s t o I aw enf or cement we' ve had. And I know he spoke about that a little bit earl i er . But we have had situations with overdose of t he hon-el ess t hat are I i vi ng i n t he woods. 1/\6 al so have them not just I i vi ng in the woods but j ust ni gr at i ng t hr oughout t he pr oper t y. Noi se i ssue. A' ve had sorre ar gument s t hat r es dent s have come out of t hei r home and experienced. CHAI RNAN FRYER Pardon me , rra' am Excuse me for i nt er r upt i ng. I want to be sure t hat I know wher e your dat a i s corn ng f r om IVB. SI NNOTT: Ch, f r om t he on- si t e team and what they're dealing with dai I y, on a dai I y basis, and conver sat i ons t hey' r e havi ng wi t h t he pot i ce depar t ment , t he s her i f f' s depar t ment . CHAI RNAN FRYER Is any of this i of or rrat i on coning from public records I i ke of the police depart rrent , t he Sher i f f' s CF f i ce? IVB. SI NNOTT: I mean, we have - - we have cal I-- I mean, it definitely is on record, but I don' t know i f you have t hat , so... CHAI RNAN FRYER All , I' m j ust curious, are there written records that are i n the possession of U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 99 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your cl i ent t hat document t hi s t ype of t hi ng? W. SI NNCTT: I' m not positive that we act ual I y have r ecor d of t hat on our si t e. I know t hat we get - - I mean, this is kind of basic, but we get t he cards wi t h t he case number every t i me that t hey cal I t he pol i ce depart rrent , and t he sheriff' s depart n-ent al so has assigned a speci f i c officer just to our comruni t y t o handl e t hi s si t uat i on speci f i cal I y. CHAI RIVAN FRYER Ckay, t hank you. IVR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: " . Ch a i r , if - - I ' m n of goi ng to cr oss- exam ne her yet , but t her e' s not hi ng t hat has been filed in the record with any of that i of or mat i on t hat I can find. I t' s not attached to anyt hi ng t hat ". Pi r es has pr ovi ded to you, and I j ust want t hat t o be cl ear on t he r ecor d. CHAI RNAN FRYER Under st ood. And if we don't have wr i t t en i of or mat i on, i f we can get or al i of or mat i on, t hat rray be suf f i ci ent , and what ever we get , we' I I take it for what i t ' s worth. IVR. PI RES: IVf . Chai r man, I woul d request t hat IVY. Si nnot t be al I owed t o t est i f y wi t hout i nt er r upt i on f r om ". Yovanovi ch, and he can raise his issues after. CHAI RNAN FRYER I t hi n k that ' s in order, if U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 100 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you don' t m nd, Nf• . Yovanovi ch. NR. PI RES: Thank you. N6. SI NNOTT: Sure. The of her si t uat i ons, we' ve had on- si t e t eam r epor t ed t o I aw enf or cement the residents that we had i n the tents. One r esi dent , as our rrai nt enance t earn was goi ng out t o cl can up t he t ent ar ea, he was at t acked and assaul t ed by one of t he horrel ess i ndi vi dual s. That ' s definitely a pot i ce r epor t t hat ' s been f i I ed. A have const ant I y, on a dai I y basi s, t hey' r e wor ki ng t hr ough someone f r om t he t earn al ways havi ng t o go out and get t hem out of t he pool area. The car wash st at i on i s wher e we have bat hi ng happening and, of course, trash, and the shoppi ng cart s t hat get br ought back t her e as wet I . So just a little bit extra cleanup and work for rry team on site. And t hen as I was sayi ng, over t he I ast nont hs, t he s her i f f' s depart Trent , i t' s pr obabl y been even a good t hr ee t o f our weeks, t he sher i f f' s depart ment has assi gned t hi s speci f i c agent t o hand) e t he corrpl ai nt s. And he worked on pushi ng -- t he horrel ess t hat had carrped out , he wor ked on pushi ng t hem out of t hat I ocat i on, and t hen we wer e given a city [ si c] vi of at i on that we had to clean U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 101 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up al I of t hat area. CHAI RNAN FRYER Co rrri s s i o n e r Sc h ri t t. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Yeah. I n quest i oni ng - - the quest i oni ng with the Col I i er Count y Sher i f f' s CF f i ce, you don' t have dat a on t hat . Do you have any dat a wi t h t he count y r egar di ng any code enf or cement corpl ai nt s - - IV6. SI NNOTT: Yes. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: - - and all the various act i ons t hat have been i dent i f i ed t o Code Enf or cement ; do you have t hat ? M:. PI RES: Al I , i f I ray, I have a ser i es of phot ogr aphs t hat she ray be abl e t o t est i f y t o t hat are a r esul t of a code enf or cement vi of at i on agai nst t he apart rrent corrpl ex owner by vi r t ue of all the activities; is that correct? IV6. SI NNOTT: Cor r ect . COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: AI I r i g h t. All , then, are you going to - - you could do that after you're done wi t h your present at i on, unl ess you want t o do t hat now, t hat' s f i ne, because some of t hi s shoul d be on the record. And I am somewhat sur pr i sed t hat you' re gi vi ng what I woul d cal I expert test i nnny, but you don' t have any data t hat - - herewith you today r egar di ng the Col I i er County Sheriff's CF f i ce U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 102 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and t he number of corrpl ai nt s. COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: The sher i f f was j ust her e bef ore we went t o I unch. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ch, was he? I ni ssed t hat . Thank you. IV6. SI NNCTT: Sure. MR PI RES: Nt. Si nnot t , t he phot ogr aphs - can you descr i be t he phot ogr aphs t hat I ' m pl aci ng - - if you look. IV6. SI NNCTT: Sure, yeah. This is the area in t he wooded ar ea of t he pr oper t y wher e t hey set up j ust tent homes and were I i vi ng t her e. I ' m not posi t i ve how many peopl a at one t i me wer e al ways I i vi ng there, but it was def i ni t el y -- COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Is this on your property or t hei r proper t y? IV6. SI NNCTT: This i s our property, yeah. And t hat ' s another pi ct ur e of just trash and debr i s. W PI RES: And, agai n, V\bst Shor e has been ci t ed f or t hese code vi of at i ons. IV6. SI NNCTT: Yes. Yeah, we t ook car e of i t . IVR. PI RES: And it has been taken care of? NE. SI NNOTT: Yes. CHAI RN/AN FRYER These are on conTmn areas? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 103 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NE. SI NNOTT: It's i n the moded area, common - - yeah, f or t he pr oper t y behi nd one of t he bui I di ngs. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. Comri ssi oner Fry. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So I ' m seei ng, you know, you have i ssues wi t h horrel ess peopl e set t i ng up carrp on your property. This appl i cation is St. Nbt t he\n! s House, Mich is a facility for homeless people, so they're not in carrps, and they want to increase their capacity t o t ake peopl e out of t he carrps. So rry quest i on f or you i s, woul d t hey not i n Mat t hey' r e r equest i ng t end t o het p t hi s pr obl em and - - t hat' s number one. Number two i s, are you at t r i but i ng t he horrel ess peopl e t hat ar e on your pr oper t y t o St . IVbt t hen! s House? I mean, are t hey t i ed t o St . Nbt t heW s House i n some way? I guess rry quest i on i s, how i s t hi s r el evant ? N6. SI NNOTT: Yeah. Assuming, based on conver sat i ons t hat we have, t hat - - you know, sheriff's department has - - t hat ' s who we lean on f or n-ost of t hi s when wee have t he di scussi on. VW ve j ust been t of d ver bat I y t hat , you know, hey, you're in the center of t hi s. You're in the ni ddl e of t he shel t er and t he soup ki t chen, and of cour se U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 104 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're going to have that type of traffic. So, I mean, we' r e assumi ng t hat - - your f i r st quest i on, whi ch i s aski ng, you know, t he f eel i ng of t hat gr owt h, woul d t hat hel p? I' m def i ni t el y not an expert i n t hat . IViy assurrpt i on, and, unf or t unat el y, rry comrmn sense was st at i ng - - rraki ng me bel i eve t hat t hat coul d be mor e of a pr obl ern and mor e t r of f i c and mor e i ndi vi dual s corn ng t o t hat I ocat i on. CCM/M SSI CNER FRY: So your point r eal I y is t hat you - - because of t he I ocat i on of St . IVht t hen! s House and t he support i ng ser vi ces, you' r e real I y i n t he vor t ex of t he horrel ess i ssue. IVB. SI NNOTT: In the center. And if t here' s nnr e, you know, gr owt h i n t hat ar ena, how much mor e traffic and more i ndi vi duals wi I I then be coning to t hat I ocat i on? NR. PI RES: Nt. Si nnot t , have you been i n comrruni cat i ons wi t h t he on- si t o proper t y manager s as t o t hi s issue? IVB. SI NNOTT: Yes. NR. PI RES: And what are t hei r names? IVS. SI NNOTT: V16 have a manager. I don' t know how to pronounce her I ast name. But we have a manager there currently named Abbey. V\b have a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 105 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r egi onal t hat i s t here weekl y. Her name i s IVhI I or y EgI i n. Bot h of t hese t eam member s are doi ng everything they can to partner, to work with t hat , and keep it cleaned. M:: PI RES: To your r ecol I ect i on, have you had conver sat i ons wi t h t hem about whet her t hey' ve been advi sed by t he sher i f f' s depart ment t hat t he sheriff's depar t rrent had told t hem t hat the i ndi vi duals who have been using the car wash for showers, I ayi ng by t he pool when prospect i ve tenants are being toured the property come f r om t he soup ki t chen or horrel ess shel ter; do you r ecal I t hat ? IVB. SI NNOTT: Yes, t hat ' s been t he conver sat i on ver bal I y, but - - CHAI RNAN FRYER I want to r e rri n d t he PI a n n i ng Corrrri ssi on, I mean, we' re not a court. VW r e quasi -j udi ci al , and so we have rat her r el axed r ul es of evi dence, and what we' re hear i ng i s hearsay evidence. IVB. SI NNOTT: Cor r ect . CHAI RNAN FRYER V\h i c h we wi I I t a k e f or wh a t i t ' s wort h. IVB. SI NNOTT: Ri ght . Under st ood. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. Thank you. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 106 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: I had a question. CHAI RNAN FRYER I ' m sor r y, Corrrri ssi oner Shea. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: So when you encounter t hese si t uat i ons, do you cal I I eader shi p at St . Nbt t he\A/ s House? I f you do, what ki nd of response - - i n of her words, why woul dn' t t hey come out and clean it up when i t' s believed that i t' s t hei r - - IV6. SI NNOTT: Yeah, t hat' s a good quest i on. The on- si t e t earns, I ' m not posi t i ve who woul d have i nst r uct ed t hem, whoever t hey spoke wi t h, and I can' t gi ve a name. But whoever t hey spoke wi t h al ways t of d t hem t o, you know, wor k wi t h pol i ce, and t hat ' s why t he sher i f f ' s depart rrent gave us t hi s speci f i c I aw enf or cement agent t o handl e t hi s si t uat i on. So, I ' m sor r y, I don't - - I don't know who they woul d be speaki ng wi t h; I ' m not posi t i ve. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: I t j ust seerrs I i ke, you know, t hey have - - t hey coul d come out and cl can i t up j ust as easi I y, and at I east t here woul d be a l i t t l e bi t of acknowi edgment -- IVB. SI NNOTT: Sur e. CCNM SSI CNER SHEA: - - t hat rraybe we rri ght have contributed to i t , but ... W. SI NNOTT: Under st ood. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 107 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. NR. PI RES: Do you have any rror e? N6. SI NNOTT: No, I don' t have anyt hi ng el se. NR. PI RES: Anyt hi ng el se f r om t he PI anni ng Cormi ssi oner or anyt hi ng - - CHAI RIVAN FRYER I' m s o r r y ? Are you finished? N6. SI NNOTT: Yes. CHAI RNAN FRYER: Ckay. Nr . Pi r es, are you finished? NR. YOVANOVI CH: Nf• . Ch a i r ? CHAI RNAN FRYER Yes. NR YOVANOVI CH: Do I get t o ask h e r questions? I t hought we weul d do i t wi t ness by wi t ness. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. V6 can do i t wi t ness by wi t ness. I s t hat agr eeabl e, Nf• . Pi r es? NR. PI RES: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, sir. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. So, rra' a m you're finished W t h your di r ect t est i rrony? NE. SI NNOTT: Yes, sir. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. Nh . Yovanovi ch. NR. YOVANOVI CH: I know you said i t , Sinnott? N6. SI NNOTT: Si nnot t . NR YOVANOVI CH: Si n n o t t. So r r y. W. SI NNOTT: That' s okay. U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 108 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. YOVANOVI CH: You don't have any personal knows edge t o what you' r e t est i f yi ng t o, cor r ect ? IV6. SI NNOTT: Personal as - - just with the t earrs cal I i ng rre and t he i nci dent r epor i s t hat t hey have corrpl et ed. NR. YOVANOVI CH: I s t here a reason why you don' t have t he rranager here t est i f yi ng? IV6. SI NNOTT: No, no reason. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Do you have any narres of anybody you may have spoken t o at St . IVbt t he\n! s House r egar di ng t hi s i ssue? IV6. SI NNOTT: No. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Do you have any evidence that t he horrel ess peopl e t hat you're referring to are r es dent s of St . IVbt t he\n! s House? IV6. SI NNOTT: No evi dence. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Do you have any evidence at al I regarding - - let me strike t hat . You acknowi edge that homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed? NE. SI NNOTT: Al I , absol ut el y, t hr oughout t he Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca, sur e, yes. NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: And I' m a s s u ni ng you' r e awa r e t hat i t' s not unusual f or hon-el ess peopl e t o carrp out i n t he woods, cor r ect ? U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 109 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NE. SI NNOTT: Ch, not - - at rry apart ment cormuni t i es, I don' t have t hat anywher e el se, no. IVR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: And t hi s i s a wooded area, correct? IVS. SI NNCTT: Yes, on t he pr oper t y. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: Where peopl e can go to not be seen, correct? IV6. SI NNOTT: I mean, I woul d - - I guess they can. A can see t he t ent s. I don' t - - IVR. YOVANOVI CH: You can see the tents. Do you -- IV6. SI NNOTT: Fr om t he pictures that we just were showi ng. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: I ' m j ust aski ng you, i f you wer e dr i vi ng down t he st r eet , can you see t he t ent s? IV6. SI NNOTT: Not on the street from the property. There's - - you can see evidence. You coul d i n t he past . IVR. YOVANOVI CH: Are h o rre l e s s p e o p l e c a rrp i ng out t her e t oday? IV6. SI NNOTT: No, t h r e e weeks. V\,6' v e h a d t hr ee weeks. This is the first t i rre, so... NR. YOVANOVI CH: Three weeks what ? W. SI NNOTT: Three or f our weeks of not U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 110 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 havi ng corrpl ai nt s and not havi ng t hose i ssues r i ght now with working cl osel y with the police depart Trent , and t he pol i ce depart ment t of d us t hat i t ebbs and f I ows, and so t here' s no guar ant ee. IVR YOVANOVI CH: And, agai n, you don' t - - you' r e not pr ovi di ng any personal t est i rrony as t o what i s or i s not occur r i ng on your si t e, cor r ect ? IVB. SI NNOTT: No personal, yeah. IVR YOVANOVI CH: Thank you. IVB. SI NNCTT: Sure. COMA SSI CNER FRY: IVby I ask her one rrnr e question? IVS. SI NNOTT: Yeah. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Of course. COMA SSI CNER FRY: What does your - - what do your property owners want here? You having - - St . IVbt t heW s House exi st s. They've applied to expand t hei r base, not t o add on t o t hei r f oot pr i nt , so not t o i ncur addi t i onal const r uct i on. What i s i t that -- what i s i t that you want to happen as part of t hi s appl i cat i on? What are you asking us to do? Rej ect i t corrpl et el y? Go ahead. IVR. PI RES: Agai n, Kt. Fry, she' s t he, I i ke I sai d, pr oper t y manager . She' s not t he, you know - - COMA SSI CNER FRY: But I ' m aski ng you. I U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 111 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guess I thought she couI d answer for the proper t y owner s, but - - MR PI RES: And what we' r e a s k i ng f or i s and we' I I go through it at the end, is that the - if a rezoning is t o take place, that t here be appr opr i at e r educt i ons and adj ust Trent s i n uses, addi t i onal I andscapi ng and buf f er i ng, not have t he additional beds at the reduced square footage, to make i t corrpat i bl e and corrpl en-ent ar y t o our conTmni t y. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: t he appl i cant ? Have you posed those to MR PI RES: Yes. Al I , we had a meet i ng and had a conver sat i on, and t hen we proposed t hose t o " . Yovanovi ch, and " . Yovanovi ch said some of t hose are accept abl e but most of t hose are not . And I can read al I those, and that happened - - again, with the hol i days, it was difficult. I t was the 29t h and the 30t h, I t hi nk, Rich. I ' ve got t he emai I s. A were comYuni cat i ng back and f or t h on that. CHAI RNAN FRYER Co n-n i s s i o n e r Sc h n i t t. MR PI RES: And I can at t he end t el I you what he agr eed t o; what he di dn' t agr ee t o. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Tony, can you put up U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 112 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t he sl i de. You had f our bul I et s. You t al ked about ni ssi on. And I want t o look at that t hi r d sent ence. Do you have that? MR PI RES: Vhi ch sl i de, Joe? CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: I t was back. MR PI RES: That one or t he one pr i or ? COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: One prior. Ag a i n , I apol ogi ze f or corn ng i n I at e, but I may have ni ssed i t , but - - no, t hat ' s not i t . MR PI RES: The second but I et poi nt ? COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: You wer e t al ki ng about ni t i gat i on, and t hat ' s what - - I was t r yi ng t o f i gur e out what your i nt ent was because of the - - 50 percent i ncr ease i n horrel ess shelters - - t hat ' s i t . The 50 percent i ncr ease i n horrel ess shel t er beds have not been evaluated nor ni t i gat ed. Could you expand on what i s i t you wer e I ooki ng f or as f ar as bei ng eval uat ed by t he appl i cant , and what kind of ni t i gat i on are you I ooki ng at? W PI RES: The quest i on i s, what ' s t he r eal i rrpact on t he adj acent proper t i es t o ens ur e t he corrpat i bi I i t y and t hat i t' s corrpl en-ent ar y t o, especi al I y by t he r educt i on i n t he square f oot age al I ocabl e - - al I ocabl e t o each part i cul ar i ndi vi dual . The only anal ysi s that has been U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 113 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 performed is a-- I guess a Traffic I rrpact St at errent . There' s no i ndi cat i on of what put t i ng n-or e people in a-- I' I I call it a denser envi r onment , what ki nd of envi r onment t hat woul d cr eat e. And so t hat ' s r eal I y not been eval uat ed. I t ' s son -et hi ng t hat I t hi nk t he appl i cant sai d, \/vel I , you know, wee I ooked at bar racks, we I ooked at ALFs, we I ooked at of hers. But, again, this i s a st andar d t hat ' s been t here f or 30 years, and there's been no anal ysi s as t o why i t shout d be reduced at t hi s t i rre of her t han, I woul d argue, convenience. CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: There is a request for t he i ncr ease. It was clearly ar t i cul at ed i n the appl i cation to increase from 104 to 150. Di d st of f not eval uat e t hat as part of t he zoni ng process? You' r e assert i ng t hat somehow t hat was not evaluated? MR PI RES: It r eal I y wasn't t of all y eval uat ed, agai n, and t he r educt i on i n t he square footage for all t he beds in that area and person wasn' t r eat I y eval uat ed, and our - - t hat ' s our ar gurrent , our posi t i on, our opi ni on. CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: I s t here - - MR PI RES: And we' I I have some t e s t i rro n y t o U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 114 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hat of f ect . COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ct her t h a n t he s q u a r e f oot age, i s t here sornet hi ng m ssi ng i n t he code i n r egar ds t o what you t hi nk t he soci al i rrpact - - t he of her i rrpact associ at ed wi t h t he i ncr ease i n homel ess i n t hat f aci I i t y? That' s wher e I was conf used on t he st at ement . MR PI RES: I t hi nk you' I I hear some t est i mony from Cecel i a V\hr d with regards to that when she comes up. And i f you coul d wai t unt i I her pr esent at i on, Cecel i a wi I I addr ess t hat . She' s the pl anner t hat - - COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ck ay . MR PI RES: - - wi I I be t est i f yi ng. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: That ' s the part -- somehow i t seems t o i rrpl y t hat -- and I' m not sayi ng you di d t hi s pur posel y, but somehow i t i rrpl i es that staff f ai I ed to evaluate this when, in fact, it appears i n the staff report there is an eval uat i on, and i t was based on t he al I owed zoni ng, so - - MR PI RES: No. The al I owed zoni ng does not - - t he zoni ng does not al I ow a homel ess shel t er . I t' s a condi t i onal use, and so t hey' r e t r yi ng to change t hat . And I know back t he I ast U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 115 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t i me t hey had i t, i t was a condi t i onal use. They i ncr eased i t f r om 20 t o 84 but used t he same 150 square f oot per person over t he si xt h person. CCM\A SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ri ght . But t he condi t i onal use i s al I owed? MR PI RES: At 104. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: At 104. MR PI RES: But now t hey want t o go t o 150. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Cor r ect . MR PI RES: And we contend and assert t hat t her e' s been no real anal ysi s as t o what t hat i rrpact i s on t he f aci I i t y, on t he adj acent proper i es. They did a trip anal ysi s, and t hat' s it. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ck a y . V 6I I , I me a n , I' m pr obabl y going to defer to - - the same question to staff, because I need cl ar i t y as t o what it is t hat woul d have had t o have been eval uat ed. And you said you have an expert -- MR PI RES: A have our pl anner who wi I I t est i f y as to those issues. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ck ay . MR PI RES: And, as a mat t er of f act , now i s my oppor t uni t y t o i nt r oduce her . CHAI RKAN FRYER Now is rry opportunity to call U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 116 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on ConT i ssi oner Fry. IVR. PI RES: I apol ogi ze. CCMA SSI CNER FRY: Bef or e you go, Tony. IVR. PI RES: Ch , I ' m here. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So I don't think you're obj ect i ng t o t he need f or an addi t i onal 46 beds f or horrel ess somewher e i n Col I i er Count y, cor r ect ? I t ' s not an obj ect i on t o havi ng rror e beds. I t ' s an obj ect i on to the higher density i n the facility. IVR. PI RES: That ' s cor r ect . COMA SSI CNER FRY: V\6ul d you pr of er t hat t hey did an expansion and added square footage to rrai nt ai n t he 150 square f oot per occupant ? IVR. PI RES: No, we bet i eve t hat' s an i ssue al so. It's a twofold issue: The increased capaci t y of t he shel t er by al most 50 per cent and t he r educt i on of squar e f oot age by 33- and- a- t hi r d percent. A t hi nk t hat - - both of t hose ar e pr obl errat i c. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So r eal I y you're r eal I y j ust saying, doing not hi ng - - no expansion should be al I owed i n t er rrs of nurrber - - IVR. PI RES: Cor r ect . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: - - of residents in any way, shape, or f or m U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 117 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. PI RES: Cor r ect . COMA SSI CNER FRY: And t hat ' s part I y because of t he horrel ess i ssues t hat you' r e - - t he pr oper t y i s exper i enci ng next door wi t h homel ess carrps bei ng set up being as - - this bei ng the part of the vor t ex of t he homel ess i ssue? Because t here are horrel ess carrps el sewher e i n t he county. IVR. PI RES: Ri ght . The i ssue i s about whet her i t' s corrpat i bl e t o and, agai n, corrpl errent ar y t o. Corrpat i bl e and corrpl errent ar y t o, how does t hat enhance t he apart ment corrpl ex? How does that enhance - - havi ng t hat addi t i onal number of peopl e r esi di ng i n t hat horrel ess shel t er enhance t he adj acent pr oper t i es? A don' t bel i eve t hat has been shown. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: V\bs i t c o rrp I e me n t ar y to t hat devel oprrent when t hey bought i t f i ve year s ago? The St . IVbt t hen! s House was t her e. I mean, I guess -- IVR. PI RES: Agai n, at t hat I evel , t hey - - agai n, when t hat was acqui red, t hose - - t he use at this level of 104 beds with 150 square feet per person was i n exi st ence. But now t hat ' s bei ng changed. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 118 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W PI RES: And so t hat of f ect s our cl i ent . COMA SSI CNER FRY: Under st ood. Thank you. MR PI RES: Thank you. CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Con-ni ssi oner Schni t t . COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Yeah. Every year t h e county does an assessn-ent of t he number of peopl e I i vi ng i n horrel ess camps. Do you have any of that dat a? M: PI RES: I don' t have t hat . VIb j ust had some t est i n-Dny, I t hi nk, f r om t he Sheriff ' s Depart n-ent . CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Cor r ect . MR PI RES: They i ndi cat ed appr oxi mat el y, I t hi nk, 600 t o 800, 1 t hi nk, was t he est i mat e, I bel i eve, with the January count, or maybe i t was t he execut i ve di r ect or . IVbybe Nr . Brooder sai d t hat . I t hi nk i t was January of each year i s t he count, if I r ecal I. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: They do t he count every year, yes. And -- MR PI RES: I t hi nk i t was 6- t o 800. 1 could be cor r ect ed by ". Br ooder or Ri ch. Cecel i a. Go ahead, Cecelia. Yeah, i f you coul d - - what we' d i ndul ge i nt o t he PI anni ng Com-Ti ssi on, i f we can have Cecel i a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 119 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 br i of I y out I i ne her cr edent i al s and have her qual i f i ed as a pl anner i n pr ovi di ng expert t est i mony. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. NB. VWRD: Good of t er noon, Nf• . Chai r, r ember s of t he Comm ssi on. CeceI i a V\;br d. I' ma certified pl anner, , pr esi dent of JC Consul t i ng I ocat ed i n Tequest a, FI or i da. I have 40 years experience in the pl anni ng f i el d, both in the public and private sect or . I have been t he assi st ant di r ect or of gover nn-ent al pl anni ng f or a Vest i nghouse Com-runi t i es i n Coral Spr i ngs i n Par kl and. I ' ve also been the director of pl anni ng, zoning, and bui I di ng for the City of Fort Lauder dal e. I ' ve been t he st r at egi c pl anni ng assistant director for New Yor k Q t y. I have been pr act i ci ng as president of JC Consul t i ng as a consul t ant f or now al most 15 - - 15, 16 years. So what I ' d like t o do i s j ust go through - - I pr ovi ded very det ai I ed, corrpr ehensi ve, and ext ensi ve anal ysi s of t he appl i cat i on. What I' d I i ke to do in ny presentation is just hi ghl i ght Mat I bel i eve are t he rrost i rrpor t ant and cr i t i cal key poi nt s f r om a pl anni ng r evi ew t hat t he Boar d should consi der . U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 120 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RIVAN FRYER Thank you. Any questions f rom t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on about the expert' s cr edent i al s? ( No response.) CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ckay. Please proceed. IVR. PI RES: Thank you, M- . Chai r man. And for t he r ecor d, al so IVY. V\br d' s had a pr esent at i on or rrat er i al s i n t he Noverrber 22nd subni t t al t hat was t i met y subni t t ed. That was i n t he packet t hat you all received. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. IVS. VARD: I'd like to just s u mra r i z e br i of I y - - it' s up there already. Based on rry pl anni ng r evi ew, as ". Pi r es had sai d, t he r ezoni ng and PUD appl i cat i on i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he count y' s Gr owt h Nbnagerrent PI an, most speci f i cal I y t he Fut ur e Land Use El ement , i n t hat i t i s not corrpat i bl e nor corrpl errent ar y t o t he adj acent rrul t i f ani I y r esi dent i al use. And we' ve been hearing a lot about t hi s, so I' m goi ng to present mor e det ai I as I get t hr ough rry pr esent at i on. But I t hi nk t hat ' s one of t he rrost i rrpor t ant aspect s of t he Gr owt h IVbnagement PI an. I t ' s not onl y di r ect i ng i nt ensi t y and densi t y of devel oprrent U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 121 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to a par t i cul ar area, such as the activity center, but i t ' s al so how you achi eve t hat i n corrpl i ance with the specific pr ovi si on of the plan. It's also not i n corrpl i ance with the count y' s I and devel opment eval uat i on cr i t er i a f or r ezoni ngs and f or PUDs, and i t' s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he count y' s Comruni t y Char act er PI an. I recognize t hat t he Comruni t y Char act er PI an i s j ust a gui de t hat t he count y has adopt ed when consi der i ng r edevel oprrent , but it is a criteria that is I i st ed under t he PUD r egul at i ons. Before I begin, I would just I i ke to hi ghl i ght some of t he changes t hat occur and t he i rrpact s f r om goi ng f r om condi t i onal uses t o per ni t t ed uses and al so some of t he of her changes t hat are a r esul t of this proposed rezoning. Fi r st of al I , t hey' r e aski ng t hat you r errove t he condi t i onal - use r evi ew process f or several of t he uses t hat are bei ng proposed f or Tract B. They' r e I i st ed here. I don't need t o read all of them But , basi cal I y, by r errovi ng t he condi t i onal - use process, t hese uses do not have t o cone back t o t hi s board f or r evi ew. And t hat ' s a si gni f i cant i ssue when you' r e t r yi ng t o det er ni ne how you are con -pat i bl e and how you are U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 122 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corrpl en-ent ar y t o an adj acent nei ghbor hood. When you change t hem t o a per ni t t ed use, you no I onger have t hat abi I i t y t o r evi ew and i rrpose cer t ai n condi t i ons or addi t i ons t hat woul d hel p al I evi at e any concer ns t hat an adj acent pr oper t y may have and ensure t hat con -pat i bi I i t y and corrpl en-ent ar y exi st ence. They're also al I owi ng uses that are only per ni t t ed in - - one use speci f i cal I y t hat' s only per ni t t ed in the i ndust r i al di strict . That ' s the refrigerated war ehousi ng and st or age war ehousi ng, col d refrigerated only, 4222. Sothis use is not al I owed in the G 4. I t' s al so not al I owed i n t he DeVoe PUD. I t ' s an i ndust r i al use. So I woul d i nt r oduce t hat as a per ni t t ed use. And i t ' s also al I owi ng - - I know t here' s been some di scussi on about the horrel ess shel ter use. Currently just to expl ai n t hi s, the DeVoe PUD does not per ni t hon-el ess shel t er. As i ndi cat ed by t he appl i cant , t he horrel ess shel t er use i s a condi t i onal use i n C- 4, so t hey' r e not real I y request i ng this in Tract B, and I t hi nk t hat ' s a very cons der abl e cons der at i on t hat t hey' ve of f er ed, and I appr eci at e t he cl ar i f i cat i on. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 123 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The si gni f i cant di f f er ence, as I ' ve not ed, bet ween changi ng f r om a condi t i onal use t o a per mi t t ed use, agai n, i t r emoves t he pr ovi si on especi al I y f r om t he PI anni ng Comii ssi on. Today under your code, Mich is 10. 08. 00, you have the abi I i t y t o r evi ew condi t i onal uses and ensur e saf eguar ds and rrake r ecomrendat i ons. That woul d go away wi t h t hi s r ezoni ng change. Just to hi ghl i ght some of t he key provi si ons. Now, i n rry r epor t I I i st ed several pol i ci es, several obj ect i ons, several sect i ons of t he comer ehensi ve - - of your Gr owt h IVbnagerrent PI an, excuse n-e, where the appl i cation is i nconsi st ent in rry prof essi onal opi ni on. I' m goi ng to just hi ghl i ght what I bel i eve is some of t he more si gni f i cant i ssues. Pot i cy 5. 6 r equi r es t hat you ar e con -pat i bl e and al so corrpI errent ar y t o t he adj acent r es dent i al maI t i f ami I y, and by i nt r oduci ng t hese soci al ser vi ce uses and an i ndust r i al use wi t hout t he pr of ect i on of a condi t i onal - use r evi ew, what happens now i s not onl y do you have what i s i n exi st ence t oday but now you' r e al so addi ng mor e uses t hat j ust , i f you woul d, f ur t her di st ance t he ability to achieve that compat i bi l i t y and that U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 124 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corrpl en-ent ar y exi st ence bet ween t he t wo uses, r esi dent i al and now whi ch i s heavy commer ci al and i ndust r i al . It also creates the abi I i t y to - - the pot ent i al t o have addi t i onal i rrpact s. As you heard, t here have been some vagrancy i ssues. I have not - - I ' m not the expert on t hat . I ' m not f ami I i ar with the specifics on that other than t here have been some ci t i ngs of t hat . You' I I hear f r om t he traffic consultant cer t ai n traffic issues. Noi se. Li t t er . Cur pot ent i al concer ns, especi al I y I i ght i ng and I oadi ng i ssues when you i nt r oduce t hi s r of r i ger at ed war ehouse component . Agai n, W t hout t he condi t i onal - use r evi ew, you t ake away t he abi I i t y t o address al I of t hose i ssues. The appl i cant is also - - the appl i cation is al so i nconsi st ent W t h t he Bayshor e/ Gat eway Tr i angl e Redevel oprnent O✓er I ay and M xed- Use [District Overlay that applies to the property. Thi s i s real I y a soci al ser vi ce campus. And whi I e I agree with the staff that the i nt ense - - that the di r ect i on of a r egi onal act i vi t y cent er i s to di r ect i nt ensi t y and densi t y of uses i n a par t i cul ar area, it has to be done with t he i nt ent of the di strict . U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . com 125 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In this par t i cul ar area, the i nt ent is to have pedest r i an connect i ons and pr ovi de ni xed- use devel opment t hat hel ps t o encour age near by r esi dent s t o ut i I i ze t hose ser vi ces. So what we're really doing here is we' r e cr eat i ng a ni xed- use devel oprrent t hat i s a soci al ser vi ce carrpus t hat does not necessar i I y create any interest for residents or benefits for - - benefits f r om t he adj acent r esi dent i al com-runi t y t o have pedestrian connections to and utilize those ser vi ces as t hey woul d i n a r et ai I cent er or a shopping center. I t' s al so rry prof essi onal opi ni on t hat t he appl i cat i on i s not i n corrpl i ance wi t h t he count y' s PUD and zoning eval uat i on criteria. You've heard t hi s before. I t does I ack i of or mat i on and anal ysi s to reach cer t ai n det er ni nat i ons. That burden is on t he appl i cant , not on t he st of f . The appl i cant i s r equi red to pr ovi de t hat evi dence. That has not been provided in the backup that has been reviewed and t hat has been subni t t ed. That ' s necessar y t o det er ni ne whet her or not t here wi I I be i rrpact s on light and air to the adj acent r esi dent i al nei ghbor hood t o assur e t hat t her e be no negat i ve i rrpact s on adj acent pr oper t y U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 126 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 values. That has not been addressed. Basi cal I y, t he appl i cant j ust sai d we bel i eve t here wi I I be no i rrpact s on t he adj acent pr oper t y val ues. Thank you. And al so t o ensure t hat t here be adequacy of publ i c and pr i vat e i rrpr overrent s based on t i ni ng of devel opment . That ' s a PUD r equi r errent . You usual I y have a phased devel oprrent plan, and you show that you' re goi ng to have cer t ai n i rrpr oven-ent s occurring as you come in and do your r edevel oprrent . That has not been provided. t hi nk n-ost si gni f i cant I y, i n rry opi ni on, are t he t wo devi at i ons t hat ar e bei ng r equest ed. I ' I I j ust deal wi t h t he buf f er , f or exarrpl e. There's been no i of or rrat i on pr ovi ded i n t he appl i cat i on t hat addr esses t he buf f er t hat i s cur r ent I y r equi red under t he G 4 zoni ng. In an act i vi t y cent er , you' r e r equi r ed t o have a 20-foot buffer. That has not been addressed at all by the appl i cant . Addi t i onal I y, t hi s request f or t hi s devi at i on in square foot for the homeless f aci I i t y going from the 150 feet t o the 100 feet , I t hi nk t he nnst i rrpor t ant anal ysi s t hat has not been pr ovi ded i s, what i s t he i rrpact on t he horrel ess r esi dent s U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 127 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hemsel ves? What we' ve heard i s t hat you now have 104 beds. You have somewhat of a concent r at i on of horrel ess shelter uses and persons. Let's just t al k about per sons. Now you' r e addi ng 50 rror e on top of t hat in a mach srml I er confined space. A' r e not t al ki ng about assi st ed I i vi ng f aci I i t i es. VW r e not t al ki ng about bar racks who have rror e of a cont r of I ed envi r onment . You now have concentration adding more horrel ess persons who we don' t know what t he affect is on t heat not only t he peopl e who ar e t her e cur r ent I y but al so t he peopl e who may be corn ng t here as a r esul t of t hi s i ncr ease. VW I I they want t o st ay, or wi I I it encourage rror e vagrancy as a r esul t of t hat rror e conf i ned sn7al I er space? And t hat has not been pr ovi ded by t he appl i cant . There' s no i of or mat i on doing a data and anal ysi s count ywi de or st at ewi de or nat i onwi de as t o whet her or not t here woul d be an i rrpact on t he horrel ess persons t hemsel ves. Addi t i onal I y, as has been st at ed pr evi oust y, t hi s code has been i n of f ect f or 30 year s. To come i n and ask for a devi at i on f r om t hat without I ooki ng at t hat gl obal I y and t he of f ect count ywi de, I t hi nk, woul d be a di sser vi ce t o t he com-rani t y. I t' s al so not i n corrpl i ance wi t h t he count y' s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 128 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUD eval uat i on f or t he f of I owi ng r easons: Bot h t he county staff , i n t hei r report, are or t hopedi c as wet I as t he appl i cant have i ndi cat ed t hat t he uses t hat t hey' r e pr oposi ng and what t hey want t o do can already be done on the existing zoning. I have to just question the issue with respect to t he war ehouse t hat ' s per ni t t ed i n i ndust r i al . But i f t hat i s t he case, what i s t he pur pose? I f i t' s onl y t o not have t o go t hr ough t he condi t i onal - use process, I t hi nk, agai n, t hat does a di sser vi ce and i s somewhat i ncorrpat i bl e wi t h bei ng abl e t o achi eve t he i nt ent of your Fut ur e Land Use El errent , whi ch i s t o be corrpl en-ent ar y and corrpat i bl e wi t h t he adj acent nei ghbor hood. And owner shi p i n and of i t sel f shoul d not be t he sot e purpose f or request i ng a r ezoni ng. That is one of the criteria, that you need to own the pr oper t y, but t hat bei ng t he pur pose f or j ust bei ng mor e corrpr ehensi ve because we own t he pr oper t y, I t hi nk, whi I e i t' s a good i nt ent i on, does not r eal I y fulfill all of the - - answer i ng the questions i n t he code t hat are r equi red f or eval uat i on of t he rezoning as requested. So wi t h t hat , I ' I I concl ude rry pr esent at i on. I' I I be happy t o answer any quest i ons. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 129 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. Any questions f r om t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on? ". East man. IVR. EASTMgN: The f act t hat t he expansi on of t he horrel ess shel t er wi I I serve t he comruni t y better by al I owi ng greater capacity, there wi I I be n-ur e peopl e who wi I I have access to t hi s, how do you speak t o t hat i n t er rrs of t he anal ysi s, t he need for t he r ezoni ng comruni t y- or i ent ed- wi se or even corrpl ement ar y, I i ke maybe get t i ng some of t hose peopl e out of t he woods and i nt o t he pr ogr am? IVB. VWRD: I ' m not an expert on homel ess act i vi t i es, but I wi I I say t hat we don' t know Met her or not t he r equest ed devi at i on wi I I have a posi t i ve or negat i ve i rrpact . That' s what rry pr esent at i on i s. I t hi nk t here i s a need for nnr e horrel ess shel t er avai I abi I i t y, and I t hi nk t hat' s j ust sorret hi ng t hat' s j ust evi dent , as has been st at ed, across t he country. But I t hi nk that the f act t hat we' r e condensing t hat nurrber of persons wi t hi n a f aci I i t y wi t hout under st andi ng t he i rrpact of that i s what' s ni ssi ng. Addi t i onal I y, i f you I eave t hat as a condi t i onal use, you woul d have t hat oppor t uni t y t o have t hat i of or mat i on come back t o you f or t hat rev i ew. Just as it was done goi ng from 84 t o 104 U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 130 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beds, you woul d st i I I have t hat oppor t uni t y goi ng from 104 to 150 to consider all those pot ent i al i apact s, especi al I y on t he adj acent nei ghbor hood. Ckay. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Anyone else? ( No response.) CHAI RIV14N FRYER Yovanovi ch. IVR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: I want t o rra k e sure I understand your expert i se as what you're t est i f yi ng t o. You're not an expert in the operation of horrel ess shel t er s, cor r ect ? IVS. VARD: No, s i r, I am not . IVR. YCVANCVI CH: Ck ay . You' r e not a t r ans port at i on engi neer , cor r ect ? IV6. VARD: No. I' m d of e r r i n g to t h e t r ans port at i on consul t ant s. IVR. YCVANCVI CH: So - - and you have no expertise whatsoever with regard to - - with regard t o oper at i ng homel ess shel t er s, cor r ect ? IV6. VARD: No, t hat' s not been rry exper i ence. IVR. YCVANCVI CH: Ck ay . So al l t he quest i o n s you r ai se are j ust hypot het i cal quest i ons. You can' t pr ovi de any expert opi ni on as t o whet her t he reduction from 150 square feet to 100 square feet i s not an appr opr i at e r educt i on. You' r e j ust U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 131 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unhappy wi t h t he i of or rrat i on pr ovi ded, cor r ect ? W. VARD: No, t hat ' s not cor r ect . I cannot pr ovi de an expert opi ni on wi t h your f i r st st at ement . VW t h the second st at ement is, i t ' s the burden on t he appl i cant t o pr ovi de t hat i of or mat i on. NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: VWh i c h I agree, t he burden' s on us. Now, you woul d agree t hat U . Brooder got up and expl ai ned t he oper at i ons of t he St . IVbt t he\n! s House, correct? IV6. YARD: Yes, I di d hear t hat . NR. YOVANOVI CH: Di d you have any knowl edge about how St . IVbt t he\n! s House actual I y oper at es Men f or m ng your opi ni ons? IV6. YARD: Yes, I di d. I went on t he websi t e. I read through all of the mat er i al s. I even looked at t hei r f i nanci al s, anyt hi ng t hat I coul d f i nd. NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: So did you contact anybody at St . IVbt t hen! s House and ask t hem how t hey do t hei r i nt ake process? IVB. YARD: No. No, I di d not . IVR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: Di d you contact anybody at St . IVbt t heW s House t o ask t hem how t hey have secur i t y? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 132 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IVB. VARD: No, I di d not . IVR YCNANCNI CH: Di d you contact anybody at St . Mat t heW s House r egar di ng how peopl e get t o and f r om t he homel ess s hel t er ? IVB. VARD: No, I did not , but I t hi nk I heard some t est i n-uny to that effect. IVR YC^/ANC^/I CH: No, I j ust want t o under st and t he basi s of your opi ni ons t hat you have j ust provided. Di d you cont act anybody at t he Sher i f f ' s Cf f i ce regarding cr i rre st at i st i cs? IVB. VARD: No, t hat wo u I d not have been rry - - rry position to do t hat . That was t hr ough - - VMst Shor e pr ovi ded t hat i of or mat i on. IVR YC^/ANC^/I CH: But you pr ovi ded a concern that there was - - there would be an increase in vagrancy? IVB. VARD: Based on t he i n f or mat f on t hat we had f r om Vest Shor e, cor r ect . IVR YOVANOVI CH: From V\bs t Shore. And who at V\bst Shore di d you speak to r egar di ng t he i of or rrat i on? IVB. VARD: IVf . Ti I brook p r ov i ded s o rre i of or mat i on. IVR. YCNANCNI CH: So you' re r e l y i ng upon U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 133 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i of or mat i on pr ovi ded t o you by t he at t or ney i of or ni ng your opi ni on r egar di ng vagr ancy? IVE. YARD: I t was a -- i t was a code enf or cement - - code vi of at i on t hat he ci t ed t o me. M:: YOVANOVI CH: So he sent you one code vi of at i on? IVE. YARD: And al so di scussed t hat t hey' ve been havi ng several of her i rrpact s, whi ch you' ve hear d f r om t hei r pr oper t y manager . IVR. YOVANOVI CH: So you' re r e l y i ng upon hear say i of or ni ng your opi ni on r egar di ng vagr ancy? IVE. YARD: V\bI I , my opi ni on i s a pl anni ng opi ni on. I t hi nk the information is suf f i ci ent to f or m a pl anni ng opi ni on that vagrancy has occurred. So, f r om a pl anni ng st andpoi nt , I bet i eve t hat i s a good consideration. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: And you have no evidence that t he, quot e, vagr ancy t hat you' r e seei ng has anyt hi ng to do with people who are act ual I y st ayi ng at t he St . IVbt t he\n/ s House f aci I i t y, cor r ect ? IVE. YARD: Ar e you t al ki ng about son -et hi ng i n wri t i ng or any of her avenues? NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: The pr i or t e s t i mo n y was s h e has no idea or any evidence that the people who -- t he homel ess peopl e ar e act ual I y st ayi ng at U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 134 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 St . IVht t h ern! s House. W. VARD: I don' t know t hat I can answer t hat , because I t hought I heard t hat t he deput y t hat was wor ki ng on t he case ment i oned t hat i t was because of t he pr oxi ni t y t o St . IVht t he\A/ s, but I don' t know t hat I can answer t hat . NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: You wo u l d agree t hat t he exi st i ng St . IVht t he\n/ s House i s corrpat i bl e and corrpl en-ent ar y t o t he apar t Trent corrpl ex, cor r ect ? W. VARD: I don' t know t hat I can say t hat . Let rre j ust expl ai n why, i f I can. I t hi nk that i t' s there. And t he apart Trent house is there. So i t exi st s t oget her . I bel i eve t hat t here are n-easur es t hat shoul d be t aken t o hel p i rrpr ove t he oper at i ons and rrai nt enance t o ensure t hat corrpat i bi I i t y based on t he t est i rrony. NR. YOVANOVI CH: So I et ' s t e s t your expert i se in the Col I i er County Growl: h IVhnagement PI an. nen di d t he corrpar abl e - - I mean, t he corrpat i bl e and corrpl errent ar y cr i t er i a f i r st appear i n t he Col I i er County Gr owt h IVhnagen-ent PI an? W. VARD: You wo u I d have t o show rre t hat . I onl y go by what ' s adopt ed t oday. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: C k a y . I want you t o a s s u rre t hat when t he apar t rrent corrpl ex - - I et rre put i t - - U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 135 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are you aware t hat t he apart ment corrpl ex came i n of t er St . IVbt t he\n! s House exi st ed on t he proper t y? IV6. YARD: That ' s - - t o rry knows edge, t hat ' s correct. NR YOVANOVI CH: So when t he apart rren t c o rrp I ex came t hr ough, i t went t hr ough a r evi ew of t he consi st ency W t h t he Corrpr ehensi ve PI an, cor r ect ? IV6. YARD: I don' t know t hat , but I woul d expect t hat t hat woul d be the case. NR. YOVANOVI CH: And i t was d et er ni n e d t hat t he apart ment corrpl ex was corrpat i bl e W t h t he horrel ess shel t er , cor r ect ? IV6. YARD: I don' t know t hat , but I woul d expect t hat t hat woul d be t he case. NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: So we can agree t hat t he apart ment corrpl ex i s corrpat i bl e W t h t he homel ess shel ter? IV6. YARD: Coul d you j ust expl ai n how you mean t hat , t hough? NR. YOVANOVI CH: VV I , you j ust sai d t he apart rrent corrpl ex car-e i n of t er t he horrel ess shel t er . The r ezone cr i t er i a t al k about corrpat i bl e and corrpl errent ar y. Cbvi ousl y, t he apart rrent corrpl ex got appr oved, cor r ect ? W. VARD: Vbl I , t o answer your quest i on, I U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 136 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coul d agree t hat a r esi dent i al rrul o f ani I y coul d be corrpat i bl e wi t h a horriel ess shel t er because I don' t know what t he i apact s woul d be cr eat ed by a r esi dent i al rrul t i f ani I y on a homeless shelter. So f r om t hat per spect i ve, yes. MR YCNANCNI CH: So you wo u I d - - now, your cl i ent obvi ousl y bought t he apart ment corrpl ex wi t h the existing St. IVbt t he\n/ s House t her e, cor r ect ? IV6. YARD: I t hi nk you sai d t hat , yes. MR YCNANCNI CH: All , I mean, wasn't t h e exi st i ng St . IVbt t he\n! s t here - - I mean, your I awyer put up the 2016 date. IV6. YARD: I heard t hat , yes. I t hi nk I ' ve already answered t hat . MR YC^/ANC^/I CH: So your c l i e n t rru s t have det er ni ned t hat t he exi st i ng homel ess shel t er i s corrpat i bl e wi t h i t s apart ment corrpl ex, cor r ect ? MR PI RES: Hearsay. I understand i t ' s specul at i on. I t hi nk i t ' s tot al I y inappropriate. That' s what he' s asking, specul at i on. CHAI RNAN FRYER Not ed. And I ' m goi ng to take t hi s opportunity to call on Corrrri ssi oner Schni t t . COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: All, I wanted to talk to Ri ch, because I wanted - - I know you're on a cross speci f i cal I y addr essi ng t he i ssues wi t h t he U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 137 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 number of beds. 4 concerns are, what are your i ssues t hat wer e r ai sed based on t he zoni ng i ssues? I ' m I ooki ng at t he sl i de and t he one pr evi ous. You're not - - you have no cross on any - - W t h any of the i of or rrat i on as provided speci f i cal I y to the zoning. Now, your cross is pretty rruch directed speci f i cal I y on what I ki nd of am gat her i ng i s an opi ni on - - M: YCVANCVI CH: Ri g h t . CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: - - based on t he i rrpact of t he i ncr ease i n t he homel ess shel t er , but t here are other i ssues as wel I that are bei ng cl ai rred now by a st at ed prof essi onal . But you've not addressed any of t hose quest i ons. MR YC\/ANC\/I CH: All - - and , " . Sc h n i t t , I was goi ng to address t hose - - CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ck ay . MR YG/ANG/I CH: -- in rry closing. So I et rre ask t hi s quest i on: Are you saying t hat Col I i er County staff did not do their job in anal yzi ng t hi s pet i t ion? NB. VWRD: I' m not saying t hat . What I ' m saying is that i t' s t he appl i cant ' s bur den t o pr ovi de t he dat a and i of or rrat i on. MR YOVANOVI CH: And di d n' t - - we pr ovi ded U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 138 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i of or mat i on to county staff , correct? W. YARD: The i of or mat i on that I' m ci t i ng was not i n t he appl i cat i on. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: V\6 pr ov i d ed i n f or mat i on i dent i f yi ng how we sat i sf i ed each of t hose cr i t er i a, correct? IV6. YARD: No, I' m sor r y, I cannot agree with t hat . The i of or mat i on was not pr ovi ded. There wer e st at ement s such as, i f I coul d gi ve an exarrpl e, we expect t hat t he proposed devel opment wi I I not have an i rrpact on proper t y vat ues. That is not i of or rrat i on. IVR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: Now, staff is required to r evi ew t he i of or mat i on we pr ovi de and go t hr ough and det er ni ne whet her or not we sat i sf i ed each of the criteria, correct? IV6. YARD: That is t ypi cal I y what happens, yes. IVR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: And st of f has opi ned i n t hei r st of f r epor t t hat we have sat i sf i ed each of t he cr i t er i a, correct? IV6. YARD: I don' t know how st of f was abl e t o reach t hat concl usi on wi t hout t hat i of or rrat i on. NR. YOVANOVI CH: So what you' re s a y i ng i s staff did not do their job, correct? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 139 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NE. V1ARD: I can onl y say t hat I don' t know how t hey reached t hat concl usi on. CHAI RKAN FRYER Co rrrri s s i o n e r Fry? CCM/M SSI CNER FRY: Ri ch, I j ust - - i f i t was just st of f' s r esponsi bi l i t y to approve, there would be no need for us. NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: I under st and t hat . I under st and t hat . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So, yeah, t hey approved i t , and i t' s up t o us to decide if we agree with the criteria they use. And she' s t est i f yi ng t hat she doesn't agree with their criteria. I t doesn' t necessar i I y rrean t hat t hey di d son -et hi ng wr ong. I guess I ki nd of obj ect t o t he wor di ng of t hat t hat they di dn' t do their j ob. NR. YCNANCNI CH: That ' s f i n e. What I was trying— rry point is, what you have i s t he t ypi cal case. You have a bat t I e of t he expert s. They have t hei r expert who' s up t here sayi ng we di dn' t satisfy the criteria, we have our expert who says we do satisfy the cr i t er i a, and you have t he i ndependent r evi ewer, whi ch i s Col I i er Count y st of f , t hat says we have met t he cr i t er i a. That was goi ng to be part of rry cl ose. You got i t now i n the questions from ". Schni t t . U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 140 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I onl y have a coupl e of rror e quest i ons, and t hen I ' I I sit down. CHAI RNAN FRYER Bef ore doi ng t hat , Con-ni ssi oner Shea. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: I guess I would ask, in your prof essi onal opi ni on, what do you - - how woul d you n-Ddi f y t he appl i cat i on so t hat your cl i ent night be more wi I I i ng to accept, in your professional opi ni on? IVB. VWRD: And I bet i eve we wor ked on t hat . There are some changes to the uses that are being proposed. Some buf f er i ng, addi t i onal buf f er i ng. Agai n, i n t he C- 4 t oday you' r e supposed t o have a 20- f oot buf f er . That has not even been addressed in the appl i cation, so I t hi nk there's additional buf f er i ng. Hour s of oper at i on. Li ght i ng and gl are f r om t he addi t i onal war ehousi ng t hat ' s bei ng proposed. So al I of those. And I ' m sure M- . Pi r es is going to go through those i n det ai I , but we' ve act ual I y sat down and worked t hr ough t hose. I n rry prof essi onal opi ni on, t hose get us cl oser t o t hat corrpl errent ar y and corrpat i bl e si t uat i on wher e everyone can wal k away and, I t hi nk, be sat i sf i ed. W PI RES: ". Shea, i f I ray. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: The chat I enge of t hat i s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 141 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hat you' r e aski ng t o go back and change what' s al ready t here. NB. VWRD: No, I ' m not. CCM/M SSI CNER SHEA: The hours of oper at i on, t he war ehousi ng, and - - NR. PI RES: If I may just br i of I y i nt er r upt . Part of what Ri ch obj ect ed t o was our - - we t ook the Exhibits A through F of the PUD and r edl i ned it and sent i t t o the staff and to the PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on, t hat' s what Ri ch obj ect ed t o, and t hat ' s what we woul d suggest wouI d make i t corrpl errent ar y and corrpat i bl e t o i t . So - - and Celia worked with us on t hat . In her professional opi ni on, i t woul d make - - i t woul d r esol ve t hese issues. But , agai n, ". Yovanovi ch obj ect ed t o us. And so I wi I I go and read it at the end of the presentat i on. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Ckay. No, I ' I I back off. I apol ogi ze f or j urrpi ng t he gun on t hat one. NR. PI RES: Ch, no, si r . A appr eci ate you aski ng. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: Just as I ong as we address that. MR PI RES: I want ed t o make sur e t hat you know t hat Cecel i a al so I ooked at t hat , and i t was a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 142 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t eam effort ; we reviewed i t , and this is our request. CCMA SSI CNER SHEA: I didn't see i t. NR. PI RES: Thank you. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: I haven' t seen i t . NR. YCVANCVI CH: VIbI I - - and, you know, I ' d I ove t o j ust cut t o the chase and I et' s go t o the end of t he book - - CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: That's a good idea. NR. YCVANCVI CH: - - and j ust put t hem up and I et rre t el I you why we coul dn' t agree t o what t hey want t o do, because t hei r I et t er - - NR. PI RES: ". Chai r rran, I t hi nk he' s on cross, not hi s ar gurrent now, so i f we coul d - - CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah, I t hi nk t hat ' s correct. Let ' s have -- MR YCVANCVI CH: I' v e o n I y got a c o u p l e rro r e quest ions, if you' I I I et rre. CHAI RNAN FRYER: Cross of t hi s wi t ness? W YCNANCNI CH: CF this witness. CHAI RNAN FRYER Go ahead. NR. YG\/ANG\/I CH: You' re c o rrp l a i n i ng about t he f act t hat we' r e not goi ng t hr ough a condi t i onal - use appl i cat i on t o expand t he hon-el ess shel t er, , correct? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 143 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NB. YARD: No, I ' m not corrpI ai ni ng. Mat I ' m st at i ng i s t hat t he r ezoni ng request changi ng t he state - - state, if you wi I I , of the uses from condi t i onal t o per rri t t ed, and t hat t akes away a pr ocess of r evi ew t hat of f or ds some pr of ect i on t o t he nei ghbor hood, adj acent nei ghbor hood. NR. YC \/ANC \/l CH: ft a t criteria in t h e condi t i onal - use review criteria are not also i ncl uded i n t he r ezone cr i t er i s we' r e goi ng t hr ough today to rezone the property to al I ow a use that woul d be al I owed under a condi t i onal -use process? NB. YARD: I bet i eve if you go t o Section 10.08. 00 of t he Land Devel opment Code - - NR. YOVANOVI CH: Bear with me. I ' v e got t o get back i n. And I have i t r i ght here. Go ahead. NB. YARD: I t al I ows condi t i ons and saf eguar ds t hat coul d be r ecomTended by t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on and t hen, obvi ousl y, approved - - accept ed/ approved by t he ci t y - - by t he Count y Commi ssi on. So t hey coul d make t hose addi t i onal condi t i ons and saf eguar ds i n t hei r r evi ew of a condi t i onal use. IVR. YO\/ANO\/l CH: Co u l d t hey not al so rra k e r ecom-endat i ons and saf eguar ds as par t of r ezone? W. YARD: They can. That' s what we' re U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 144 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposing. NR. YCNANCNI CH: Ckay. But what I ' m conf used about , you' r e sayi ng we' r e somehow sneaki ng a horrel ess shel t er i n on a di f f er ent r evi ew process because we're going through a rezone and not t hr ough a condi t i onal use. Am I ni sunder st andi ng what you' re sayi ng? N6. V1ARD: Yes. I ' m not sayi ng you' re sneaking anything in, so pl ease don' t char act er i ze t hat . AI I Im sayi ng i s t hat i t needs t o be br ought out - - br ought t o an at t ent i on t hat we' r e goi ng f r om condi t i onal t o per ni t t ed t hat changes t he st at e t hat t hese uses are i n, changes t he I evel of r evi ew f r om a con -pat i bi I i t y and a corrpl en-ent ar y review to be i n corrpl i ance with the Gr owt h IVbnagerrent PI an of t he count y. It gives that extra I evel of r evi ew to your corrrri ssi on, bot h your PI anni ng ConTn ssi on, your County ConTn ssi on, and just poi nt i ng that out to say that this i s why we bet i eve it is cr i t i cal that the proposed modi f i cat i ons t o t he or di nance are consi der ed t o hel p assur e and al I ay t he concer ns t hat we have f r om t hat corrpat i bi I i t y and corrpl errent ar y posi t i on. NR YOVANOVI CH: Mat body or per son, i f you know, act ual I y r evi ews condi t i onal uses i n Col I i er U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 145 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Count y? W. VARD: You' d have t o show rrie t hat sect i on of t he code, but I know t he PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on has the authority to r evi ew t hat . NR YCNANCNI CH: Are you aware t hat condi t i onal uses have been del egat ed t o t he Hear i ng Exam ner i n Col I i er County? W. VARD: Thi s i s r i ght out of t he code. NR YCNANCNI CH: Have you read t h e adni ni st rat i ve code or t he Hear i ng Exam ner' s or di nance t o know t hat condi t i onal uses are act ual I y r evi ewed by t he Hear i ng Exam ner ? N6. VARD: I di dn' t r evi ew the adni ni st r at i ve code, but i f you coul d show me t he sect i on of t he code, I ' d be happy t o r evi ew what you' r e st at i ng. NR YCNANCNI CH: Are you aware that there a r e only four review criteria for a conditional use and there are probably over 20 review criteria for a rezone? W. VARD: I' m awa r e that there's a difference. Vhat I' m sayi ng is that by t aki ng it out of t he hands of your PI anni ng Con-ni ssi on, t hat r ennves t hat saf eguar d of r evi ew f r om t hi s con-ni ssi on. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Thank you. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 146 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER Nf• . Pi r es. NR. PI RES: Thank you, Cecelia. NB. VWRD: Thank you. CHAI RNAN FRYER: Con-ni ss i oner Fry has - - NR PI RES: So you have quest i ons of Nt. V\br d? COMA SSI CNER FRY: Cecel i a, bef ore you si t down, I t ook about what you said about the conditional - use process t o mean t hat - - not so mach f or t he - - I mean, we ar e r evi ewi ng t he i ncr ease from 104 to 150 today and the density reduction of squar e f oot age, but we' r e al so - - when you went i oned per mi t t ed uses, I t hought maybe you wer e referring more to Tract B, that I i st of permitted uses -- NB. VWRD: That ' s cor r ect . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: - - wher eas t hose woul d not have t o come back bef ore us r egar dl ess of what t hey put i n, as I ong as t hey' r e one of t hose per mi t t ed uses in the future; whereas, if it was a conditional use, each i ndi vi dual use would have to come back, go through a conditional - use process. I s t hat what you' r e-- i s t hat what you' r e sayi ng? NB. V1ARD: That ' s cor r ect . Those uses that are currently I i st ed as conditional uses in the C- 4 woul d have t o come back t o you i f t hey want ed t o U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 147 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 come into -- COMA SSI CNER FRY: Li ke what ? Is the office bui I di ng a condi t i onal use or - - we know the horrel ess shel t er was. NB. VWRD: The general warehousing and storage, legal counsel and prosecution, used vehi cl a sales. I know some of t hese are t here, but an expansion of any of those. I know they already t al ked about r enrovi ng t he hon-el ess shel t er f r om t he Tr act B. And I t hi nk the of her n-Dst si gni f i cant change i n t hi s r ezoni ng i s i nt r oduci ng t he refrigerated warehousing and storage, cold or r of r i ger at ed only. That ' s i n your i ndust r i al zoning. So j ust t o go back rraybe to the previous quest i on i s, by addi ng - - you' r e addi ng now t wi ce as rruch com-rer ci al . I understand that you can go i of i ni t um I get al I t hat . But by addi ng t wi ce as rruch comer ci al , possi bl y t he addi t i on of additional warehousing bays and doors, you don't have that opportunity to r evi ew for i rrpact s from I i ght and glare and noise and operations I oadi ng. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: But we don' t today. NB. V1ARD: You do today under the current code. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 148 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER I ' m goi ng to ask the county attorney to cl ar i f y a point that was raised. I r eal i ze t hi s i s a wor k i n pr ocess, and we ar e goi ng to be consi der i ng at a very early t i rre how condi t i onal uses and of her cont est ed mat t er s ar e t o be apport i oned bet ween t he PI anni ng Conmi ssi on and t he Hear i ng Exam ner. I just - - I' m aski ng the County Attorney to r eni nd me, what' s t he st at e of pl ay r i ght now under t he cur rent r ul es? NR. KLATZKON I ' I I defer to Bosi on that one, because he does the day-to-day on t hi s. NR. BCSI : The - - per the code, it does say t he Hear i ng Exam ner can hear condi t i onal uses. There is an eval uat i on that goes on f r om t he Hear i ng Exam ner as to whether he feels i t ' s of publ i s i nt er est and concern, and i f it is, that is elevated by his of f i ce t o t he PI anni ng Conn-i ssi on. There is not hi ng in terms of any written cr i t er i a t hat hel ps est abl i sh t hat of her t han t he amount of public i nt er est wi t hi n a condi t i onal use. CHAI RN/AN FRYER And we are i n t he process of r evi siting t hat , are we not ? NR BCSI : Yes. CHAI RN/AN FRYER And j u s t f or rry e d i f i cat i on U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 149 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and not t o hold you t o i t at all, but i n your j udgrrent , j ust havi ng heard t hi s i of or mat i on, woul d you consi der t hi s i ssue, t he condi t i onal - use port i on here on Tract B, i s t hi s son -et hi ng t hat shoul d be el evat ed t o t he PI anni ng ConTi ssi on or decided by the HEX? NR. KLATZKON Th i s - - when Nr . St r a i n was doi ng i t , i t woul d have been el evat ed t o t he PI anni ng ComYi ssi on. CHAI RIVAN FRYER That ' s what I t hought . NR. KLATZKON I can' t speak of t he cur rent Hear i ng Exam ner. . NR. BCSI : I coul dn' t speak t o i t, but I woul d say, the only t hi ng I woul d make a conTmnt upon i s there's an i nt er est ed - - there's obj ect i on f r om t he property owners. There's no other public here. This doesn't seem I i ke a matter of public concern. I t ' s a matter of one specific property owner, in rry perspective. And from evi dence of the i ndi vi dual s who are not here, I can - - I ' m onl y I of t to conclude that the concern expressed by t hi s pet i t i on i s r ai sed by one speci f i c pr oper t y owner . CHAI RNAN FRYER: Ck a y . Hear f r o m Nr . East rra n and then ConTi ssi oner Schni t t . NR. EASTNAN: The opposi t i on' s pl anni ng U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 150 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expert , pl ease. You t al ked about corrpat i bi I i t y and maki ng con -pat i bi I i t y, and you t al ked about cer t ai n changes, buffering, i f you wi I I . Could you prioritize those and sort of , you know, give us a condensed version of what you f eel are t he nrost i rrpor t ant , from your per spect i ve. IVB. VWRD: I bel i eve first are uses, the type of uses. And I know t her e ar e some t her e, but we' r e t al king about doubt i ng of corrmer ci al , i nt r oduci ng an industrial. VW r e t al ki ng about a concent rat i on of rror e horrel ess shel t er beds i n a rruch srral I er space. So I t hi nk all of t hose are t o be discussed. VM, I bel i eve, have already discussed the issue about not i ncr easi ng horrel ess shel t er f aci I i t y uses, t he beds t hemsel ves, on Tr act B, so t hat ' s a ver y good di r ect i on. There are some of her uses t hat we' ve proposed t hat shoul d be expr essl y pr ohi bi t ed on Tract B. The buf f er i ng f r om t he nei ghbor hood, t he r es dent i al nei ghbor hood, i s very si gni f i cant . Thi s al I ows t o gi ve some space bet ween t he addi t i onal comrer ci al t hat ' s goi ng t o be added t o t he si t e. There' s al so some hours of oper at i on f or t he bays and t he oper at i on of t he war ehousi ng. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 151 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Di r ect i on of I i ght i ng, di r ect i on of glare. And I t hi nk NA-. Pi r es is going to read this all into the r ecor d at some poi nt . But these are the type - - I t hi nk f r om t he begi nni ng i t' s uses; then i t' s buffering; then i t ' s hours of oper at i on, I i ght i ng, and gl are i rrpact s. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Co rrrri s s i o n e r Sc h n i t t. CCMVI SSI CNER SCHM TT: Yeah. I' m goi ng t o go back t o t he condi t i onal use. M ke, i t was rry under st andi ng when t he pl anni ng - - when t he Hear i ng Exam ner pr ocess was put t oget her , any i t em t hat was deemed t o be cont ent i ous or r es dent s obj ect t o r egar di ng condi t i onal use, i t was aut orrat i cal I y r ai sed t o t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on. I t was not - - i t was a st of f r ecomrendat i on. Am I - - coul d you cor r ect t hat ? Because you kind of i ndi cat ed t hat the choice was t o t he Hear i ng Exam ner . 4 under st andi ng i s staff could cl ear I y say t hi s i s an issue that we're going to bring to t he PI anni ng Con-ni ssi on and as above and beyond what nor mal I y woul d be deal t wi t h by t he Hear i ng Exam ner. MR KLATZKON Ckay. PI ease under stand, Ni ck and I cr eat ed t hi s pr ocess al ong wi t h IVbr k St r ai n. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ch, I was i nvol ved i n it when it was started. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 152 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W KLATZKON Vlb st art ed t he process, and we started the process n-Dr e to cut the red tape - - CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Cor r ect . MR KLATZKON - - you know, so people can get - - peopl e can get t he mundane pr of ect s done qui ckl y rat her t han j ust havi ng t o go t hr ough processes. IVbr k was al so on t hi s PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Cor r ect . MR KLATZKON Ck ay . And i t was IVb r k' s b e I i of t hat i f a condi t i onal use was basi cal I y uncontested - - CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Cor r ect . MR KLATZKON -- he woul d process i t. If it was cont est ed, he' d br i ng i t her e. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ck ay . MR KLATZKON That ' s what he di d. I don' t know what t he cur r ent Hear i ng Exam ner' s doi ng. I j ust don' t know. W PI RES: And perhaps I coul d - - I ' m I ooki ng at t he adni ni st rat i ve code. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: VV I , t hat shoul d be i n t he pr ocess, and we' r e not her e t o debat e t hat , and there's probably no need to go on. But I t hi nk the poi nt - - and t he acadeni c poi nt her e was t hat I U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 153 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 under st and what' s bei ng r ai sed i n r egar ds t o a condi t i onal use versus t he PUD but , r egar dl ess, we st i I I , as a PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on, have a r i ght t o enf or ce or i rrpose or what ever r ul es we bel i eve necessary under the r ezoni ng process that we woul d under a conditional use. MR KLATZKON I t ' s al most a red- her r i ng ar gurrent , because t he condi t i onal use i s a per rri t t ed use t hat we need cer t ai n condi t i ons on. CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Cor r ect . MR KLATZKON Al I , you can do t he same t hi ng i n a PUD or di nance - - CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Ri ght . MR KLATZKON - - sayi ng, okay, we' r e goi ng to approve t hi s, but we want enhanced buffering here, we want t hi s, we want t hat , and you do t hat al I t he t i me - - CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Yes. MR KLATZKON - - so t hat in some sense i t ' s si x of one, a hal f dozen of t he of her whi ch process you use. CCNM SSI CNER SCHM TT: I mean, t o me i t was a ni ce academ c ar gurrent , but i t ' s sort of nDot because we st i I I have t he oppor t uni t y t o add any condi t i ons we deem necessary t hat i s j ust i f i abl e U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 154 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and def ensi bl e i n r egar ds t o wher e we t hi nk - - what we need to add to the PUD. MR KLATZKCVV A do that all the time. CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Yes. MZ PI RES: And j ust a real quick point on t hat . The adni ni st rat i ve code says, it could be a rrat t er of gr eat publ i c i nt er est or concer n as det er ni ned by t he di scr et i on of t he Hear i ng Exam ner or as request ed by a n-errber of t he Board of Count y Com-ii ssi oner s. So t hen i t woul d come back t o you- al I i n t hat case. CHAI RIV14N FRYER That very pr ovi si on i s one of t he sever al t hat ar e under ser i ous pot ent i al change. VW re I ooki ng at t hat now. MR PI RES: Thank you. W KLATZKCVV Be car of ul what you ask f or, by t he way. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: I agr ee. MR KLATZKCVV There' s a reason why we set up t he Hear i ng Exam ner. . MR PI RES: I understand. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Reasons why we brought a Hear i ng Exam ner i n. W PI RES: You don't have enough hours in the day, I under st and; you want n-or e wor k. I get i t . U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 155 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next , i f we may, Pr anrod, are you on? Pr amod Choudhary. NR. CHCUDHARY: Yes. Can you hear rne? IVR. PI RES: Can you hear hi M merrteer s of t he PI anni ng ConTi ssi on? NR. CHCUDHARY: Yeah. I can hear you. NR. PI RES: I don' t know i f he' s been swor n, Terri . THE COURT REPCRTER I can' t swear peopl e i n over the phone. CHAT RNAN FRYER VW r e not swear i ng i n peopl e over the phone. NR. PI RES: But he wi I I be t el I i ng the t r ut h. Pr an-od i s a traffic engi neer. . Pr arrod, i f you could br i of I y give your background, your experience i n t est i f yi ng as an expert i n pr oceedi ngs, whet her zoni ng, pl anni ng, or condermat i on, eni nent domai n, of her pr oceedi ngs i n t he st at e of FI or i da. NR. CHC JDHARY: Sure. IViy n a rre i s Pr a mod Choudhar y, and I ' m a consultant with the Kei t h Engi neer i ng Ser vi ces. I have 28- pl us years of t r ans port at i on pl anni ng and traffic operations experience. Just t o let you know, I was the t raf f i c consul t ant f or Col I i er Count y f r om 2005 t o 2014 U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 156 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 under Nick Casal angui da. So I was basi cal I y i nvol ved i n devel opi ng t he t r of f i c i rrpact gui del i nes. I aut hor ed t hat gui del i nes dur i ng t hat per i od; t he devel opment of t he AUI R, est abl i shrrent of al I t he roadway capaci t i es. So ever yt hi ng t hat goes in there, I have been very cl osel y i nvol ved wi t h t hat , so I under st and what Col I i er County is I ooki ng f or. And all those nine years or close to al most 10 years t hat I was t here as t he consul t ant f or t he count y, I was doi ng exact I y t hese ki nds of r epor t s f or t he count y, so t hat ' s ny cr edent i al s. If you have any questions on t hat , I' m wi I l i ng to answer t hat . CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. Any member s of t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on need t o know mor e about t he gent I erran' s cr edent i al s? ( No response.) CHAI RN/AN FRYER I f not , si r, you may proceed. IVR. PI RES: Thank you, " . Chai r man. NR. CHCUDHARY: Ck a y. Yeah. I went t h r o u g h t he Tr of f i c I rrpact St at ement t hat was pr ovi ded t o us. I revi ewed i t i ndependent I y. And the very first t hi ng that st r uck rre was t hat t he dat a bei ng used is during the CCNI D situation that we are i n. So, over al I, t here has been a reduction in traffic U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 157 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and t he AUI R 2021, 1 bel i eve, i ndi cat es t hat i n t hei r At t achrrent C t hat t her e i s a r educt i on, and I t hi nk Jim Banks also poi nt ed out t hat , that there i s a 10 t o 20 percent r educt i on on t hat segment of Ai r por t - Put I i ng Road, so t hat was one concer n t hat I had was t hat we want t o be conser vat i ve when we are t r yi ng to do all this traffic i apact assessrrent . So t he i deal t hi ng woul d have been t hat we shoul d have used the 2019 data and appl i ed a gr owt h t o i t t o come up t o t he 2021 ser vi ce vol umes and corrpar e t hat r at her t han corrpar i ng i t wi t h t he t errpor ar y I over vol urre due t o COVI D. So t hat ' s son -et hi ng t hat can be di scussed. The other t hi ng was that the trip generation t hat has been used f or t hi s devel opment , i t i s an exi st i ng devel opment . So whenever we have an exi st i ng devel oprnent , we shoul d be usi ng t hat real dat a t hat we have access to. So i f you had j ust col I ect ed the data f r om t he si t e, we woul d have known exact I y how rrany t r i ps ar e bei ng di r ect ed r i ght now and how rrany we can expect wi t h t he i ncr ease i n nurrber of beds or t he i ncr ease i n t he com-rer ci al devel opment t hat t hey are pr oposi ng. So t hat i s t he st andar d pr act i ce t hat we do. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 158 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Tr i p Gener at i on IVbnual i s good. A can use t hat , but t hat we t ypi cal I y use when we don' t have any avail abl e dat a t o use. So t hat is what we end up using. So t hat was anot her concer n. So if you can Trove t o t he next sl i de. The of her t hi ng I f ound was i n t er rrs of assessi ng t he i rrpact on t he r oadway segment , t he Tr of f i c I rrpact St at errent was f i ne, but once you st art I ooki ng at t he oper at i ons of t he access driveway and i nt er sect i on and t he rriedi an openi ngs, t hen t he pass- by t r i ps cannot be si rrpl y deducted f r om t he total traffic gener at ed by t he si t e, what t hey had cal cut at ed, because t hat pass -by t r of f i c is there on t he r oad net wor k. I t onl y changes i t s oper at i ons. The t hr ough t r of f i c may become a ri ght - turn traffic or a left -turn traffic, and that of f ect s t he oper at i on of t he dr i veway and rredi an opening. So you cannot si rrpl y deduct t he pass- by traffic, and those are the t hi ngs t hat ' s there in t he i rrpact gui del i nes t hat you need t o be aware of when we are assessi ng t he i rrpact on t he r oadway segment s. That I felt was ni ssi ng f r om t he Traffic I rrpact St at ement . The other t hi ng was the di st r i but i on that they U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 159 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have 65 per cent f r om t he nor t h, 25 or 30 per cent f r om t he south. I di dn' t see any basi s f or t hat . Ther e was no j ust i f i cat i on why t hat assurrpt i on was made. Typi cal I y we I ook at t he exi st i ng vol ume on t he r oadway segment and ki nd of t ake t hat as a starting point to do the trip di st r i but i on. I di dn' t see t hat . I n rry opi ni on, t hat part i cul ar r oadway segment seems I i ke t hey wi I I have al most I i ke an equal spr ead bet ween t he nor t h and sout h. There wasn' t any traffic r educt i on i n t hat segment i t set f. So i f you can move on to t he next one. And as I was t al ki ng about t he rredi an openi ngs and t he dr i veway I ocat i ons, t he t r i p assi gnment s t ypi cal I y become i rrpor t ant on how t he rnedi an openings are. So i f your rrai n access dr i ve, whi ch i s t hat bl ue - - Gr eat BI ue Dr i ve, you can onl y make a right turn f r om t hat driveway. You can't go I of t . There' s a di r ect i onal redi an openi ng. So if al I your ex t i ng t r of f i c f r om t he si t e i s rmki ng a r i ght , t hen back on t hat r oadway segment i s 100 percent. I t ' s not 65. So t hose are the kind of t hi ngs t hat have not been i ncl uded i n t he Tr of f i c I mpact St at ement f o r eat I y assess t he r eal i mpact of i t . U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 160 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And t hen t he coimrer ci al use, i t wasn' t very cl ear f r om t he r epor t whet her t he exi st i ng devel opment i s 64, 000 square f eet of com-rer ci al use or 130, 000. It said existing is 130- and the proposed is 130-, so t here i s a net zero change, and I di dn' t qui t e under st and what i t was. To rrie I ' m not sure whet her t he exi st i ng use is only 64,000, and they're proposing a maxi mum of 130, 000, and if t hat' s the case, t hen t here wi 11 be an i ncr ease i n t r of f i c because of doubl i ng of t hat use, whi ch was not account ed f or i n t he t r i p gener at i on. And t hen t he I ast poi nt was, basi cal I y, t he Great BI ue Dr i ve, t here' s no assessrrent of i t . There' s no eval uat i on of what i s t he exi st i ng traffic, how that driveway wi I I get affected and what t he oper at i ons woul d I ook I i ke wi t h t he di r ect i onal rnedi an openi ng t hat we have t here. So t hose wer e t he rrai n poi nt s t hat I not i ced. And this is just a bul 1 et point of all the t hi ngs t hat I t al ked about . CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you very rruch. Any quest i ons f r om t he PI anni ng Com-i ssi on? ( No response.) CHAI RN/AN FRYER I have one obser vat i on bef ore U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 161 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Nt . Yovanovi ch, and t hat i s I t r y t o be met i cul ous i n r evi ewi ng t he AUI R bef ore each and every one of t hese pr of ect s come f or ward. And, grant ed, t he vol ure of t r of f i c f r om 2020 t o 2021 went down 5. 77 per cent , but we' ve hear d t est i nrony i n of her hear i ngs f r om M- . Sawyer and IVY. Scot t t hat t hi s i s undoubt edl y due t o t he CCNI D si t uat i on. I per sonal I y am not as concer ned about t he traffic i rpact i n this par t i cul ar case because t her e i s so rruch capaci t y r erai ni ng i n Segment 6 of Ai r port - Pul I i ng. I t hi nk it may be understated in t he appl i cant ' s rat er i al , but I per sonal I y am not t hat concer ned about i t because t her e i s j ust so rruch excess capaci t y t here now. Anybody el se want t o be heard on t hat ? CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Yes. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Go ahead, Co rrri s s i o n e r . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: V\hi I e that may be true -- and I t hi nk part of our value here is to i dent i f y, I' I I j ust say, areas where addi t i onal def i ni t i on shoul d be pr ovi ded f or t he BCC so t hey have f ul I i of or rat i on. And so in - - when M- . Banks was t est i f yi ng, he pr ovi ded, I bel i eve, 12 p. m peak- hour t r i ps added by t he addi t i onal beds i n t he f aci I i t y, but I di d not hear , nor can I put ry U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 162 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f i nger on i n t he appl i cat i on package r i ght now, how many trips would result f r om t he increase f r om t he 56,000 act ual square f eet of comTer ci al up to a pot ent i al of 130, 000. And if that is specified, great; but i f not, I do bel i eve those number s should be very clear when i t goes bef ore t he BCC Met her we appr oved i t or deny i t . CHAI RN/AN FRYER I t hi nk your poi nt i s wel I t aken. And, IVb. Scot t , di d you - - woul d you be wi I l i ng to r el ate the CCNI D experience to 2020 and 2021 and t he r educt i on on Segment 6 of Ai r port - Pul I i ng? IVB. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, deput y depar t ment head, Gr owt h lVbnagement Code. I was not sworn i n ear I i er. . CHAI RN/AN FRYER VW r e not - - act ual I y do need to be. ( The speaker was dul y swor n and i ndi cat ed i n the of f i r mat i ve. ) IVB. SCOTT: I do. I do have some questions. I came i n, act ual I y, t o cross t he expert wi t ness. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Al I r i ght . IVB. SCOTT: V%6ul d you I i ke me to proceed? Because i t may act ual I y answer some of your U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 163 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 quest i ons. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Vbl I, if i t' s going to answer ny quest i ons, go ahead and proceed t he way you want . NB. SCOTT: Good of t er noon, Pr antid. How are you? NR. CHCUDHARY: I ' m d o i n g okay. How are you, Tr i ni t y? NB. SCOTT: Very good. Thank you. What AUI R was used f or t he TI S anal ysi s; do you know what year ? NR CHCUDHARY: I t hi n k i t was 2021. NB. SCOTT: Act ual I y, the TI S t hat ' s in the packet used the 2020 AUI R NR CHCUDHARY: You rray be r i g h t about t hat . NB. SCOTT: Just f or t he r ecor d, t he 2021 AUI R was j ust adopt ed by t he Boar d i n Noverrber, , so t hat woul d not have been used. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Under st ood. NB. SCOTT: Ar e you awar e of t he dat es of t he traffic counts that are used in the 2020 in devel opment of t he 2020 AUI R? NR. CHCUDHARY: I know t hat al I t h e s e count s are done during the peak season. I know that -- that has been the process, yeah. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 164 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IVE. SCOTT: Ckay. So woul d you agree t hat t he count s t hat are used f or t he 2020 AUI R woul d have been count s t hat woul d have been col I ect ed bet men Apr i 1 1 st of 2019 t hr ough IVbr ch 31 st of 2020? M:: CHCUDHARY: That I ' m not absol ut el y cer t ai n about . I t hought t hat t he 2020 woul d have t he dat a f r om t he 2020 peak season. IV6. SCOTT: I t act ual I y doesn' t . Those are the dates that are used for the AUI R because it's a backwar d- I ooki ng document . Do you know when t hi s appl i cat i on was subni t t ed f or r evi eve/? IVR. CHCUDHARY: I think it was s o mewh e r e around IVby of 2021. IV6. SCCTT: Ck a y . W CHCUDHARY: Probably revised in June of 2021, yeah. IV6. SCCTT: Ckay. Can you cl ar i f y, your r ecom-nendat i on was t hat t hey shoul d col I ect real - t i me t ravel dat a i n IVby of 2021, woul dn' t t hat have been i rrpact ed by COVI D? NR. CHCUDHARY: Yes. And t hen t hat ' s wh e r e you woul d rrake t he adj ust rrent . That' s what we do here. You know, DOT r equi r es consi st ent I y for us t o do the traffic data and then look at the U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . com 165 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hi st or i c dat a and appl y t he adj ust ment t hat woul d make i t I ook rror e recent . So all the t r of f i c st udi es that have been done have been done wi t h t hat pr ocedur e. NE. SCCTT: So the appl i cant ut i I i zed, for the AUI R, pr e- CCNI D nurrber s, but you want ed t hem t o col I ect of her dat a t hat was dur i ng CCNI D and be adj ust ed? NR CHCUDHARY: I' m t a l k i n g about the trip gener at i on f r om t hei r f aci I i t y, because we ar e rraki ng an assurrpt i on f r om t he trip -- IT trip gener at i on r at her t han us ng t he act ual dat a t hat we have on t he si t e. That was rry r ecorrmendat i on on that. N6. SCCTT: Thank you. I bel i eve Nr . Yovanovi ch may have some quest i ons, but i f you had addi t i onal quest i ons wi t h regard to the AUI R nurrber s related to peak, or I'm sorry, with related to CCNI D i rrpact s. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. I think the CCNI D issue is not si gni f i cant on this stretch of Ai r por t- Pul I i ng because t her e i s so rruch capaci t y t her e. So I ' m not part i cul ar I y concerned about t he TI S ar gument . I t hi nk t he TI S pr obabl y under st at es i t but not i n a si gni f i cant enough way f or rre U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 166 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personal I y t o obj ect . W. SCOTT: And so what I woul d of f er t o t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on i s t hat t he dat es f or t he 2020 AUI R, the traffic counts that are ut i I i zed are col I ect ed bet ween Apr i 1 1 st , 2019, and lVbr ch 30t h of 2020, and dur i ng t hat t i rre f r an-e, we wer e not havi ng si gni f i cant CCNI D i rrpact s - - CHAI RN/AN FRYER Fai r poi nt . W. SCOTT: - - to our traffic counts. Thank you. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Fai r poi nt . Thank you. Anybody el se have a quest i on f or Nl;. Scot t before she leaves? ( No response.) CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Nf• . Yovanovi ch. NR YOVANOVI CH: Yeah. Terri , the court reporter, is asking the wi t ness to speak up a l i t t l e bi t. So when you respond to rre, Pr arrod, would you ni nd speaki ng up a little bit for Terri? NR CHCUDHARY: Yes, sir. CHAI RN/AN FRYER And bef ore we proceed, i f we rray, i t ' s six ni nut es of t er 2: 00. Cr di nar i I y, we would - - this is when we woul d have a ni d- of t er noon break. I ' m goi ng t o I ook at t he cour t r epor t er and see i f now shoul d be t he t i rrie or 2: 30. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 167 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. YOVANOVI CH: I j u s t have a c o u p l e quest i ons. THE COURT REPCRTER. Let hi m f i n i s h. CHAI RN/AN FRYER. Okay. Go ahead. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Are you f a m l i a r with t h e r evi ew process Col I i er Count y goes t hr ough f or est abl i shi ng the TI S criteria? NR. CHCUDHARY: Yes. NR. YOVANOVI CH: And you wo u l d agree t h a t there i s a pre- appl i cation meet i ng with county st of f and t he appl i cant t o det er ni ne t he t ype of anal ysi s that needs to be provided? NR. CHCUDHARY: Correct , yes. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: And t he T I S t hat was p r ovi d e d i s consistent with the pre- appl i cation meet i ng with county staff , correct? NR. CHCUDHARY: That i s c o r r e c t, yes. NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: Okay. Are you f a rri I i a r with Tom Ross of the Jacobs Group? IVR. CHOUDHARY: Yes, I am NR. YOVANOVI CH: Are you -- you wo u I d agree t hat ". Ross i s a corrpet ent t r of f i c engi neer and t r of f i c consul t ant ? NR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Ar e you awa r e t hat M . Ro s s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 168 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 al so r evi ewed t he TI S f or t hi s part i cul ar PUD? NR. CHCUDHARY: I' m n of aware of that. NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: Ar e you awa r e t hat " . Ro s s agreed wi t h county st of f' s anal ysi s on the t r ansport at i on i rrpact s? NR. CHCUDHARY: No, I' m n of aware of that. NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: That ' s al I I have. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Nf . Pi r es? NR PI RES: Yes. If we could - - i t ' s the last wi t ness we have, and j ust a few poi nt s, and then to get t o the point t hat ". Shea had. I ' m sor r y. NR YOVANOVI CH: I thought you wanted a break after this witness; di d you not? CHAI RNAN FRYER How rru c h t i rre do you have - - I t hought we wer e goi ng t o 2: 30. How rruch time do you have? CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: She sai d of t er Ri ch. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. VW I I stand i n recess f or - - CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: She di d n' t know Ri c h was going to be so quick. CHAI RNAN FRYER VC re in recess until 18 rri nut es of t er 2: 00. (A brief recess was had from 2: 08 p.m to 2: 18 p.m) U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 169 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W BCSI : IViy apol ogi es, Chai r. You have a I i ve ni c. CHAI RKAN FRYER Thank you, si r . Imo. Pi res. W PI RES: Yes. If I rmy, ". Chai r rran. I n concl usi on, and t he sunTmr y of obj ect i ons and i ssues, we' ve gone t hr ough t hese. V6 had, at t he begi nni ng, out I i ned t hem A hear d t he t est i rrony of Cecel i a Ar d, t he pl anner, , and Pr anrod, our exper t engi neer and t r anspor t at i on engi neer . And what we have - - and we had subni t t ed and we had, I i ke I sai d, a rreet i ng, St eve Ti I brook on t he phone, rrysel f i n person, wi t h V\Ayne and Ri ch t o t r y f o r esol ve some of t hese i ssues, and i t was a good meet i ng, but we di d not r esol ve al I t he i ssues. CHAI RNAN FRYER Di d you resolve s o rre ? IVR. PI RES: A r esol ved some. Subsequent to t hat , there's an errai I from Rich to rre Noverrber 29t h, and I ' I I read it into the record, if I coul d, and I have a coup) e i t errs t o read i nt o f he record. I t sai d Tony - - V\byne, Tony and St eve. V\byne and I spoke to our client regarding the concerns you expressed t o us at our meet i ng. Our cl i ent has agreed to the f of I owi ng condi t i ons in order to get U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 170 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your cl i ent' s support or at I east t o have your cl i ent not opposed to proposed PUD: Horrel ess shel t er s wi I I be expr essl y pr ohi bi t ed on Tr act B. Secondl y, t he war ehouse f aci I i t i es wi I I be accessory uses only. They won' t be - - we expressed a concern of we don' t want an Amazon or a V\byf ai r, and r i ght now, i f i t ' s war ehousi ng, you can have Amazon, V\byf ai r, and any of t he bi g box guys. Any new over head door s wi I I not f ace east , and t hat was a concer n t hat we don' t want t hose bi g bay doors on t he east si de of any bui I di ng f aci ng t he apart rrent corrpl ex. Upon r edevel opn-ent , t he I andscape buf f er t hat i s cur rent I y 10 feet in Tract B wi I I be expanded to be 15 f eet . Delivery hours wi I I be I i mi t ed to be bet men 7: 00 a. m and 9: 00 p. m And hopef ul I y we have addressed your client ' s concerns. Feel f r ee t o cont act rre i f you have any quest i ons. On November 30t h - - excuse me. On November 29t h at 5: 15 - - t hat was f r om Ri ch on November 29t h at 10: 20 a. m I replied back on November 29t h, t he same day, at 5: 15. And i t says, Ri chard and V\byne, thanks again for meeting and speaki ng wi t h your cl i ent . V6 have r evi ewed and U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 171 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pr ovi ded your emai I to our cl i ent . Cur cl i ent s appr eci at e your cl i ent has agr eed t o t he f of I owi ng condi t i ons/ l i ni t at i ons to be i ncl uded i n the PUD, which have addressed some of our concerns, and I j ust r ei t er at ed what I j ust ment i oned. And I sai d, however, and i n order to address our client ' s r errai ni ng concerns, t he f of I owi ng condi t i ons/ I i ni t at i ons as noticed on the - - noted on t he at t ached r ed- I i ned edi t ed PUD document need to be i ncl uded in the PUD: Hornet ess shel t er, r esi dent i al care and group f aci I i t i es expr essl y pr ohi bi t ed on Tract B. Excl ude al cohol i sm counsel i ng non- r esi dent i al , of f ender r ehabi I i t at i on agenci es, pr obat i on of f i cer s, ref ugee ser vi ces, and publ i c wel f ar es cent er s on Tr act A. El i ni nat e war ehousi ng and storage, r of r i ger at ed war ehousi ng and st or age as a pr i nci pal use on Tract B. Per ni t war ehousi ng and st or age r of r i ger at ed war ehousi ng and st or age onl y as an accessor y use t o not - f or - pr of i t f ood bank and onl y on Tr act B. El i ni nat e Devi at i on 1 that would otherwise reduce t he ni ni rrum f I oor area f or horrel ess shel t er f r om 150 squar e f eet per per son t o 100 f eet per person. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 172 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tr of f i c i rrpact st udy, t hat suf f i ci ent capaci t y exi st s f or added or addi t i onal t r i ps on Gr eat BI ue Dr i ve. That ' s t he access road. Pr ovi de f or enhanced I andscape buf f er s at t he t i rre of r edevel oprrent t o 15- f eet - wi de Type B I andscape buf f er and t o 20- f oot - wi de Type D f or sect i ons located wi t hi n the activity center. Li ni t I oadi ng, unl oadi ng, and del i very hours t o bet ween 7: 00 a. m and 9: 00 p. m and onl y on weekdays, and Ri ch r epl i ed t hat same day - - next day, excuse rre, at 1: 12. Tony and Steve, al though many of t he changes you made t o t he PUD ar e accept abl e, there are several that rry client cannot agree t o make. IViy cl i ent cannot agr ee t o t he I i ni t at i ons you pr oposed as t o SI C Code 8322. SI C 8322 i s a per ni t t ed use on Tr act A t oday. That ' s t he SI C code t hat al I ows of f ender sel f - hel p agenci es, of f ender r ehabi I i t at i on agenci es, r of ugee cent er s, and publ i c wet f ar es and pr obat i on of f i ces. The requested devi at i ons regarding square f oot age rrust r errai n 100 square f eet . According to J i m Banks, t he bui I di ng code onl y r equi r es 50 square f eet per person. The use of the access road is covered by the easement agr eerrent . There' s a recorded easement U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 173 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agr eement . IViy client wi I I not agree to the language you added. A cannot agree to l i ni t del i ver i es t o j ust weekdays. The I andscapi ng changes are not acceptable. V\h agreed to change the buffers adjacent to the apartments if the site is redeveloped. The way you wr of e i t i s, we do an i nt er nal change on the bui I di ng, the buffers rrust be revised. And t hen I subm t t ed and what I woul d I i ke t o go t hr ough i s - - agai n, and we had t hi s conversation is - - and I have extra copies for the PI anni ng Comm ssi on, but I wi I I read t hem out I oud or put t hem on t he El n-o, i f I rray, ". Chai r rran. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Let' s see. I ' ve got a quest i on or t wo f or t he appl i cant , and t hen I ' m goi ng t o see if we can't n-ove t o a poi nt of essent i al agr een-ent . And, NA. Yovanovi ch, t hi s rray be n-ost appr opr i at e f or your cl i ent . W YCNANCNI CH: Ck ay . St eve come on u p . CHAI RN/AN FRYER And it just has t o d o with a set of f act s, real I y. The wor d " secur i t y" has been rrent i oned a coup) e of t i rres. I'd I i ke to know rror e about what ki nd of physi cal secur i t y i s pr ovi ded at t he present t i rrie and what , i f anyt hi ng, n-or e you' d U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 174 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be prepared to do to ni t i gate the concerns of the neighbors. IVR. BROODER Sure. A have added the cont r of I ed access fencing that I t al ked about and gat es so t hat t hat pr of ect s rrai nl y t he r esi dent s f r om peopl e corn ng i n. 1/1b al so have physi cal security staff that are on the property. A added sorre I i ght i ng Mich is in front of the shelter on t he Ai r port Road si de f or added secur i t y. So those are t hose rrieasur es we' ve t aken. CHAI RN/AN FRYER AI I r i g h t. I s t here sorret hi ng rror e t hat you coul d do t o ni t i gat e or even el i ni nat e t he t ent s t hat ar e bei ng put up on t he nei ghbor i ng pr oper t y? Is there anyt hi ng that you could add by way of security personnel or anyt hi ng at all could be done? NR. BROODER All , I t hi nk they've already st at ed t hat t hey' ve - - t hey engage I aw enf or cement Men those persons are encountered on t hei r pr oper t y, so I woul dn' t pr opose t hat we woul d do anyt hi ng el se f or t hei r proper t y. These are not residents if t hey' r e l i vi ng in tents in the woods. CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Al I , it - - I observed— - in rry site vi sit , I observed people being buzzed in but bei ng I et out whenever t hey want ed t o go out , U. S. Legal Support I vow. usl egal support . com 175 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .1R NR. BROODER That' s true. That i s cor r ect . CHAI RNAN FRYER - - f r ankl y, I was son-ewhat concer ned about t hat . Could you address t hat , please. NR. BROODER People are free to go. A don' t lock t hem i n at the shelter, so they are free to go at any poi nt i n t i rre. But as I rrent i oned bef ore, they have an assigned bunk and I ocker . So if t hey' r e goi ng out , t hey' r e goi ng t o wor k. They're goi ng t o di f f er ent appoi nt rrent s. That ' s what we al low t hem t o do. CHAI RNAN FRYER Mul d you be wi I l i ng to put on any rror e personnel to secure the pr eni ses? IVR BROODER A have been consi der i ng i t f or our own pr eni ses, yes, but not of f si t e. CHAI RNAN FRYER No, I understand. NR. BROODER So as t he need woul d present i t set f , we woul d cer t ai nl y consi der t hat . CHAI RNAN FRYER But we' ve heard sorre evi dence that there is tenting t aki ng place. A don' t know for sure that i t ' s your people, but I t hi nk pr obabl y some of t hem are. And I'd I i ke to know i f t here' s son -et hi ng f ur t her you coul d do t hat coul d ni t i gat e some of t hese i ssues. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 176 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR BROODER I woul d argue t hat t hey are not our people. Why woul d t hey sl eep i n a t ent or put up a t ent on anot her proper t y when t hey have a bunk? CHAI RNAN FRYER Because t here are onl y 104 bunks there. NR BROODER V6I I , t hen t hey ar en' t our people. Then t hey' r e horrel ess on t he st r eet s. A t al ked about t he count s, whi ch i s 600 t o 800, and t hat ' s about a t hi r d of t he act ual count . So t here' s a I ar ge nurrber of horrel ess t hat are not shel t er ed. These are t he chr oni c horrel ess. Nbny don' t want t o be shel t er ed. So we serve t hose t hat W I I come i nt o the shelter, receive the t r ansf or rrat i ve r ehabi I i t at i on t hat we pr ovi de, and abi de by our r ul es, but we can' t enf or ce or pot i ce al I t he homel ess t hat ar e i n Col I i er Count y. CHAI RMgN FRYER J u s t s o that -- i t' s rry last quest i on on t hi s i ssue. Is there anyt hi ng addi t i onal I y that you'd be wi I I i ng to do to provide secur i t y f or t he benef i t of t he nei ghbor s? NR. BROODER I woul d say t hat we have and we woul d cont i nue t o t al k t o t he count y about t hi s. I j ust ment i oned t o Corrrri ssi oner [ si c] East rran t hat t her a ar a HOT t earm i n of her count i es and ci t i es. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 177 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 These ar e hon-el ess out r each t eams t hat go out and meet - - engage t he horrel ess wher ever t hey ar e. I t coul d have several member s, i ncl udi ng a I aw enf or cement person. V\b advocat e t hat t ype of response and would par t i ci pate in that if t hat ' s sorret hi ng Col I i er Count y woul d be i nt er est ed i n t al ki ng about . CHAI RNAN FRYER: Co mri s s i o n e r Shea. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: I ' m on the same I i nes of quest i oni ng. Pr obabl y back t o n-or e basi cs. V6r e you aware t hat peopl e wer e t ent i ng on t he nei ghbor' s proper t y? NR. BROODER Not in par t i cul ar , but as I t hi nk has been -- COMA SSI CNER SHEA: So nobody cal I ed you and t old you about it and said -- MR BROODER I don' t know of any cal I s t hat have come i n about corrpl ai nt s at our shel t er and, of cour se, I t hi nk we' r e al I awar e and i t ' s al r eady been ment i oned t hat t her e ar e many t ent encampment s i n Col I i er Count y and al I over t he count r y, so I don' t know of t hose speci f i cal I y. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: So peopl e t hat are i n your shel t er s, f or i nst ance, t hey get f ed and ever yt hi ng, and t hey have t o be a rrerrber - - t her e' s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 178 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no way l i vi ng in a tent would al I ow t hem t o be fed and in with the rest of the residents? MR BROODER I j ust can' t - - no, t he r esi dent s are served i n t he shel t er , yes. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: I t j u s t seems I i k e an awf ul bi g coi nci dence t hat t hey' r e t here. I t wouI d be nice if we could find away t o j of n - - I understand the I egal i t i es of the fact that i t ' s not your property. MR BROODER Al I , all you have t o do i s j ust drive around the county, and you' I I find several t ent encampment s i n sever al ar eas. So anyplace that there's woods or a lack of vi si bi I i t y, I t hi nk t here' s a chance f or t he homel ess t o be f ound t her e. CHAI RNAN FRYER I s t hat al l , Comm ssi oner ? COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Yes. CHAI RNAN FRYER Co mrri s s i o n e r Sc h n i t t. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Yeah. Just to clarify agai n, any per sonnel [ si c] who are i n t hese t ent s or el sewher e, t hey - - do you accept dai I i es t o wal k in just to be fed and then leave, or they act ual I y have to be r esi dents? W BROODER Not at t he shel t er, , no; you have to be a resident. They have to go through the U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 179 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i nt ake process. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Because I ' m - - yeah, I ' m t r yi ng to rrake sure that the services you're pr ovi di ng are not attracting outsiders. They have to come in and agree t o all the rules and r egul at i ons - - MR BROODER Ri ght . COIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: -- and go through t he - - I guess, t he depr ogr arrrri ng or what ever you do. Then, act ual I y, t hey become r esi dent s, and t hen t hey' re pr ovi ded al I t he ser vi ces t hat you of f er . But i t ' s not sorret hi ng t hat you - - somebody can wal k of f t he st r eet t oday and go i n and have a meal and leave? MR BROODER No, no. They go through the i nt ake process, and I t hi nk I rrent i oned bef ore you carve t hat i t' s a qui t e i nt ensi ve process. A do background checks, drug screen, dai I y br eat hal yzer s, and we scr een out cer t ai n of f ender s f r om t he popul at i on. COMA SSI CNER HOM AK: Ck a y. Isn't J u s t i n' s PI ace part of - - part of your or gani zat i on? MR BROODER Justin's Place Recovery Program yes. COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: So t here' s a soup U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 180 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 kitchen there. And do the homeless people go in there to eat? NR. BROODER That's at the f i rehouse, right. That ' s not part of t hi s proper t y. COMA SSI CNER HOM AK: It's right next to i t , t hough. MR BROODER I' m s o r r y? CCI\/M SSI CNER HOM AK: I t ' s right next to i t . M: BROODER I t' s separat ed by anot her parcel, yes. I t ' s t he of d East Napl es f i r ehouse. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Co mri s s i o n e r Fry. CCIVIA SSI CNER FRY: So one of the - - one of the rrai n t al ki ng poi nt s t oday has been t he r educt i on of squar e f oot age per r esi dent f r om 150 t o 100. The code from 30 years ago says 150. So I guess I have kind of a question of there are a lot of ar bi t r ar y numbers in our codes, and our chal I enge up here is t o what wei ght do we assi gn t hose nurrber s, r i ght ? And t hat ' s what I' m st r uggl i ng with here. So I guess I would consider you an expert in homel ess shel t er s, sorret hi ng t hat Ri ch brought up bef ore. You're the ul t i mate expert. You're running one, you know, a very large one. Please, put me at ease and, per haps of hers, why i t i sn' t a nat ur al ass urrpt i on t hat put t i ng rror e peopl e i n a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 181 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 smal I er place is not creating an adverse or less posi t i ve condi t i on. I mean, i t sounds I i ke you' re t aki ng a comTDn area now t hat ' s un- ai r condi t i oned, and you' r e convert i ng i t and t aki ng part of t hat room f or bunks, and you' r e r educi ng t he anrount of shared space f or t hese 100, 104 now, now 150 wi t h I ess shared space. So pl ease expl ai n t o me why t her e i sn' t a I egi t i mat e concer n about t he r educt i on of square f oot age per r es dent . NR. BROODER Sure, I can do t hat . Act ual I y, there's no reduction in the i ndi vi dual space. V16 are - - we accomrodat e f i re safety regulations with a separ at i on bet ween bunks, so t hat' s what we mai nt ai n now, and t hat ' s what we wi I I mai nt ai n i n t he f ut ur e. But , agai n, t hr ough t he r enovat i on, we were abl e to carve out act ual I y rror e usabl e f I oor space for t he dorms. So we wi I I mai nt ai n the separation t hat ' s r equi r ed by f i r e and saf et y bet ween t he bunks. You have to be able to get a gurney in. You have to be able to access everyone. So we' 11 rrai nt ai n t hat . A ar en' t cr owdi ng beyond t hat - - t hat r equi r ement . And I wi I I say t hat congr egat e housi ng was cer t ai nl y a chal I enge dur i ng COVI D, but we wer e abl e t o mai nt ai n pr oper soci al di st anci ng or r eal I y U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 182 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I i mi t t he number of cases bot h of r esi dent s and st of f t hat exper i enced CCNI D, so we' r e ver y cogni zant of what ' s r equi r ed and ver y concer ned about t he saf et y of our r esi dent s and t he accomrrodat i ons t hat we woul d pr ovi de. So I woul dn' t char act er i ze i t as over cr owdi ng or pushi ng t hem t oget her or cr owdi ng t hem mor e. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: Per haps not f or t hei r - - wher e they sl eep. But , I guess, are we not r educi ng t he areas wher e t hey can hang out when they're not in t hei r bunk area? M:. BROODER Not at al I , no. A a en' t i rrpact i ng t hat at al I . In f act , we've added space t hr ough t he r enovat i on. V\6 created the courtyard, whi ch i s an i deal space f or peopl e t o get out si de, j ust have some t i me t o medi t at e. And t he di ni ng space has not been i rrpact ed at al I. That ' s st i I I t here. In fact, we weren't ut i I i zi ng i t as much now because we have Lul u' s Ki t chen ser vi ci ng t he meal s. So we act ual I y have more space i n t he di ni ng facility. COMM SSI CNER FRY: So i s i t your st at ement , t hen, t hat you' r e not act ual I y r educi ng t he space al I ocat ed t o each r esi dent . I t ' s only - - i t ' s real I y a mat h equat i on t hat you have mor e r esi dent s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 183 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i n t he area, but t hey st i I I have j ust as much shared space, j ust as rruch area to enj oy and use Men t hey are not i n t hei r bunk area, and t hei r bunk areas have not changed? M::,' BROODER That s cor r ect , and t hat woul d be rry cor r ect st at errent . I t ' s better ut i I i zat i on of the re -renovated space t hat we have. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. So you've of f i ci ent I y put rror e peopl e i n t he same space by real I ocat i ng space - - NR. BROODER Yes. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: - - but t hey haven' t I ost a t hi ng, i n your opi ni on? NR. BROODER That' s right. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Thank you. NR. BROODER Yes. CHAI RNAN FRYER Co rrrri s s i o n e r Shea. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: I want t o rra k e sure I under st and - - t he answer t o Kar en' s quest i on i s, i f I was in a t ent i n the woods, I could walk in and get a f r ee meal . MR BROODER At Just i n' s PI ace. COMM SSI CNER SHEA: At Justice's Place - - W BROODER Not at t he shel t er . COMM SSI CNER SHEA: - - wh i c h i s i n t hat - - U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 184 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i t ' s i n t he same gener al corrpl ex whi ch may be - - NR. BROODER I t i s not . COMA SSI CNER SHEA: No? How f ar away i s t hat ? NR. BROODER I t ' s a block - - a block away. I t ' s the old East Napl es f i r ehouse next t o - - NR. EASTMN: I t' s not on the s u bj e c t property. NR. BROODER It's not on the subject property. COMA SSI CNER HOM AK: I t' s j u s t on the -- CCIVIA SSI CNER SHEA: No, but i t ' s cl ose. CCIVM SSI CNER HOM AK: I t' s j u s t on the side of the thrift store. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: How l ong - - I guess t hi s is the wrong - - how I ong has this tent issue - - is t hi s son -et hi ng new, or has t hi s been - - I mean, we' ve been - - t hey' ve been t her e 20 year s. MR PI RES: I t ' s been going on for a whi I e, I understand from Kr i st i ; is t hat cor r ect ? NB. SI NNOTT: Yes, it was ongoing. MR PI RES: I t ' s been ongoing. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: So I ' m j ust getting to the poi nt , it seems I i ke it may be more related to Justin's Place than to the shelter for the horrel ess, t he horrel ess shel t er . U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 185 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W BROODER And t he f i rehouse, or Just i n' s PI ace as we ref er to i t , has been t here si nce 1988. That ' s when we t ook over t he of d East Napl es firehouse. So i t ' s been i n exi st ence al I t hat t i rre. And I ' I I add t hat there's other agencies t hat al so serve meal s i n the vi ci ni t y; Cat hot i c Char i t i es, St . Vi ncent De Paul , Sal vat i on Ar rry. So we ar en' t t he onl y ones t hat pr ovi de meal s. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: So i t ' s a good pl ace t o hang out? MR BROODER All , we don't al I ow t hat . A serve - - COMA SSI CNER SHEA: No, I mean i n the woods near al I t hese f aci I i t i es wher e t hey need t o be f ed. M:. BROODER Ch. V\b j ust know t hat peopl e wi I I do t hat when t hey don' t want t o come i nt o a s hel t er ; t hat ' s their alternative. CHAI RVAN FRYER Co rrrri s s i o n e r Sc h ni t t. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: So just for clarity, who runs Just i n' s PI ace? MR BROODER St . Vbt t heW s House. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: And who wo r k s at Just i n' s PI ace? Are they residents of St . IVbt t heW s t hat are errpl oyed at Just i n' s PI ace? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 186 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W BROODER A have case managers, peer rrent or s, and i nt er ns, whi ch ar e t he st of f rren-ber s. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: So they're part of the residents? W BROODER Yes. Al I , t hey ar en' t r esi dent s t her e, no. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: No, but t hey r esi dence [ si c] at St . IVbt t he\n/ s t hat - - maybe on t he r ehabi I i t at i on or what ever , but ar e empl oyed at Just i n' s PI ace? MP, BROODER They coul d be an i nt er n, yes. CCIVIA SSI CNER SCHM TT: But t o t he g e n e r al public, i n all the years I ' ve been in Collier Count y, I never del i neat ed bet ween t he soup ki t chen and St . IVbt t h ern! s. To rre t hey' r e al I t he same f aci I i t y. Even t hough t hey' r e not part of t hi s PUD - - MR BROODER Yes. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: - - t hey' r e al I managed by St . IVbt t h e\n! s. MR BROODER That' s cor r ect , yes. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Sol t h i n k the - - I have t o say t hat t he answer woul d be, yes, t here i s an at t r actor in the area pr ovi di ng food for the homel ess on a dai I y basi s t hat are not r esi dent s, U. S. Legal Support I van w. usl egal support . com 187 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and t hat woul d be Just i n' s PI ace but not St . IVht t h e\n! s House. MR BROODER And Cat hol i c Char i t i es and Sal vat i on Ar rry and of her agenci es. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: I understand. I ' v e handed out f ood at t he church over t here as wet I . MR BROODER East Na p I e s . CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: But to the public i t ' s al I one or gani zat i on. They don' t del i neat e bet ween t he t wo. So I guess - - so when they see horrel ess hangi ng around t hat Tray be part of - - t hat are t her o f or t he ki t chen, t hey don' t know if they're part of St. IVbt t he\n! s or not, so I t hi nk t hat' s part of t he pr obl em Just percept i on. Ckay. CHAI RIVAN FRYER Nt . East rra n . M:. EAST MAN: I wo u I d agree with t h e percept i on pr obl em but t he peopl e act ual I y t aki ng you up and ent er i ng t he pr ogr am, t hey' r e not t he Just i n' s PI ace eat i ng rreal s. They're in your pr ogr am bei ng f ed separ at el y. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Yes. MR EASTMN: I know t hat t he school di st r i ct has vacant proper t i es whi ch we hol d f or f ut ur e si t es, and we' ve had horrel ess pr obl errs. V\b' ve had t o cl can out t hose proper t i es and r en-ove t he U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 188 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 homeless carrps. Some of the people are wi I I i ng to enter a pr ogr am I i ke yours and pot ent i al I y turn t hei r I i f e around, whi ch i s what we as a soci et y want to have happen. Ct hers wer e adamant about not goi ng because t hey di dn' t I i ke t he cur f ew. They di dn' t I i ke r ul es. They want ed t o cont i nue wi t h t hei r I i f est yl e of addi ct i on, basi cal I y. And so, you know, t he peopl e t hat ent er your pr ogr am are not sl eepi ng i n t he woods. NR. BROODER Ri ght . I can' t i magi ne t hat t hey woul d be when t hey have a bunk. And we' ve seen a I of of t he areas wher e t he horrel ess di d have encarrpment s n-ove around wi t h t he devel oprrent . Ever y t i rre a new ar ea i s def or est ed, t r ees go down, t hey st art gr adi ng, and t hen t he hor el ess are rrovi ng around. These are t he peopl e t hat ar en' t shel t er ed, t he chr oni c homel ess on t he st r eet s. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Corrm ssi oner Fry. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Just one quick question t hat j ust popped up. So of t he 104 bunks t hat you have, can you break down for us -- you ment i oned hunger, horrel essness, and t he t hi r d - - NR. BROODER Ad d i ct i on. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Addi ct i on, t hank you. Can you br eak down, I i ke, what per cent age of t he beds U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 189 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are f i I I ed by each of those groups? IVR. BROODER VIbI I - - COMA SSI CNER FRY: VW r e onl y t al ki ng about horrel ess; t hat' s why I ' m aski ng. UZI BROODER Vbl I , the subject property, t hey' r e al I hon-el ess. That' s - - COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ch, i t ' s al I homel ess. IVR. BROODER That's that facility; t hat ' s to serve the horrel ess. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. IVR. BROODER Now, the hunger i s a di st r i but i on that we do for food insecurity at t hese di f f er ent si t es, r errot a si t es, and t hen t he addi ct i on pr ogr am r ecover y pr ogr am t hose ar e di f f er ent carrpuses. CCIVIA SSI CNER FRY: Ch, t hank you. IVR. BROODER Not at t he shel t er . COMA SSI CNER FRY: Just for homeless, okay. IVR. BROODER And not part of subj ect property. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. Thank you. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Anyone else wi sh to be heard? IVR. PI RES: ". Chai r man, i f I rray, j ust br i of I y, agai n, i n sunTmr y, because I t hi nk t he quest i ons wer e r ai sed, what woul d be accept abl e t o U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 190 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our cl i ent . And as - - i f I rray, and bear wi t h me Mile I do t hi s, a little bit, because you- al I don' t have t he copi es i n f r ont of you, al t hough I do have copies. One i t em t hat - - M::,' YOVANOVI CH: I don' t obj ect , Tony, i f you want t o hand out -- i f you' r e goi ng t o show t hem t he st r i ket hr ough and under I i ne - - i s t hat what you want t o do? M: PI RES: Yes. MR YOVANOVI CH: Just hand i t out . MR PI RES: VV I , t hank you. I t' s up t o t he PI anni ng Comm ssi on, I guess. CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: I woul d I i ke a copy. Thank you. CHAI RIV14N FRYER I f t he appl i cant doesn' t obj ect , pl ease. MR YOVANOVI CH: I mean, I think this is Mere we' re finally t r yi ng to get to. I f you coul d put it on the vi sual i zer . W PI RES: This is what I tried earlier, Ri ch, and you obj ect ed t o t hat corn ng i n. W YOVANOVI CH: I objected -- NR KLATZKOVV Hol d on. Hold on one second. Thi s i s not a n-edi at i on, okay. I n t he past , we' ve continued i t errs to give parties the abi I i t y to sit U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 191 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 down and see i f t hey can' t hammer out a r esul t and t hen come back, but t hi s i s not an act i ve rriedi at i on wher e we' r e goi ng over I i ne over I i ne what he I i kes, what I I i ke, what he sai d I coul d do, what he said - - no, no, no. That ' s not how t hi s wor ks. I mean, you' ve presented your evi dence, al I r i ght . The PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on' s heard i t . I f you t wo bel i eve t hat t here i s sorre grounds t hat you can get t oget her and hanTmr t hi s out and be done wi t h t hi s, they can cont i nue t hi s. And i f you don' t - - NR. YCA/ANCA/I CH: I want a v o t e. NR KLATZKON - - t hat ' s fine. But we' r e not goi ng to go through this is what we want, this is Mat we want, this is what we want. NR. PI RES: And agai n, wi t h al I due respect , Nf• . Chai r man and members of t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on, t he I ast sl i de i s t he requested proposed changes, and I read them out loud, and I t hought t hi s woul d be hel pf ul i n t hat di scussi on and consi der at i on by t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on t oday as t o whet her or not to approve t hi s, r ecom-rend i t wi t h approval , or r ecorrrnend i t wi t h condi t i ons, or r ecom-rend deni al . As you' re reading i t , one part on here t hat ' s on t he I andscapi ng wher e we t al k about a 20- f oot U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 192 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I andscape buf f er on Ai r por t Road - - I appr eci at e i t, M ke -- t hi s i s f r om t he Land Devel opment Code, and i t t al ks about a Type D 20- f oot buf f er i s required along Airport Road for properties wi t hi n act i vi t y cent er s. And you heard a I of of t est i mony that this property is i n Activity Center No. 6 [ si c] . But t he si t e pl an t hat has been suggest ed by the appl i cant in this case cal I s for a 15- f oot - wi de buf f er al ong Ai r por t Road. And so t hat ' s one of t he condi t i ons we request . You' I I see t hat i n our st r i ket hr ough and under I i ne. CHAI RN/AN FRYER I t' s sixteen, isn't it? MR PI RES: They have 15 on there. \M suggest 20 by virtue of - - because it's in Act i vi t y Cent er 16. CHAI RN/AN FRYER That ' s what I meant . MR PI RES: Yes, sir. And I don' t know i f st of f di sagr ees wi t h our posi t i on, but i t says, any - - and devel opment s wi t hi n an act i vi t y cent er shal I pr ovi de a per i met er I andscape buf f er of at least 20 feet in wi dt h regardless of the wi dt h of the r i ght - of - way. And so we woul d contend t hat a 20- f oot I andscape buf f er i s r equi red al ong Ai r port Road i n addi t i on t o t he of her suggest i ons. And so I don' t know i f t he PI anni ng Comm ssi on want s me t o U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 193 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go through these i t ems I i ne by I i ne or just read. CHAI RNAN FRYER VbI I , I et ' s t al k about wher e we go f r om here. And I take the point that the Count y At t or ney made; we' r e not - - t hi s i s not a n-edi at i on. I f t here wer e a subst ant i al I i kel i hood t hat we coul d reach an agr een-ent i n 30 ni nut es, I ' d be wi I I i ng to hang out here for 30 ni nut es and get it over W t h, but I haven' t heard anyt hi ng t hat suggest s t o rre t hat t he part i es are anywher e near suf f i ci ent I y t oget her t o do t hat , whi ch poi nt s me t o suggest i ng a cont i nuance, and I' d I i ke t o hear f r om t he of her pl anni ng cormi ssi oner s. IVR. YCNANCNI CH: I f I may, we' d rat her j u s t have you vote on our proposal. CHAI RNAN FRYER Al I , I ' m sure you wouI d, but I want t o hear f r om t he PI anni ng Cow ssi on. NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: O v i ng us a cont i nuance, we're not going to resolve i t . I just want ed t o say t hat bef ore you guys st art ed di scussi ng i t . CHAI RNAN FRYER What do t he of her pl anni ng corrrri ssi oner s have to say? CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Unfortunately, I happen to-- I don't t hi nk they are goi ng to resolve it and - - I n-ean, I ' m r eady t o vote on i t , so... U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 194 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: And I t hi nk everybody el se i s. CHAI RNAN FRYER: " . East man. NR EASTMN: Rich, you i ndi cat ed if there's a cont i nuance, i t' s unresol vabl e. I f we do t he half-hour option, is it pot ent i al I y resolvable? NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: I doubt i t. Based upon t h e I i st of t hi ngs that are there, i t rray - - may I do rry cl osi ng? CHAI RN14N FRYER Not qui t e yet . You' I I have an oppor t uni t y. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Ck ay . Because I think i t' s i rrpor t ant f or me t o expl ai n why I don' t t hi nk we' r e goi ng t o get t her e si nce ". Pi r es deci ded t o make public negotiations back and forth in the spirit of t r yi ng to reach a corrpr oni se. He deci ded to make a public record of the errai I exchange. I should have wr of e on t he emai I , t hese ar e set t I errent negot i at i ons not subj ect t o publ i c di scl osur es. Shame on rre f or not doi ng t hat . But - - so where we are - - let me j ust t el I you wher e we are on this issue. Reducing the square f oot age i s nonnegot i abl e. Changi ng t he buf f er s pr i or f o r edevel opi ng an exi st i ng si t e i s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 195 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nonnegot i abl e. A agr eed t o el i ni nat e some of t he uses t hat we t al ked about. That ' s f i ne. A already agreed t hat the refrigerated warehousing is an accessory use. A never asked for horrel ess shelters on Tract B. A agreed to doubl e comi t we' r e not goi ng to put i t on Tract B. So t he way - - wher e we ar e i s hi s r equi r errent s t o change t he I andscapi ng buf f er s at t he f i r st devel opment or der , whi ch a bui I di ng per rri t ' s a devel oprrent or der, we have t o now t ake out par ki ng t o meet t he new buf f er s f or an al r eady- appr oved si t e. That i s not accept abl e t o us. I f he comes of f of al I of that t o when we t al k about t r ul y r edevel opi ng t he si t e, knocki ng bui I di ngs down, put t i ng new bui I di ngs i n, we have sorret hi ng t o t al k about . But i f i t' s r eal I y any t ype of devel opment order, I ' ve got t o - - I ' ve got t o get rid of par ki ng spaces, and I ' ve got t o put i n buf f er s; t hat ' s why I said no. And in his I et t er , he said, you've got to do 150 square f eet , and t hat ' s not doabl e. A don' t want t o put a second st or y on t hi s bui I di ng t o rrove f or ward. So if those are his bot t om I i ne, we can't get to it, then a half hour's not goi ng t o do us U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 196 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any good. CHAI RNAN FRYER Let rrie t el l you wh e r e rry v of e is going to come from I ' m concer ned about t hi ngs t hat of her s have not ment i oned her e, at I east suf f i ci ent I y for rry purposes. I r errai n concerned about secur i t y. And I heard a cat egor i cal , no, we' r e not wi I I i ng t o do anyt hi ng rror e. I wouI d r ej of n by sayi ng, woul d St . IVbt t he\n/ s be wi I I i ng t o cont r i but e a per cent age t owar d t he cost of secur i t y to protect the neighborhoods? Not i ndi cat i ng what t he percent age rri ght be, but woul d you ent er t ai n t hat ki nd of a concept ? NR. YCVANOVI CH: They have a fence. V\hy don' t t hey rrai nt ai n their fence - - CHAI RNAN FRYER I take t hat as a no. NR YCNANCNI CH: - - to keep people out ? I mean, rry quest i on - - what am I goi ng t o do? Am I going to pay a police officer? Because only a police officer can literally ask sorreone to get off t he pr oper t y. V\b' r e not going to go chase somebody of f of somebody el se' s proper t y, and f or what ever reason, t hey' r e uncorrf or t abl e doi ng i t as wel I. A police officer has to do t hat . CHAI RNAN FRYER Count y at t or ney? NR. KLATZKOW I would suggest a 10- ni nut e U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 197 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 br eak. Let t hese t wo get t oget her . I f t hey t el I you, no, t here' s no way we can come t o a corrpr om se, t ake a vot e. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. That ' s what we' I I do. VW 11 be i n recess for 10 rri nut es unt i I 2: 58. (A brief recess was had from 2: 48 p.m to 3:17 p.m) IVR. BOSI : Chai r, you have a I i ve m c. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you, ". Bosi . I ' m gi ven t o under st and t hat t he appl i cant and t he r epr esent at i ve of t he nei ghbor s have had a fruitful conversation, and we await with baited br eat h your r epor t . NR. YCA/ANCA/I CH: 1l\ib 1 I, I have a quest i on. I can' t r en-errber, , do you guys have one rror e meet i ng t hi s n-ont h? CHAI RN/AN FRYER Yes. NR. Y()\/ANC\/I CH: VV r e down - - and I ' m n of goi ng t o t el I you what i ssue i t i s because -- we' r e down to one i ssue. And, i n f ai r ness t o Tony and Steve, they're unable to reach their client to Met her or not t hey can agree to t hat one i ssue. nat we woul d I i ke to do i s come back at your next meet i ng, hopef ul I y up f i r st , and say, here' s ever yt hi ng, we' ve r esol ved i t , or i t f el I apart . U. S. Legal Support I van w. usl egal support . com 198 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'd hate t o put us both in a vote scenario. CHAI RNAN FRYER No. NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: And I hat e t hat you sat here t hi s I ong, but it was fruitful . A' r e j ust struggling to find the deci si on rraker for - -CHAI RIVAN FRYER Good. NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: -- f or t he apart rre n t c o rrp I ex. CHAI RNAN FRYER All , without obj ect i on from t he PI anni ng ComYi ssi on - - NR. YCNANCNI CH: Ho I d on. Ho I d on. Di d y o u get hi rr9 CHAI RNAN FRYER So t he appl i cant i s pr oposi ng t hat t hi s be cont i nued t o a dat e cer t ai n, nan-el y t he 16t h of Decerrber . NR PI RES: Yes, t o see i f we can r esol ve t he one r errai ni ng i ssue. And i f not , t hen t he PI anni ng Corn-Ti ssi on wi I I t ake a vot e. If it is resolved, t hen have sorret hi ng f or you. NR. KL ATZ KON No, wh at wi I I happen is assurri ng i t' s resol ved, okay, st of f' s goi ng t o have t o put t oget her t he PUD t hat - - NR. PI RES: V\,b' I I wo r k on i t. NR KLATZKON - - you've both agreed to, okay. That wi I I be present ed t o t he PI anni ng Com-i ssi on. There won' t be a need f or a publ i s hear i ng. There U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 199 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wi I I just be, at that point in time, a vot e yes or no. IVR. PI RES: V61 I, I guess i t woul d be a publ i s hear i ng i f we can' t r esol ve i t. IVR KLATZKON And if you can't r esol ve i t - - wel I , t hi s public hearing is done -- MR PI RES: I know. I under st and t hat . IVR. KLATZKON - - you know. IVR PI RES: But it's public f rom t he st andpoi nt t hey have t o t ake act i on. No rror e evidence, I agree. CHAI RIV14N FRYER: Ck a y. So i f you' r e a b l e -- IVR. KL ATZ KON So we' re c I o s i ng t he publ i c hearing, I t ake i t ? CHAI RN/AN FRYER Yes, publ i c hear i ng i s closed. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: I don' t get a 30- ni nut e close? CHAI RN/AN FRYER I' m s o r r y? NR. YOVANOVI CH: I don' t get 30 ni nut es t o close and rebut? NR. KL ATZ KON IVb n, life is short. CHAI RN/AN FRYER I f you W s h. W YOVANOVI CH: No, I d o n' t wa n t t o. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Let me be sur e I under st and U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 200 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hat t hi s, t hen, wi I I come back t o us on consent . NR. YCNANCNI CH: I t can' t . COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: V 6 have t o vote on it. MR KLATZKON Al I , t hey vot e on consent , but we' I I figure that part out. I t wi I I come back t o you at your next meet i ng. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. MR KLATZKON But the public - - the publ i c portion of this is now cl osed, al I r i ght . So i f t hey' ve agreed to i t, i t' s j ust a vot e. I f t hey haven't agreed to i t, t hey' I I get to make t hei r cl osi ng ar gurrent s, and then it wi I I be a vot e. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. AI I r i g ht . I s t hat agreeable with both sides - - MR PI RES: Yes, and - - CHAI RNAN FRYER - - or counsel? MR YCNANCNI CH: Ct her t h a n I don' t t hi n k Tony gets a close; only I do. MR PI RES: No. I was goi ng to say I was hoping Ri ch woul dn' t cat ch t hat , but I ' m j ust ki ddi ng - - being facetious. Thank you for your pat i ence. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. Thank you very rruch. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: IVbve t o cont i nue. CHAI RNAN FRYER Is there a second? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 201 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng Decerrber 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER SCHM TT: Second. CHAI RNAN FRYER And t hi s i s a n-Dt T on t o cont i nue t o a dat e cer t ai n, Decerrber 16t h. CCM/M SSI CNER SCHM TT: Si xt eent h, yeah. V\6 can meet on t he 15t h. It W 11 vvor k for me. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah, I know i t vvo u I d . Any f ur t her di scussi on? ( No response.) CHAI RNAN FRYER If not, all those i n favor of a cont i nuance t i I I t hat dat e, pl ease say aye. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Aye. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Aye. CHAI RNAN FRYER Aye. CCIVM SSI CNER HCM AK: Aye. COMA SSI CNER SCHM TT: Aye. CHAI RNAN FRYER Cpposed? ( No response.) CHAI RNAN FRYER I t passes unani rrousI y. ( The requested excerpt of proceedings concl uded. ) U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . com 202 Excerpt CCPC IVbet i ng December 02, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE CF FL CRI DA ) COUNTY CF CCL L I ER) I , Ter r i L. LeW s, RPR, FPR C, and Not ar y Publ i c, do her eby cer t i f y t hat t he f or egoi ng pr oceedi ngs wer e t aken bef or e me at t he dat e and pl ace as st at ed i n t he capt i on her et o on Page 1 her eof ; t hat t he f or egoi ng corrput er - assi st ed t r anscr i pt i on, consi st i ng of pages nurrber ed 2 t hr ough 202, i ncl usi ve, i s a t r ue r ecor d of rry St enogr aph notes taken at sai d pr oceedi ngs. Dat ed t hi s 20t h day of December 2021. n TERRI L. LEW S, RPR, FPR C Notary Public, State of FI or i da Co mrri ssi on No: HH 125014 Cormri ssi on Expi r es: August 23, 2025 U. S. Legal Support I vwn w. usl egal support . com 203 Exhibit I a A 1 ",q RESOLUTION 98•__1_5Z_ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE. TILE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Commissioners (Board), as the (filly elected governing body for Collier County, holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review and act upon items of concern to and affecting the residents of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), serving as the local planning agency and the land development regulation commission as required by F.S. §§ 163.3174 and 163.3194, holds regularly scheduled public hearings to discuss, review, act upon and make recommendations to the Board relative to items of conccm to and affecting the residents of Collier County; and WHEREAS, included in these items may be advertised public hcarings of a quasi- judicial or legislative nature; and WHEREAS, the public may wish to comment on these items scheduled for consideration before the Board or the CCPC; and WHEREAS, in order to maintain, equity, dcconim and order at these regularly scheduled public hearings, it is necessary to establish standard procedures for presentations and public comment before the Board and the CCPC; and WHEREAS, the Board has prepared these rules in an attempt to encourage public participation during advertised public hearings, including quasi-judicial hearings, in a manner consistent with the requirements of law. NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners declares that the procedures set forth, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A, applicable to the 8A 1 no Board and the Collicr County Planning Commission as stated in said Exhibit, arc fair and reasonable, and arc hcrcby adoptcd. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to procedures for Board and CCPC prescntations and public commcnt be recorded in the minutes of this Board, This Rcsolution adoptcd after motion, sccond and majority votc favoring same. Donc this _ 4[ ? day of „427�1 1998, ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dwight E. Brock. Clcrk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Barbara B. Bcny, Chairman / Attest es to CheirW.s signature only• "Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C'Wcigcl, Cou Attorney 2 8A104 Exhibit "A" Procedures for Presentations before the Collier ounty Board of Commissioners and as Applicable to the Collier County Planning Commission A. Public Comment on C'eneral 'Ponies• Members of the public may register to speak on general topics under the Public Comment portion of the Board of County Commissioner's (Board) agenda. The number of speakers pennitfcd to register under public comment on any given agenda shall be limited to a maximum of five, unless the Chairman recognizes additional speakers. I. Sneaker Registration: Individuals wishing to speak to the Board under public comment at any regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners shall register to speak in writing on the form provided by the County prior to the public comment portion of the agenda being called by the Chairman. II. Time Limits: a) Public Comment: Maximum 5 minutes per speaker B. Public Petitions: Public Petitions arc limited to a single speaker. In general, the Board will not take action on public petition items on file day the petition is presented, but may direct staff to take action, or bring back the item to the Board at a future date for consideration. The County Administrator may defer scheduling a public petition for a reasonable period of time in order to allow sufficient time for staff to review the content and thus prepare for questions from the Board. Registration: Individuals wishing to make a public petition to the Board of County Commissioners shall present such a request in writing to the County Administrator a minimum of 13 days prior to the Board meeting date on which the public petition is requested to be heard. The written request shall include the namc(s) and address(es) of all petitioners, including a primary contact name. address and telephone number, and shall state the nature of the petition, including any exhibits and/or back up material which may be pertinent to the petition. H. Time limits: Maximum 10 minutes per speaker. C. Advertised Public Hearin ►s• For procedural Purposes, advertised public hearings fall into two categories: those which are quasi-judicial in nature; and other types ofadvertised public hearings, including those which arc legislative in nature. I. uasi-Judicial Public hearings: 8A 1 K4 a) Purpose and Intent: The Board has prepared these rules in an attempt to encourage public participation during quasi-judicial hearings in a manner consistent with the requirements of law. As part of that effort and %vithin the confines of the law, the Board intends its hearings to be infoi-mal while recognizing the need for certain structure to maintain orderly hearings. Notwithstanding the procedures established by resolution, the Board may modify these procedures to effectuate the effective presentation of evidence. b) Applicability of these Procedures: (1) Quasi -Judicial Proccedingti. These procedures apply to all quasi-judicial proceedings heard by the Board and the CCI'C regardless of the capacity in which the Board is sitting. Quasi -Judicial actions concern the implementation of policy, which has already been set, and affording the Board, and in some instances the CCPC, limited discretion in deciding whether to approve or deny a land use permit. These include land use actions which have an impact on a limited number of persons or property owners on identifiable parties and interests, where the decision is contingent on a fact or facts arrived at from distinct alternatives presented at a hearing. Examples of quasi-judicial proceedings include but are not limited to: site specific rczonings (provided they involve Policy implementation); development of regional impact hearings; conditional use permits; variances; boat dock extension petitions; and administrative appeals. (2) Legislative Proceedings. Utilization of these procedures by the Board or the C CPC when sitting in a legislative capacity does not change the character of the legislative proceeding nor does it confer any additional rights or remedies upon any person or party. C) 1'rc-I learing Submittals: (I) Anplication. An applicant (as defined in the Coliicr County Land Development Code) shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2) StaflMecncy Recommendation. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff review and written recommendation to be Presented to the Board, such written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation. No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applicant, proponent, or opponent may submit any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation to staff for intended consideration by the Board in support of or in opposition to the application. In order to be included in a Board or CCTC Agenda packet, any w-rittcn arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation mutt be submitted to the appropriate staff no later than three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing before the respective body. All %written 8 A I oq Submissions, not including pictorial displays (maps, graphs and the like) must be on 8-1/2 x 1 1-inch paper. No written materials will be accepted by the Board at its hearing unless, at the Board's discretion, acceptance is necessary to decide the issue. Written comments submitted shall be considered and entered into the record of the meeting in accordance with subsection C. 1. d)(4) below. d) Public Hearinas before the Board or the CCPC• (1) General. It is the expectation that the hearing will be informal. All members of the public who address the Board or the CCPC shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded. Each speaker shall state his or her name and address for the record. Additionally, speakers shall indicate whether they arc speaking on behalf of themselves or others. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines. It is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons of the following status will prepare their discussions and comments to be completed within the prescribed time limits: 1 • Staff shall be responsible I'or presenting the case on behalf of Collier County and shall limit their presentations to twenty (20) minutes. 2. The applicant shall present his or her entire case in twenty (20) minutes. Expert witnesses shall be limited to ten (10) minutes each. 4. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five (5) or more members or a group of five (5) or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. 6. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of the Chairman, the time allowed for any speaker may be extended. (b) Registration of.Speakers. Persons who desire to speak on an item shall, prior to the item being called to be heard by the Chairman, register with the Countv Administrator on the forms provided. Fivc (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as 8 A 1 Proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. (2) Order and SUb t of Appearance: To the extent possible, the following shall be the order of the proceeding: (a) Preliminary Statement. The Chairman shall read a preliminary statement once at the beginning of the quasi-judicial hearing portion of the agenda outlining the procedure, which shall be followed. (b) Sworn 'Testimony. The applicant, staff, and all witnesses requesting to speak shall be collectively sworn. (c) Agreement with Staffs Recommendation. If the applicant or agent of the applicant agrees with staffs recommendation and wishes to waive his or her right to present additional evidence, and if no commissioner or anyone from the audience wishes to speak for or against the quasi-judicial agenda item, the Board may vote on the item based upon staff's presentation and the materials in the agenda back-up. (d) Initial Presentation by Staff. County staff shall make the initial presentation to the Board regarding any item under consideration. After completion of the staff presentation, the Board may make inquiries of staff at this time. An applicant or appellant may ask questions of, or seek clarification from, staff by request through the Chairman at the time that party makes its initial presentation to the Board. (c) ntmlicant's Presentation. After staff prescntation, the applicant(s) shall be allowed to make a presentation to the Board based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection (d) (1) (a), above. During and after the applicants' presentation. the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from the applicant. The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions or seek clarification from the applicant(s) at this time. (f) Speakers. Aftcr Board and staff inquiry of the applicant, speakers shall be allowed to speak based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection (d) (1) (a), above. During and after a speaker's presentation, the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from such speaker. 'The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions of or seek clarification from speakers. fg) Stat'f Resnonse and Summary. The staff shall be allowed an opportunity for response to the presentations by the applicant, proponents and opponents and a summary with any changes in position alter consideration ol"relevant public comment. Proponents 8 A 1 and opponents who believe that the staff response includes errors of fact or law may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such errors of fact or law. (h) Applicant's Rebuttal Presentation. Applicant's rebuttal shall be allowed only on items where there is an applicant other than the Board or Board staff. After staff response, the applicant shall be allowed an opportunity for rebuttal. Rebuttal shall be limited to five (5) minutes unless otherwise set by the Board. Rebuttal shall only address previous comments. Staff, who believe that the rebuttal presentation includes an error of fact or law, may ask for and may be allowed an opportunity to point out such error of fact or law. (1) Board and Staff Inquiry. After all presentations have been made as outlined above, the Board shall have a final opportunity to comment or ask questions. The Board may allow staff to respond to comments previously made at this time. (j) Limit on Presentations. No person who has made a presentation for or against an item at a given meeting shall be allowed to make additional comments, unless requested to do so by the Board. (k) Closing, of Public Comment. In those matters on which public comment is heard by the Board, the Chairman shall close the public comment portion of the meeting (on that item) upon the conclusion of the last speaker's comments or, in the Board's discretion, if no new relevant information is being presented. No additional public comments shall be allowed, except in specific response to questions by members of the Board. (3) MiscellanCOUS Items: (a) Continuing Record /Sneakers Qualifications. The Clerk to the Board ("Clerk") shall maintain a file with the most recent copies of resumes previously filed with the Clerk by county staff presenters. All other persons testifying on issues requiring educational, occupational and other experience who wish to be qualified as experts shall submit their qualifications in %kTitten form for the Board's approval to speak as expert witnesses. (b) Organizational or Group Speakers. Prior to presenting his/her case, any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate, in writing, the organization or group he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak on behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. 8A1 (c) Restrictions on Testimony or Presentation of Evidence. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may interrupt any presentation that contains matters which need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment are frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of order. (d) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official, or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any time with regard to matters under consideration. (c) Continued Public I Icarings. In any matter where it is known that a scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they can not be available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting, provided, however, that upon making their comments, such persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the same subject. This waiver shall not preclude such persons from making different presentations based on new information or from offering response to other persons' presentation, if otherwise allowable, at any subsequent meeting. (4) The Record (a) Automatically Included in the Record: The following documents shall automatically he included in the record of the hearing before the Board: (1) The record from any preliminary hearing, the agenda packet, the staff report, and the transcript of the hearing before the Board: (2) Written comments and documents previously entered into the record at a prior Board meeting on the particular matter. (b) Items Which Shall Be Placed in the Record: Any additional documents, exhibits, diagrams, petitions, letters or other materials presented in support of, or in opposition to, an item to be considered by the Board shall be entered into the record, as long as it was received by the Board's Clerk or the applicable Collier County department seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing. 8A 1 (c) Additional Evidence. Except pursuant to subsection C) (3) above, Written Presentation, any additional written or documentary evidence filed within seven (7) days of the date of the hearing shall not become part of the record. (d) ('ustodian. 'Ihe Clerk shall he the officMI custodian of the record. (c) Exhibits. Unlcss an oversized exhibit is absolutely essential, documentary paper or photographic exhibits should not exceed 24 inches by 30 inches and, if mounted on a backboard, shall be removable therefrom. All documentary evidence should be capable of being folded and filed. 1I. Other Public hearings; The following rules apply to advertised public hearings other than those which are quasi-judicial in nature, including those advertised public hearings which are legislative in nature. a) Pre -hearing Submittals: (1) Application. An applicant (as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code) shall make application as provided in the procedures established for the individual decision being requested. (2) Staff/Agency Recommendation. To the extent that the applicable procedure requires a staff review and written recommendation to be presented to the Board, that written recommendation shall be completed and available for public inspection no later than ten calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. (3) Written Presentation. No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the Board, any applicant, proponent, or opponent may Submit, in support of or in opposition to the issue which is the subject of the advertised public hearing, any written arguments, evidence. explanations, studies, reports, petitions or other documentation to staff for intendrd consideration by the Board. All written submissions, not including pictorial displays (maps, graphs and the like) must be on 8-1/2 x I l-inch paper. b) Public Ilearintz: (1) General. All members of the public who address the Board shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded, and shall identify themselves by naite and local addresses, if applicable. Further. any speaker speaking on behalf of an organization or group of individuals (exceeding five) shall indicate such and shall cite the source of such authority whether by request, petition, vote, or otherwise. (a) Time Limitation Guidelines. It is expected that presentations will be organized and efficiently presented. As a guideline to presentations, in addition to the written comments submitted as part of the preliminary record, it is expected that persons in the 8 A. 1 following status will prepare their discussions and comments to be completed within the prescribed time limits: Staff shall be responsible for summarizing the item for the Board and shall limit such presentation to a maximum of twenty (20) minutes. 2. For advertised public hearing items (other than those which are quasi-judicial in nature). where there is an applicant other than the Board of County Commissioners or staff, following the staff summary of the item the applicant will have an opportunity to make a maximum (10) minute presentation. Persons who have been authorized to represent an organization with five (5) or more members or a group of Five (5) or more persons should limit their presentation to ten (10) minutes. It is expected that others in the organization or group waive their time. 4. All other persons may speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes each. No speaker may give his or her time to any other speaker. At the discretion of the Chairman, the time allowed for any speaker may be extended (b) Speaker Rcgistration. Persons, other than staff and the applicant (where applicable), wishing to speak on an advertised public hearing item shall, prior to the item being heard, register with the County Administrator on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. (2) Miscellaneous hems: (a) Drt4anizatinnal or (iroup Sneakers. Prior to making his/her comments. any person representing an organization or other persons shall indicate who he/she represents and how he/she received authorization to speak on behalf of such organization or group of persons. The Board may make further inquiry into the represented authority of such person if necessary. (b) Restrictions on Comments Deemed Not Germane to the Item. Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any Board member may intemupt and/or stop any presentation that discusses matters that need not he considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may "%8A1 restrict or terminate presentations which in the chairman's judgment arc frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of order. (e) Public Officials. Notwithstanding other provisions hereof, the Board may allow any elected or appointed public official or representative thereof, to appear and make presentations at any time with regard to matters under consideration. (d) Continued Public I Iearings. In any matter where it is known that a scheduled public hearing will be continued to a future date certain, the staff report may be abbreviated and public comment may be limited to those persons who state that they believe they cannot he available to speak on the date to which the public hearing is being continued. Such persons may make their comments at the current meeting; provided, however, that upon making their comments, such persons shall waive the right to repeat or make substantially the same presentation at any subsequent meeting on the same subject. D. Other Aunda Items Before the Board: In addition to public hearing, public comment and public petition items, with the approval of the Board, members of the public may speak on other Board agenda items. Registration: Persons wishing to speak on agenda items other than advertised public hearing items, public comment on general topics and public petition items, shall register to speak on the form provided by the County prior to the item being called by the Chairman to be heard. II Time Limits: Where the Board has requested or otherwise authorized public input on agenda items other than public hearing, public comment on general topic, or public petitions items, speakers will he limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. 9 PI anni ng Comm ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 EXCERPT TRANSCRI PT OF THE IVEETI NG OF THE CCL L I ER COUNTY PLANNI NG CCIVM SSI CN Napl es, FI or i da December 16, 2021 Agenda I t em PL20210000176 - St . IVbt t hen! s House LET I T BE REIVEIVBERED, t hat t he Col I i er Count y PI anni ng Comm ssi on, i n and f or t he Count y of Col I i er , having conducted business her ei n, met on t hi s dat e at 9: 00 a. m , i n REGULAR SESSI CN i n Bui I di ng " F" of t he Cover nnent Corrpl ex, East Napl es, FI or i da, W t h t he f of I oW ng merrber s present : Ed wi n Fryer, Ch a i r rra n Kar en Horn ak, Vi ce Chai r Kar I Fry Paul Shea Robert L. KI uci k, J r . Tom East man, Col I i er Count y School Boar d Repr esent at i ve ABSENT: Joe Schm t t Chr i st opher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bel I ows, Zoni ng IVbnager M ke Bosi , PI anni ng and Zoni ng Di r ect or Jef f r ey KI at zkow, Count y At t or ney Hei di Asht on- Ci cko, IVbnagi ng Assi st ant Count y At t or ney U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . corn PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ( The f of I owi ng i s t he r equest ed excer pt of proceedings.) CHAI RN/AN FRYER Public hear i ngs, advertised, t he f i r st mat t er i s PL2021000176. 1 t' s t he St . IVbt t he\A/ s House CPUD. And you' I I r ecal I t hi s was cont i nued f r om our December 2, 2021, meet i ng. You' I I al so r ecal I t hat counsel f or cer t ai n adj acent nei ghbor s and f or t he appl i cant had r epr esent ed t hat t hey t hought t hat t her e mi ght be an agr eed- upon sol ut i on near at hand, and so t hat' s My we cont i nued t he mat t er . Al I persons wi shi ng to testify i n this matter, pl ease r i se and be swor n i n by t he cour t r epor t er . ( The speakers were dul y swor n and i ndi cat ed i n the of f i r mat i ve. ) CHAI RIVWN FRYER Thank you. Ex par t e disclosures starting with M- . East man, pl ease. COMA SSI ONER FRYER: No di scl osur es out si de of the mat er i al s in the public record. COMA SSI ONER SHEA: St of f mat er i al s onl y. COMA SSI ONER FRY: Di t t o. CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Okay. Since my previous ex part e di scl osur es, I have r evi ewed t he addi t i onal mat er i al t hat has been made publ i c and had meet i ngs U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 2 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wi t h st of f and conver sat i ons wi t h counsel f or t he appl i cant and cer t ai n adj acent nei ghbor s. PI us, I rrade a second si t e vi si t t o vi ew t he pot ent i al secur i t y i ssues whi ch I r ai sed t wo weeks ago. Vi ce Chai r. COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: Nothing different except en-ai I s f r om I ast t i me. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: I si rrp l y h a d conver sat i ons wi t h st of f and st of f mat er i al . CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. AI I r i ght . VW t hout f ur t her ado, Nr . Yovanovi ch, t he Chai r recognizes you. MR YOVANOVI CH: I b e l i eve wh e r e we I o f t of f was t he publ i c comrent was corrpl et e, and i f we reached a deal , we' d present t he deal . If we di dn' t r each a deal , I woul d do r ebut t al and cl osi ng. Am I cor r ect t hat publ i c comrent i s done unl ess a corn-ri ssi oner put I s somebody up t o ask them - - CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. And I j u s t want t o errphasi ze t hat we di d, i ndeed, cl ose publ i c com-rent , and what t hat does i s t hat f or ecl oses i ni t i at i ves on the part of the public to speak, but i ni t i at i ves f r om t he PI anni ng Comri ssi on t o ask U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 3 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anyone to speak or to be heard is always wi thin our pur vi ew, but you ar e cor r ect , ". Yovanovi ch. NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: V\h a t we s u b m t t e d, and I bet i eve is in your packet, is a redline of the PUD i ncor por at i ng t he changes r equent ed f r om t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on at i t s I ast meet i ng. And if I can, I ' I I j ust put t hem on t he vi sual i zer. . VW I I go over t hem real qui ck, make sure I caught t hem all. And I wi I I -- before I do t hat , in response t o your - - t he Chai r' s quest i ons r egar di ng secur i t y, I et rre t el I you what we al r eady do as secur i t y f or St . Mat t he\A/ s House and t he adj acent pr oper t y. I hope t hat wi I I sat i sf y t he PI anni ng Conmi ssi on t hat we ar e ser i ous about secur i t y f or t he pr oper t y. VWhat we have i s basi cal I y f r om t he of t er noon on t hr ough t he eveni ng, we have secur i t y on si t e. They' r e t her e. They wal k t he gr ounds f r equent I y t o make sure the grounds are secure and people are not vandal i zi ng t he pr oper t y and ar e maki ng sur e i t ' s safe. A also have video caner as on the bui I di ngs t o rrake sure t hat not hi ng' s happeni ng t o t he bui I di ngs. And i f you' ve been t here, you wi I I see we have o f ence t hat r uns t he I engt h of t he of d aut on -obi I e shi p - - aut onDbi I e deal er shi p, and we U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 4 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a f ence on Tract A as wel I . So i t ' s not that we' r e not t aki ng secur i t y ser i ousl y. V\b take secur i t y ver y ser i ousl y and, as you know, we do background checks before people could stay. So t hat i s how we ar e handl i ng secur i t y t oday, and we' I I cont i nue t o do t hat . CHAI RNAN FRYER Co m ri ssi o n e r Fry. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: Rich, just cl ar i f yi ng. So I' m getting the i rrpr essi on it's St. IVbt t he\n! s House's position that security on site is your f ul I r esponsi bi I i t y, but that - -MR YCNANCNI CH: Ab s o l u t el y. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: -- I i rri t i ng h o n-e I e s s c a rrp s out si de t he bor der s of t he par cel t hat you own and control is not within the r eal m of r esponsi bi l i t y f or St . Nbt t he\A/ s House, cor r ect ? NR. YCNANCNI CH: V6 have no I egal aut hor i t y t o go ont o sorreone el se' s proper t y and t el I somebody who' s t her e t o I eave. They have t hat aut hor i t y. I f t hey ar e uncorrf or t abl e deal i ng wi t h t he per son di r ect I y, they have the abi I i t y to call a sheriff's deput y t o assi st t hem i n doi ng t hat , but we have no I egal authority to do t hat . And forcing us to take on that r esponsi bi I i t y, we t hi nk, i s i nappr opr i at e and can be, f r ankl y, U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 5 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dangerous to us if we would have to approach people and shoo t hem away on someone el se' s pi ece of property. The appropriate way to handle that is to cal I a sher i f f' s deput y t o assi st i f t hat happens. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Thank you for the cl ar i f i cat i on. IVR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: Yeah. So I ' I I g o page by page as to the changes. Yes, sir. CCIVM SSI CRIER SHEA: Can I j u s t ask you a quest i on on t he f ence? IVR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: Yes. CCNM SSI CRIER SHEA: Is the fence around the ent i r e east si de, bot h Tract A and Tract B, or j ust at t he DeVoe bui I di ng? IVR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: I f you r e me rrb e r, t her e' s a sot i d wal I on part of t he DeVoe proper t y, and t hen t her e' s a f ence on t he DeVoe pr oper t y, and t hen t here' s a f ence on Tract A. There is a gap. Ther e' s pr obabl y a 30- f oot gap, I t hi nk, bet ween t he Tract A and t he begi nni ng of t he wal I on Tr act B. VW re happy to fill that gap to make sure t hat t here' s a cont i nuous secured f ence al ong t he way. CCIVM SSI CRIER SHEA: C k a y . IVR. YOVANOVI CH: So as you can - - as you can U. S. Legal Support I vwn w. usl egal support . corn 6 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 see -- maybe we shoul d zoom out a I i t t I e bi t, M ke. Thank you. Thank you. The f i r st change i s under t he per rri t t ed use category. A made i t cl ear t hat t he beds can onl y be on Tr act A, and I bel i eve t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on had directed and we had agr eed t o t hat al I pr i nci pal uses rrust be owned by a not - f or - pr of i t cor por at i on. So we made that change. Under t he pr i nci pal uses on Tract A, we excl uded nonr esi dent i al , pr obat i on of f i ces, ref ugee ser vi ces, and publ i c wel f are centers. I bel i eve t hat was at t he request of t he PI anni ng Cormi ssi on. The next page, I t hi nk, i s Tract B. A had nnved to - - we had rroved t o an accessory use t he war ehousi ng. Or i gi nal I y it was a per ni t t ed use on Tr act B, but we wer e r equest ed t o conf i r m t hat t hat was accessory to the pr i nci pal uses, whi ch we di d. And we rroved t hat t o an accessor y use on Tr act B, and t hat al I ows bot h r of r i ger at ed and, you know, donated furniture to be stored on site as an accessory use. A had agreed t o make i t cl ear, agai n, t hat r esi dent i al care, hon-el ess shelters, and group f aci I i t i es are prohibited on Tract B. So we' ve U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 7 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said it i n mal t i pl e l ocat i ons throughout t hi s document t hat t he horriel ess shel t er can onl y be on Tr act A. CCMM SSI CNER FRY: Ri ch, does t hat , t hen, I i ni t you to your proposed size i n terms of future abi I i t y to expand on Tract A i f you needed to expand the horrel ess shelter and add beds? NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: A wo u I d have to c o me back through the public -hearing process again to go above 150 beds. COMA SSI CNER FRY: There st i I I i s space. If you want ed t o add ont o t he bui I di ng, you coul d apply and come back and add onto the bui I di ng? NR. YCVANCVI CH: A could build a second f I oor . V\b coul d r aze what ' s t her e t oday and replace it with a new structure. But t o go above 150 beds, we wi I I have t o come back t hr ough t hi s public -hearing process. Vt cl ar i f i ed the setback under - - f r om t he east er n boundary, whi ch i s t he apart rmnt corrpl ex, that it applies to the pr i nci pal and addi t i ons to pr i nci pal st r uct ur es const r uct ed of t er t he adopt i on of the ordinance. COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: I' m not getting anything on rry screen, and I don' t t hi nk - - U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 8 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER I ' m not seeing you lit up ei t her . CCIVIA SSI CNER KLUCI K: VW re not getting t hat . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: He' s t al ki ng about our moni t or s. COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: I t ' s not on ni n e . CHAI RNAN FRYER I t ' s not on nine ei t her . MR YC\/ANC\/I CH: Then i f you c o u l d f o l l ow along on the screen. I hope you can see i t . CHAI RIVAN FRYER Yeah. COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: Is this i n our packet as Timm MR YCVANCA/I CH: Yes, i t s h o u l d be. V\6 t r ansni t t ed i t to the county the IVbnday after Thursday' s meet i ng. V\,b had cl ar i f i ed that the r equest ed devi at i on as t o t he squar e f oot age - - CHAI RNAN FRYER I t hi n k vwe' I I hear you a n d pay n-or e at t ent i on t o you of t er we get t hi s corrpl et ed. W M LLER Just a second, Ri ch. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Thank you, Troy. Thank you, si r . Go ahead, " . Yovanovi ch. COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: I got o n the Internet wi t hout any hel p t oday. U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 9 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W YOVANOVI CH: And then we clarified that the devi at i on is - - only applies to Tract A for the squar e f oot age of t he - - agai n, t he t heme i s rrake i t very cl ear t hat t he homel ess shel t er beds wer e al I on Tr act A. A had al so agreed, i f you r ecal I , t hat any new over head doors woul d not f ace t he adj acent r esi dent i al pr oper t y. V\h had agreed to I i ni t hours of oper at i on f or I oadi ng and unl oadi ng t o 7: 00 a. m t o 9: 00 p. m IVbnday t hr ough Sat ur day. And I have a f eel i ng t hat your packet doesn' t have t hi s, because I' m hear i ng t he rrur nur i ng i n t he background t hat rraybe this is the first t i rre you're seeing i t . And t hat no del i ver i es, I oadi ng or unl oadi ng - - t his is act ual I y - - we had agreed to t hi s wi t h t he nei ghbor s t hat no del i ver i es, I oadi ng or unl oadi ng, would be by tractor t r ai I er s. They di dn' t want t he bi g, not sy t r ucks del i ver i ng. And we had agreed and - - t hat at t he t i me we r edevel op t he pr oper t y we woul d put a buf f er al ong our eastern boundary. That we had put t hat i n i n good f ai t h based upon di scussi ons wi t h t he nei ghbor s, and appar ent I y we t r ansni t t ed t hat t o the county a couple weeks ago. A' r e not going to t ake t hat back, but we want ed t o show t hat we had U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 10 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agr eed t o pr ovi de a buf f er al ong our east er n boundary even though when they bought the property t her e was no buf f er al ong t he east er n boundar y, and they were f ul I y aware of t he uses on t he proper t y, and I ' I I get into t hat in rry cl ose. So we have negot i at ed i n good f ai t h and have made r evi si ons to the PUD that I t hi nk wi I I hopef ul I y addr ess t he conver sat i ons t hat occur r ed at t he I ast meet i ng. And i f you have any quest i ons of rrie or any of our expert s, we' r e happy t o address t hat ; otherwise, I ' I I go into rry cl osi ng remarks. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Any rrte rrb e r s of t he PI a n n i ng Conmi ssi on wi sh t o be heard at t hi s t i n-e? I have a nurrber of quest i ons. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: Okay. CHAI RN/AN FRYER And, unf or t unat el y, I read t he document t hat you asked rre not to read, because I read i t bef ore I got your errai I sayi ng don' t read i t . And I al so got a si m I ar but not i dent i cal one from". Pi r es. They' re very close. There are some t ypogr aphi cal di f f er ences. And I r ecogni ze t hat you have wi t hdr awn t he changes, and I am respect f ul of t hat . But I want t o be sur e t hat we al I know what r emai ns open and U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 11 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mat you woul d agree to. So I ' m goi ng t o go t hr ough each of t hese, and you can t el I rrie - - and i n some r espect s, t hi s rray be r edundant . NR. YCNANCNI CH: VW t h all due respect, I don't t hi nk - - I appreciate that you read i t , but putting me i n a posi t i on t o respond t o a document t hat I asked you not to read because -- CHAT RNAN FRYER I ' d already read i t , Nf' . Yovanovi ch. NR. YOVANOVI CH: I understand. But you' r e putting it in the record when I asked that it not be par t of t he r ecor d, because i t was an agr eerrent based upon negotiations. I was told to t r ansrri t it t o you, and t hen I was t of d t he agr eerrent was t aken back. So now I ' m goi ng to get on the record, you're going to ask me if I' m st i l l wi I l i ng to do t hese t hi ngs when t hey won' t com� t t o us t o support sornet hi ng, and I don't t hi nk t hat ' s right. CHAI RNAN FRYER I' m absol ut el y going to ask you each and every one of these t hi ngs, and if you want t o make a r ecor d now t hat you' r e r eser vi ng r i ght s t o obj ect or t o appeal or do anyt hi ng you want , go r i ght ahead and do i t . CCNM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Nr . Ch a i r rra n ? CHAI RNAN FRYER Yes. U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . com 12 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: What ' s the basis f o r doi ng t hat when i t ' s not sorret hi ng t hat - - he' s expl ai ned t o you. CHAI RNAN FRYER V\61 I , he went t hr ough about half of the t hi ngs, I t hi nk, that show up in t hi s, and I want t o be sure t hat I know what t he of her hat f i s. I di dn' t rrake not es when he went through t hat and I , t her of or e, woul d I i ke t o have cl ar i f i cat i on. CCM/M SSI CNER KL UCI K: But i t ' s not an agr eerrent . CHAI RNAN FRYER: No, i t ' s not an agr eerrent . And I am r espect f ul of t he f act t hat i t i s not an agr eement , but some of t he i t errs appear t o have been agr eed t o, and I woul d I i ke t o - - even i n vi ew of the fact that it night be repetitious, I would still I i ke to know what is agreed to and what i sn' t , because some of t he poi nt s t hat he Trent i oned, such as t he hours of oper at i on and of her s t hat I caught , whi ch ar e i n t hi s document - and I ' m not goi ng t o go t hr ough t he whol e document . I' m j ust going to go through the t hi ngs that are new and are si gni f i cant t o me, unl ess t here' s an obj ect i on f r om t he PI anni ng Comm ssi on. NR. YCVANCV I CH: You know, I' m goi ng t o not e U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 13 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on t he r ecor d we negot i at ed t hose agr een-ent s i n good f ai t h based upon t he r eci pr ocal agr eerrent t hat i f t hi s becomes part of t he or di nance, t hey woul d r en-ove -- t hey woul d wi t hdr aw t hei r opposi t i on. I n good faith, I t r ansni t t ed that to you. V\hen I was t of d t hat t hey no I onger agreed t o support us even t hough we had rrade t hose agr een-ent s, I don' t t hi nk i t ' s appr opr i at e, because now you' ve seen i t , t o now ask me if I' m st i 1 1 wi I l i ng to agree to it. CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: And I j u s t , you know, f al I back on, you know, t he pr i nci pl es, you know, Men t hese t hi ngs cone up i n I egal si t uat i ons t hat t hose ki nd of negot i at i ons and of f er s ar e nor mal I y not , t hen, son -et hi ng t hat t he t r i bunal , whi ch we' r e t he equi val ent of , has access t o, because i t wasn' t - - i t ended up not bei ng agreed to. And you can' t hol d peopl e or pester peopl e - - excuse rre - - not pest er - - you know, ask a I of of quest i ons about t hi ngs t hat t he part i es negot i at ed pr i vat el y i n good f ai t h, and i n t hi s case t hought t hey had an agr een-ent and t hen t r ansni t t ed i t onl y wi t h t he i dea t hat i t was somet hi ng t hat both sides agreed to, and now you' r e goi ng to, you know, ask a bunch of det ai I ed quest i ons about i t . I t hi nk - - CHAI RN/AN FRYER V61 I , you don' t know what I ' m U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 14 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 goi ng t o ask, but I ' ve got a - - what may be a corrpr oni sed sot ut i on. I ' m goi ng to ask Nf• . Yovanovi ch to r of er to hi s document and si rrpl y cover t he subj ect s. It's goi ng t o be a little r epet i t i ous, I know, because he j ust di d, but t here are i ssues t hat show up in the r edl i ni ng, and I vwuI d I i ke t o hear once n-Dr o f or t he r ecor d what he is wi I I i ng to agree t o and what he's not, and then we' I I see what ' s I of t over . NR. YCNANCNI CH: I ' I I go back through what I j ust went back t hr ough. Exhi bi t A, we agree t o t hese r evi si ons t hat wi I I make i t very cl ear t hat t he horrel ess beds can onl y be on Tract A and t hat al I pr i nci pal uses have to be owned by a not -for -profit corporation. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. NR. YCNANCNI CH: A agreed under pr i nci pal uses to -- CHAI RNAN FRYER: And these are st i I I t hi ngs t hat you' re st i I I wi I I i ng to agree to, correct? NR. YCNANCNI CH: I agreed to these t hi ngs in f r ont of you- al I t wo weeks ago. CHAI RNAN FRYER Keep going, please. NR YOVANOVI CH: A agreed to exclude nonr esi dent i al pr obat i on of f i ces, r of ugee ser vi ces, U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 15 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and publ i c wel f are centers. A had agreed t o t hat at t he I ast meet i ng. A had also agreed to r en-ove f r om t he pr i nci pal uses on Tract B - - CHAI RNAN FRYER Before you go there, the -- no, no. Cont i nue. Go ahead. NR. YOVANOVI CH: On Tract B, we had gener al war ehousi ng, bot h r of r i ger at ed and unr of r i ger at ed. A wer e asked t o r en-ove t hat as a pr i nci pal use and put it as an accessory use. So we r enroved - - you can see on Tract B we no longer have warehousing. CHAI RNAN FRYER And t he r of r i ger at ed, what di d you say about t hat ? NR. YOVANOVI CH: V\L& moved i t to an accessory use to be operated W t h a not -for - pr of i t food bank only, the refrigerated portion. A have unr of r i ger at ed st of f wher e peopl e dr op of f donat i ons t hat we then di st r i but e to the different t hr i f t stores. That woul d cont i nue t o occur as i t i s today, and t hat would be an accessory use. It can' t be a st and- al one oper at i on. CHAI RNAN FRYER What about pr osecut i ons under SIC 9222; are you st i I I -- COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Can I j u s t ask a real basi c quest i on, ". Chai r man? CHAI RNAN FRYER Go ahead, go ahead. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 16 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: So we have - - I have Page 25 of the 555- page agenda. I s t hat t he cur r ent ver si on t hat we' r e I ooki ng at on t he overhead? Is it the same t hi ng, the I i st of per ni t t ed uses? IVR. BCSI : No. In coordination with the pr i nci pal pl anner, , t he ver si on t hat " . Yovanovi ch had t r ansni t t ed t wo weeks ago di d not appear i n your guy' s package. CCIVIA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ck a y . CHAI RMAN FRYER So t he quest i on on t he f I oor - - CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: I' m g o i n g to ignore, then, t hi s, because i t' s-- wel I, i t' s rrost l y the same, but we' r e t al ki ng about t he changes. So I have to f of I ow here, okay, on the overhead. CHAI RNAN FRYER IViy quest i on, t hen, i s on prosecutions, 9222. IVR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: I' m t r y i n g to do two things at once and not doing ei t her one of t hem wel I . What our quest i on was - - I bel i eve t hose had to do with - - and I cl osed the book. O ve rre two seconds. The 9222 - - so t he onl y one you want t o I eave i s t he publ i s pr osecut or use? CHAI RIVAN FRYER Al I , you' ve got l egal U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 17 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 counsel and prosecution, 9222. And I ' m okay with legal counsel, but prosecution seerrs I i ke a non -sequitur. NR. YOVANOVI CH: okay. VV I, we' I I t a k e o u t publ i c pr osecut or and Publ i c Def ender OF f i ces. The r errai nder wi I I be -- I' l l read t hem t o you. There' s onl y f our of hers: At t or ney Gener al ' s Office, district attorneys, legal counsel offices, gover nment , and U. S. at t or ney' s of f i ces. That' s Mat 9222 i s. So i f t he count y want ed - - if we had an office bui I di ng on that site and the county want ed t o put t hose of f i ces t her e, we woul d - - we wer e goi ng to al I ow t hem t o do t hat . CHAI RN/AN FRYER So what woul d you r en-Dve? NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: A wo u I d t a k e out publ i c def ender s and publ i c pr osecut or s. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Okay. NR. Y()\/ANC\/I CH: I t hi n k Mat you have i n your packet or possi bl y have in your packet someone accepted some of the changes and they no longer show as st r i ket hr oughs. For i nst ance, I ' I I show you what I had subni t t ed, why I got conf used. I had subni t t ed the del et i ons, so everybody can see i t , but what I ' m showi ng you now i s some of t he version is clean, some of it is st i l l U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 18 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 st r i ket hr ough. So i f you' I I per mi t me, I' I I j ust wor k t hr ough t he st r i ket hr ough and under I i ne, whi ch i s what I hope you have i n your packet . Not hi ng' s changi ng f r om what we al r eady comri t t ed t o t o t hi s poi nt . COMA SSI CNER FRY: I j ust want t o ask of her commi ssi oner s. I do not t hi nk I have t he st r i ket hr ough and redline in the packet. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Th i s di d n' t come i n t he packet. I t came i n a separ at e-- staff sent it to us o f ew days ago, so i t wasn' t i n t he basi c packet. That came as a st andal one. IVR. YCNANCNI CH: V\bs i t a s u p p l e me n t? COMM SSI CNER SHEA: Yes. NR. YC^/ANC^/I CH: And so far, " . Shea, y o u can -- t hi s i s what we submi t t ed. So i f I get i t wr ong, you' I I - - can you I et rre know? CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Uh -huh . A/R. YC\/ANC\/I CH: A had - - and I had met that - - we had cl ar i f i ed t hat set backs f r om t he east er n bui I di ng woul d appl y t o pr i nci pal bui I di ngs - - pr i nci pal st r uct ur es and addi t i ons t o pr i nci pal st r uct ur es const r uct ed of t er 1/ 25/ 2022. Vib put anot her not e on t he mast er pl an t o make it clear that i t ' s to be located on Tract A only, U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 19 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and we had agreed, again, to add that the 150 beds woul d be on Tract A onl y, and I bel i eve t hat i s i t t hat we had agreed t o and shoul d be i n your packet . Ther e wer e - - t her e may be - - t her e was anot her subm t t al t hat was made by rre yest er day t hat I t ook back, so t hat was - - i t was an errai I t hat I copi ed everybody on. You di dn' t get i t , ". Fry, because t hankf ul I y I I of t t he " v" of f , so you di dn' t get t errpt ed to read it - - when I said gov, so yours came back. And ". Vernon's came back. But I di dn' t get any - - di dn' t notice from anybody el se t hat t he en-ai I I sent t o your county - - they would have been to your county errai I s - - can-e back. CHAI RNAN FRYER Where are you on any concessions to be rrade on I oadi ng and unl oadi ng and hours of oper at i on? NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: They we r e i n t here. CHAI RNAN FRYER I' m not abl e t o see it on the - - I ' m not saying it isn't there; I' m j ust not abl e t o see i t because of rry eyesi ght . NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: Page 9 of 9, we had agreed no overhead doors f aci ng t he adj acent r esi dent i al proper t i es. Loadi ng and unl oadi ng woul d be I i m t ed t o bet ween 7: 00 a. m and 9: 00 p. m , Nbndays t hr ough U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 20 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sat ur days, so not hi ng on Sunday, and we had agreed t o no del i ver i es, I oadi ng or unl oadi ng, by t r act or t r ai I er s. CHAI RNAN FRYER okay. Thank you. Under I andscapi ng, buf f er i ng, f enci ng, and secur i t y. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Those were al I i n negot i at i ons. Those are of f t he t abl e. V6 had sai d that B - - you can see B on the screen. If you could see B, this is how we' re wi I I i ng to address I andscapi ng. I t says at t he t i rre of i ssuance of any devel opment or der - - act ual I y, we had cl ar i f i ed. This isn't the right version. A had sai d SDP or SDPA. This is Tony' s version. This is - - t hat ' s - - I ' m r eadi ng from". Pi r es' version on that part. Vt had agreed t o i nst al I a buf f er al ong our east er n boundary. When we put I ed a new SDP or an SDPA, we woul d i nst al I a 15- f oot - wi de I andscape buf f er al ong our east er n boundar y. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: That cur rent I y does not exi st ? NR. YOVANOVI CH: I t does not exi s t . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: And t hat - - wet I , t hat seemed t o i ndi cat e t hat you - - you rrent i oned t he 30 f eet you woul d connect t he wal I . NR. YOVANOVI CH: A had a - - we have a f ence, U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 21 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I sai d we' r e conTr t t ed t o connect i ng t hat 30 feet from Tr act A t o the wall, and that is in cur r ent I y, or do we need t o add t hat ? I t ' s not . V\b have t o add t hat . CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: V\b have t o add t hat . CHAI RNAN FRYER M- . KI u c i k . COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ck a y. So j u s t I et rre have you cl ar i f y. So you said you had agreed to t hat par agr aph, but t hat ' s no I onger part of what you're wi I I i ng to agree to? NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: V\6 had sai d - - we had sai d we woul d i nst al I a buf f er al ong t he east er n boundar y, and we have to do an SDPA or SDP. COMM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ck a y . So that ' s still in play? And when you sai d t hat ' s no I onger - - W YOVANOVI CH: That ' s still i n exi st ence. COMM SSI CNER KL UCI K: - - i n exi s t e n c e, you' r e sayi ng i t doesn' t exi st yet . I t needs t o be put i n place? CCIVM SSI CRIER FRY: Cor r ect . COMM SSI CRIER KL UCI K: But it exi s t s a s an agr eerrent . MR YO\/ANO\/I CH: I t exi s t s COMM SSI CRIER KLUCI K: Because you spoke about i t as " had. " I j ust - - rreani ng t hat you pr evi ousl y U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 22 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had agreed to it and you still agreed it. Sor r y about t hat . NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: A' re still agreeing to it. A' r e not t aki ng i t back. CCIVM SSI CRIER KLUCI K: Got i t . ( I nt er r upt i on by t he st enogr apher f or cl ar i f i cat i on. ) NR. YCr/ANCr/I CH: That ' s i t . CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. VW t h respect to the horrel ess peopl e who spend t he ni ght outdoors near by, near t he property, are you i n a pos i t i on to i dent i f y f or us wher e t hose horrel ess peopl e - - showi ng us on a rrap wher e t hat pr obl em ex st s? NR. YOVANOVI CH: The onI y t hi ng I could - - no, t hey brought t he i ssue up. They're not people st ayi ng with us. As you know, t he peopl e who st ay wi t h us stay indoors. They have a bed. They have a I ocker . They have food. The whol e i ssue, i f you r ecal I , had t o do wi t h si nce 1988 St . IVbt t hen! s House has been pr ovi di ng food to people who need f ood, and t hat i ncl udes t he horriel ess. That i s not part of t hi s PUD. And, apparent I y, sorre homel ess people or a horrel ess person - - I don't know. They showed you a carrp - - camped out i n t hei r woods. They' r e not our guests. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 23 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER You' r e not abl e, t hen, t o i dent i f y f or us wher e t hi s pr obl em exi st s? NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: No. I t ' s their - - they p u t up on t he vi sual i zer an exarrpl e of a carrp. V\6 don' t pat r of t hei r pr oper t y. CHAI RIVAN FRYER C kay. VV I , t hat ' s f ai r enough. I f you don' t know, you don' t know, but I ' m goi ng to try t o find out. Any of her quest i ons or com-rent s at t hi s t i me f r om t he PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on? COMA SSI C NER KL UCI K: Yes. CHAI RIV14N FRYER: Go ahead, Con-ni ssi oner KI uci k. COMA SSI CRIER KLUCI K: Vhat was t he basi s f or t he agr eement f al I i ng apart ? You know, t he agr eement t hat you ment i oned, you know, t hat you had t r ansni t t ed and t hen - - why di d t hat end up not being an agr eernent ? NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: VV I, t he p u b l i c- r e c o r d document sent by one of t he at t or neys f or t he apart n-ent basi cal I y sai d t hat hi s cl i ent has not agr eed t o al I of t he t er rm and has not agr eed t o wi t hdraw t hei r obj ect i on, so t hat' s kind of how it f el I apart . V\b di d wor k t oget her rat her ni cel y up unt i I yest er day of t er noon or rror ni ng. But hi s U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 24 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cl i ent has sai d t hey wi I I no - - t hey cannot agree to wi t hdr aw t hei r obj ect i on. CHAI RNAN FRYER An y t hi ng f u r t her? NR. YOVANOVI CH: I'd like t o j u s t kind of talk about a few poi nt s that relate to our petition and t he apart Trent corrpl ex. Can I go back t o the podi urr9 Do I j ust push " podi uni' ? NR. BOS I : Yes. M: YOVANOVI CH: Got i t . The yel I ow area is what we' r e i n to do as a PUD. Cn the north side, up her e, t hat i s Mer e t he horrel ess shel t er cur r ent I y exi st s, and t hat ' s Mer e we want t o put the new 46 beds. There is a portion here and here, t hat i s the old Pontiac PUD, and then this portion i s zoned G 4 today. V\6 want t o br i ng al I of t hat i nt o one PUD and have uni f i ed zoni ng r egul at i ons appl i cabl e t o t he pr oper t y. Thi s pi ece r i ght here, by t he way, i s cur rent I y zoned G 4. A are -- CHAI RNAN FRYER Con-ni ssi o n e r Fry. COMA SSI ONER FRY: I don' t want t o i nt er r upt you, Ri ch. nen you' r e done, I have a quest i on. M:. YC\/ANC\/I CH: A are s i rrp I y trying to cont i nue to fulfill a rri ssi on t hat st art ed back i n 1988 wi t h t he f eedi ng ni ni st r y f or peopl e who U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 25 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 needed f ood, whi ch i ncl uded t he hon-el ess. St . IVbt t he\n! s House has pr ovi ded shel t er t o t he hornel ess t hat want t o bet t er t herrsel ves and agr ee to certain r ul es and r egul at i ons when they stay at t he shel t er and, as you heard, t hat i ncl udes background checks and also Breathalyzers when they come back t o st ay i n t he eveni ng. These people are in need of services. They -- we all know i t ' s a problem I t ' s a problem everywhere. I t' s a pr obl em i n Col I i er County. I don' t know wher e you- al I park. You probably don't park over by the snack shop, but if you go by t here, every day you' I I see 22 gent I en -en si tt i ng out t here. I' m assuni ng t hey' re homel ess. I don' t know t hat for o fact. I t' s a pr obl em i n Col I i er County, and St . IVht t he\A/ s House has been addr essi ng that pr obl em wit h its 104 beds. A' re si rrpl y asking within the sane footprint to add 46 rrnr e beds so we can hand) e or het p rror e people who are on the waiting I i st . And who ar e t hose peopl e who are on t he wai t i ng I i st ? There's 12 f ani I i es that are on the waiting I i st . Some of them-- or one of t hem i s I i vi ng in her car wi t h a t hr ee- year - of d daught er . Hopef ul I y she's going to get i n on Fri day. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 26 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You have 16 nal es; five of t hem are I i vi ng in a car. A don' t know wher e seven of t hem are. And there's four that are currently at a mental heal t h f aci I i t y. Then you have 18 f erral es on t he wai t i ng I i st ; t vvo that are I i vi ng in cars, two at rrent al heal t h f aci I i t i es, and 14 we don' t know wher e t hey ar e. They' re probably hopef ul I y going from sofa to sof a at sorreone' s house; of her W se, t hey' r e I i vi ng outdoors. Thi s has been an i rrpor t ant ni ni st r y t hat has been t aken up by St . IVbt t he\n! s House W t hout any n-oney corri ng f r om Col I i er Count y. This is a not - f or - prof i t doi ng, as t hei r websi t e says, God' s wor k because, dependi ng on your bet i of s, we' r e supposed t o t ake car e of t hose who are I ess f or t unat e, and t hat i s exact I y what t hey' r e doi ng. I t' s, frankly, appal I i ng and upsetting to rre t hat an apart ment owner who doesn' t I i ve here who sent sorreone t o t al k about t hi ngs she has no personal know) edge and doesn't I i ve in Col I i er Count y i s now obj ect i ng t o uses t hat exi st ed at t he t i rre t hey bought the property. They bought the property i n 2016. Decerrber 14, 2016, they bought t hi s apart n-ent corrpl ex f or 34 rri I I i on, 500 dot I ar s. I ' m assuni ng, and they said, they did their due U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . corn 27 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 di I i gence. So t hey knew what' s on your screen exi st ed at t he t i rre t hey bought t he proper t y. They knew what t he buf f er si t uat i on was. They knew what t he f enci ng si t uat i on was. They knew ever yt hi ng. They knew t here was a hon-el ess shel t er on Tract A with 104 beds. St . IVbt t ' s acqui r ed t he of d aut on -obi I e deal er shi p in 2013. Shortly thereafter - - and that was i n Nhy of 2013. Shortly thereafter they opened up their thrift store that you see and the I oadi ng area for delivery and accepting of donations. Currently they house their food off site. They'd I i ke to bring that on site. AI I of this exi st ed Men t he apart n-ent corrpl ex was purchased by t he cur r ent obj ect or . AI I we' re doi ng i s addi ng 46 beds. AI I the uses that are on that site we have t he r i ght t oday t o expand under t he exi st i ng zoni ng and, f r ankl y, under Cr 4 zoni ng do a I of n-or e t han Mat we' r e aski ng f or t oday. They want us to spend donors' ntiney to put buffers in that they should have put in on t hei r own property. They want us t o buf f er us when i t rrust have been accept abl e t o t hem i n 2016 t o have the buffering t hat ' s t here t oday, but now t hey want a buf f er because we want t o put 46 beds i n Tract A U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 28 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up here. That' s wher e we want to put 46 beds, and nowt hey want to buffer the entire I engt h of t hei r boundary when it was perfectly acceptable to them in 2016 t o not have a buffer. Vh' ve agreed to do t hat . I t ai n' t cheap, but we' I I do i t. Thi s i s an i rrpor t ant , ver y i rrpor t ant rri ni st r y. And I ' m assurri ng you' ve read Tony' s I et ter to you about t he rent s t hat are al I egedl y being charged to I i ve i n t he Heron Poi nt apart rrent corrpl ex. I t hi nk NA-. Pi r es said that t he one- bedr oorrs are being rent ed at $1, 151 per wont h, and t he range goes t o t he t hr ee- bedr oorrs of $1, 375 a n-ont h. That' s not factual I y correct. How do I know t hat ? CHAI RNAN FRYER You realize you're opening t he door by doi ng t hi s. NR. YOVANOVI CH: You can ask him any questions you want about rent . I' m per f ect I y fine with your pul I i ng hi m up here and aski ng hi m quest i ons about rent . CHAI RNAN FRYER V61 1 , we' I I see how f ar it goes. NR. YC7\/ANC7\/I CH: That ' s all I' m t a l k i n g about i s t he r ent . How do we know t hat ? CHAI RNAN FRYER Nf• . KI u c i k . CCNM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Al I, you can f i n i s h U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 29 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your poi nt . You wer e goi ng t o ment i on what t he r ent s ar e. IVR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: I am I' m goi ng t o rre n t i on Mat t he r ent s ar e t oday because I t hi nk i t' s really i rrpor t ant to put into consideration the apart went owner' s rrot i vat i ons i n now r equi r i ng us t o spend money t o put i n buf f er s. V6 know for a fact that a letter went to tenants not i f yi ng them Men it's time to renew t hei r lease that t hei r $1, 100- a- rant h one- bedroom i s $1, 600 a rant h. That ' s a 45 per cent , bal I par k, i ncr ease; 45 per cent i ncr ease. I don' t know about n-ost peopl e, but I don' t t hi nk anybody - - nrost people got a 45 percent raise last year to now be able to live in those apart rrent s when t hey sai d i t was wor kf or ce housi ng i n t hei r openi ng st at er-rent . I t' s not wor kf or ce housi ng. The rents -- because I cal I ed. I kind of got a little excited. I sai d, you know, t hat ' s pr et t y cheap. I can maybe br i ng rry daught er horre, and she can I i ve there. So I cal I ed. I sai d, what does i t cost f or a one- bedr oon-P She goes, we don' t have any; we' r e f ul I . But shoul d one becorre avai I abl e, our worst uni t , whi ch I don' t know what t hat means, pr obabl y first f I oor , is $1, 570, not $1, 151. The U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 30 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t vvo- bedr oom wor st uni t - - CCMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: U . Ch a i r man? CHAI RNAN FRYER Yes. Go ahead, Corrrri ssi oner KI uci k. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: I' m t r y i n g to figure out, this doesn't - - I' m t r yi ng to figure out the r el evance of what t hey charge f or rent . MR YO\/ANO\/I CH: Because they said to you - - t his is in their documents that this is wor kf or ce housing, and somehow, by our having a horrel ess shelter, is affecting the value in their property, and what I' m t r yi ng to point out is t hat ' s not a t rue ar gun-ent because t hey f eel per f ect I y corrf or t abl e i ncr easi ng t hei r r ent s acr oss t he boar d by $500 a nnnt h. A are in noway affecting the vat ue of t hei r proper t y because we' r e a horrel ess shel ter and we want to do 46 n-or e beds. They made t hat ar gument , and I ' m t r yi ng t o di spel t hat ar gurrent . CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: I di d have rry quest i o n . CHAI RNAN FRYER Ck a y . COMM SSI CNER KLUCI K: I j ust \/vas vwnder i ng, am I right that t hat' s the county corrpl ex right to the sout h wher e we' r e - - MR YCNANCNI CH: Ri g h t her e. U. S. Legal Support I vww. usl egal support . corn 31 PI anni ng Comm ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Yeah, and wh e r e t hey' re -- NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: That' s you, u s . CCM\A SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ck a y . So isn't - - I ' m just t r yi ng to get a flavor. Isn't there, like, a lot of cr i rri nal - - I was t r yi ng to figure out what t he obj ect i on i s t o t he pr osecut or or t he def ense. I rrean, don' t we have, I i ke, I aw enf or cerrent t her e W t h peopl e who are, you know, cr i m nal s, you know, being held there all the t i rre? NR. YC \/ANC \/I CH: Yeah. You have a j a i I . CCMVI SSI CRIER KL UCI K: C k a y. I' m j u s t t r y i ng to figure out how t hi s is all relevant and why someone who I i ves next t o a pl ace wher e t her e' s al I sorts of cr i ni nal - - you know, cr i ni nal s corn ng i n, and t he sane ki nd of prosecutor or defense counsel si t uat i ons seems I i ke i t' s r i ght next door anyways. Wher e do t hese peopl e - - you keep ment i oni ng t he obj ect or . You keep, you know, referring seem ngl y t o speci f i c i ndi vi dual s. And I apol ogi ze, I was not at t he pr i or hear i ng. Who i s i t t hat ' s obj ect i ng, and what I and do t hey own? MR YCr/ANCr/I CH: The obj e c t or i s a b u s i n es s ent i t y t hat owns t hi s apar t n-ent corrpl ex r i ght her e. COMA SSI CRIER KL UCI K: C k a y . U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . corn 32 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. YOVANOVI CH: That ' s t he onl y obj ect or . And I woul d subni t t hat addi ng 46 beds i n t he same f oot pr i nt i n no way negat i vel y of f ect s t he nei ghbor hood and negat i vel y of f ect s t he nei ghbor. . And we woul d r espect f ul I y r equest , based upon t he prior t est i rmny from U . Brooder, that the 150-foot per squar e f oot - - t he 150 f eet - - squar e f oot per per son i s an appr opr i at e st andar d f or t hi s pi ece of proper t y and f or t hi s hon-el ess shel t er . Your staff i s r econTmndi ng appr oval of t he amendment s. The publ i c - - t he expert t est i nnny f r om your st of f and f r om ". Ar nol d and our expert s support t hat we have n-et the criteria. And wi t h t hat , we' r e open t o answer any quest i ons, and we' r e hopef ul t hat you wi I I subrri t t hi s t o t he Board of Count y Corrrri ssi oner s wi t h a r ecormrendat i on of approval . CHAI RIVAN FRYER Co rrm ssi o n e r Fry. COMA SSI ONER FRY: Two quest i ons, Ri ch. Fi r st - - and this is partly for your benefit, Robb. Just aski ng you t o cl ar i f y. I t hi nk when Kt. Brooder was up I asked hi m - - you know, one of the questions was how can you reduce the square f oot age per r esi dent f r om 150 t o 100 wi t hout an adverse of f ect on t heat I i ni t i ng t hei r space; how U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 33 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can you possi bl y say t hat' s a neutral change, not a negative change? And I ' d j ust like you to cl ar i f y - - I mean, ". Brooder cl ar i f i ed, I know you wer en' t here, Robb, about how t hi s space woul d be reapportioned. I t was not r educi ng t he space t hey cur r ent I y have i n t er rm of beds and bunks. It was -- NR YO\/ANO\/I CH: I think if i t' s -- I wo u I d r at her have Nf' . Br ooder - - CCIVIA SSI CNER FRY: That woul d be great . NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: -- so I don' t want t o ni s- par aphr ase what he t est i f i ed t o, and I t hi nk - - CCIVIA SSI CNER KLUCI K: And i f I could - - CHAI RN14N FRYER Go ahead. CCNM SSI CNER KLUCI K: Coul d I ask a quest i on bef ore - - CHAI RN14N FRYER PI ease. Go ahead. COW SSI CNER KLUCI K: Now - - it was a good quest i on, and I' m t r yi ng f o r en-errber what i t was. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: I have a not so good quest i on I can ask whi I e you' r e t hi nki ng about i t . Bef ore ". Brooder comes up, t he dr awi ng you have up there is perfect. Are you con-ni t t i ng to the buf f er and t he cont i nuous f ence on t he ent i r e bor der whi ch, t o rre, woul d be a - - you know, t he U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 34 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t op, t he rri ddl e, and t he bot t om adj acent t o t hat apart rrent corrpl ex? Are you sayi ng t hat woul d be a good -- NR. YOVANOVI CH: Are you t al ki ng about f r om t hi s? And i t' s not wr i t i ng; sorry. COMA SSI ONER FRY: Yeah, if you're able to show where exactly that buffer you' re of f er i ng is, is it the entire per i met er ? M: YOVANOVI CH: Yes. I t ' s along Tract A, which is here. So it would be - - if you could f of I ow rry finger. COIVM SSI ONER FRY: It cuts back all the way - - al I the way f r om t op - - north to south the ent i r e border, we' I I ei t her have - - we' I I have t hi s 15-foot Type B buffer? NR YOVANOVI CH: VC I I have a f ence and waI I corrbi nat i on, because we al ready have a wal I . So the fence wi I I connect to the wall , the existing waI I . And t hen we have a f ence t hat wi I I now make i t cont i guous t he ent i r e I engt h. Aat we sai d was al ong Tract B, whi ch i s r i ght here, t he par ki ng I of and Lul u' s Ki t chen and t he t hr i f t store, if we cone in and we basi cal I y r edevel op those t hr ough an SDP or an SDPA, t hat ' s when we woul d come i n and i nst al I t he buf f er al ong U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 35 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here where - - I don't know if you've driven i nt o t hat apart rrient corrpl ex. There's r eal I y not rruch of any buf f er t here. So I ' m assum ng t hey weer e perfectly cord or t abl e with no buffer at t he t i rre t hey purchased i t and - - but , agai n, we' I I put t hem i n a buf f er . COMA SSI CNER FRY: So you' I I add it t o the m ddl e sect i on, t he m ddl e sect i on? IVR YCA/ANCA/I CH: Uh -huh . CCNM SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. So t hey' I I have a f ence, cont i nuous f ence and wal 1, and t hen a buffer added i n t he m ddl e sect i on? IVR. YCA/ANCA/I CH: (Nods head.) COMA SSI CNER FRY: Ckay. Go ahead, Robb. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: I r e rre rrb e r e d . Ck a y . So r egar di ng, you know, t r yi ng t o get t o a - - I guess, an agr eement , t he st i cki ng poi nt - - I t hi nk what I' m hearing is the bot t om I i ne is if you're going t o i ncr ease t he nurrber of beds, t hey' r e goi ng t o obj ect no rrat t er what ; i s t hat ki nd of t he sum of it? NR. YO\/ANO\/l CH: I got - - I got - - at the e n d of t he day, t hey have not sai d t hey' r e goi ng t o wi t hdr aw t hei r obj ect i ons. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ri g h t. But do you t hi n k U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . corn 36 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hat ' s the st i cki ng poi nt ? NR. YCNANCNI CH: That t hey' r e not wi t h d r awi ng t hei r obj ect i on? CCIVM SSI CNER KLUCI K: No, no, no, t hat i t ' s t he addi t i onal beds. I s t hat -- i f t hat went away, i s i t your f eel i ng t hat t hat' s what t he cause of t he i rrpasse i s? NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: I' m n of going to -- CCM\A SSI CNER KLUCI K: Ckay, yeah. That' s an unf ai r quest i on. AI I r i ght . NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: You know, i n f a i r n e s s t o St eve, St eve' s been honest wi t h me, and I ' ve been honest wi t h hi m I don't want t o put hi m i n a bad place. I mean, he told you in his I et t er his cl i ent ' s not ready to say yes. CCMVI SSI CNER KLUCI K: Yeah, I can ask hi m t h a t quest i on. MR YO\/ANO\/I CH: IVb y b e we' I I get t o y e s bet ween now and t he Board of Count y Comi ssi oner s, but I don' t know. I don't know, in fairness to hi m COMM SSI CNER FRY: And, Ri ch, I t hi nk when you sai d an SDP on Tract B, you rreant f or - - i f you added an of f i ce bui I di ng or somet hi ng I i ke t hat ? MR YCNANCNI CH: Any a d d i t i o n s. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 37 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Any addi t i ons at al I ? IVR. YOVANOVI CH: Pr et t y much. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: Thank you. So are you ready f or ". Brooder to come up? M:: YCNANCNI CH: Yes. Do you want to expl ai n, St eve? IVR. BROODER Good n-D r n i n g . Yes, what we t al ked about i s t hr ough t he r enovat i on t hat was corrpl et ed a I i t t I e over a year ago, we added squar e footage to the facility. So now as we' r e r econf i gur ed, we can bet t er ut i I i ze t he space t o acconTmdat e t he addi t i onal beds. And we went f r om 15, 739 square f eet of usabl e space t o 17, 671 squar e f eet . So wi t h t he addi t i onal squar e f oot age and t he bet t er ut i I i zat i on of space, we f eel t hat we can cord or t abl y and r easonabl y acconTmdat e t he f of ks wi t h the increased beds. CHAI RN/AN FRYER If I Tray f of I ow up on t hat . VV I I t here be a decrease i n t he nurrber of square f eet per r esi dent and, i f so, how rruch? IVR. BROODER Yes. For t he cal cut at i on, we' r e request i ng t he devi at i on to go from 150 square feet per bed to 100 square feet per bed. CHAI RIV14N FRYER Ckay. There had been -- U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 38 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t her e had been some corn -rent rrade at t he I ast hear i ng t hat i f you i ncr ease densi t y an-ong peopl e of al I ki nds but perhaps part i cul ar I y arrong peopl e who ar e st r essed - - under si gni f i cant st r ess, i t could pot ent i al l y result in undesi r abl e activity. What' s your posi t i on on t hat ? NR. BROODER VVI, with the intensive case rranagerrent we have i n pl ace and addi ng some case rranager s W t h t he i ncr eased beds, we f eel we can supervise the f of ks that are there and, with the addi t i onal squar o f oot age, be abl e t o accomYodat e t hem CHAI RN/AN FRYER Okay. Thank you. NR. BROODER Yep. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Anyone else W sh to be heard up here? NR. YCNANCNI CH: I j u s t want to add one rro r e poi nt t hat t he Chai r rran r erri nded me. CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Go ahead. NR YOVANOVI CH: We di d n' t j u s t p u l l t he nurrber 46 out of t he ai r . For basi cal I y the 11 year s t hat ". Tr acht enber g has been on t he boar d, t hat ' s been t he consi st ent nurrber of t he peopl e on t he wai t i ng I i st , 46 peopl e, gi ve or t ake, you know, one or t wo ei t her way. So t hi s i s a U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 39 PI anni ng Comm ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hought - out number t hat we' r e r equest i ng. VW I I i t sol ve t he ent i r e horriel ess pr obl ems no, but i t wi I I help. And we can only do a little bit at a t i rre. And i f we cont i nue t o say we I ove t he ni ssi on but i t ' s t he wr ong I ocat i on, you' I I never f i nd t he r i ght I ocat i on and you' I I never meet t he mi ssi on, and we hope t hat you wi I I r ecomrend approval. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. Anyt hi ng f ur t her? NR. YCNANCNI CH: No. CHAI RIV14N FRYER Ckay. In vi ew of the fact that references have been rrade to opposing counsel, or counsel f or t he nei ghbor hood or t he owner of t he apart ment wi t h respect t o several i ssues, I ' m goi ng to ask ". Pi r es to return t o the dais, return to the podium please, and address these concerns. NR. PI RES: Thank you, Nt. Chai r man, member s of t he PI anni ng Comri ssi on. VW t h regards to -- and, gener al I y, it is my under st andi ng t hat at t or neys ar e not f act wi t nesses. They argue the case on behalf of t hei r client, but, apparently, Rich is t r yi ng to take on a role of being a fact witness today with regards to the rents. The I et t er t hat I sent on November 22nd, based U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 40 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 upon the i of or rmt i on on the websi t e, di dn' t - - Rich sai d t hat t hey showed rent s wer e 1, 151 f or a one- bedr oom t o 1, 375 f or t hr ee- bedr oorn but i t sai d if pl us. " So it was opportunity for increases. And you rmy be awar e of t he f act t hat a I of of apar t rrent corrpl exes ar e i ncr easi ng t hei r r ent al r at es. Addi t i onal I y, at t he t i rre of acqui si t i on, t here wer e 104 beds. There was not a proposed 40, 45 percent i ncr ease i n t he nurrber of beds at t hi s shel t er . So when our cl i ent s acqui red t he property, did their due di I i gence, a couple i rrpor t ant zoni ng cons der at i ons wer e i n pl ace: Ther e wer e 104 beds, not pr oposed 150; t he rri ddl e pi ece, t he DeVoe PUD, i s pr i rrar i I y G 2 uses wi t h sorre of her uses. The proposal i s to make i t al I G 4. So you have t hat whol e G 3, G 4 on t op of t he G 2. Now, one of t he concessi ons Ri ch woul d argue i s t hat t he rraxi rmm hei ght of 75 i s coni ng down t o 50 and 60. That woul d be an adj ust rrent of t hi s PUD. But to say that our client is frozen i n t i rre as t o what he bought , t hat he can' t corre i n and participate in a public process, is appal I i ng to rre. Ri ch used t he t er m " appal I i ng. " This PI anni ng U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 41 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Con-ni ssi on and t he Count y Con-ni ssi on al ways encourages expr essi on of support or opposi t i on, obj ect i ons f r om i ndi vi dual s. And t hat , quite f r ankl y, was a chi I I i ng effort on the part, and I t hi nk that is inappropriate in this context. VW t h r egar ds t o some of t he uses, j ust br i of I y, Ri ch sai d t hat we opposed I egal counsel and prosecution and legal defense. Those are in t her e as accessor y on Tr act B, so t hose ar e al I owed. So I' m not sure where it came f r om t hat those wi 11 be pr ohi bi t ed. If you I ook at the pr oposed PUD on per ni t t ed pr i nci pal use on Tr act B, i t woul d be I egal counsel and pr osecut i on on t hat par t i cul ar - - t hat ' s the version I have that was sent to the st off , I t hi nk, on Decerrber 6t h or 9t h. But t hose are j ust a f ew of t he com-rent s. I t hi nk that we're sort of going f r om t wo - - you know, a cont i nued hear i ng may get I ost i n t he t r ansl at i on. But I t hi nk what ' s also lost is the i nt ensi f i cation of use in the G 4. No, t hey wer e goi ng t o argue and assert t hat t hey' r e cappi ng at 130, 000 square f eet versus t he 64, 000 t hat exi st s t oday, but t he r ange of uses i s mach gr eat er . And, agai n - - so at t he t i me of acqui si t i on, t he ni ddl e pi ece was G 2 pl us some addi t i onal uses. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 42 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There are 104 beds now. They're going up by 46. That ' s, again, 40- some- odd percent. And on the rental rates, ny I et t er i ndi cat ed it was plus, so i t coul d be hi gher. . CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Corn-i ssi oner KI u c i k. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Yes. Just f or cl ar i f i cat i on, I t hi nk what I under st ood, and maybe rry f el I ow corrrri ssi oner s can conf i r m I t hought , ". Yovanovi ch, we had a di scussi on about t hat I i ne about t he I awyer s. VWrat ever the I i ne is; I ' m not I ooki ng at i t . And the di scussi on was -- MR YOVANOVI CH: Take i t out . COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: - - that they had I i ni t ed i t and t ook out t wo uses, and t hat ' s what I t hought I heard. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. And just to clarify, I bet i eve t hese wer e rry concerns, not counsel f or t he neighbors. So t hat was i n r esponse t o rry concer ns. ComYi ssi oner Fry. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Tony, you went i oned C- 2, C- 3 uses on Tr act B, r i ght ? MR PI RES: Before it was - - well , the ni ddl e pi ece, t he DeVoe pi ece. COMA SSI CNER FRY: The uses in place or the U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 43 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 per ni t t ed uses? NR. PI RES: The per ni t t ed use i n t he DeVoe, whi ch i s t he ni ddl e pi ece, whi ch wi I I now become par t of Tr act B, wer e C- 2 pl us a f ew of her uses; about , I t hi nk, 10 of her conTmr ci al t ype uses. But t hey - - t hat ' s what was al I owed as per rri t t ed uses. Now, a conf usi on i s t he east er pl an says C- 3. The t ext says C- 2 i n t he DeVoe PUD, i f - - rry r ecol I ect i on. And I t hi nk V\hyne agrees. And so now t hat' s goi ng t o become G 4, al I of - - wfli ch now t he DeVoe goes f r om C- 2 pl us some addi t i onal uses t o C- 4 uses. COMVI SSI CNER FRY: So it's your client's posi t i on t hat t hey may be har rred, det r i rrent al I y of f ect ed, by t he uses t hat woul d now be per ni t t ed on Tract B as wet I as t he addi t i onal 46 residents of t he horrel ess shel t er , cor r ect ? MR PI RES: As proposed, we bet i eve t hat ' s not corrpat i bl e or corrpl errent ar y t o our cl i ent ' s rml o f ani I y r es dent i al use, and t hat' s why we wer e aski ng f or al I t hese var i ous rrat t er s t o rake i t corrpat i bl e and corrpl ement ar y t o. COMM SSI ONER FRY: V\hat ' s acceptable to you in t er ms of uses on Tr act B, t he C- 2 and C- 3? What was t here bef ore? What was pr evi oust y t here? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 44 PI anni ng Comri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. PI RES: 11161 I , we had - - I t hi nk we had a sense - - and, St eve, cor r ect rre i f I ' m wr ong. A had an agr eerrent wi t h r egar ds t o on Tr act B al I C- 4 gener al comrer ci al per ni t t ed, and I egal counsel and pr osecut i on, used vehi cl a sal es, and boat deal er s as per ni t t ed uses. That was part of our di scussi on, but it was - - CCM/M SSI CNER FRY: You are okay with that? NR. PI RES: Al 1 , it was part of a bi g package. I t' s not just i n i sol at i on, because i t' s a whol e of t he var i ous aspect s we wer e aski ng f or as f ar as an agr eerrent . But t hose wer e, agai n, based upon al I t he of her f act or s, t he buf f er i ng and t he f enci ng and of her mat t er s, woul d addr ess t he corrpat i bi I i t y i ssue, and rry under st andi ng i s not all of those have been agreed to. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: You cane very close to an agr eerrent , as we under st and. IVR. PI RES: Yes. CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: So I guess for all of our benefit, just cl ar i f y exactly where the di sagr eerrent r errai ns. They have def i ni t el y rrade sorre concessions but obvi ousl y not enough for your cl i ent . So exact I y wher e are t he rmi n st i cki ng poi nt s, in your opi ni on? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 45 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NR. PI RES: St eve, do you want t o - - t he r eason I cal I ". - - St eve Ti I br ook has had n-Dr e di r ect comruni cat i ons wi t h t he cl i ent s, so he can possi bl y art i cul at e bet t er . NR. TI LBROOK: Thank you. COMM SSI CNER FRY: Thank you. IVR. TI L BROOK: IViy name i s Steve Ti I brook. I' m an at t or ney wi t h Acker rran Law Fi r m And I apol ogi ze. I was t al ki ng t o Ri ch when t he quest i on was present ed. Could you repeat t he quest i on? COMA SSI CNER FRY: It r eat I y i s you - - from our understanding, you got very close to an agr eenent , so rruch so t hat Ri ch t r ansrri t t ed a document t hi nki ng i t was agreed, and t hen i t was not agreed. NR. TI L BROOK: Co r r e c t. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Just be very speci f i c, cl ar i f y exact I y wher e t he r errai ni ng di sagr eerrent s ar e t hat rrake what has been pr oposed - - wi t h t he concessi ons t hey have rrade, what i s st i I I I acki ng and unacceptable to your client? IVR. TI LBROOK: V61 I , I t hi nk we can put on t he screen - - and, here, I ' ve got a larger copy. I t ' s the sane one i t' s just a little larger; easier to read. IVbst of t he i t errs t hat we - - t hat have been U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . corn 46 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 addressed by Ri ch are in his document in an agr eerrent . I can see i t . NR. PI RES: I f I rray, I have ext r a copi es I can hand out to everyone. CHAI RNAN FRYER If you wi s h . COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: What i s t hi s d o c u me n t? MR TI LBROOK: This is si rrpl y a bullet list of i t ems, n-ost of whi ch have al ready been i ncl uded i n t he r evi sed or di nance t hat U . Yovanovi ch subni t t ed. And there's a few i t errs at the bottom t hat are not i n t hat but coul d be. So I et me j ust go t hr ough i t. And I don't t hi nk I need to go t hr ough ever yt hi ng, because there's basi cal I y t hr ee categories. One is buffering and I andscapi ng, one i s use r est r i ct i ons, and one i s comTi t n-ent t o col I abor at i on on vagrancy. As t o the - - in t er rrs of priority for our cl i ent , t he buf f er i ng and I andscapi ng ar e a hi gh pr i or i t y, and t he comTi t Trent t o col I abor at i on ar e right up there as wet I . I' m goi ng to scoot this on the screen. Scoot it down a little bit so we could first go through - - there we go. Ri ght t here. So -- COMA SSI CNER FRY: Have t hey not met your - - I guess as you go t hr ough t hese, t el I us where t hey U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 47 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have not met your r equi r ement s. 4 under st andi ng f r om t he di scussi on of buf f er i ng and secur i t y t hat t hey have act ual I y corrpl i ed wi t h al I of t hese requests. NR T I L BROOK: All, I think there's a little bi t of conf usi on. A have agreed, okay. VIb we e i n agr eerrent as of yest er day as t o t hese i t errs. Not al I of t hese i t errs wer e pr esent ed t oday, okay, as part of his proffer in terms of t hi ngs he would accept, par t i cut ar I y for the buffering and security rreasur es. And I ' I I j ust poi nt out t he ones he di dn' t ment i on t oday. I don't t hi nk they're a big deal. CHAI RNAN FRYER Excuse rre , U . Yov a n ov i c h . You' I I have your oppor t uni t y. I f you want to rrake a r ecor d, you can cone to t he podi um and make a r ecor d; of her W se, wai t your t ur n, pl ease. NR. TI LBROOK: I am t r yi ng to be respectful of our conver sat i ons, okay. I am t r yi ng to be respect f ul . I ' d rat her not say what we di dn' t agree to. I woul d r at her say what ' s i rrpor t ant t o us, okay, if I coul d char act er i ze i t t hat way, because t hat is r el evant , and i t' s not, I don't t hi nk, di scl osi ng any confidences about what happened. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 48 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER Cr di n a r i I y, set t I e me n t di scussi ons are not adni ssi bl e. Thi s i s not a j udi ci al . I t' s a quasi -j udi ci al proceedi ng. I want t o be I i ber al in receiving as much evidence t hat coul d pot ent i al I y be r el evant under our rror e relaxed r ul es. But I wuul d ask t hat you t r y t o avoid di scl osi ng set t I ement di scussi ons t hat coul d i of I uence or pr ej udi ce ei t her si de' s case. IVR TI LBROCK: Thank you. I ' I I try to do that. CHAI RIV14N FRYER Co mi ssi o n e r KI u c i k. CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: I t hi n k t here' s s o me b o d y ahead of me. CHAI RIV14N FRYER There i s, but did you - - COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: V1bI I , Paul . CHAI RN/AN FRYER Con-ni ssi oner Shea. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: Yeah. I was j ust goi ng t o ask, is both Tract A and Tract Bin an act i vi t y cent er ? IVR. PI RES: Yes, Activity Center 17. IVR. TI L BROOK: Yes. COMA SSI CNER SHEA: So what i s t he count y' s position on activity center? Don't we nor rral I y go to C- 4? IVR. BCSI : Act i vi t y cent er s ar e t he most U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 49 PI anni ng Comri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i nt ense ar eas des gnat ed by t he Gr owt h IVbnagement PI an. C- 5 is a use that it's nor rral I y al I owed to. CCIVIA SSI CNER SHEA: So I guess I don' t see t h e ar gurrent that i t ' s - - it was C- 2. 1 t was i nevi t abl e t hat t he count y pl anned t o have i t Trove towards the C- 5 level , right? IVR. BCSI : That ' s what ' s al 1 ocat ed by the Gr owt h IVbnagerrent PI an i n t er rrs of t he I and- use ar r angement s. CHAI RKAN FRYER Co m- e r c i al KI u c i k. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: And was t hat s o rret hi n g t hat t he publ i c woul d have - - you know, was publ i c knows edge or was part of t he publ i c record i f someone was doing due di I i gence when they bought t he proper t y? W BOSI : I t has been desi gnat ed si nce t he ' 89 adopt i on of t he GNP. CCIVIA SSI CNER KL UCI K: And t hen rry quest i o n , i f I coul d - - and I don' t know i f everyone agrees, but I t hi nk as conTr ssi oner s we wer e mor e i nt er est ed i n knowing, if you're going to show us this I i st , just t al k about t he t hi ngs t hat haven' t been accomrodat ed. W TI LBRCCK: I can do t hat . I can do t hat . COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ck a y . And I don' t want U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 50 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t o speak f or everybody el se, but I t hi nk t hat woul d be most het pf ul . CCMA SSI ONER FRY: That ' s what I ' m aski ng. NR. TI LBROCK: Ckay. That' s wher e I was get t i ng t o. CHAI RNAN FRYER Let me j ust query t he county at t or ney. Ar e we goi ng down t he wr ong r abbi t hol e her e? NR KLATZKOW Oh, we' r e down so rmny rabbi t hol es on t hi s one, I I ost count . I ' d rather have all these issues raised and discussed and possi bl y resolved at this level than at the Board level -- MR TI LBROCK: Thank you. NR. KLATZKON - - i s how I f eel . So what ever you guys want to ask, what ever you guys want to do, I ' m al most al ways okay wi t h i t , because t he Board' s t i rre is very I i ni t ed. You guys are the land use. The Board not only does the land use, but they're doi ng ever yt hi ng el se, and we were here t i I I al most 8: 00 p. m t he of her day. I t ' s just - - I know t hi s is a hard process at times, but i t' s a good process. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Can I j u s t -- Steve, I a s k your i ndul gence on t hi s. Goi ng t hr ough hi s I i st of U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 51 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mere we di sagr ee, I j ust want to know, as he' s sayi ng t hat , i f we meet ever yt hi ng he now says, are t hey wi t hdr awi ng t hei r obj ect i on? That' s wher e he and I t hought we wer a at an agr eement , but t hat di dn' t happen. So I don't t hi nk it's fair t o say here' s what we di sagr ee on when he' s - - I don' t t hi nk he's in a position to con -nit t hat i f we agree to that they're going to wit hdr aw t hei r obj ect i on. That ' s what I just want - - I t hi nk in fairness to us -- CHAI RNAN FRYER Let rre ask a quest i on. IVR. TI LBROCK: I t hi nk what I can do i s t el I you what ' s i rrpor t ant t o us. You know, t hat ' s - - CHAI RNAN FRYER Bef ore you do t hat , do you have any additional authority from your client to reach an agr eerrent ? IVR. TI LBROCK: I have some addi t i onal aut hor i t y f r om t he cl i ent t o r each an agr eerrent today. CHAI RNAN FRYER Okay. VAbul d i t be product i ve for us t o take an early break to see if we can't get this resolved? IVR. TI LBROCK: A spoke ear I i er bef or e t he meet i ng, and I di dn' t get an i ndi cat i on f r om t he other side that this - - that it would be U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 52 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 product i ve. IVR. YOVANOVI CH: Let rrie r e p h r a s e t hat . CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: ". Ch a i r rra n, i f I c o u l d ask a very speci f i c quest i on. CHAI RNAN FRYER Go ahead. Go ahead, Corrrri ssi oner KI uci k. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: So I have a very speci f i c quest i on. And I f or get your narre, si r . IVR TI LBROCK: Stephen Ti I brook. CCIVM SSI CNER KLUCI K: Ti I ber ? IVR. TI LBROCK: Ti I b r oo k. CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: " . Ti I brook, i f y o u were to go through this I i st and then M- . Yovanovi ch woul d say, rry cl i ent woul d agree to ever yt hi ng, woul d you be t hen abl e t o say we' r e wi t hdr awi ng our obj ect i on? IVR. TI LBROCK: If I could cl ar i f y the list in t he meet i ng, I t hi nk t hat we can, but t here' s some cl ar i f i cation t hat ' s a little - - t hat ' s r equi red, and I can be speci f i c about t hat . COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: And then I guess, y o u know, what t he Chai r rran has asked i s, woul d i t be product i ve t o have a meet i ng [ si c] so t hat you can f i gur e t hat out so we can t ake act i on, t hen, once you're done? U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 53 PI anni ng Comri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RNAN FRYER M u l d i t be q u i c k e r, rro r e of f i ci ent f or you t o meet pr i vat el y and come back t o us or t o spend no rror e t han, say, about 20 ni nut es of t oday r ernai ni ng t r yi ng t o get t hi s done publ i cl y? Ei t her way, I t hi nk it's to the count y' s benef i t i f we can reach an agr eerrent so i t di dn' t - - so t hat it can proceed t o the Board of County Comri ssi oner s. IVR TI LBROCK: I t hi nk we can - - we can answer t he quest i ons i n 20 ni nut es, and we can t el I you Mat our cl i ent - - t hei r concer ns ar e and wher e they woul d be abl e t o go i n t er rrs of wi t hdr awi ng t hei r obj ect i on. And I did say i t to U . Yovanovi ch ear I i er, , so i t' s not a secr et . There's no secrets. VW ve comruni cat ed. K R. YOVANOVI CH: You know, at the risk of har ni ng t he r el at i onshi p we' ve est abl i shed, I di d not under st and t hat t hi s was t he f i nal I i st of demands t o get t o yes. I f this is the final list of demands t o get t o yes, t hen i t wi I I be product i ve. But i f i t' s anot her I i st wher e I say yes and his client st i I I reserves the right, it won' t be product i ve. So t hat - - I j ust need t o know - - and what I woul d ask, out of respect f or rry of her cl i ent who' s U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 54 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 her e f or t hei r hear i ng, per haps we shoul d t abl e t hi s. I t r ust VAyne and St eve t o go out and t al k t o St eve and Tony. V\6 can Trove on wi t h t he of her i t errs get t hat heard, and t hen come back and see i f we wer e abl e t o r each an agr een-ent , because I don' t t hi nk i t' s fair for rry of her client to sit here for 20 m nut es i n si I ence and hope t hat , you know, we cone back. So I woul d - - I woul d hope t hat we could do t hat to be fair to rry other client, that we can have t hat hearing, and if there's fruitful conversations in t he break, t hey' I I come back and say we got it and, if not, we' I I f i ni sh - - we' I I fi ni sh where we left off. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ckay. I t' s been r equest ed, t hen, or suggested t hat we coul d t abl e or cont i nue this to another date cer t ai n wi t h t he ear nest hope t hat i t coul d be wor ked out i n a way t hat woul d garner t he support of t he counsel , bot h counsel , and could - - CCIVM SSI CNER KLUCI K: I t houaht i t was I at er t oday. COMM SSI CNER HCM AK: After this next item CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Ch , you want t o table it till I at er t oday? MR YOVANOVI CH: Hear rry next i t ern and V\hy n e U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 55 PI anni ng Comri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and St eve wi I I go out wi t h St eve and Tony and go over the I i st , and if t hat ' s truly the I i st of -- t he f i nal I i st of derrands, rraybe we can agree. IVbybe we can't. I don' t know. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. I' m amenabl e to t hat . Does anybody obj ect t o i t ? Conmi ssi oner KI uci k. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: I guess I ' d like t o rra k e a poi nt . I' m j ust - - did you prepare this I i st t hat we - - t hat was handed out ? NR. TI L BRCCK: Yes. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ck a y. So I understand t hat maybe, you know, you want to say, wel I , "what t hi s n-eans i s, " but beyond t hat , you prepared t he I i st , and so I' m j ust t r yi ng to figure out, is there r eal I y rruch nnr e to it? NR. TI L BRCCK: Not rru c h rro r e to it. CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ck a y . Al I , great . It sounds I i ke t hi s break woul d be very benef i ci al . CHAI RNAN FRYER AI I r i ght . Then we wi I I t abl e t hi s unt i I after we -- wel I, we' I I table it u n t i I we hear a report back f r om t he client with r espect t o t he pot ent i al f or an agr eerrent . I n t he meant i me, we' I I go to the Cruz rrat t er , and t hen, as t i me per ni t s of t er t he br eak, of cour se, we wi I I take up the staff -i ni t i at ed matters. So wi t hout U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 56 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obj ect i on, t hi s rrat t er st ands t abl ed. Please keep us i of or rred. NR. TI LBROCK: Thank you. CHAI RIVAN FRYER Thank you. Al I r i ght . And i t' s now 10: 13. VW I I st and i n recess unt i 1 10: 30, pl ease. CHAI RIVAN FRYER: And, Nt . Yovanovi ch, do you want t o be r ecogni zed and gi ve us a st at us r epor t ? NR. YOVANOVI CH: Sure. I think-- I don't know wher e Tony and Steve are. But , unf or t unat el y, we're down to one item And I don' t know i f t hey want n-e t o di scl ose what t he i t em i s. But , of her wi se, i f we can' t - - we' r e down t o one i t em t hat we t hi nk i s j ust -- we j ust can' t agree t o i t and, of her wi se, we' I I j ust - - we' I I t ake our chances on your vote based upon what we've presented and agree to the additional changes t oday. But we' r e down t o one i t errs and I don' t know if I' m al I owed to t el I what that i t em i s. CHAI RN/AN FRYER V 61 1 , M . Pi r e s is here. He coul d si gnal t o you whet her - - NR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: I' m a s k i n g. The answer' s no, I can't t el I t hem what the one item is? CHAI RN/AN FRYER Co n-e to the n i c , sir. U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . corn 57 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W YOVANOVI CH: The one item - - IVR. TI LBROOK: Thank you, Board. And thank you, Rich, for t aki ng the t i rre to speak with us. Vh di d reach out to our cl i ent . I t was -- t her e i s a concer n about i rrpact s t o t he f enci ng, t he buf f er i ng, and t he gat e syst em t hat t hey bet i eve have occurred over the years associated wi t h vagrancy. I' m not going to say speci f i call y St . IVbt t he\A/ s House, because we don' t have evi dence of t hat , and our cl i ent has asked f or assi st ance r epai r i ng t he vehi cl a gat e. That i s t he i ssue t hat we' ve come down t o t hat we can' t r each agr eerrent on. Ever yt hi ng el se we have reached agr eerrent on. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Ck a y. Co mrri ssi o n e r KI u c i k. IVR. YO\/ANO\/I CH: I t h i n k the ask -- a n d cor r ect me. I t was a number ask, r i ght ? I t was a monet ary ask. IVR. TI LBROOK: A had an est i mat e t hat we t al ked about t hi s n-nr ni ng, and our cl i ent has t of d us just - - you di dn' t know t hi s, but - - that he doesn' t know t hat t hat' s an accurat e est i mat e. So t her e i sn' t o speci f i c ask i n t er ms of number . I t' s just to r epai r it. W YOVANOVI CH: And our p o s i t i on i s, t h a t gat e' s been br oken f or many year s, and I don' t U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 58 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hi nk that gets shifted to us. But t hat' s hol di ng up their withdrawing their obj ect i on. So we' r e - - as I sai d, we t hi nk we' ve rrade a I of of concessi ons t o t he buf f er i ng r equi r errent s, hour s of oper at i on and del i very, and we woul d request t hat you r econTmnd approval t o t he Board of Count y Corrrri ssi oner s. CHAI RN/AN FRYER: Co mri ssi oner KI u c i k . CCIVM SSI CNER KLUCI K: Thank you, ". Chai r man. So I ' m goi ng to refer to the sheet that the nei ghbor i ng counsel in opposition are obj ect i ng. You have that? NR. YOVANOVI CH: I've seen it. I know t h e gat e' s not on that I i st . COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: V 61 I , because I want to refer to specific language in it. NR. TI LBROOK: I t ' s on the screen. COMM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Yeah, i t' s on t h e screen. So I ' m I ooki ng at " excl ude of f ender r ehabi I i t at i on agenci es nonr esi dent i al . " And I t hi nk t hese i ssues are cl ear t o you, but t hey' r e st i 1 1 not cl ear t o rre, so I j ust want cl ar i f i cat i on. So t hat rreans t hat you coul d have r esi dent i al offender rehab agency there? MR YOVANOVI CH: I t hi nk. And St eve -- a n d U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 59 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I ' m goi ng t o t r ust St eve, because I have no r eason not t o. I t hi nk he t of d rre t hat we had al ready agreed t o ever yt hi ng under t he addi t i onal buf f er i ng and secur i t y measur e cat egor y, and t he addi t i onal -use r est r i ct i on - - CCMVI SSI CNER KLUCI K: No, I' m a s k i n g f o r clarification -- MR YO\/ANO\/I CH: I' m s o r r y. COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: - - on what t he I anguage means. So when I see " excl ude of f ender rehab agenci es nonr esi dent i al , " t hat means r esi dent i al would not be excluded? MR TI LBROCK: Cf f ender r ehabi I i t at i on agency nonr esi dent i al , we' r e goi ng t o r errove t hat . MR YC^/ANC^/I CH: You' v e r e rrov e d that obj ect i on? MR TI LBROCK: Yes. V6 ar e agr eei ng t o r en-ove the obj ect i on to offender r ehabi l i t at i on agency nonr esi dent i al . CCNM SSI CNER KLUCI K: And how about sel f - het p agencies? MR TI LBROCK: That one we woul d I i ke t o keep i n. I know we had some di scussi on about i t . So i t ' s our pr of er ence t o keep t hat one i n. But t he t er m i s "agency, " and we had a di scussi on about U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . com 60 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 self-help services versus self-help agency. And t he wor d under t he codi ng t hat you use r of er ences " agency. " V6 do not have an obj ect i on t o sel f - hel p services. I t hi nk t hat ' s - - CCIVM SSI CNER KLUCI K: Because the broader point that I ' m goi ng to bring up - - and I ' m not sure i f this i s the -- I mean, i t' s cer t ai nl y related to that specific question, and so I' m goi ng t o make t he broader poi nt . I t al so woul d go t o 9222 as t o t he except i ons. I don' t t hi nk t here shout d be any. And ny Mole poi nt i s, f i r st of f , adj acent or ext r errel y cl ose to t hi s apart rrent corrpl ex we have bai I bondsnen, we have substance counsel i ng, we have j uveni I e det ent i on, and W C ser vi ces pr ovi ded by t he count y. That ' s al I al r eady adj acent t o t hi s property. So I don' t under st and how t hat ' s an obj ect i on t hat ' s i n any way vat i d as f ar as sayi ng t hat i t ' s noncorrpat i bl e or somehow not f ai r, f or I ack of a bet t er t er M t o t he apar t ment corrpl ex owner or r es dent s. And what I woul d al so say i s we have a pr i vat e ent i t y, ar guabl y, but gener al I y doi ng arrazi ng wor k t hat t he gover nment act ual I y can' t do. Because the gover nrrent can' t I ove peopl e. St . lVbt t hen! s House U. S. Legal Support I wnw. usl egal support . com 61 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I oves peopl e, and t hey pr ovi de ser vi ces t hat t he gover nrrient si ni I ar I y pr ovi des. And I ' m not sayi ng t hat t he peopl e who wor k i n gover nn-ent set t i ngs aren't caring and concerned about the people. But the St. IVbt t he\A/ s House i s free to love these people, and they do, and they provide amazing services to peopl e i n a rruch -- i n what I woul d argue, in a rruch nicer setting and a setting t hat ' s bet t er t han how t he gover nn-ent can pr ovi de t hem And it's not real I y a di g agai nst gover nn-ent . I t' s j ust a f act about gover nn-ent . And t hen I woul d say, t hi s i s envi si oned and is and has always been thought of as a corrpr ehensi ve cent er t hat pr ovi des t he ki nd of ser vi ces t hat St . IVbt t he\n! s House pr ovi des. Not hi ng t hat ' s bei ng proposed i s not i n accord wi t h what everyone expect s St . IVbt t he\A/ s House t o be pr ovi di ng, especi al I y at a pl ace where t here' s r esi dent i al horrel ess housi ng. AN I of these services that - - and t hat ' s great , you know. And I ' m sor r y, I don't mean - - if you're excl udi ng, you know, some of t he I i st , t hat ' s gr eat , because t hat ' s get t i ng rror e t owar ds what I ' m concer ned about . I t hi nk we shout dn' t approve t hi s wi t h any of U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 62 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the restrictions related to those kind of services bei ng el i ni nat ed, because Mer e ar e you goi ng t o al I ow t hese wonder f ul ser vi ces to be pr ovi ded i n a corrpr ehensi ve manner where ever yt hi ng t hat t hese people need, these clients need, is avai I abl e? And by sayi ng we can' t do t hi s and we can' t do t hat , we don' t I i ke t hi s, we don' t want , you know, t hi ngs - - t hi ngs t hat ar e r i ght next door anywrays, I t hi nk I woul d -- I t hi nk t hey' r e goi ng to be in a mach -- what I woul d say i t' s a n-Dr e favorable setting ovi t hi n St . IVbt t hen! s House. I t ' s act ual I y nicer and bet t er f or t he neighbors t o have t hose t hi ngs ovi t hi n St . lVb t t h e W s House. So I act ual I y t hi nk - - you know, I' m act ual I y kind of - - I ' m not offended or appal I ed, I guess, because I i ke I said previously on the previous mat t er , I cer t ai nl y under stand nei ghbor s bei ng concerned about changes next door. That ' s nor mat . I j ust am so exci t ed about t he wor k St . IVbt t hen! s House does. I hate to t hi nk that we're going to harrst r i ng t hem f r om pr ovi di ng corrpr ehensi ve services. So I act ual I y hope t hat we' I I Trove f or war d, kind of el i ni nat i ng some of the restrictions on the ki nd of ser vi ces when we have our n-Dt i on. But U. S. Legal Support I vow. usl egal support . corn 63 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I ' I I - - obvi ousl y, I don't want to t hr ow t hi ngs off so t hat we don' t get t o an agr eerrent , but t hat ' s rry t hought . NR. YCNANCNI CH: V\bI I, we' r e not g o i ng to g e t to an agreement today. So what we' re requesting is t hat you vot e up or down what we present ed t o you t oday. And we' r e okay about t aki ng out t he district - - I ' m sor r y - - public defender and pr osecut or of f i ces. W r e okay with t hat . I t hi nk t hat' s probabl y t he onl y change t hat we di dn' t have in the PUD from what I present ed. VW r e happy to excl ude t hose f r om t he 9222. Did I get the right number of t wos? But we' r e aski ng you t o vot e on Mat I present ed on t he screen and j ust r errDve t hose t wo uses and I eave i n ever yt hi ng el se we had. And I t hi nk i t' s time. V\6 j ust need to know. Enough' s enough. V)' r e not going to reach an agreement today. CCIVM SS I CNER KL UCI K: And I want to say t h a t rry comment s - - and I want t o ki nd of , I i ke, I abet t hem as dedi cat ed t o one of t he boar d merrber s, Fat her Cr si , who' s a dear f r i end of rri ne. Fat her M chael Cr si from St . Agnes Parish. CHAI RNWN FRYER Thank you. Corrrri ssi oner Fry. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 64 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER FRY: The t hi r d par agr aph, t he t hi r d area on the sheet is corrni t rrent to col I abor at i on on vagrancy. I did not hear any rrent i on of agr eerrent i n t hat area, but i t doesn' t seem t o still be -- is it no longer a st i cki ng f act or ? NR. YC\/ANC\/I CH: Look, none of these uses t oday, of her t han t he ones t hat I al r eady put i nt o t he document and pr esent ed, we' r e agr eei ng t o today. I f we get t o an agr eerrent bet ween now and t he Board of Count y Corrrri ssi oner s - - we are al ways goi ng t o col I abor at e wi t h our nei ghbor s. A wet come t hem t o cal I us and say, we have an i ssue. V\6 wi I I al ways have t hose conver sat i ons. It doesn' t need t o be i n a PUD. CCIVM SSI CRIER FRY: Ri ght . I guess the quest i on i s f or you, ". Ti I brook. Do you have evi dence t hat t he gat e was darraged by peopl e associ at ed wi t h St . IVbt t heW s House? NR. TI L BROCK: I do not . COMA SSI CRIER FRY: Ckay. Thank you. NR. TI LBROCK: On the col I abor at i on, we appr eci at e t he col I abor at i on. A I ook f or war d t o t he col I abor at i on. A felt corrpel I ed to put it in the I i st because we haven't had col I abor at i on, but U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 65 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we look forward to it in the future. Whet her or not i t deserves t o be i n an or di nance, I t hi nk, f or us i t' s better if it is, but I t hi nk we can have col I abor at i on i n ei t her way. CHAI RNAN FRYER Nf• . East rra n . I ' m s o r r y. NR. EAST NWN: I was g o i n g t o ask Karl ' s quest i on, t oo, about evi dence of t he gat e. When di d t hi s become an i ssue i n t hi s obj ect i on? When di d you f i r st hear about damage to t he vehi cul ar gat e? NR. TI LBROCK: Our cl i ent has expressed to us concer ns about t he whhol e secur i t y syst em i n general. A wer e not aware of t he speci f i c def i ci ency at t he gat e unt i I t he I ast f ew days. NR. EAST MN: What - - i s i t vehi cul ar damage t o t he gat e, or i s i t -- what t ype of damage i s i t t o t he gat e? NR. TI LBROCK: I don' t know. I t' s not f unct i onal . I t' s open, and i t doesn' t cl ose, and i t doesn' t f unct i on. So I don' t know speci f i cal I y what ki nd of darrage. NR. EASTMN: Nbst f r equent I y t hat ' s darrage t hat ' s done with a vehi cl e. So does i t seem possi bl e or i rrpr obabl e t hat a hon-el ess person woul d dr i ve a vehi cl e, darrage t he gat e, par k i t , and t hen U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . corn 66 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go sl eep i n t he woods on your cl i ent ' s proper t y? NR. TI LBROCK: There' s a I of of ways a gate can be darraged, and our cl i ent i s assert i ng t hat t hey woul d I i ke assi stance with the repairs at the gat e. That i s al I I ' ve been asked t o comnini cat e, and I wi sh I could give you n-ur e. NR. EASTMgN: Thanks. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Comi ssi oner KI uci k. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: Yes. Just - - s i r , Nf . Ti I brook? ". Ti I br ook, I just - - do you under st and t he I ar ger poi nt I make about t he scope and t he corrpr ehensi ve nat ur e of t he ser vi ces t hat St. Nbt t he\n! s is t r yi ng to provide here? NR. TI LBROCK: Yes. A do not di sput e t he good wor k t hat ' s done by St . Nbt t he\n! s House. A don' t , but this is r ezoni ng. CCNM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ri g h t . But - - ( Si rrul t aneous cr osst al k. ) CCNM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Ex c u s e me. Ex c u s e me. Excuse rre. Excuse n-e. NR. TI LBROCK: A spent a whol e hear i ng - - CCNM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Excuse rre . NR TI LBROCK: - - put t i ng evi dence about i rrpact s. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 67 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER Si r, pl ease I et t he corn-Ti ssi oner speak. CCIVIA SSI CNER KL UCI K: So I had a very s p e c i f i c quest i on t hat you di dn' t answer, and I ' m happy t o I et you rrake your of her poi nt . Do you under st and rry concer n about t he - - what I woul d say i s a necessi t y t o of f er corrpr ehensi ve services? And so that by - - you know, by hi nder i ng t hat - - and I under st and your cl i ent has been n-ovi ng i n a good di r ect i on i n di scussi ng i t . But do you under st and ny broader poi nt t hat t he corrpr ehensi ve nat ur e of what St . IVbt t he\n! s House does requires t hem t o have a facility i n an area I i ke this that offers these services together corrpr ehensi vel y? I ' m not aski ng you to agree t hat I' m r i ght i n t hi s part i cul ar i ssue, but do you understand the idea t hat there needs to be a place wher e t hey can do sornet hi ng I i ke t hat ? It al I ows t hem t o act ual I y accorrpl i sh t hei r ni ssi on. W TI LBRCCK: I expect t hat havi ng a corrpr ehensi ve char act er t o t hi s f aci I i t y i s het pi ng t hem benef i t t hei r ni ssi on. That i s obvi ous, but t her e ar e i rrpact s. And we spent an ent i r e hear i ng art i cul at i ng and pr ovi di ng evi dence of what t hose i rrpact s are. Whet her they're traffic, whether U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 68 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t her e ar e of her i rrpact s, and whet her or not i t corrpl i es with your criteria for a rezoning. And t hat ' s r eal I y why we' r e her e. V6 would I i ke t o resolve t hi s, but i t' s our assertion that it doesn' t meet t he cr i t er i a f or a r ezoni ng and t hat t her e ar e i rrpact s t hat haven' t been rri t i gat ed. COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: Thank you. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. No one is si gnal i ng at this t i rre. I t woul d be appr opr i at e f or a rrot i on t o be made, i f anyone car es t o. COMA SSI CNER KLUCI K: I ' d be happy t o move, as Nf• . Yovanovi ch asked, that we pr esent i t - - t hat we approve i t as presented wi t hout - - i t has not hi ng to do with this document. It was how ". Yovanovi ch presented i t . And I don' t know, t here was, I t hi nk, t aki ng out t wo i t errs f r om 9222. NR. YOVANOVI CH: Co r r e c t. CCIVM SSI CNER KLUCI K: The pr osecut or s and t he def ense counsel ; i s t hat r i ght ? CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. I s t here a second? CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Second. CCNM SSI CNER HCM AK: So nothing on this sheet ? CHAI RNAN FRYER Unl ess i t' s al ready been U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 69 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 speci f i ed i n what - - NR. YCNANCNI CH: Several of t hose t hi ngs are al ready i n t he document t hat I present ed. For i nst ance, t he buf f er i ng, and I had comni t t ed to the gap in the gat e-- I mean in t he fence. A had corrrri t t ed to t hat , so it wi I I be continuous, so... CHAI RNAN FRYER Co rrrri ssi o n e r Fry. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: Just i n t er rrs of del i ber at i on - - CHAI RIVAN FRYER Yeah. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: - - I wanted t o st ate for publ i c r ecor d, I mean, I t hi nk we have an undeni abl y benef i ci al m ssi on t o t he count y, as you've underscored, Robb. I get a sense t hat , you know, you can' t qui t e agree on ever yt hi ng, but I woul d consi der your of f or t s, Nf• . Ti I brook, Nf• . Pi r es, to be successf ul on behal f of your cl i ent i n t hat you have negot i at ed qui t e a si zabl e basket of concessi ons, and I al so commend t he appl i cant team negot i at i ng i n good faith. I f eel - - I feel you've gone far enough to earn rry vot e f or t hi s. The buf f er i ng, I t hi nk, i s even one wher e I t hi nk you' ve gone above and beyond i n t er ms of i t was t here when t hey bought i t ; do you real I y owe U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 70 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t hem buf f er i ng? I ' m not so sure t hat you do; however, I t hi nk i t' s an -- I t hi nk i t' s a positive f or t he pr of ect and al so f or t hem benef i ci al . So I plan t o vote i n f avor . CHAI RNAN FRYER Nt. Gu n d I a c h, di d you wi s h to be heard? IV6. GUNDLACH: Yes. I just wanted t o - - f o r t he r ecor d, Nancy Gundl ach, pr i nci pal pl anner wi t h t he Zoni ng Di vi si on. I just wanted to cl ar i f y for the record -- because t her e vwer e some st at ement s nade t hat t he PUD document , PUD or di nance t hat was i ncl uded i n t he CCPC Accel agenda was not t he cur r ent - - was not t he cor r ect one. It was correct. V\6 at t ached t he one t hat exi st s a week pr i or t o t hi s hear i ng, and t he changes t hat mr e - - t hat wer e cont errpl at ed t oday war e changes t hat war e errai I ed yest er day. And, obvi oust y, we can' t i ncl ude t hose i n a document t hat was publ i shed a week ago. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. Corrrri ssi oner KI uci k. COMM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Yes. And I vvo u I d I i k e to just rrent i on that I t hi nk you heard me say t hat I - - you know, I don' t want t o say t hat obj ect i on was appal I i ng and t hat I do t hi nk - - you know, I U. S. Legal Support I wwv. usl egal support . corn 71 PI anni ng Com-ri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 act ual I y t hi nk - - you know, I ment i oned t he concessi ons, bot h si des, but cert ai nl y t hat t he obj ect or has - - you know, t hey di d, you know, concede on some poi nt s. And so I cer t ai nl y don' t want rry passi on f or t he St . IVht t heW s House t o be seen as, you know, anyt hi ng of her t han t hat . And I ' m gl ad t hat - - you know, obvi ousl y, t hey wer e very cl ose t o agr eerrent , and t here' s st i cki ng poi nt s somet i mes, and t hat' s j ust how i t i s. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Thank you. No one else is si gnal i ng at this t i rre, so I ' m goi ng to rrake a f i nal st at errent about how I ' m goi ng t o vot e and My. I am a regular contributor to St. lVht t hen! s and wi I I cont i nue t o be because of t he wonder f ul work t hey do. I t ' s an essential organization to our county. It's never going to fulfill the f ul I need, no rrat t er how many addi t i onal beds i t has. One hopes t hat of her or gani zat i ons wi I I come up t o t he pl at e and add r esour ces t hat t he gover nment can' t on i t s own pr ovi de. Sorry hats off t o St . IVht t hen! s. I t ' s a wonder f ul or gani zat i on, and i t ' s badl y needed i n our count y, and t hey' r e doi ng a terrific job. But I rrust vot a agai nst and I wi I I vot e U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 72 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agai nst t hi s f or t he sol e reason of i nadequat e secur i t y pr ovi si ons. And t he of her reasons t hat I put i n t he r ecor d ar e al so of concer n, but rry n-Dst si gni f i cant one has to do with an inability to add anyt hi ng to the - - bring anything to the t abl e on addi t i onal secur i t y. So t hat ' s how I' m goi ng to vote, and i t ' s been moved and second. So is there any further di scussi on? U . KI uci k. CCM/M SSI CNER KL UCI K: Yes. I wo u I d j u s t not e t hat I di dn' t hear that as a st i cki ng point in the end f r om t he parties, so - - the concern that you j ust expressed. CHAI RNAN FRYER Al I , we can cal I t hem back, but I don't t hi nk there's - - I t hi nk U. Yovanovi ch was pr et t y cl ear t hat t her e' s been no agr eement on addi t i onal secur i t y. COMM SSI CNER KLUCI K: No. What I ' m sayi ng i s i s t hey had come t o an agr eerrent , and t hat hadn' t been t he reason f or t he i rypasse, t he reason t hat you' r e vot i ng agai nst i t . And t hat ' s fine. I' m just noting t hat . CHAI RNAN FRYER: Not ed . W YOVANOVI CH: Thei r concern was wouI d we col I abor at e W t h t hem on how t o addr ess peopl e who U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 73 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rri ght be - - who rri ght be carrped out . V\6uI d we wor k with t hem t o figure out a sot ut i on to that problem That was - - do I have i t r i ght , St eve, t hat was t he concern? M::,) TI LBROCK: That i s an aspect of t he security. M al so have - - Steve Ti I brook. The issues for secur i t y wer e f enci ng, and we al so had secur i t y carver as and rroni t or i ng. V\hi I e we have a gener al agr eenent on secur i t y carver as and n-oni t or i ng, t hat i s not part of t he condi t i ons t hat ar e i n your r ecor d t oday. CHAI RNAN FRYER Yeah. And t hat ' s what we have t o wor k wi t h, t he r ecor d t oday, and maybe by the time it gets to the -- COMA SSI CNER HOM AK: Can' t you put i t i n? Can't we put it in? CHAI RNAN FRYER MI I , we could rrove to amend, sur e. I mean, we have a r i ght to do our own r esol ut i on, and we coul d n-ove - - we coul d n-nve t o amend t o appr ove wi t h t he addi t i on of secur i t y pr ovi si ons, i f t hat be t he wi sh of t he PI anni ng Co rrrri s s i o n. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: I j u s t poi n t out rry or i gi nal - - COMA SSI CNER HOM AK: V\b' re not appr ovi ng i t U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 74 PI anni ng Comri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anyway. V16' re j ust advi si ng. I t' s not our approval. CHAI RNAN FRYER That ' s t r ue, yeah. You're r i ght . Do you want t o rrake a mot i on t o an -end? COMA SSI ONER HOM AK: Yes. CHAI RNAN FRYER Do s o . COIVM SSI ONER HOM AK: I' I I rra k e a rrot i o n to amend t o i ncl ude - - do you want t o i ncl ude t he secur i t y carver as? CHAI RNAN FRYER Yes. And t he I anguage t hat I' m I ooki ng f or i s what was i n t he document t hat was wi t hdr awn. But , f or cl ar i t y, Nt . Yovanovi ch, i s t here a way t hat that language can be provided to the court reporter -- MR YC\/ANC\/I CH: Let rre r e a d i t t o you. CHAI RNAN FRYER -- and to the Planning Corrrri ssi on? Thank you. MR YCVANOVI CH: I t says, W t hi n s i x rro n t h s i nst al I and rroni t or secur i t y carrer as f or horrel ess shel ter and accessory soci al ser vi ce or comrer ci al use adj acent to resi dent i al uses. That' s t he language. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you. AI I r i g h t . Any further di scussi on? MR YOVANOVI CH: I don't know if i t' s getting U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 75 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 added. I' m j ust t el I i ng you t hat' s what the language was. CCIVIA SSI CNER FRY: Doesn' t t hat negat e t he need f or t he arrendrrent ? CHAI RNAN FRYER No, I don' t t hi nk so, because t hat ' s not on the t abl e. COMA SSI CNER KL UCI K: But we' r e v o t i ng on t he amendment f i r st , and t hen we' I I vot e on t he - - CHAI RNAN FRYER The amendment needs t o be seconded first. That ' s what I was t r yi ng t o say as I ' m knocki ng ever yt hi ng over here. So there's -- i t ' s been - - t he amendment has been moved and made cl ear . Is t her e a second to it? ( No response.) CHAI RNAN FRYER If not, I ' I I second i t . So the amendment has been moved and seconded. The vot e i s goi ng t o be on t he amendment , not t he rrai n n-ot i on. So al I t hose i n f avor of t he amendment , please say aye. Aye. COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: Aye. CHAI RNAN FRYER Opposed? CCNM SSI CNER SHEA: Aye. COMA SSI CNER FRY: Aye. CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Aye. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . com 76 PI anni ng Corrrri ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAI RN/AN FRYER Okay. Did I hear three negatives? Ckay. So t he amendment f ai I s by a vot e of 2- 3. CCNM SS I CNER FRY: And, " . Ch a i r ma n , I wo u I d j ust say, I t hi nk i t' s a great concept. I t j ust wasn' t one t hat was speci f i cal I y brought up by t he opposi t i on. And rry reason I voted no is I bel i eve i t ought t o be negot i at ed or conf i r med wi t h - - bet ween the parties before they go to the Board of County Corrrri ssi oner s, j ust not one t hat I f eel t hat we shoul d t hr ow i n t here at t he end here. CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: I agree with that also, and t he apart nent corrpl ex coul d al so do t hat . So why does t hat concessi on have t o be on t he part of t he appl i cant ? I f t hey want carver as, t hey can put t hem up t hemsel ves, t oo. CHAI RN/AN FRYER Vbl I , we' ve had a vot e, and the vote was not to i ncl ude t hat . So now we come t o t he rrai n mot i on. I f t her e are no f ur t her arrendrrent s f or t hcorri ng, i t ' s - - t he main notion has been rroved and seconded. Is there any f urt her di scussi on? ( No response.) CHAI RNAN FRYER If not, all those i n favor of t he rrai n rrot i on, pl ease say aye. U. S. Legal Support I www. usl egal support . corn 77 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt Decerrber 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCIVM SSI CNER SHEA: Aye. CCNM SSI CNER FRY: Aye. CCIVM SSI CNER KL UCI K: Aye. CHAI RNAN FRYER Cpposed? Nay. COMA SSI CNER HCM AK: Ch , I ' m s o r r y . Ay e . CHAI RNAN FRYER How are you voting? CCM\A SSI CNER HCM AK: Opposed. CHAI RNAN FRYER Ckay. So i t passes, 3- 2. MR YCVANCVI CH: Thank you. CHAI RNAN FRYER Thank you very rruch. M:. PI RES: Thank you. MR YC\/ANC\/I CH: Thank you. ( The requested excerpt of proceedings concl uded. ) U. S. Legal Support I vmw. usl egal support . com 78 PI anni ng Com-ii ssi on Excerpt December 16, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE CF FL CRI DA ) COUNTY CF CCL L I ER) I , Ter r i L. LeW s, RPR, FPR C, and Not ar y Publ i c, do her eby cer t i f y t hat t he f or egoi ng pr oceedi ngs wer e t aken bef or e me at t he dat e and pl ace as st at ed i n t he capt i on her et o on Page 1 her eof ; t hat t he f or egoi ng corrput er - assi st ed t r anscr i pt i on, consi st i ng of pages nurrber ed 2 t hr ough 78, i ncl usi ve, i s a t r ue r ecor d of rry St enogr aph notes taken at sai d pr oceedi ngs. Dat ed t hi s 27t h day of December 2021. n TERRI L. LEW S, RPR, FPR C Notary Public, State of FI or i da Co mrri ssi on No: HH 125014 Cormri ssi on Expi r es: August 23, 2025 U. S. Legal Support I vwn w. usl egal support . com 79 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GM- GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area, and up to 150 residential care or shelter beds be peFrnitt d within the CPI I^on Tract A. All principal uses must be owned by a not -for -profit corporation. 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: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322); excluding non-residential probation offices, refugee services, public defenders' and public prosecutors' offices, and public welfare centers; and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 4.2. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and 5.3. Used vehicle sales (5521); and 64. Boat dealers (5551). 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: (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 1 of 9 Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5. Self-help groups; and 6. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing (4222), cold or refrigerated only for a not- for profit food bank only and 4225). 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. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Northern Project Boundary 50 FEET *** 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or% sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. *** Setback applicable to principal structures and additions to principal structures constructed after 1/25/2022. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 3 of 9 10' WIDE TYPED' 15' UE WDS /pq PE BUFFER (OR 2150, PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 1105) GLADES BOULEVARD 15' WIDE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER D 15' WIDE TYPE'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 6 E9 E1 ZONED: RMF-6 CT A USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER :--E4 m gym,, ^' LEGEND: PROJECT BOUNDARY 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL E7 -GREAT BLUE DRIVE I EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) EXISTING 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) i WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 5699 PG 2572) 0.29 AC. / WATER MANAGEMENT ❑ PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ® DEVIATION 15' WIDE TYPE'B' i f LANDSCAPE BUFFER i i i ZONED: DAVID A. TRACT A 'T B TRACT B / ESTATEN � �� ESTATE PUD � USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL i N NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 97-145f ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES 0 100, 200' SCALE: 1 rr = 200' WHEN PLOTTED @ 8.5" X 1 V © GradyMinor �. Grady lilloralld 1s.1us: irs. R'y �1111111 \ t, Roy Rordia Springs. FWrida 31131 ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD SCALE: z EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN SOH CODE: sM - 21 DATE : g PNAMD Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architects Cert. oFAdh. EB 0005151 Cert. oFAdh. LB 0005151 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 owo. Gradyd/inor. com Business LC 26000266 Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 10/25/2021 SHEET 1 OF 2 P SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.89± ACRES TRACT 'A': 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'B': 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S.F. HOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS (TO BE LOCATED ONLY ON TRACT A) OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% REQUIRED: 0.29± ACRES (PER SDP 98-82, 2.90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED: 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E) 1❑ RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C, "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES" (TRACT A ONLY) 2❑ RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4, TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: E1 - 30' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESS/EGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587, OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD SCALE ((ly1q�7 �/�j y� y1 V Grady A1iuor auJ 1ssu3•J:ilrs, P.A. aor cone: lJ 1 U dyMi n o r 13f1111I v Ia nni Rey s Bmaln Springs. Fimhde 34134 EXHIBIT C DATE MASTER PLAN NOTES : APR - Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects C,o,fA,Ah. hn30005151 Cer,.of AULh. 1,130005151 Business CC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 .—.Grady9/hmr.rom Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 12/14/2021 SHEET 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00-19-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89-41-00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00°19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities", which requires a minimum habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 sq. ft. per bed with a maximum of 150 beds. On Tract A onlv. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL: A. One entity (hereinafterthe 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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: A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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. ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 8 of 9 meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses may be provided on Tract 'B' and must be reflected on a Site Development Plan to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION: A. Any new overhead doors will not face adjacent residential uses. B. Loading and unloading will be limited to between 7 am and 9 pm Monday through Saturday. C. No deliveries, loading or unloading by tractor trailers. UTI LITY: A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determine whether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on the Master Plan. If it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additional CUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING/BUFFERING/FENCING/SECURITY: A. At the time of the issuance of any SDP or SDPA for Tract B, a 15' wide type 'B" landscape buffer shall be provided along the PUD boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development order to increase in the number of beds on Tract A to greater than 104, install and thereafter maintain a minimum 6 foot high security fence on Tract A of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, to connect to the existing wall on Tract B. Co Within six months of the approval of this PUD the entire boundary adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD shall have a w,;n;rnung se) {^^*fence consistent with the existing44g4 fence Ar IL (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) (December 17, 2021) Page 9 of 9 LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (G N! 9GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SOP) or plat. Where the PU❑ ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area, and up to 150 residential care or shelter beds he .,eFmitted kyith;., the �;P"pon Tract A. A#I principal uses must be owned by a not -for -profit corporation. _ 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: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322); excluding non- residential probation offices, refugee services and public welfare centers and offender self-help a encies non-residential; and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 42. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and -53. Used vehicle sales (5521); and &4. Boat dealers (5551). 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: (St. Matrhesr's House CPUD PL20210000176) (A!-ee;;Tfer6. � 9-2T'Jannai v 4202 2) Paee 1 of 10 Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to' 1. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and 3. Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lofts and outdoor recreational facilities; and S. Self-help groups; and 5. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold or refrigerated only (4222) and 4225 for knot- for profit food bank only4 Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list ❑f permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. Residential care. homeless shelte uo care facilities are ❑rohibited on Tract B. (Sr. Marrhew's House CPUD PL20210000176.) Page 2 of 10 EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 5q. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Eastern Project Boundary 50 FEET """ 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or'h. sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 60 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 70D SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. "** Setback applicable to principal structures and additions to princiaaI structures constructed after 1/2 /2022. f.SI. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176} { D-•ee + ei- K. 202 r.lar�rra►-t 4 2022 Pa-e 3 of 10 EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN 10' WIDE TYPED' — — 15, LPE LANDSCAPE BUFFER (OR2150, PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 11W => a GLADES BOULEVARD ZONED: RIIF-6 RESIDENTIAL AC 1 T A USE: MUL71-FAMILY —� t 16 WIDE TYPE 'Er BUFFER JLANDSCAPE 15 WIDE TYPE — � y+— m h.] D'LANDSCAPE w BUFFER I 15' WIDE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER RI- - —PROJECT BOUNDARY �..� 15WIDE TYPE'g LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI-F MIiY RESIDENTIAL Ca f 7 GREATBLUEDRIVE EXISTING 10' 1MDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97-145) C E)USTING IT VIDE TYPE — d 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (SDP 97445) LEGEND WATER MANAGEMENT w��i CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OR 56% PG 2572) 0-29 AC-1 WATER MANAGEMENT PAVED AREAS E# EASEMENT (SEE _ NOTE SHEET) # DEVIATION — TRACT A c:Y — TRACT B .v y. r '�+ I -- 15' WIDE TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ' I ZONED. DAVID A- TRACT B GALLIAi ESTATE P ESTATE PUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY 'f RESIDENTIAL NO BUFFER REQUIRED 97-145) (SDP ZONED C-4-GTMUD-M7C0 AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD a un zop USE: COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES SCALE: i" = 200' YI#Ti H-pTIE� p 8 Y k • (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000170) 2032} Page 4 of 10 EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN NO SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA 11.89± ACRES TRACT 'A' 2.34± ACRES TRACT 'B' 9.55± ACRE S COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S_F. HOMELESS SHELTER. MAXIMUM 150 BEDS. TOBELflc.,TEE] ON-L o� TRacr a_ OPEN SPACE_ REQUIRED-- 30% PROVIDED' 30% PRESERVE: REQUIRED: 0.29± ACRES (PER SDP 98--82, 2.90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED.- 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS {SEE EXH[BiT E) 1 . RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C. "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY I I GROUP CARE FACILITIES` (TRACT A ONLY) 2. RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, `TABLE 2.4_ TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX, E1 - 30' UEIDE (OR 938 PG 1992), 30' INGRESSIEGRESS (OR 1178 PG 587. OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1183 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 68 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PB 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1172 PG 1559) E6 - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION ❑UE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. dyMinor..w .,0-A r..�,.ti•... «.r. ��u. E�- 9fT C IPSTE-4 =LAN a�,� e7 1[Ilari • L211Q SurrQy0r7 . Pfdnnze} . �nq}[pWE AeC41•�e[li 9IX'+W� ]F-i3A�T,3I�1 •r.. 6'Md,.11••«fr�.� y: N�p>•,-i�C'iG.{SIO 7Ma— i 4 (Sr. Matthew's Horse CPLID PL202IO000170) (ne- - ' °o-' `'P_4)amain 4.2022) Pace 5 of 10 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00n19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89*41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE ❑F 200.00 FEETT❑ A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00-19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89041'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89°41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00'19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575,00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (St. Matthew's House CPUD PL20210000176) .1[mdre n- 4 202 2 Page 6 of 10 EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04,C, "Group Housing - Table of site design standards for category I and category II group care facilities", which requires a minimum habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 sq. ft. per bed with a maximum of 150 beds. On Tract A only. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the P U D adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. (St. Maithevv's Horse CPUD PL20210000176) (,,.,..,...1 er 4 2W. aunary -4. 2022) Pao-e 7 of 10 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, Ft 34112. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legalty binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency bythe County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entitywill 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 faits 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: A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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. i�R►II:Z�LI�tl��:'«I A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property (Sr. Matthew's Horese CPUD PL20210000170) r',�.w",her 6, 2 [mjw? v 4, 2022) PaFc 8 of 10 development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SOP 98-82). The 0.29} acres shall be deemed to meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 9.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING: A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses may be provided on Tract'B' and must be reflected on a Site Development Plan to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION: A. Any new overhead doors will not face -eft adjacent residential uses. B. Loading and unloading will be limited to between 7 am and 9 pm Monday through Saturday. C. No deliveries, loading or unloading by tractor trailers. A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determine whether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on the Master Plan. if it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additional CUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING/BUFFERING/FENCING/SECURITY: A. At the time of issuance of any SDP or SDPA for Tract B, a 15' wide type "B" landscape buffer shall be provided along the property line of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gailman PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development order to increase in the number of beds on Tract A to greater than 104, install and thereafter maintain a minimum 6 foot high security fence on Tract_A of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PLJD, to connect to the existing wail on Tract B. C. Within six (6) months, install,_ maintain and repair continuous screening and security gating (including the vehicle gate on Great Blue Drive) and fencing on Tract B of the PUD which is adjacent to the David A. Gailman Estate PUD. D, Within six (6) months, install and monitor security can}eras_for residential care, group care facility_, homeless sh_elt_eL or social services uses and commercial uses, adjacent to residential Uses. fSr. Marrheiv's Hoarse CPUD PL202I0000176} (,Pee +rahev- 6. 99j-1; a uary 4. 2022) Page 9 of 10 E. Within six (6) months establish and maintain and provide to Collier County, a program that includes a direct line of communication with neighboring residential community to address Issues of vaprancv or tresDass relaxed to Users or residents of the facilities or services in or on the PUD property. [5r. Mutrheu''s Noise CPUD PL20210000176) •• A " "Jantic?r), 4. 2022) Page 10 of 10 100:1131 f_1 LIST OF PERMITTED USES Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management plan (GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A maximum of 130,000 square feet of general commercial and office floor area, and up to 150 residential care or shelter beds on Tract A. All principal uses must be owned by a not -for -profit corporation}. 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: A. Principal Uses: Tract A: 1. All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Individual and family social services (8322); excluding non- residential probation offices, refugee services and public welfare centers and offender self-help agencies, non-residential; and 3. Job training (8331); and 4. Residential care, homeless shelter, group care facility with a maximum of 150 beds; and Tract B: 1, All C-4, general commercial permitted uses; and 2. Legal counsel and prosecution (9222); and 3. Used vehicle sales (5521); and 4. Boat dealers (5551). 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 Wearing 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. Caretakers' residence; and 2. Gardens; and I Indoor storage and warehousing; and 4. Play lots and outdoor recreational facilities; and 5. Self-help groups; and 5. Refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing; cold or refrigerated only (4222) and 4225 for not- for profit food bank only 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. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. Residential care, homeless shelters, group care facilities are prohibited on Tract B. EXHIBIT B LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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 SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 5q. Ft, N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Glades Boulevard ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Airport Road ROW 25 FEET 25 FEET From Southern Project Boundary 15 FEET 10 FEET From Eastern Project Boundary 50 FEET *** 15 FEET MINIMUM YARDS (internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 FEET 5 FEET Rear 10 FEET 5 FEET Side 10 FEET 5 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Ft. or % sum of building heights * 10 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Office Buildings: zoned/actual 50 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET/ 35 FEET Shelter / Residential Care: zoned/actual 35 FEET / 50 FEET 30 FEET / 35 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 SQUARE FEET ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS AREA Retail / Office 130,000 SQUARE FEET N/A Shelter / Residential Care 150 beds N/A * Whichever is greater *' Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. *** Setback applicable to principal structures and additions to principal structures constructed after 1/25/2022. EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN 10' WIDE E TYPD' -- —15 UE LANDSGAPE BUFFER (OR 2150. PG 1100, PG 1103 AND PG 1105) - GLADES BOULEVARD —►mow'" — - - -E1 ZONED: RMF-6 ACT A + USE. MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDETYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER — 4 1 15 VIDE TYPE -- ES. t m N LF—ND_ 'D LANDSCAPE W BUFFER WATERMANAGEMENT — PROJECT BOUNDARY "7 CONSERVATION I — EASEMENT (OR 5699 PG 2572) 0,29 AC.1 15' WIDE TYPE TY WATER MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER _ 6 • '� -. ___ _ PAVED AREAS v E# EASEMENT (SEE NOTE SHEET) ;+ ZONED DAVIT? A- GALLMAN # DEVIATION c _ ESTATE PUD � `_` USE MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL z G1 -• TRACTA f 7 _ j, •yam - - GREAT BLUE DRIVE o `-E 9 00 =fi - TRACT 5 - EXISTING 10' VOIDE TYPE v' / A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER':. (SDP 97-145) V :tar IX}STING 10' WIDE TYPE •t .: wigr•::• R' LANDSCAPE BUFFER apt >ti. (SDP 97-145) t5' WiDE TYPE'{? 15' WIDE TYPE'a d LANDSCAPE SUFFER I LANDSCAPE BUFFER rf ZONED DAVID A. TRACT B y MAN ESTATE GAL`TP ' — � ' ESTPUD USE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NO BUFFER REQUIRED (SDP 97-145) ZONED. C-1--GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PUD USE COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES SCALE: 1" = 200' w•es Rorer fi n a a . SITE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA. TRACT 'A'. TRACT ' B': EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN NO 11.89± ACRES 2.34± ACRES 9.55± ACRES COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 130,000 S-F- NOMELESS SHELTER: MAXIMUM 150 BEDS. TO BE LOCATED ONTLY ON TRACT ? - OPEN SPACE - REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% PRESERVE: REQUIRED: 0.29 - ACRES (PER SDP 98-82. 2.90± ACRES X 10% = 0.29 ACRES) PROVIDED. 0.29± ACRES (CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR 5699 PG 2572) DEVIATIONS (SEE EXHIBIT E)_ 1 -- RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.05.04.C. "GROUP HOUSING - TABLE OF SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II GROUP CARE FACILITIES- {TRACT A ONLY) 2- RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4 06.02, "TABLE 2 4. TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS" EASEMENT INDEX: E1 - 30' UFJDE (OR 938 PG 1992)_ 30' INGRESSIEGRESS (OR 1173 PG 587. OR 1231 PG 2267 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 5' UE/DE (OR 938 PG 1992) E2 - 10' UE (PB 10 PG 88 AND OR 1188 PG 326) E3 - 20' UE (OR 1181 PG 924 & OR 1188 PG 326) AND 20' DE (PS 10, PG 88) E4 - 10' UE (OR 2267 PG 23-31) E5 - 10' UE (OR 1 172 PG 1559) EG - 15' UE (OR 1401 PG 2166) E7 - 10' LBE(OR 2267 PG 21-22) E8 - 60' ACCESS (OR 2267 PG 15-16) E9 - SIGN/LANDSCAPE (OR 2267 PG 19-20) NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MO DiFICAT] ON DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. GradyMirnor rti.,x.., .s1. ►e r� ST MA?-TH N-'.�y HOUSE CFTI=F — - 06STc2 aL=N ,C+ -S �- Gvn E�+t�Y 1— 5u. ve ea ps. t, pk nners . ie l l9repe AKH dec Ls �crr snr n:: :: q. a:;. si4: r... �ni�.x�r-r:r.r c�ea rncrs. 77e.fa7.s]eo !7'�vly�r 12r 7F: 2J2" sw:we.w � 5kr or ' EXHIBIT ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857 AND LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PU6LIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK K, THE GLADES UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 88, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 00°19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 255.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SOUTH 89'41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2384, PAGE 2235, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF, SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE: BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4925, PAGE 857, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES, 1) NORTH 89'41'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; 2) THENCE SOUTH 00'19'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; 3) THENCE SOUTH 89-41'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00'19'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,575.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 11.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT E LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.C, "Group dousing - Table of site design standards for category I and category it group care facilities", which requires a minimum habitable floor area (sq. ft.) for homeless shelters as 1,500 + 150 for each person over six to allow a minimum habitable floor area of 100 sq, ft. per bed with a maximum of 150 beds. On Tract A only. Deviation #2: Relief from LDC 4.06.02, "Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications", which requires a 10' Type A buffer to be provided between adjacent commercially zoned properties, to instead provide no buffer along the southern property boundary of the PUD. At the time of redevelopment of the portion of the PUD adjacent to the southerly property boundary which impacts the existing paved parking area at the southern property line, a 10' wide Type A landscape buffer shall be provided. EXHIBIT F UST OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE: The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of this project. 1914011;A-A" A. One entity (hereinafterthe Managing Entity) shall be responsiblefor 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 St. Matthew's House, Inc., 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 34112. 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 bythe 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 applicab#e state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. TRANSPORTATION: A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 534 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. ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Approximately 0.29± acres of native vegetation was retained as part of the initial property development (Devoe PUD Ordinance 97-14 and SDP 98-82). The 0.29± acres shall be deemed to meet the native vegetation requirements for the entire PUD. A total of 0.29 acres of native vegetation shall be retained on site (2.90 acres x .10 = 0.29 acres). PARKING A. Required parking for Tract 'A' uses maybe provided on Tract 'B' and must be reflected on a Site Development Plan to demonstrate that minimum required parking spaces are met for each use. LOADING/UNLOADING/HOURS OF OPERATION: A. Any new overhead doors will not face adjacent residential uses. B. Loading and unloading will be limited to between 7 am and 9 pm Monday through Saturday. C. No deliveries, loading or unloading by tractor trailers. UTILITY: A. At the time of Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) review for any portion of the project located south of Great Blue Drive as shown on the Master Plan and adjacent to Airport - Pulling Road right of way, the property owner shall coordinate with Collier County to determine whether a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is necessary in order to facilitate the County's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located within the existing CUE, shown as E6 on the Master Plan. If it is determined by the County that additional CUE area is needed, the additional CUE may be located within the existing landscape buffer easement. All survey and title work shall be provided by Collier County. Any additional CUE shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance at no additional cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, within six months of the effective date of the SDPA approval. LANDSCAPING/BUFFERING/FENCING/SECURITY A. At the time of issuance of any SDP or SDPA for Tract B, a 15' wide type "B" landscape buffer shall be provided alongthe property line of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman PUD. B. At the time of the issuance of any development order to increase in the number of beds on Tract A to greater than 104, install and thereafter maintain a minimum 6 foot high security fence on Tract A of the PUD adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD, to connect to the existing wall on Tract B. C. Within six (6) months, install, maintain and repair a continuous screening and security gating (including the vehicle gate on Great Blue Drive) and fencing on Tract B of the PUD which is adjacent to the David A. Gallman Estate PUD. D. Within six(6)months, install and monitor security cameras for residential care, group care facility, homeless shelter, or social services uses and commercial uses, adjacent to residential uses. E. Within six (6) months establish and maintain and provide to Collier County, a program that includes a direct line of communication with neighboring residential community to address issues of vagrancy or trespass related to users or residents of the facilities or services in or on the PUD property. I 9.A.m N PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 12TH day of MARCH , 1996. ,ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BRWK, CLERK VROVEDASS TO FORM AND •.'(SAY: 'SUFFICIENCY ���� n ���• TJ li0a MARJO E M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY PUD-95-14 ORDINANCE/16155 This ordinante filed with the Secretary.Df state's office the boy of-•fib-+-1��`' and cc know iedgement Of that olfln9 r71eceived this � /9g2S'daY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: �G� JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN l Packet Pg. 436 9.A.m DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Regulations and Supporting Master Plan Governing the David A. Gallman Estate PUD A Planned Unit Development Pursuant to Provisions of The Collier County Unified Land Development Code FJASSYIDAGESr.PUD Prepared For: JOHN D. JASSY, TRUSTEE Naples Realty Services, Inc. 4099 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 33940 Prepared By: Bob Thinnes, AICP Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. CIVIL ENGINEERS ♦ LAND SURVEYORS ♦ PLANNERS 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 33923 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC 2/15/96 DATE APPROVED BY BCC 3/12/96 ORDINANCE NUMBER 96-9 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 9 1-102 ��..�...�_...� Packet Pg. 437 9.A.m TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits Statement of Compliance SECTION 1 Property Ownership & Description SECTION 2 Project Development Requirements SECTION 3 Residential Plan SECTION 4 Conservation/Preserve Areas SECTION 5 Development Commitments Packet Pg. 438 9.A.m LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A Master Plan (i) m O Packet Pg. 439 9.A.m STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approadmately 30.45 acres of property in Collier County, as a Residential Planned Unit Development to be known as David A. Gallman Estate PUD, will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The projec! will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located in an area identified as Urban Residential under the Urban -Mixed Use District in the Growth Management Plan for Collier County. 2. The Urban Residential Subdistrict is intended to provide for higher densities where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. 3. The subject tract is located near the southeast corner of the C.R. 31 and Glades Boulevard intersection. This strategic location allows the site desirable access for the placement of residential dwelling units. 4. The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations including the Growth Management Plan. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved % the County. 6. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of structures, the placement of land use buffers and proposed development standards contained herein. 7. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces and natural features which are preserved from future development in order to enhance their natural functions and to serve as project amenities. Packet Pg. 440 9.A.m $. The total number of dwelling units will not exceed 260 on 30.45 acres. This density of 8.54 d.u./acre is in compliance with the Growth Management Plan as follows: Base density (30.45 ac.) x 6 d.u./acre = 183 d.u. Affordable Housing (30.45 ac.) x 8 d.u./acre = 243 d.u. Total allowable = 425 d.u. at 14 d.u./acre Total proposed = 260 d.u. at 8.54 d.u./acre r Packet Pg. 441 9.A.m SECTION 1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the e)dsting conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of David A. Gallman Estate PUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N 00.18'50' W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2836.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89.41'10' E FOR A DISTANCE OF 270.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N 00618'S0' W FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89.41'10' E FOR A DISTANCE OF 1120.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 00.18'5(' E FOR A DISTANCE OF 1320.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89.41'10' W FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 00.18'W W FOR A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89°41'10' W FOR A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 30.45 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 13 PROPERTY OWNBRSHIP a) The subject property is currently under the ownership of the David A. Gallman 9 Estate with Sun Bank Southwest Florida as Personal Representative of the Estate, c/o Jay A. Brett, Sheppard, Brett & Stewart, P.A. John D. Jassy, Trustee, has a o Contract for Sale and Purchase or the property which is contingent upon obtaining residential zoning for 260 dwelling units. ___� Packet Pg. 442 9.A.m 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The project site is located in the west 1/2 of Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, approximately 250 feet south of Glades Boulevard and 200' east of C.R. 31. B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PUD Document was RMF-6 and RMF-6/ST. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Elevations within the project site range from 4.0 to 7.1 feet NGVD. All of the site is in Flood ZoneAE (elev. 7.0') according to Firm Map 120067 0394 D, effective date of June 3, 1986. The soil types on the site include Immokalee fine sand (appro)dmately 50 percent) and Riviera, Limestone Substratum - Copeland Fine Sand (appro)dmately 50 percent). Soil characteristics were derived from the Collier County Interim Soil Survey & Narrative Report (Revised 1/90 - H. Yamataki). 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will be a residential multiple family development. 1.7 SHORT TITZE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the David A. Gallman Estate PUD Planned Unit Development Ordinance." (1-2) Packet Pg. 443 9.A.m 2.1 2.2 2.3 SECTION 2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. GENERAL A. Regulations for development of David A. Gallman Estate PU) shall be in accordance with the :-,-)ntents of this document, PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fa.] to provide developmental standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed for the development of David A. Gallman Estate PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, the provisions of Collier County Land Development Code where applicable remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15 of the Adequate Public Facilities section of the Collier County Land Development Code at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval or building permit issuance applicable to this development. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Conceptual Master Plan is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. (2-1) a) 0 a) Packet Pg. 444 9.A.m B. The following Residential uses are permitted as of right: 1. ' Multi -family dwellings, not to exceed 260 dwelling units. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE PUD MASTER PLAN, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code Section 2.7.3.5. 2.6 ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA AfAJNTENANCE Whenever the developer elects to create land area and/or recreation amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of property within said development in which the common interest is located, that developer entity shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a Property Owners Association whose function shall include provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space. (2-2) Packet Pg. 445 9.A.m SECTION 3 : to,Tk" ' 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of Residential Uses and development standards that will be applied to the 30.45 ± acre David A. Gallman Estate PUD. The entire site will be developed as a residential project. 3.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure or pa: r thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land uses, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures.- 1. Multi -family dwellings, not to exceed 260 dwelling units. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this district, including recreational facilities, such as clubhouse and swimming pools. 0 2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development. 3. Manager's Office. 4. Conservation/Preservation Areas. 33 DLWENSIONAL STANDARDS The following dimensional standards shall apply to all permitted and accessory uses: A. Minimum Lot Area: B. Minimum Lot Width: One (1) acre. One hundred feet (100'). (3-1) Packet Pg. 446 9.A.m C. Le E. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. • Waterfront: 2. Wetlands: 3. Building Separation Principal Structures: 4. Perimeter Boundary: 5. Private drive (non -platted): Twenty-five feet (25') Twenty-five feet (25') Fifteen feet (15') or distance equal to one- half (1/2) the sum of their heights, whichever is the greater. Twenty-five feet (25') Ten (10') measured from edge of pavement of the trafficway. Maximum Height: Forty five feet (45') Minimum Floor Area of 21incipal Structure: a. One Bedroom Apartment. Minimum Floor Area - 698 square feet. b. Two Bedroom Apartment. Minimum Floor Area - 951 square feet. C. Three Bedroom Apartment. Minhnum Floor Area - 1070 square feet. Distribution of Units by Bedrooms: Three (3) living floors a. One (1) Bedroom - Not less than twenty percent (20%) of the total dwelling units. b. Two (2) and Three (3) Bedroom - Total no more than eighty percent (80%) of the total dwelling units. C. Three (3) Bedroom - Not more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the total dwelling units. (3-2) r Q Packet Pg. 447 9.A.m G. Architectural Uniformity: All buildings shall be representative of the architectural and construction styles depicted in the photograph exhibit submitted at the Public Hearing on March 12, 1996. H. Minimum Off -Street Parking and Off -Street Loading: As required in Div. 2.3, Collier County Land Development Code. I. Landscaping: As required in Div. 2.4, Collier County Land Development Code. J. Signs As required in Div. 2.5, Collier County Land Development Code. (3-3) Packet Pg. 448 9.A.m SECTION 4 CONSERVATION/PRESERVE AREAS 4.1 PURPOSE Preserve Areas - The purpose is to preserve and protect vegetation and naturally functioning habitats in their natural state. 4.2 USES PERM17TED 1. Open Spaces/Nature Preserves. (4-1) Packet Pg. 449 9.A.m SECTION 5 DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor ai-.J assigns shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. The developer, his successor or assignee shall agree to follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the PUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, the developer will agree to convey to any successor or assignee in title any commitments within this agreement. 5.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A" f PUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is o conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special o land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at N any subsequent approval phase. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 0 of the Land Development Code amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to 0 insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all 0 common areas in the project. S.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENTIMONFFORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION The proposed start of site development construction is within three years of approval of the PUD. This may be extended administratively by the Director of the Community Development Department if market conditions so dictate. Infrastructure construction should be complete within one year of commencing. This PUD shall be subject to the Sunset Provisions of Division 2.0 Section 2.7.3.4 of the Unified Land Development Code. (5-1) Packet Pg. 450 9.A.m 5.5 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Access to the project is as illustrated on the Master Plan exhibit to the PUD document. B. Work within the right-of-way requires a northbound right turn lane into the property from Airport Road. The developer shall be responsible for the design, permitting and construction of the northbound right turn lane. This work will be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. C. The developer shall be responsible for a fair share contribution toward any traffic signal upgrades, with respect to timing or interconnection when requested by Collier County at the following intersections: Davis Boulevard and Airport Road Airport Road and U.S. 41 U.S. 41 and Courthouse Shadows/Wal-mart Driveway D. The Developer shall agree to provide future conditioned cross -easements between his access and the adjacent commercial parcels should it be determined that such alternate access complies with all applicable County standards, sufficient capacity exist for added trip use, the access is recommended by the County Transportation Department based on overall safety/capacity improvements to the County road system and private property owner agreements can be developed so as to provide controls to address future changes in traffic circulation/traffic volume. E. The project access to Airport Road may be revised to align with Calusa Avenue upon approval by the Collier County Transportation Department. Any such re -alignments shall in no way vest a median opening at that location. 5.6 WATER MANAGEMENT The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Water Management for the proposed project is planned to be the wet retention type. B. An excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended by Ordinance Number 92-73 and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) rules. (5-2) r Q Doc. Ref. X 14802/md Packet Pg. 451 9.A.m C. A copy of South Florida Water Management District Permit or Early Work Permit (with Staff Report) shall be provided prior to Site Development Plan approval D. An analysis of off -site surface runoff from outside the PUD boundaries which historically passed on, over or through areas of the PUD property shall be prepared and included in the required South Florida Water Management District surface water management permit application for the project. All off - site flow collection and routing facilities required to be created through the South Florida Water Management District permit process shall be incorporated into the development order submitted to Collier County for review after the rezoning approval. E. Should the South Florida Water Management District, or any other agency, during its review process require significant changes be made to the site plan and/or the water management facilities, Collier County reserves the right to re -review the project and have it heard by the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB). F. This approval does not constitute agreement by the County to any control elevation, discharge rate, or outside inflow rate. All agreements shall be made with South Florida Water Management District. G. Developer shall dedicate a thirty foot (30') wide drainage easement along the north boundary of the project to encompass the top width of the adjacent ditch that lies within the property and provide for a maintenance access travel way along the south side of the ditch when required by Collier County. H. Prior to final site development plan approval, developer shall provide evidence that there is sufficient capacity for the e;dsting drainage ditch to Haldeman Creek that serves as the project's outfall at the southeast corner of the project. I. At site development plan submittal, PVC bleeders shall be shown fitted with end structures. 5.7 UTILITIES The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Sewage Collection and Transmission system to serve this project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed and/or owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 88-76, as amended and all other applicable State, Federal and County rules, regulations and policies. (5-3) Packet Pg. 452 9.A.m 5.8 Sanitary Sewer Facilities Constructed within platted public rights -of -way, shall be conveyed to the Collier County Water/Sewer District for ownership, operation and maintenance. Sanitary sewer facilities constructed in private easements and/or private platted rights -of -way shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer his assigns or successors. B. Upon completion of construction of the sanitary sewer facilities within the project, the facilities shall be tested to insure they meet Collier County minimum requirements at which time they will be conveyed and/or remain under private ownership, prior to being placed into service. C. The developer, his assigns or successors agree to pay all system development charges at the time building permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time of permit request. This requirement shall be made known to all prospective buyers of properties for which building perr-As will be required prior to the start of building construction. D. The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared so that all sewage flowing to the County's master pump station is transmitted by one (1) main on -site pump station. E. Water service will be provided to the site by a 16" water main on Airport Road that is owned by the City of Naples. F. Connection to the Collier County wastewater system shall be made by tying o into the 8" gravity line directly in front of the site on Airport -Pulling Road. N The connection from the on -site pump station shall be accomplished in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76, as amended. Approval co of the hydraulic calculations shall be required showing the downstream system is adequate to handle this additional flow, prior to connection to the County 9 system. ENGINEERING The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance No. 93-64. B. Design and construction of all improvement with the appropriate provisions of the Development Code, Division 3.2. (5-4) s shall be subject to compliance Collier County Unified Land Packet Pg. 453 9.A.m 5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. This planned unit development (PUD) shall be subject to all environmental sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element in effect at the time of final development order approvals. B. The PUID shall retain a minimum of 12.99 ± (43%) acres of native vegetation. The native vegetation shall consist of 7.06 acres ± of a cypress preserve, a 4.70 acre; ± enhanced wetland, a 0.72 acre ± wetland creation and a 0.51 acre t upland preserve. C. A re -vegetation plan for the 4.70 acre enhanced wetland and a vegetation plan for the 0.72 acre wetland creation shall be submitted to Collier County Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to or with the submission of the site development plan. D. Both plans shall include a time schedule and criteria for commencement, monitoring and completion of the vegetation planting, a statement of guaranteed total survivability, a summary of the acreages and descriptions of each different vegetative community and the total number of acres that will be vegetated to be credited towards the twenty-five percent (25%) native vegetation requirement. A final site inspection by Collier County Environmental staff shall be required to verify successful vegetation planting. All vegetation planting shall be completed, with total eighty percent (80%) guaranteed survivability over a three year period. E. To satisfy the requirement of a buffer around wetland preserve, a non- exclusive easement in favor of Collier County, without any maintenance obligation, shall be provided for the preserve area at the time of platting. Any buildable: lot or parcel subject to or abutting the preserve area shall have a minimum twenty-five foot (25') setback from the boundary of such preserve area in which no principle structure may be constructed. F. All conservation areas shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statues. Conservation areas shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. (5-5) Packet Pg. 454 9.A.m G. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit rules and be subject to review and approval by Current Planning Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. H. Further, the site development plan shall require that no alteration, including accessory structures, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within such setback area without the prior written consent of the Development Services Director. I. The preserve area and wetland are of 12.99± acres north and east of the Proposed Development Boundary Line as outlined on the PUD Master Plan and as referenced in Section 5.9B of the PUD will be designated as a preserve area for a minimum period of thirty (30) years (binding on the successors and assigns of the owner(s) of : aid 12.99± acres); except for mitigation activities and construction of fencing, no development activity can occur on this area during said 30 year period; a deed restriction reflecting this restriction will be recorded by the record title owner prior to initiating actual construction of the first residential building. 5.10 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure except for a construction site office and model units. The Developer will place a chain -link fence of a height no less than six (6) feet on the north and east borders of the property abutting the Glades as long as such placement will not result in or cause any permitting or regulatory agency problems, in which case the fence would be placed on the Glades' side of the property line in a location free of man-made obstructions. Limited access entry system to the development such as key pad entry, etc. or other similar limited access entry system will be installed for project residents. 5.11 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance with Division 2.5 the Collier County Land Development Code. 5.12 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT An on -site management staff wili be employed during the period of time covered by the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. (5-6) Packet Pg. 455 9.A.m DAIIVI D A. GA1ILLMAN ESTATE P.U.D. VY 4AMp aw 1 vs: St w/11[6.fLSf pvw. 1) Turn w: ___�____ •^"• �' I ��I, . -• -- •- TRACT 'BROAO CROSS SEC1101! A � ai.m rA.s 4 v � 1 d � gg 11 R_ 4 3t CMYRIAIR.x/PR(SIMAMi/ _ - - 'VA Ic rsa.A. m a, ra. anor111rIYCarts. / . �. . � QL�iILPEB i JDIDJ D. JOY. TRUStkY win lures Z=w w[ F4CRADYMMRAMDOWSJA ____-_.--...-.__ llii.: C J 04 }In(A1 , K. i _ ..ram.. _ lQ! Lnl/ r.lA • 1[„M:. I ....1... r., M._w Rsf a71RR no ar[11 OY1 avw rE10lIBlT •�� _ __ a Packet Pg. 456 9.A.m STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDIN ONCE NO. 96-9 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 12th day of March, 1996, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1996 • 1,,;1: �t a � �o, DWIGHT E. BROCK 0 Clerk of Courts and -Clerk Ex-officio to Boardof. t. ~ o County Commissioners O .��:., ~mil 'i, •:,► O By: /s/Ellie Hoffman„ Deputy Clerk E �a a r c as E r a Packet Pg. 457 L 9.A.o NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on January 25, 2022, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL, to consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A. M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATING TO ST MATTHEW'S HOUSE, 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 THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OFTHE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT, (C-4.GTMUD-MX13) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY (CPUD-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE CPUD, TO ALLOW A 150 BED HOMELESS SHELTER AND UP TO 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND GLADES BOULEVARD 1N SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 11.89+/- ACRES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF. ORDINANCE NO. 97-14, AS AMENDED, THE DEVOE PONTIAC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RESOLUTION NO.99-87 RELATING TO A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER; AND BY PROVIDINd AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20210000176] , Davis BLVD ......... Ito 0 COL Project Location L I O ' _m A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to.speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www colliercounfl aov/our-county/visitors/calendar-of-events after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252- 8369 or email to Geoffrey.Willig@colliercountvfl aov, Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board 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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252 8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER By: Ann Jennejohn Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Norcioaoo�rs-o� .A m 0 Z m lIt c v Ln N 0 N N Z n ffl H a D Z IR In Packet Pg. 458